Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: carpa on March 03, 2009, 06:25:33 PM
-
I've been searching around the web for classical music recordings ( mostly interested in solo piano, but also chamber music) in order to make a decision about mics to use with an Edirol r09hr.
I'll have to tape my own classical piano recitals and I need portability and easy placement, even close to the instrument if needed. So the choice is between a stereo battery-powered mic (like rode nt4) or a couple of miniature mics-plus preamp or bb if needed- which I could place on a light stand 60cm spaced or similar.
In this latter case I'd go for omnis (of course a stereo single-point is only cards), because I prefer the omni (rich and natural)sound for a piano.
I'm not considering other solutions (two "normal" mono condensers) cause I'd need a bigger stand- cables- external 48v preamp or power, with the result that I would rarely bring all this stuff with me.
In the archive I didn't found any unamplified classical music sample. Elsewhere I found something recorded with dpa's 4060 (which I like a lot but cost to much also) but nothing else.
In particular I'm referring to Church Audio(he has a good reputation and the prices are ok), Sennheiser, AT etc., but found nothing (honestly I also found almost nothing recorded by a Rode nt4, only a piano and voice recital on Rode website in which I didn't like the piano sound at all).
Does any of you have a good link for such samples? Does it mean that this type of mics are not intended for classical music except for DPA's?
thank you
c
-
Sample from meter split DFC 6' on stage AKG480 + ck62 Omnis > R44 (http://www.baytaper.com/2008/06/15/a-far-cry-live-at-the-de-young-museum/)
-
That one sounds very good!
I have a recording with three violins and an upright piano. It was made with two Nakakmichi CM-300 microphone in ORTF-configuration (caridoid), MX-100 preamp and a Digigram VXpocket soundcard.
Roger
-
Scores of HRTF omni array recordings of solo piano and other acoustic instruments on my samples page at:
www.sonicstudios.com/mp3_2slp.htm (http://www.sonicstudios.com/mp3_2slp.htm)
-
Sample from meter split DFC 6' on stage AKG480 + ck62 Omnis > R44 (http://www.baytaper.com/2008/06/15/a-far-cry-live-at-the-de-young-museum/)
This is actually very good, though I'm searching for an easy setup sample made only with two miniature mics. I.e. in the Archive there are several shows taped with CA 14 and, let's say, R09hr or Zoom or tascam.... I'm searchin for something like this but with classical (piano) music, though I know there aren't probably a lot on the web.
thank you
c
-
carpa, for going on forty years I've recorded classical music almost exclusively, including quite a lot of solo piano. In the early 1980s I was the engineer for a two-year series of weekly solo piano recital broadcasts a classical radio station here in New York, for example. I was also the digital technician on several CDs with Ivan Moravec and two of the late Paul Jacobs' recordings for Nonesuch (and in part, was the uncredited engineer/producer for his duo-piano recordings with Ursula Oppens, which I believe was his last recording).
I make my living these days doing technical work for a publisher, but I still do a fair amount of recording as a volunteer, to help performers and organizations I believe in and just because I enjoy it. Even though this Web site isn't a classical-oriented place, I enjoy it here because of the intense mixture of rowdiness and caring a lot about music, sound and life itself. Most of the people here are far less cynical than a lot of people who are professionals in the audio business. I need that.
Anyway, we could talk, and I'd be just as glad to do that here in writing and in front of everybody, if that wouldn't be too exhibitionistic. I see you trying to work out a compromise between convenience of setup and sound quality, just like most of the rest of us (I'm past the days when I would lug a 40-pound Studer open-reel tape recorder and two heavy mike stands to every concert, though I did that for a while).
The thing is, when you're recording yourself playing, you can't be trying five different setups and comparing and deciding before you perform; there will be times when you'll listen to the playback and realize that it would have been better if the mikes had been a foot closer or higher, or if the levels had been set 6 dB differently. But it's better to have those regrets than to have a perfect recording that only gives you regrets about how you played that night.
