Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Ask The Tapers => Topic started by: VibrationOfLife on August 01, 2024, 06:25:36 AM
-
I'm pretty solid on my recording abilities, but I know I can get so much more out of my recordings. I have one from last night that I've played with and there is so much there when I play with things, but is there someone out here who is willing to take my simple 2 track audience recording and spend a little time walking me through with some even rough tips on how I can make it shine like I would be proud of?
The recording is super solid, given it was outside in the mountains, but the base file is good. Decent mics, the best setup in the sweet spot, but it's so ... flat. Is there a kind soul that could teach me a bit? Someone who just isn't going to take it and bring it to life like a pro (that would be great for the end result), but can walk me through the rough process that is probably 2nd nature to you all with my WAV?
The more I mess with it, the more it doesn't get to even the level of what I know I have, but it sounds so much better at times. I'm struggling here with a perfectly good recording (the best technically in that environment at the time) and I just don't have the knowledge to make it how it should sound. It's 32 bit, I have basic tools. I'm begging to make it sharable. I'm not happy with the raw recording and could use a little guidance.
Thanks in advance. Granted, it was a bit of a challenging environment, but I know it is all there and worth it. My setup was perfect, no wind noise or chirps. I nailed it. I just need a little assistance, mostly on the process, not on the recording. I have the mics I have, that is not going to change, I have my setup perfectly, I just need the post help. Let me know if anyone is willing. I'd be so grateful. Message me and I'll share a link to the wav (32/48) and I would be very very thankful for the tips on the process mostly to save me from *ing with things blindly until I actually go blind. Just a kind ear and some tips.
Cheers.
-
Always happy to take a look and walk you through the process. Feel free to DM
-
..., but it's so ... flat. ...
Two things come to mind; a lack of stereo separation and/or a lack of dynamic range.
In the case of the later, there is not a lot you can do in my opinion, without an other source. EQ can help, but I general avoid that as it is subjective, although it does help at times.
I fit is too mono sounding, that is a relatively easy fix, although it can be tricky to get right. If done wrong, it will ultimately make the recording worse.
I would be very very thankful for the tips on the process mostly to save me from *ing with things blindly until I actually go blind.
Most DAWs are non-destructive, as far as I know. The best way to learn is to do things wrong. The secret is not learning to do things right, but in learning how not to do things wrong. :cheers:
-
can you post a sample track for us to check?
-
can you post a sample track for us to check?
Yeah!
It would be really nice if this could be done online so others (like myself) can learn from the mentors effort as well. :D
-
I've considered doing a Google Doc or something similar with others who could chime in and help my own mixing, just never took the time to figure out how to do it with my limited speed internet.
-
Thanks very much nulldogmas for the dialog, the suggestions, and the listen.
Here is the recording if anyone else wants to pitch in some tips, I'm all ears (rrg):
https://archive.org/details/ls2024-07-31
Pair of CM4's 7.5' up, FOB, about 100' from the stage in a field PAS.
I think I need more separation, and that would mean a wider bar.
Ignore the first minute, I had no way to check levels prior to them taking the stage.
-
Pair of CM4's 7.5' up, FOB, about 100' from the stage in a field PAS.
I think I need more separation, and that would mean a wider bar.
Or to get closer to the stage and use omnis. Or put something between the mics to block sound coming from the opposite side.
I did experiment with breaking this down into stems with RX and panning the bass to one side and the rest of the instruments to the other, and it feels marginally fuller:
-
Not sure why anyone would expect a stereo sound from 100 feet away from the stage / PA. The only thing stereo I would expect at that distance is crowd noise.
-
On Audacity:
Pan 10% to the right > SHEPPi Free Spatial Enhancer (Maximum Ambience factory preset) > Compress dynamics 1.2.6 (default factory preset) > Bass and Treble (Bass +2 dB, Treble -1 dB) > Normalize
I usually would not rely on the spatial enhancer, but I always tape from much closer, trying to get the balance right between the PA system and the monitors/drums on stage.
-
Not sure why anyone would expect a stereo sound from 100 feet away from the stage / PA. The only thing stereo I would expect at that distance is crowd noise.
It seems fine to me, nobody walks away from a gig with the lights or stereo separation stuck in their heads...
Like everything I do lately, I'd hit with a mastering limiter to raise the levels.
You might wish to consider recording from closer to the stage if possible, in the future.
-
Several responses while I was typing that are spot on.
tldr- Record from closer if you can, and use a microphone configuration that is appropriate to the recording position.
This-
..., but it's so ... flat. ...
Two things come to mind; a lack of stereo separation and/or a lack of dynamic range.
In the case of the later, there is not a lot you can do in my opinion, without an other source. EQ can help, but I general avoid that as it is subjective, although it does help at times.
If it [sic] is too mono sounding, that is a relatively easy fix, although it can be tricky to get right. If done wrong, it will ultimately make the recording worse.
