Melodeon.net Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to the new melodeon.net forum

Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Fred's microphone tests for home recording  (Read 4732 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

-Y-

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Handry 18 (G/C), Mélodie (D), Club IIb (A/D)
    • a database of 400 or more melodeons here
Re: Fred's microphone tests for home recording
« Reply #20 on: February 16, 2018, 12:48:19 PM »

Yannick, thanks for your recommendation to look into ribbon microphones. As far as i remember, my initial research has lead me to believe that ribbon mics are normally figure 8 in terms of directivity. I specifically wanted to go for a microphone that picks up a certain direction, so kidney directivity was the way to go for me. My room is relatively quiet but I still live in a city and therefore the noise floor (cars driving by, honking, etc.) most likely would have been annoying in the recordings. The kidney microphones kind of let me filter out this noise floor as it seems.
That's right, concerning directivity. For the exemple, the sound engineer that worked with my band did use ribbon mics live on stage (hardly what you would call a quiet situation (:) ), and the sound was great (and you could as well put some foam on the other side). Anyway I understand your reluctance. Maybe you know someone that could lend you one ribbon mic to try, rather than buying and perhaps selling afterwards?

Jozz

  • Good talker
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 97
  • Greetings from the Netherlands!
    • Stichting Bon Artz
Re: Fred's microphone tests for home recording
« Reply #21 on: February 16, 2018, 01:05:44 PM »

Is 150 euros still budget enough for you?

Then try the Beta 57a. It will be the best of all worlds in your environment.

I'm very much surprised that the MB75 holds up nicely to the sm57 by the way.

My ranking would be:
1. P120 (only slightly better than SC400)
2. SM57 + MB75 (almost equal in this setup)
3. P4 (it's too much of a screamer for this instrument)

I don't really have a preference of condenser over dynamics here. You could easily take the sound of either and post-process it to perfection.
Logged
Stichting Bon Artz - We present and support authentic music and small-scale performance arts.

gmatkin

  • Gavin Atkin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
    • Julieandhersqueeze.com
Re: Fred's microphone tests for home recording
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2018, 02:15:35 PM »

I've used MB75s quite a lot for live work, so I'm not surprised one should work well for Fred. If I have a concern about them it is that I've noticed they're not all /exactly/ the same.

I'd say also that I've spent a /lot/ of time trialling different 'cheap theory' mics including low cost LDCs, SDCs and dynamics, and I'd suggest that given the melodeon's sound spectrum, you could do worse than use a cardioid stage condenser such as the Rode M2.

It's a real Swiss Army knife of a mic, as someone says somewhere online, as it's really useful for all sorts of things. In many ways you can use it like a stage vocal dynamic, but because unlike those mics it doesn't have a big presence boost at 2kz it's useful when recording at home.

This gives it a pleasant, balanced sound without the 'roughness' you often find with a stage dynamic.

Another benefit compared with (less narrowly directional) large diaphragm condensers is that it rejects extraneous noises such as passing cars, washing machines and flushing toilets.

If you sing into one when accompanying yourself on melodeon, it knocks out a lot of the instrument, btw, so you must stay 'on mic'. Here's how it can go slightly wrong... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5TNLAerlhw. If you check my recording of Little Cock Sparrow, you'll hear that I was further from the mic (again an M2), and that it got a /much/ better balance. As Anahata says, there's a lot in mic placement.

I'm learning this stuff only slowly, but I'd also say that Googling around for information about EQing recorded vocals can help a lot, as really a melodeon is a voice-like instrument. It's good to know that you should cut out low frequencies below say 70Hz and that boosting above 6kHz brings a sense of 'air'. Boosting or cutting other frequencies adds or removes warmth, roughness, boxiness, nasalness etc. Editing should more often be done by cutting frequencies than by adding. It's worth reading up on this stuff.

I use Audacity for editing and recommend it.

I recorded this yesterday using a t.bone SC450 large diaphragm condenser. https://youtu.be/ZkivfNlVNx8

It picked up both the box and my voice reasonably well - but I added 3dB of 'air', rolled off low bass from 70Hz (there's no musical information down there from my instrument or singing, and I probably should have rolled off from 90Hz or 100Hz), added 3dB of voice warmth at 250Hz, and having listened to the whole thing on the monitors we use as hifi speakers in our living room, finally cut a further 3dB off everything below 1000kHz.

This is really a new approach for me, as previously I simply chose the mic that sounded best and cut the deep bass. It's all a faff, no doubt but I think it will become quicker as I get used to this approach.   

Gavin
« Last Edit: February 17, 2018, 02:20:44 PM by gmatkin »
Logged

Winston Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3769
  • AKA Edward Jennings
    • "Our Luxor B&B" Luxor life, slice by slice.
Re: Fred's microphone tests for home recording
« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2018, 03:08:01 PM »

This is all great stuff! If I keep on reading, I'll soon be able to record myself singing and accompanying and then "tweak" it all so that my voice becomes as rich as George Welsh's and my accompaniment as startling as JK's! Job done!
But it all seems like a bit of a cheat, somehow?
Logged
At last, broken and resigned to accept conformity.
Oh, how I LOVE Big Brother!

gmatkin

  • Gavin Atkin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
    • Julieandhersqueeze.com
Re: Fred's microphone tests for home recording
« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2018, 05:34:34 PM »

There are things that I certainly can't fake. If I could, I might...