I don't know how particular you are about the type of sound you'll get from different types of setups. There are fundamental differences between (to pick two extremes) a spaced pair of omnidirectional microphones versus a coincident pair of strongly directional microphones such as "figure-8s." These two recording methods give results that not only sound different but feel different--one listens to them rather differently, I'm convinced. There are also some plausible midpoints between the two (e.g. closely spaced, but not coincident, moderately directional microphones).
One thing that you mention which I would probably not recommend is the Røde NT 4 stereo microphone, unless you have tried it and found that it coincides exactly with your tastes. In my view its design (coincident cardioids with only ±45 degrees between them) is suitable only for very close-up recording, or for capturing discussions at a wide angle around a table, for example. Such a narrow angle between capsules of only moderate directionality will give you a nearly mono pickup unless the sound source is unusually wide. For normal classical recording which is picked up not too close to the sound source, a considerably wider angle between capsules (e.g. ±55 - 60 degrees) would be preferable by far.
But (again, unless your ears tell you differently and you are confident about your preferences) cardioids are probably the worst possible general choice of a pattern for use in a coincident stereo recording anyway; they're fine for spot miking in studios or live work, but semi-distant stereo pickup is a whole other thing.
--best regards
-
Thank you for your kind attention to my needs, Dsatz. I think you'r perfectly right about the needs of somebody who performs (I own various cd's os Jacobs and Oppens, so compliments 'cause I like the sound very much -also the playing-).
At the end I'm not convinces either about a stereo like Rode. I mean, once you have you use it, but if you have to search for something maybe you look for something else.
As I feel I'm oriented to omnis, that's why I'm tryin to explore the world of mini mics, which could maybe turn to be the good compromise I'm looking for. Most of them can be powered by a bb, so I could use them with a pocket recorder, and if I choose something like a 60 cm distance beetwen them I can afford a single stand.
I need some advice in the choice because, as I said before, I hardly find classical recordings made with this gear. I know I'm not going to have a pro recording anyway, but I wouldn't like to buy the wrong thing.
I've listened to rock samples made with Church ca14; they are cheap, and they could come with their dedicated preamp (which can power the dpa's 4046 in the future), but I absolutely don't understand how those omnis could do with unamplyfied classical.
The dpa's are good, and I liked the Nevatons mce400 (always on rock shows....). Apart from the fact that the latter are only phantom powered, I think that both dpa and Neva cost maybe to much for my entry level.
Any advice in this field, or you think that mini mics are not a good choice at the pourpose?
thank you
c
-
Sample from meter split DFC 6' on stage AKG480 + ck62 Omnis > R44 (http://www.baytaper.com/2008/06/15/a-far-cry-live-at-the-de-young-museum/)
I wasn't aware of this baytaper.com site. Great, great, great site. :coolguy:
-
Sample from meter split DFC 6' on stage AKG480 + ck62 Omnis > R44 (http://www.baytaper.com/2008/06/15/a-far-cry-live-at-the-de-young-museum/)
I wasn't aware of this baytaper.com site. Great, great, great site. :coolguy:
Thanks, it's just me back there, lol...
DSatz: Just making sure when you say 45, 55, 65 degrees in your post above, you're talking about the off axis angle not the angle b/w the mics, correct? Also, thanks for your continuing and valuable contribution to this site, much appreciated.
-
thank you moke. I listened to the tenor and piano recordingg you kindly linked. Sounds good. I wonder how cheaper gear than the dpa's (im trying to catch information about Church Audio ca omnis) would handle a similar situation.
Your advice regarding small capsules in full body mics is a good clue.
thanks
c
-
Very nice recordings, thank you.
It is true that I'd like to get to dpa step by step....in this case wouldn't be a bad thing to buy a pre and omnis from Church Audio, as his preamp can power the dpa's in the future.
A couple of question about 4060. How close to a piano could they be placed befor risking distortion? In other terms, their spl is enough to be placed, i.e., 70cm to one meter from the instrument?