Agreed. The best solution that improves both of those issues is to record from a much closer position. For the most part, the closer the recording position, the greater the dynamics.. to the extent that if setting up on stage to record near the instruments, the dynamics may be so extreme that compression is required for it to be comfortably listenable. That represents the opposite extreme from the lack of dynamics due to the recording position being overly far away. Easier to wrangle a recording with too much dynamics into something sounding just right than to attempt to fix one that lack sufficient dynamics,
Stereo separation can be more easily compensated for. But just like with dynamics, the best way to get best results is to record from a sufficiently close position (with an appropriate stereo microphone configuration). Second best will be to adapt the microphone configuration to a less than ideal recording position so as to achieve sufficient stereo separation (see below). Last option is attempting to correct for insufficient stereo separation afterward using stereo enhancement. That can help but will never be quite as good since it is attempting to fix something that's already broken.
Not sure why anyone would expect a stereo sound from 100 feet away from the stage / PA. The only thing stereo I would expect at that distance is crowd noise.
More challenging but not impossible. This is exactly what Stereo Zoom is intended for. The easiest way to apply it is to have a wide mic-bar available and refer to the Improved PAS table or PDF to determine the spacing required to achieve good stereo separation at such a narrow PAS angle. From 100' away its going to require significant spacing between the pair in order to achieve a sufficiently narrow Stereo Recording Angle which loosely corresponds to the width of the stage and PA when viewed from the recording position.
Pair of CM4's 7.5' up, FOB, about 100' from the stage in a field PAS.
I think I need more separation, and that would mean a wider bar.
I suspect so. What was the approximate spacing and angle between the PAS mic-pair? That's the critical bit of info that is missing here.
~Signed, A guy who frequently walks away with thoughts about stereo separation. ; ).
Note- I haven't had a chance to listen to the sample yet.
-
Example-
We know the recording position was 100' away, and that mics with a cardioid pickup pattern were used. Lets assume that the stage was 60 feet wide, and the PA speakers were located at either edge of it as usual, placing the PA speakers ~60' apart as well. As viewed from the recording position 100 feet away, that equates to an Orchestra/PAS angle of only about 34° . Super narrow!
Applying Stereo Zoom, in order to achieve a stereo separation that would be sufficient for the PA speakers to be perceived as emanating from the position of each playback speaker (assuming Left and Right playback speakers arranged in the typical standard 60° playback triangle) and with the on-stage imaging positions between the PA distributed across the playback stage as phantom image positions between the two speakers, the separation between microphones would need to be about 41-45". Super wide!
Those spacing figures are from the PAS table and PDF, which can be found in the TS thread linked in my signature. The two figures differ slightly because they were calculated somewhat differently. The exact number doesn't matter, but being able to setup using a significantly wider spacing does. When working up the data for the table and PDF I actually made a few assumptions which intentionally make the spacings less-wide, partly to make the solutions more attractive to tapers given the practical difficulties of achieving wide spacings in typical taper situations.
If you plug the numbers into the on-line Sengpiel Audio stereo microphone configuration visualizer, (https://sengpielaudio.com/HejiaE.htm) the answer it provides is even wider at 57" / 1.45 meters!
Below is a screen shot of that-
[Post edited to fix a few typos and change to cardioid pattern data]
-
^
Granted that's not very practical, and probably not even desirable. I post it mostly to make the the point that if you really wanted to Stereo Zoom "in" enough for the PA and sources on stage stage to fully fill the space between playback speakers, you're going to need to use a whole lot more spacing between the stereo mic pair when recording from that far away.
In the real world, I'd probably prefer a somewhat less fully wide image with a more solid center. Reducing the spacing to around 24" to 30" would be far more doable in practice and might work out better anyway in producing a good engaging playback experience (in terms of non-flat image width at least).
Below is a screen shot of the Senpiel visualizer with the same 34° PAS angle, but a mic spacing that is a more reasonable 24" wide. Note that upon playback the phantom image position of the PA speakers is no longer likely to be perceived as coming from the playback speaker positions, but from a position a little more than halfway out to either side from the center. That's probably just fine. And the phantom distribution of sources between those two positions will be tighter and should be conveyed with a bit less less geometric distortion, so the center will be more solid and the perspective should seem a bit more natural, given the other acoustic cues that are indicating to the the listener that the stage is pretty distant (dynamics, EQ, audience reaction, etc)
-
If unfamiliar with how to read the Sengpiel mic-config visualizer, the most important thing to look for in these examples is the distribution of colored lines at the top of the screen shots. The colored lines arranged in an arc indicate the positions of the actual acoustic sources. The two outer-most lines correspond to the positions of the PA speakers, and the lines between them indicate a few arbitrary on-stage source positions and/or phantom imaging positions as heard through the PA from the recording position. The colored lines that are arranged along the line running horizontally between the two monitor speakers indicates the approximate perceived position of those same sound sources upon playback.
