New mics. What do you think?

[thefsb]

I got new mics and for the first time ever in my life I relent a little on my position that stereo is silly and fraudulent. I still contend it is those things but if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Almost all audio distribution is stereo, including podcasts, for goodness sake. So what do I do, up-mix mono to stereo? Even duplicating a single mic to both channels seems worse than using two mics so here we go.

If you have any comments, criticisms, or suggestions please go ahead because I am new to using close-mic techniques. (My untreated and rather noisy room doesn't work for distant mics.)

[NOTE: the music that interests me most as a player is free improvisation. Think of that as like free jazz but with all the jazz language removed. I know most people aren't into it and that it's a very risky activity but the reward of being able to discover music I didn't know was there before is worth it all to me.]


4K youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJwFuQ2xFQA

Embed

[rick-slo]

Stereo mic'ing is best sound on solo guitar recordings. In your recording the mikes were setup coincident XY. That IMO is the worst stereo mike setup to take advantage of using two mikes.
Experiment with spaced pair mikes and see what results you can get.

[mixsit]

Two things I'd toss in.. Tone's a bit on the warm side. Maybe away from the sound hole, towards the neck body junction?

Dynamics are quite wide.. as a listener. Set the volume up for the fine parts.. but that puts the guitar way up' when you kick it in.
Compression..? :>) As an old home studio guy and player, no. (Well, you can, but that's a different whole with no end.)
Rather, would be simply up' the quieter stuff.
Mic further from the sound hole might-could even things out a bit too.

[mixsit]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Stereo mic'ing is best sound on solo guitar recordings. In your recording the mikes were setup coincident XY. That IMO is the worst stereo mike setup to take advantage of using two mikes.
Experiment with spaced pair mikes and see what results you can get.

Liking this too

[Rudy4]

Most listeners have two ears, hence the entire point of providing stereo recordings. There's so much spatial information that we use when listening that simply isn't part of the formula when making single point recordings.

That being said, if there's anything beyond a single instrument that's featured in a recording then you very quickly reach a point of diminishing returns on your efforts. Spatial perception is generally lost when there's more going on in a recording than what we can focus on.

Although X-Y recording is the "safest" method to minimize the risk of phase relationship problems it also minimizes the ability to provide that spatial information.

What's all that mean? If you're going to record a single instrument in stereo then it's best to use mic techniques that make the effort worthwhile. The X-Y stereo configuration is better than a single mic, but it's really not worth the additional effort IMHO.

There's something to be said for the immediacy af a good mono recording of a single instrument, but also consider that most of us are going to use a favorite reverb which is automatically going to create a "stereo" image that's going to end up relating as a more pleasant listening experience.

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

There's something to be said for the immediacy af a good mono recording of a single instrument

So very true. I've always gravitated towards mono acoustic guitar recordings. I use both mono and stereo-spaced techniques, but I absolutely value both equally. This is a stereo mic-centric forum but I'd encourage exploring both avenues. There's a lot of gold in a properly recorded mono acoustic.

[thefsb]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

So very true. I've always gravitated towards mono acoustic guitar recordings. I use both mono and stereo-spaced techniques, but I absolutely value both equally. This is a stereo mic-centric forum but I'd encourage exploring both avenues. There's a lot of gold in a properly recorded mono acoustic.

I'm the monophile. I think stereo is the biggest, stupidest, most sucessfully-lucrative hoax in all of consumer audio electronics' history.

Yet it is the standard. A tyranny I cannot defeat because of distribution networks and the installed base of playback equipment including all the headsets and IEMs.

So if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. But how? That's the question I'm dealing with. What recording method do I use to present my works to an audience that will listen to them as stereo digital files? Mono played on mono speakers is great but that's no gonna happen.

I can copy one mic to two channels easy, and have done often to date, in fact that's mostly what I've done. But in headphones that produces a spooky middle-of-head thing and with loudspeakers they can produce comb filter effects that mess with the tonality.

On the other end of the scale there are myriad mic techniques, effects, and mixing tricks all aimed at producing dramatic wide spacial percepts. To my mind that also qualifies as a stupid hoax. It's like the fancy computer vfx in movies that just make me groan with weariness.

Somewhere between these two failed extremes is a compromise I' have to settle for.

Hence a simple coincident pair. At least as starting point.

[thefsb]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

There's something to be said for the immediacy af a good mono recording of a single instrument, but also consider that most of us are going to use a favorite reverb which is automatically going to create a "stereo" image that's going to end up relating as a more pleasant listening experience.

I think the room's reverb is better than what I can add as an electronic effect. And it's that the reverb I hear and respond to as I play. And I'm aiming for a natural, documentary-style presentation, not a luxury consumer product.

So if the purpose of stereo is to present the natural room reverb, I can either position these two mics to pick up a mix of direct and room sound (as I think I have done already but presumably could improve on) or use two more mics at a distance in, say, an ORTF config to allow.

Do you really think stereo's value with a solo acoustic instrument is limited to present two different reverb impulse responses?

[thefsb]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Experiment with spaced pair mikes and see what results you can get.

In mono test recordings I found that at 18 inches the room sound(*) was unbearable. Recordings at 6 were better than at 12. Now I aim for 8 inches allowing up to 10 (it's hard to control that closely). I wouldn't expect a spaced pair to sound natural at that distance from the instrument. Recording at a distance of over 18 inches would require a different room or acoustic treatments I'm not prepared to undertake.

(*) The room sound is 1. reverb, there's a lot but it sounds good to me so long as the balance is right. 2. bass modes, typical of an untreated bedroom-sized room, i.e. annoying. 3. extraneous noise from the city street outside the window.

[thefsb]

Originally Posted by mixsit

Two things I'd toss in.. Tone's a bit on the warm side. Maybe away from the sound hole, towards the neck body junction?

That's where it is now, or I thought so, or so I designed and intended. But I'll try going farther down the neck to see what it's like there as a couple of comments I got elsewhere were similar.

Originally Posted by mixsit

Dynamics are quite wide.. as a listener. Set the volume up for the fine parts.. but that puts the guitar way up' when you kick it in.
Compression..? :>) As an old home studio guy and player, no. (Well, you can, but that's a different whole with no end.)
Rather, would be simply up' the quieter stuff.
Mic further from the sound hole might-could even things out a bit too.

You're right that the dynamic here are greater than is typical for acoustic guitar music. I love to play with the dynamics and listen to what the guitar does. It's part of my method. So since I'm aiming for a more natural, documentary-style presentation, as opposed to, say, a glossy, lush, well-finished product, I hesitate to introduce any dynamic processing.

And besides, we've all got 16-bits of DR in the playback these days so what's the problem with having some DR in the signal: noisy listening environment? expectation set by life in the wasteland left behind by the loudness war? idk

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by thefsb

In mono test recordings I found that at 18 inches the room sound(*) was unbearable. Recordings at 6 were better than at 12. Now I aim for 8 inches allowing up to 10 (it's hard to control that closely). I wouldn't expect a spaced pair to sound natural at that distance from the instrument. Recording at a distance of over 18 inches would require a different room or acoustic treatments I'm not prepared to undertake.

(*) The room sound is 1. reverb, there's a lot but it sounds good to me so long as the balance is right. 2. bass modes, typical of an untreated bedroom-sized room, i.e. annoying. 3. extraneous noise from the city street outside the window.

I use a space pair of mikes pretty much placed like Pete Huttlinger has it set up in this video though I set them up perhaps a bit further out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09vkKdHvkrQ

I have a few dozen recordings posted on my youtube channel all having been recorded after having set up acoustics in the room with absorption panels on walls and ceiling.
Some examples being:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv4YcGSWLJc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-451cVDL04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_9CWUsTyB0

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by thefsb

I think the room's reverb is better than what I can add as an electronic effect. And it's that the reverb I hear and respond to as I play. And I'm aiming for a natural, documentary-style presentation, not a luxury consumer product.

So if the purpose of stereo is to present the natural room reverb, I can either position these two mics to pick up a mix of direct and room sound (as I think I have done already but presumably could improve on) or use two more mics at a distance in, say, an ORTF config to allow.

Do you really think stereo's value with a solo acoustic instrument is limited to present two different reverb impulse responses?

If a track has a single acoustic guitar recorded with a single mic, then yes.

The problem with "natural room reverb" is that 99% of the time it isn't. Access to the Taj Mahal? Sure, go ahead.

In most cases "Room" sound has very little similarity to good reverberation. What I normally hear is slap back echo with some random reflections that translate as a difficult to listen to facsimile or poor imitation of what the real instrument might sound like. To impose that on a recording is equally as bad as overuse of a good plug in.

The great thing about all of this is all that REALLY matters is what YOU think of any particular recording. Very few home recordists are going to attain widespread public accolades for our efforts, but that just emphasizes that the proof is indeed truly contained within the pudding.

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by thefsb

I'm the monophile. I think stereo is the biggest, stupidest, most sucessfully-lucrative hoax in all of consumer audio electronics' history.