Second question: they come terminated in a particular shape. Is it still an unbalanced signal? If so, how long a cable (or an extention ) can be without picking unwanted noise?
thanks
c
-
Sample from meter split DFC 6' on stage AKG480 + ck62 Omnis > R44 (http://www.baytaper.com/2008/06/15/a-far-cry-live-at-the-de-young-museum/)
I wasn't aware of this baytaper.com site. Great, great, great site. :coolguy:
Thanks, it's just me back there, lol...
Hello,
Hope I'm not bothering you. Again, compliments for a job well done. I'd like to ask you a question if you don't mind. Is there a chance for me to have Flac files of the Amendola/Blades duo gig? I'm crazy about Hammond B-3 combos.
Thanks in advance,
Sergio
-
DPA's distorting from a piano, yeah right, LOL...
I'm thinking when powered correctly, you'd be hard pressed to distort them at the loudest rock show you've ever been to while standing right in front of the stacks... <SMILE>
-
Sample from meter split DFC 6' on stage AKG480 + ck62 Omnis > R44 (http://www.baytaper.com/2008/06/15/a-far-cry-live-at-the-de-young-museum/)
I wasn't aware of this baytaper.com site. Great, great, great site. :coolguy:
Thanks, it's just me back there, lol...
Hello,
Hope I'm not bothering you. Again, compliments for a job well done. I'd like to ask you a question if you don't mind. Is there a chance for me to have Flac files of the Amendola/Blades duo gig? I'm crazy about Hammond B-3 combos.
Thanks in advance,
Sergio
Right now that source is archived off-site (not at home), but next time I bring home that drive, I'll pull it off and give you a pm. Give me a week or so...
-
Sample from meter split DFC 6' on stage AKG480 + ck62 Omnis > R44 (http://www.baytaper.com/2008/06/15/a-far-cry-live-at-the-de-young-museum/)
I wasn't aware of this baytaper.com site. Great, great, great site. :coolguy:
Thanks, it's just me back there, lol...
Hello,
Hope I'm not bothering you. Again, compliments for a job well done. I'd like to ask you a question if you don't mind. Is there a chance for me to have Flac files of the Amendola/Blades duo gig? I'm crazy about Hammond B-3 combos.
Thanks in advance,
Sergio
Right now that source is archived off-site (not at home), but next time I bring home that drive, I'll pull it off and give you a pm. Give me a week or so...
Appreciate it. ;)
-
full orchestra, but you can also check this sample out:
http://homepage.mac.com/wayneb/FileSharing11.html
Download: Sinfonia 2nd Movement
This was done with Earthworks QTC-1/QTC-40 mics. Two center, one each side of the orchestra.
Wayne
-
Posting to mark the thread so I can return and listen to some samples.
I'll try and dig up a few short samples of my own but they are also mostly DPA 4060 sourced.
-
BayTaynt3D, thank you for the kind words, and (maybe the symbol doesn't show up in your browser and/or I'd better go back and make sure I typed it correctly) the angles in my message, such as 45 degrees, are meant to be preceded by a "plus-or-minus" sign. I was talking about the physical angle between the main axes of the two capsules--not what Michael Williams calls the "stereophonic recording angle" (the total arc of pickup which will just fit into the audible angle between your loudspeakers when you play back the recording).
A pair of cardioids at plus-or-minus 45 degrees gives an SRA of 180 degrees, which is far too great for semi-distant music recording. What angle do your speakers present to your ears when you listen at home? If you're as far from them as they are from each other, for example, then they're only "60 degrees apart" for you. If you record a 180-degree SRA and play it back in a 60-degree setup, most of the sound sources will seem to be near the center line of the stereo image.
Just as an interesting contrast, I happened to notice that the Beyer MCE 72 stereo microphone has a pair of cardioid capsules at plus-or-minus 60 degrees.
The situation is even worse--much worse, actually--with most variable-pattern stereo microphones. With only two exceptions (which are no longer made), all such microphones use dual-diaphragm capsules and vary the patterns of those capsules by varying the polarization voltage on their rear diaphragms. This type of construction invariably results in a polar pattern for the cardioid setting (and wide cardioid as well if the mike has that option, as in certain Neumann and AKG models) that becomes broader at low frequencies. So the overlap between channels only increases in the bass--making the overall pickup "more mono" just in the frequency region where you need it to be "more stereo" instead.
I know I'm digressing, but ... people get confused over the "low frequency / localization" thing. It's true that we don't tend to localize low-frequency sound sources sharply; nearly all the cues which let us localize sound sources precisely in a recording are in the midrange and upper midrange. But when the low frequencies are practically mono, the recording lacks a sense of "spaciousness," "envelopment" or "being there." Oddly (or maybe not), the two types of two-mike recording that generally provide that spaciousness the most are the two extreme opposites: Blumlein and spaced omnis.
-
BayTaynt3D, thank you for the kind words, and (maybe the symbol doesn't show up in your browser and/or I'd better go back and make sure I typed it correctly) but the angles in my message, such as 45 degrees, are meant to be preceded by a "plus-or-minus" sign.
I was talking about the physical angle between the main axes of the two capsules--not what Michael Williams calls the "stereophonic recording angle" (the total arc of pickup which will just fit into the audible angle between your loudspeakers when you play back the recording). A pair of cardioids at plus-or-minus 45 degrees gives an SRA of 180 degrees, which is far too great for semi-distant music recording. What angle do your speakers present to your ears when you listen at home? If you're as far from them as they are from each other, for example, then they're only "60 degrees apart" for you. There needs to be some rough correspondence of the angles for the stereo image to make sense.
Just as an interesting contrast, I happened to notice that the Beyer MCE 72 stereo microphone has a pair of cardioid capsules at plus-or-minus 60 degrees.
The situation is even worse--much worse, actually--with most variable-pattern stereo microphones. With only two exception (a pair of Schoeps models which are no longer made), all such microphones use dual-diaphragm capsules and vary the pattern by varying the polarization voltage on the rear diaphragm. This type of construction invariably results in a polar pattern that becomes broader at low frequencies--so the overlap between channels only increases in the bass, making it "more mono" just where you want it to be "more stereo" instead.
I know I'm digressing, but ... people get confused over the "low frequency / localization" thing. It's true that we don't tend to localize low frequencies sharply--that nearly all the cues which let us localize sound sources in a recording are in the midrange and upper midrange. But when the low frequencies are practically mono, the recording lacks a sense of "spaciousness," "envelopment" or "being there." Oddly (or maybe not), the two types of two-mike recording that generally provide that spaciousness the most are the two extreme opposites: Blumlein and spaced omnis.
DSatz, you never digress. Thanks for the great info. :coolguy:
-
...when the low frequencies are practically mono, the recording lacks a sense of "spaciousness," "envelopment" or "being there." Oddly (or maybe not), the two types of two-mike recording that generally provide that spaciousness the most are the two extreme opposites: Blumlein and spaced omnis.
I've noticed and thought alot about that. Furthering the digression, here's a thread from a while back exploring some reasons why that may be the case: Why Blumlein sounds more spacious than other coincident or near-so arrays. (http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,110861.0.html)
-
Nice recordings Moke. I'm a big fan of DPA's too.
Carpa, you might start out with some cheaper capsules and a mic pre and then upgrade to the dpa's later. Here are some numbers from DPA:
Total harmonic distortion (THD): <1% THD up to 123 dB SPL peak
Dynamic range: Typ. 100 dB
Max. SPL, peak before clipping: 134 dB
These mics will handle high SPL's. I would recommend trying spaced omnis and at the right distance to balance the room sound with the sound of the instrument.
The dpa wiring terminates in microdot connectors which is a miniature screw-on cable. These are unbalanced but you can get a part from dpa (DAD6001) that converts them to an XLR connection. I think most people here terminate them to a mini plug which is common on the small battery powered preamps.