You can see how the image in the earlier post with a wider spacing places the two outside lines right at the playback speakers, indicating that the image is fully "zoomed in", but the distribution of the intermediate colored lines is pushed out toward the speaker positions and away from the center a bit too much. That's the geometric distortion that may translate as a somewhat weak center.
In the following post the two outside lines are not all the way out at the speaker positions, and the intermediate lines are more evenly spaced. That indicates a more even distribution with less geometric imaging distortion. The center should be more solid.
Just because the outermost colored lined are no longer located out at the playback speaker locations doesn't mean there will be no sounds that seem to emanate from outer edges of the playback triangle near the speakers themselves. Reverberant sound and audience/ambient sounds arriving from outside the Stereo Recording Angle may will often be perceived as emanating from out there or even from positions that are wider than the playback speakers themselves.
-
~Signed, A guy who frequently walks away with thoughts about stereo separation. ; ).
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
-
Gutbucket (or anyone), is there any benefit in a situation like this to pointing the mics slightly to the outside of the stacks? Cardioid patterns don't start dropping off significantly in pickup until they're 30 degrees or so off center, so would it make sense to skew each mic, say, an additional 15 degrees to the outside, amounting to a total split of 64 degrees?
-
VibrationOfLife - check your PM's.
-
VibrationOfLife - check your PM's.
Got it. Thanks again.
-
Another option for dealing with the 'hole in the middle' issue is to go to OMT4, space a pair of omnis the full 4' and add a closely spaced coincident pair in the center. I prefer a pair of supercardiods x/y PAS in the center, but folks also like m/s.
Go nuts!
OMT4 FTW!
-
On Audacity:
Pan 10% to the right > SHEPPi Free Spatial Enhancer (Maximum Ambience factory preset) > Compress dynamics 1.2.6 (default factory preset) > Bass and Treble (Bass +2 dB, Treble -1 dB) > Normalize
I usually would not rely on the spatial enhancer, but I always tape from much closer, trying to get the balance right between the PA system and the monitors/drums on stage.
This is the kind of thing I do as well. I have miniature cardioid mics, but I still try to get pretty close if I can, and then I'll try to point one at a PA and the other at the band.
-
Gutbucket (or anyone), is there any benefit in a situation like this to pointing the mics slightly to the outside of the stacks? Cardioid patterns don't start dropping off significantly in pickup until they're 30 degrees or so off center, so would it make sense to skew each mic, say, an additional 15 degrees to the outside, amounting to a total split of 64 degrees?
Sure. That's often the best option when you can't arrange for a wide enough spacing to best support the actual narrow PAS angle. Especially outside where you needn't worry about too much "room sound" or side-wall reflections when farther back. The wider angle will make for increased stereo separation, just need to balance that against aiming for as much clarity as possible by pointing directly at the PA, partly from attenuating the side wall reflections a bit more as much as being perfectly on-axis. And if you are running a forward-facing mic or PAS pair in the center if instead of just a straight stereo pair, you can angle that pair wider than the PA without as much concern about loosing clarity. That's usually how I orient the L/R supercard pair in my OMT setup. They are spaced ~11" to either side of a forward facing M/S pair in the middle (22" total), and because of the presence of the center pair, I like to keep that L/R near-spaced pair pointed around +/-45 degrees and not much less than that. Much narrower and I'd want to spaced them apart more, but my current setup doesn't allow for that easily. I do change the angle of that pair somewhat depending on the situation though, more on-axis with the PA when inside from farther back.
-
Gutbucket (or anyone), is there any benefit in a situation like this to pointing the mics slightly to the outside of the stacks? Cardioid patterns don't start dropping off significantly in pickup until they're 30 degrees or so off center, so would it make sense to skew each mic, say, an additional 15 degrees to the outside, amounting to a total split of 64 degrees?
I run WAAAAY wider than the stacks often. Works great.
KM140 cardioids for that.
Was amazing live in loud headphones at redrocks, I guess it amplified the wall sounds a little, which made it even more redrocksy.
-
I run my 140s ORTF, exclusively. They are almost always pointed way outside of the stacks, unless at a small club. I have rarely been disappointed.
-
I was able to run way closer tonight and way more directional which is not usually possible. Made a huge difference. Thanks for all the input, and I hope this thread takes off for others to ask for help in a consolidated thread. Thanks to many of you as well for the PM's. I really really appreciate the time you spent with your thoughts, working on my file, and truly constructive comments. I take them all in.
Cheers! TS FTW.
https://imgur.com/a/kmirDQS
https://imgur.com/a/WgVzQWs
Imagine after this a hundred kids playing soccer and doing cartwheels soon congregated. I almost had 10 heart attacks. I'm too old for what I did to protect my stuff. Only got hit once by a ball and saved 5 3 year olds from completely taking everything out. I weighed everything down, but there were kids flying from all directions for 1.5 hours. I was beat. That is why I never bred. But, the recording came out great, and the band was fantastic. They wanted me to matrix, but I don't just carry around 2x 50' of XLR in my backpack.
-
I was able to run way closer tonight and way more directional which is not usually possible. Made a huge difference. Thanks for all the input, and I hope this thread takes off for others to ask for help in a consolidated thread. Thanks to many of you as well for the PM's. I really really appreciate the time you spent with your thoughts, working on my file, and truly constructive comments. I take them all in.
Cheers! TS FTW.
https://imgur.com/a/kmirDQS
https://imgur.com/a/WgVzQWs
Imagine after this a hundred kids playing soccer and doing cartwheels soon congregated. I almost had 10 heart attacks. I'm too old for what I did to protect my stuff. Only got hit once by a ball and saved 5 3 year olds from completely taking everything out. I weighed everything down, but there were kids flying from all directions for 1.5 hours. I was beat. That is why I never bred. But, the recording came out great, and the band was fantastic. They wanted me to matrix, but I don't just carry around 2x 50' of XLR in my backpack.
Sweet Lillies, great band, wish they came around here more often.
-
...They wanted me to matrix, but I don't just carry around 2x 50' of XLR in my backpack.
I use a messenger bag for the extra pair of 50's
-
Make a 50' 2 - channel snake using lightweight cable and techflex, it's a great investment.
Ted at GAK makes great custom cable like that if you don't solder.
-
Sweet Lillies, great band, wish they came around here more often.
https://archive.org/details/TheSweetLillies2024-08-03.aud.flac24
-
Sweet Lillies, great band, wish they came around here more often.
https://archive.org/details/TheSweetLillies2024-08-03.aud.flac24
Looking forward to listening, thanks! Here's one I recorded last year:
https://archive.org/details/TheSweetLillies2023-08-25.matrix
-
I finally figured these mics and where they want to be. Finally. My last 2 shows have been really good IMHO. Here is tonight's. I just love it. https://archive.org/details/floodgate_operators2024-08-08
If I didn't post this thread I wouldn't have taken that leap in my recording mental space. I didn't change much, but I was more focused on what I wanted to achieve. Not bad progress in such short time.
BTW, this show kicks butt. You should listen to it. Of course, the usual give it a minute applies. I had no way to soundcheck and I was setting up on stage and patching within 4 minutes of go time. I am all smiles. Thanks all. And to confirm, in an outside venue, the LA CM's like to be just past PAS width wise. There is a very big difference. I feel like I unlocked something or made love to a bunch of deaf components that can't tell me what they want! Ha! Seriously though, thanks all, and I hope more people post in this thread.
Here is the last one which is just pure AUD. I adjusted my space from stage and the angle of PAS: https://archive.org/details/TheSweetLillies2024-08-03.aud.flac24
Very good IMHO. At least I am happy with it.
-
When recording on natural grass, you could use some screw-in tent tie downs, and tie all three tripod legs to their own anchors for extreme stability. Great for hills when running a tripod without adjustable legs like yours.
Great sonic results on the Minturn gig. Glad you feel dialed, vibe out from there!
Imagine after this a hundred kids playing soccer and doing cartwheels soon congregated. I almost had 10 heart attacks
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81EskOW0zPL._AC_SL1500_.jpg)
-
^ Those look easier to screw into some ground than the single "dog anchor auger" I use directly under the center of the stand, although it works well enough for me.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/414Qb2OuICL._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg)
-
I'll try to listen this weekend. I started typing the reply below a couple days ago but never got back to it, Just finished it up..
Just got back in town and following up. Glad it went well. Looking forward to listening later.
Gutbucket (or anyone), is there any benefit in a situation like this to pointing the mics slightly to the outside of the stacks? Cardioid patterns don't start dropping off significantly in pickup until they're 30 degrees or so off center, so would it make sense to skew each mic, say, an additional 15 degrees to the outside, amounting to a total split of 64 degrees?
I run WAAAAY wider than the stacks often. Works great.
KM140 cardioids for that.
Was amazing live in loud headphones at redrocks, I guess it amplified the wall sounds a little, which made it even more redrocksy.
Mmmm, Redrocksy!
Clarifying a bit more for nulldogmas. You are correct that if pointed not overly far outside of the PA, the mics will still be sufficiently on-axis to pick up the PA and on-stage sources with very similar level and response. What altering the angle will do within that "not-overly-far" range in addition to effecting stereo width and imaging is include or exclude a bit more of everything else. With the best mic arrangements we are capturing a good balance of both dry-direct sound (the clear up-front soundboard like qualities) and reverberant, ambient, room and audience sound (everything else). The best recordings are a balance of both.
Pointing the two microphones of a stereo pair directly at the PA is a technique specific to tapers recording from audience positions much farther away from the source than most other forms of music recording. The why of "point at stacks" is more or less obvious - it's intended to pick up as much of the clear, direct-arriving sound sound as possible from the recording location. Nothing particularly strict about arranging it. The main thing Improved PAS does is try to make the most of other stereo aspects that are secondary to the primary goal of picking up sufficient direct-arriving stage and PA sound with good clarity, but are very nice to have as they make for a better balanced recording that conveys the live feeling of being there at the concert.
Sure, you can angle the mics wider than the PA, and doing that is often a good idea for a few different reasons. One is if you aren't able to arrange the mics with a wide enough spacing to support the narrow PAS angle. In that case a wider angle compensates for the narrower spacing to help stereo playback sound more wide and involving than it otherwise would (some of the secondary good stuff). Another is to include a touch more reverberant sound, room reflections, ambient and audience sound when desirable - stuff of secondary importance, but the stuff that helps convey a "you are there" type listening experience - all the stuff that makes it more Redrocksy. Good important stuff to my way of thinking, but not as vital as getting good direct clarity first and foremost.
More in depth answer why-
Generally there is no problem angling the two mics of a stereo microphone pair more widely (or more narrowly) than the width of ensemble or source. Arranging things that way is totally normal and the way most stereo-pair microphone pair configurations work. In fact, all of the popular named near-spaced stereo microphone configurations (ORTF, DIN, DINa, NOS, etc) and most X/Y configs produce a Stereo Recording Angle that is significantly wider than the actual physical angle between the two microphones. To clarify, The Stereo Recording Angle (SRA) is the virtual, forward-facing "stereo acceptance angle" as viewed from the recording position, inside of which sound sources can be expected to be reproduced as phantom imaging positions between the two speakers upon playback. Sound sources that are positioned outside of the SRA will instead tend to be heard as emanating either directly from one of the two speakers or sometimes diffusely from outside the speaker triangle.
Most of the time the physical angle between the microphone pair and the SRA are not the same angle. That's certainly the case for standard PAS as traditionally used, because the spacing between mics is traditionally not increased much or at all as the angle between mics is made smaller in order to point them directly at the PA speakers. That in turn makes the SRA much wider than the physical angle between the microphones. So, one of the more useful but quite unusual things about Improved PAS (where the spacing between mics is changed based on the angle between them), is that that with Improved PAS, the SRA is always the same as the PAS angle. One thing that allows you to do is more easily visualize the resulting image distribution - the sources located between the mics will be reproduced between the speakers, while the sources outside of them will be reproduced either from the speakers or more diffusely. Geometrically, the width of the physical performance stage and position of the sound sources on it as viewed from the recording position can be expected to fill the stereo playback triangle between the two speakers, making it sound wide and involving with good stereo separation, even if it didn't sound that way live.
That playback image distribution / sense of width is one of three aspects effected by the angle between the stereo microphone pair.. and although it is sort of the cream on top of a great recording when everything else is working right in support of it, it is arguably the least important and most esoteric of the the three. The most important thing is always getting sufficient direct-sound clarity first and foremost, secondarily getting the right amount of everything else in support of that clear but dry and flat direct-sound, and third achieving good image and stereo width - so nice when right but ultimately the least important thing in the hierarchy of a good live recording.
-
You guys have it all wrong, wish I had a picture to share
I learned this technique from Chris Cantwell, he's here, I'll get his handle..
If you are on grass this is the best way I have used...
Spread your tripod legs as far as they can go, and hammer in tent stakes (3) part-way between the legs
Take a short bungee from one of the stakes and wrap it around the stand a couple of times to pull it tight, and hook it to one of the other stakes, watch your eyes..!
Do this again two more times and you are fucking glued to the ground
-
Clarifying a bit more for nulldogmas. You are correct that if pointed not overly far outside of the PA, the mics will still be sufficiently on-axis to pick up the PA and on-stage sources with very similar level and response. What altering the angle will do within that "not-overly-far" range in addition to effecting stereo width and imaging is include or exclude a bit more of everything else. With the best mic arrangements we are capturing a good balance of both dry-direct sound (the clear up-front soundboard like qualities) and reverberant, ambient, room and audience sound (everything else). The best recordings are a balance of both.
Right, that was exactly my thought here: The two problems with the initial recording were too dry a sound and not enough stereo imaging, and angling the mics out slightly beyond the stacks would address both issues. (With that "slightly" doing a lot of important work there, obviously.)
And it sounds like the OP came to the same conclusion and is happy with the results, so we're all in agreement! Something I'm going to remind myself of when far back from the stage with directional mics in the future.
-
Nice. Diggin' the Floodgate Operators recording now with headphones and a touch of eq.
Extra points for putting the mics on stage behind the band facing out at the audience when you have good SBD available. Not only does that work really well in capturing all the good live stuff the SBD doesn't have in it, and that good stuff doesn't get overly obscured beneath the direct-PA sound in a PAS pair, it's also well positioned to get really good on-stage stereo ambience AND moves its audience-facing contribution back and up a nice distance from the audience up front. So nice when that works. It makes for a wider range of potentially good mix levels between the two sources, and just mixes up nicer. Gamble is the SBD needs to be good, and you won the bet.
Nailed it!
-
hammer in tent stakes (3) part-way between the legs
Just don't be "that guy" still going- "tink, tink, tink!" as the act takes the stage!
Thinking morst's triple screw allows for the same tie-down arrangement minus the "tink" with added bite. With the center auger I found it easiest to just crank the stand down tight to it with a big HD zip-tie.
-
hammer in tent stakes (3) part-way between the legs
Just don't be "that guy" still going- "tink, tink, tink!" as the act takes the stage!
Thinking morst's triple screw allows for the same tie-down arrangement minus the "tink" with added bite. With the center auger I found it easiest to just crank the stand down tight to it with a big HD zip-tie.
I just hammer mine in to the beat of the bluegrass band that is playing
Fuck those screw things, use manly stakes
-
I use the big Orange Screw outdoors - works better than anything else I've ever used. Highly recommended. I bungie or tie down the stand and it is not moving at all.
-
Screws work great, when you can get them to screw into the ground. I gave up at Suwannee, the ground is just too packed down at all the stages.
-
I finally figured these mics and where they want to be...
Here is the last one which is just pure AUD. I adjusted my space from stage and the angle of PAS: https://archive.org/details/TheSweetLillies2024-08-03.aud.flac24
Very good IMHO. At least I am happy with it.
You should be proud of this Sweet Lillies recording, it sounds excellent! Great stereo imaging from what's coming off the stage/out of the PA, and with all the 'kids running around and playing' and other ambient sounds & noises, a real sense of presence and being there through the rest of the soundstage.
-
Yes. Its more challenging to get the mix of direct-sound/everything-else just right when you are doing so via just a single stereo-pair configuration. With a setup like the one used for the Floodgate Operators, getting that mix just right is easier since you can dial it in afterward by ear, yet with just a single stereo-pair source it's baked in, making it fully reliant on the art of the setup.
I just hammer mine in to the beat of the bluegrass band that is playing
Fuck those screw things, use manly stakes
A truly manly man don't need no hammer!
With you on the beat, and fun to get into the routine of just doing everything to the rhythm. Took a couple musician friends to a sweet little Weather Report cover band thing outside local museum last month - a bring a cooler type deal. The museum had just cut down all the trees in the plaza, including the one right in the sweet spot that was perfectly positioned as a place to setup the recording stand, but left a 5' high stump. Instead of running directly in front of the tree up high to minimize audience noise, to keep things low-key I ran JOT- just over stump. Audience was thankfully chill and music focused. However, the nearest closest cooler was ours and friend one audibly cracked a beverage just as the band took the stage. Friend 2 shot him an evil eye and nodded toward the mics. I silently grabbed a can along with their attention as the band counted off, cracking it exactly on the down beat ONE with a smile. Turned it into a fun little game for them. Afterward a round of headphone listening ensued. First opening featured clearly, crisp, metallic, fizzy and close by, heard just off to the right.. but all subsequent were completely masked. Confirmed a few with the rewind button. What might've seemed risky was made less so by my awareness that both musician friends have excellent rhythmic timing. And that ain't no flam!
-
I finally figured these mics and where they want to be...
Here is the last one which is just pure AUD. I adjusted my space from stage and the angle of PAS: https://archive.org/details/TheSweetLillies2024-08-03.aud.flac24
Very good IMHO. At least I am happy with it.
You should be proud of this Sweet Lillies recording, it sounds excellent! Great stereo imaging from what's coming off the stage/out of the PA, and with all the 'kids running around and playing' and other ambient sounds & noises, a real sense of presence and being there through the rest of the soundstage.
Thank you, that means a lot. Here is one from a few days ago: https://archive.org/details/floodgate_operators2024-08-08
-
One piece of advice...I would cut up your show in to individual tracks, it makes it much easier to find a specific song and in general is more convenient. I use CD Wave Editor, it's probably the simplest and quickest tool out there for this, and it's free as well.
http://www.milosoftware.com/en/index.php?body=download.php
-
One piece of advice...I would cut up your show in to individual tracks, it makes it much easier to find a specific song and in general is more convenient. I use CD Wave Editor, it's probably the simplest and quickest tool out there for this, and it's free as well.
http://www.milosoftware.com/en/index.php?body=download.php
I tried that already... Was basically told, "no thank you."
https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=202770.msg2415241#msg2415241
-
One piece of advice...I would cut up your show in to individual tracks, it makes it much easier to find a specific song and in general is more convenient. I use CD Wave Editor, it's probably the simplest and quickest tool out there for this, and it's free as well.
http://www.milosoftware.com/en/index.php?body=download.php
I tried that already... Was basically told, "no thank you."
https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=202770.msg2415241#msg2415241
Oh oh, one of those "one-track and done" dudes...
-
One piece of advice...I would cut up your show in to individual tracks, it makes it much easier to find a specific song and in general is more convenient. I use CD Wave Editor, it's probably the simplest and quickest tool out there for this, and it's free as well.
http://www.milosoftware.com/en/index.php?body=download.php
I tried that already... Was basically told, "no thank you."
https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=202770.msg2415241#msg2415241
His excuse is pretty lame. Maybe it should be made a requirement for uploading?
-
I am not suggesting the LMA make it a requirement. But, I certainly would prefer for my own listening to have it split into tracks. VOL has clearly come down on a different side.
-
One piece of advice...I would cut up your show in to individual tracks, it makes it much easier to find a specific song and in general is more convenient. I use CD Wave Editor, it's probably the simplest and quickest tool out there for this, and it's free as well.
http://www.milosoftware.com/en/index.php?body=download.php
I tried that already... Was basically told, "no thank you."
https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=202770.msg2415241#msg2415241
Guess I missed that...I guess to each their own, to me personally though, it just seems like lack of effort, and when I come across those "1 track" recordings, I have a hard time giving any time to it because the recorder barely gave any time to it either.
-
Exactly, Dan. I know it often takes time to get the titles, but I feel like I have let people down if I list a song as "Unknown". I may be more anal than most, though. :D
-
Biting the hand that feeds is more lame. How about thankfulness for having it made available at all. Sure tracked out is nice, friendly suggestions to do so are fine, and suggestions that include how to go about it are great, but in the end it's mostly a more convenient / nice to have thing, particularly when the alternative being suggested is to ban untracked uploads. ]
Make the effort, sure, but deprive the folks that want to hear it regardless, no.
-
I am not suggesting the LMA make it a requirement. But, I certainly would prefer for my own listening to have it split into tracks. VOL has clearly come down on a different side.
I would personally prefer tracked recordings even if the track names are just Track 1, Track 2, etc. At least then I can still skip ahead a song if i want, and can easily enough add track names myself later. (Whereas splitting into tracks later is a huge pain.)
-
Sure but..
A personal choice to not listen for whatever reason is, well, personal and requires no justification. A call for a policy change that effects all listeners is the total opposite. What motivated me to post in defense of VOF's choice has nothing to do with my own personal preference (track it!), and everything to do with the overly quick conflation of those two very different approaches. Be careful what you wish for. Kudo's to all of those who make an extended effort at completion.
-
Sure but..
A personal choice to not listen for whatever reason is, well, personal and requires no justification. A call for a policy change that effects all listeners is the total opposite. What motivated me to post in defense of VOF's choice has nothing to do with my own personal preference (track it!), and everything to do with the overly quick conflation of those two very different approaches. Be careful what you wish for. Kudo's to all of those who make an extended effort at completion.
Turn it down a notch Lee
Have not seen any of your recordings lately, tracked or not
-
Touché. You have a valid point there Kev.. except it essentially emphasizes the one I'm making. Would you rather he not upload at all?
Thank you for all you do Kevin, you are one of the best. Just emailed vanark to say the same to him personally and express my hope that my posts above weren't interpreted as being at counter to the super admirable efforts he makes everyday in supporting the smooth running of LMA.
Forgive me AbbyT, no offence meant. It's been a tough day out in the shop this morning and my pressure is a bit high. Wasn't my intent to unload my frustrations on you.
-
Maybe an idea for a compromise: I have had cases in the past where a friend had problems with "skips" when playing back tracks compressed with Samplitude's FLAC export feature. Or I have sent recordings to bands who then removed parts of the recording or changed the beginnings of some tracks. In these cases, it has proved useful for me to send a single wav or FLAC file and include a CUE sheet. This gives the recipient the option of splitting the tracks themselves at the same points as me or defining their own track boundaries.
-
well im sure it's less popular viewpoint, but i also wont bother often with the one-track shows. i've tried to teach and to coach other tapers into taking the additional 2-3hrs to track out a show or add song names, afterall the taper plans on it being released to the world, why not make it the best it can be??
i dont understand the rush to get imperfect recording out, but this issue has existed since bit-torrents and instagratification - why i always give a few listens before posting shows.
i've been doing it for 20+ years and am simply not phased by missing a recording that is half-baked...
-
Forgive me AbbyT, no offence meant. It's been a tough day out in the shop this morning and my pressure is a bit high. Wasn't my intent to unload my frustrations on you.
No big deal. I literally spend 4-6 hours every day mastering other people's recordings, and a big part of that time is spent on tracking and finding song titles. Just pisses me off a little where a guy gets praise for basically making no effort and offering up a lame excuse for it. A lot of the bands and artists I get to work on are unknown to me. Half the fun is the challenge of getting the titles of those unknown songs, and especially obscure covers.
-
^ That's a heck of a lot easier than it used to be! Usually, with the band name and one intelligible phrase, I can find the song title pretty easily. Purely instrumental music, especially by prolific artists and/or those that like to re-arrange their songs frequently (jazz or jam, for example), can be brutal...
My 2¢ on the tracking issue is that I kind of go both directions. I agree with Gutbucket that it is better posted than not. At the same time, I am with todd e in the sense that I will rarely download an untracked recording. It has to be something I REALLY want, such as a show I attended for which I don't have a recording. Maybe something historic. I would be unlikely to check out a new artist if I couldn't skip easily from tune to tune.
-
Come on, tracking takes about 5 or 10 minutes for an hour set, tops. Unless the band never stops and plays a bunch of instrumentals. Naming the tracks, on the other hand...
-
it's only easy if it doesn't segue into the next song. I'm mostly recording bands that don't do much exploration these days, but back in the day, there'd be shows where I'd have to flip mid jam because there were NO song breaks.
Anyway, I try not to upload shows without having tracked them to the best of my ability, but I get not wanting to do that, also. Recording is a completely different skillset than editing and tracking.
-
And while we're going down the "track or not" rabbit hole. If you are going to share your shows, can we please name them something that people can quickly comprehend?
UTOO1987BBSssonsVlum5OldGryWhstlTstBlmralTVStdosBlfstBrtin__3-8-1987_atse
WZKingCat
TALLMNBRTHRSBND1980CpitlThtrPssicNJ, 1-5-1980 atse
bf2000-02-05.sbd.flac16
tab2024-04-30.flac16
2010-04-17 [ A1 ] Newport Music Hall, Columbus, Ohio
Yes, I'm very thankful these were taped AND shared but ...
I may not get around to listening to a show right away and when I do, I have to scratch my head for a minute trying to determine what band it is (and probably rename). I think we're well past the point of needing to obfuscate the band/venue/date shows, aren't we ? (yes most are older shows but it's still being done)
-
Maybe an idea for a compromise: I have had cases in the past where a friend had problems with "skips" when playing back tracks compressed with Samplitude's FLAC export feature. Or I have sent recordings to bands who then removed parts of the recording or changed the beginnings of some tracks. In these cases, it has proved useful for me to send a single wav or FLAC file and include a CUE sheet. This gives the recipient the option of splitting the tracks themselves at the same points as me or defining their own track boundaries.
I don't want to get to OT with this or rustle feathers, but it dovetails with CUE sheets. I wish we had sub-index functionality within each track, like was on some early CDs, particularly classical recordings. Those sub-markers within a track would be very useful at times. And to my way of thinking, conceptually at least, a cue-sheet with track markers and subindex markers seems the best way to split up and tag what is essentially a single continuous recording of a live music performance set. The choice of LMA downloads could include the complete set as a single file + CUE sheet, or individual tracks from that split out by that CUE sheet info. The other cool thing about a CUE sheet is that the track split points are easily modified by simply editing the txt info on the sheet. I tend to get annoyed somewhat by track marker placements that differ from what I'd prefer, yet almost never go to the effort to retrack split files. But if there were sub-indexes at, say, the start and stop of banter (as well as any notable points of interest within a song), different track split preferences could be easily accommodated by simply reassigning the existing time-stamp markers. Would make it easy to do stuff like switching to keeping the banter about the upcoming song at the start of that song, rather than it being orphaned at the end of the last track on a different file, or the other way around. And for anyone that wanted to fix the track marker that cut off the count in or whatever, easy fix. Tracked and tagged, but with additional freedom.
Ok I'll shut up now and recall the magic feeling of the working the old cassette auto-seek function.
-
It's easy enough to combine the files, which will add markers, and then move/add markers as necessary. Certainly easier than de novo tracking a download. Personally, I will track as I see fit and you are free to re-do it if you'd like. I am definitely not splitting and adding potential alternative split points.
-
Not suggesting you or anyone actually add sub-markers for alternative split points or anything else. Just talking out loud about how things could have evolved to provide additional options in support of live music recordings, rather than studio released recordings that generally feature fully separated songs. As mentioned, I can't be bothered to re-combine files just to shift markers around, but if I could simply edit existing marker timings on a cue sheet I'd do that more often.
Meh, it is what it is. Totally agreed that adding markers to an untracked set via file splits OR a cue sheet is in no way ideal, especially for tapers who make the full effort on their own uploads. ..and stand by the point that an untracked recording is better than none at all.
Aside- The old cassette auto-seek function I mentioned returned in the form of the "split on interval" function in CD Wave Editor. I never use it because I want to set markers manually by ear. Do any of you guys use it to start and then manually adjust/add markers as needed? I think it has a detector threshold adjustment if I recall, but it always seemed to me it would be tricky to get that to work reliably for any live music set.
-
I'd love the ability to just upload the 1 big file plus cue sheet, as that'd save me a step in my process
-
I'd love the ability to just upload the 1 big file plus cue sheet, as that'd save me a step in my process
How long does that step really take? Elapsed time 2-3 minutes? Actual effort time 15 seconds? I use the few minutes to go create a cover image that I can tag the FLACs with, so it really doesn't cost me any additional time to save as individual files. Well, 15-20 seconds.
-
it's not a huge deal. Just if I were picking features, that's one I'd pick :)