Gavin

Anahata

  • This mind intentionally left blank
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6359
  • Oakwood D/G, C/F Club, 1-rows in C,D,G
    • Treewind Music
Re: Fred's microphone tests for home recording
« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2018, 12:26:00 AM »

This is all great stuff! If I keep on reading, I'll soon be able to record myself singing and accompanying and then "tweak" it all so that my voice becomes as rich as George Welsh's and my accompaniment as startling as JK's!

When you do, please let me know how you did it!
Logged
I'm a melodeon player. What's your excuse?
Music recording and web hosting: www.treewind.co.uk
Mary Humphreys and Anahata: www.maryanahata.co.uk
Ceilidh band: www.barleycoteband.co.uk

Winston Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3769
  • AKA Edward Jennings
    • "Our Luxor B&B" Luxor life, slice by slice.
Re: Fred's microphone tests for home recording
« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2018, 06:54:40 AM »

That's the very point, dear Anahata!
I'll never sound as mellifluous as old George, and my playing will never match that of your good self or JK or Steve-f, or any of the excellent players on here. But, by the sounds of these postings, my singing and playing could be greatly enhanced by all these electronic gizmos where it just wouldn't be MY singing or playing that was being heard! Then; what is the point of me doing it in the first place?
I just don't get it!
Logged
At last, broken and resigned to accept conformity.
Oh, how I LOVE Big Brother!

gmatkin

  • Gavin Atkin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
    • Julieandhersqueeze.com
Re: Fred's microphone tests for home recording
« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2018, 09:56:01 AM »

For generations now, folks have been very accustomed to hearing perfect recorded performances. I'm not sure you'd be comfortable deliberately going in the opposite direction.

Gavin

Winston Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3769
  • AKA Edward Jennings
    • "Our Luxor B&B" Luxor life, slice by slice.
Re: Fred's microphone tests for home recording
« Reply #28 on: February 18, 2018, 10:43:41 AM »

Ah, yes, but there's a difference between "perfectly recorded" and enhanced, surely. Perhaps I'm wrong (yet again?) but, to my mind, we seem to be discussing enhancing here.
Anyway, I've made my little point and shall now withdraw.
Logged
At last, broken and resigned to accept conformity.
Oh, how I LOVE Big Brother!

Fred

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 719
  • G/C Pariselle, D/G Loffet & maybe too many Hohners
Re: Fred's microphone tests for home recording
« Reply #29 on: February 18, 2018, 05:25:36 PM »

This thread is supposed to be mainly about the "perfect recording" aspect (perfect in terms of home-recording of course) and less about the enhancement aspect. Even though I'm definitely going to look into a bit of equalizing, I'm just as certain that I'm mostly looking for a natural sound as I'm hearing it while playing in my room.

After quite a bit more random recording with the different microphones, I'm currently almost certain that I will keep the AKG P120. It just feels like the most naturally sounding to me and I think that it will suit my needs quite well.

I will probably post another summary of my findings and explain how and why I made the yet-to-be-made decision then. (:)
Logged

gmatkin

  • Gavin Atkin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
    • Julieandhersqueeze.com
Re: Fred's microphone tests for home recording
« Reply #30 on: February 18, 2018, 07:33:36 PM »

I haven't meant to go on too much about editing. I suppose I was really saying you can often do a lot with EQ, whatever mics you choose, and then got into defending the approach most people involved in recording usually take...

I think most of us are looking to achieve a 'natural' sound. Anything that's strange and artificial will likely just be irritating and distracting.

The P120s have a good reputation. They're interesting also because in size their diaphragms fall right between large diaphragm mics designed to flatter the human voice (though in practice different LDC mics seem to flatter different voices) and small diaphragm mics, which tend to cover the audible range fairly smoothly and are good on transients (eg the start of the twang of a guitar or the bing or the beginning of a piano note), but if cheap tend to hype high frequencies some way beyond what melodeons produce. Melodeons are voice-like, so I think a P120 could be good.

I'll be interested to hear how you get on with yours over time.

Ribbons are interesting. I've no experience with them but I'm intrigued. I have tried figure of 8 mics and found that in an untreated room they can be a real liability with sound reflections, and discovered (of course!) that hanging a duvet a few feet behind makes them much more manageable. I'd guess the same would be true of a ribbon mic, and I'd also expect you'd likely have to do some work on the EQ because of their pronounced proximity effect (the closer you get, the warmer and bassier they sound).

Gavin
« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 09:38:25 AM by gmatkin »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
 


Melodeon.net - (c) Theo Gibb; Clive Williams 2010. The access and use of this website and forum featuring these terms and conditions constitutes your acceptance of these terms and conditions.
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal