Topic: Mentor Call For Help

[VibrationOfLife]

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.

[opsopcopolis]

Always happy to take a look and walk you through the process. Feel free to DM

[admkrk]

..., 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. 

[morst]

can you post a sample track for us to check?

[Niels]

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. 

[ol' dirty taper]

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.

[VibrationOfLife]

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.

[nulldogmas]

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:

[robgronotte]

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.

[Rairun]

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.

[morst]

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.

[Gutbucket]

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.

[Gutbucket]

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, 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]

[Gutbucket]

^
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)

[Gutbucket]

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.