Yikes... I dunno about that. We, as humans have in our DNA a remarkable width of soundscape, ostensibly brought about by our need to hunt to survive. I see no hoax on any level. That's how we hear. Further, the idea of stereo far, far, far pre-dates computers. I must admit I'm a tad befuddled as to why anyone would purposely dismiss that in favor of something jammed down the middle as that's not the way we hear. But..that's just me.

The basic 19th-century orchestra seating arrangement is a culmination of what we'd now call stereo. Its utter brilliance remains intact to this day and one of my very most treasured pleasures is hearing the L.A. Symphony dead center stage. It's a sonic bath and mono would biblically crush the experience. The understanding of both the sound stage width as well as its depth belies the information available at the time of the original creation of orchestra seating except of course for the brilliance of ears.

There is a treasure chest of film scores that simply couldn't exist without that fundamental spread. I'd have no interest in listening to an orchestra score played with all instruments shoved dead center. That embryonically would shift the sonics away from the actual source and by any measuring stick on earth would be detrimental, and unfair to what happened live. To move away from the sonic and push everything dead center seems enormously odd, at least to me.

As far as contemporary use of the term "stereo" it varies widely in definition. My memory defers to the first stereo Beatles albums which were either re-mixed to meet the newfound standard, admittedly a bit awkward to have an entire drum kit panned hard to the left and the entire vocal tracks panned hard to the right but we were new to the idea. I still however think it creates an interesting sound field. I probably wouldn't revisit it personally but it does preserve a place in recording history.

That said however as things morphed and matured it was interesting to see the choice of stereo in a mix that better represented a live environment. Guitar left, drum kit spit across the spectrum left to right, bass center, and guitars perhaps to the right again. That of course represents (as a broad stroke) what it might be like sitting in front of a live band, I find this still very effective especially with three-piece rock kits. I've been behind a console since 1969 and I gotta tell ya calling stereo a hoax goes against every grain in my body BUT take that with a ginormous grain of salt cause that's just me and I tend to be off base fairly often.

As to stereo in the absolute here and now the sonic miracles of the samples from libraries like Heavyocity, East-West, Vienna, Spitfire, Cinesamples are simply breathtaking. No hoax. Those brilliant orchestral instruments could not be that utterly realistic without the samples being stereo.

Originally Posted by thefsb

I can copy one mic to two channels easy, and have done often to date, in fact that's mostly what I've done. But in headphones that produces a spooky middle-of-head thing and with loudspeakers they can produce comb filter effects that mess with the tonality.

Don't do that. Firstly that's not a stereo file. It's dual mono and severs absolutely no sonic benefit. As you mentioned it's a notorious way to create problems. The same audio placed on two tracks and then panned is the opposite of stereo.

Originally Posted by thefsb

On the other end of the scale there are myriad mic techniques, effects, and mixing tricks all aimed at producing dramatic wide spacial percepts. To my mind that also qualifies as a stupid hoax. It's like the fancy computer vfx in movies that just make me groan with weariness.

Sorry but in the audio world that's just not true. Stereo is not always about "wide". It can be as narrow as one chooses or as wide as one chooses. It can contain subtle differences on both channels that are almost imperceivable yet enormously effective. Take a listen to Saving Private Ryan's Hymn to the Fallen Or, John Williams, Yo Yo Ma, Itzhak Perlman on The Memoirs of a Geisha. Both are completely stereo instruments, however, that stereo may have been created. Often Williams has been known to combine software libraries with actual recordings. If you come away after listening to those masterpieces and still feel like stereo is a hoax then you my friend are a being of a different feather, and that's ok.

Originally Posted by thefsb

Somewhere between these two failed extremes is a compromise I' have to settle for.

Hence a simple coincident pair. At least as starting point.

Maybe don't come from the angle of compromise but more perhaps a new challenge and learning curve. Maybe that would make things more enjoyable!

[Chipotle]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

I gotta tell ya calling stereo a hoax goes against every grain in my body BUT take that with a ginormous grain of salt cause that's just me and I tend to be off base fairly often.

No, you're not off base. We HEAR in stereo... we have two ears.

Recording techniques can be used to exaggerate that image, sure. But they don't have to be. Thefsb, maybe you should try making binaural recordings. Probably as close as you'll get to an actual listening experience, when played back through headphones.

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by Chipotle

No, you're not off base. We HEAR in stereo... we have two ears.

Recording techniques can be used to exaggerate that image, sure. But they don't have to be. Thefsb, maybe you should try making binaural recordings. Probably as close as you'll get to an actual listening experience, when played back through headphones.

Binaural recordings can be really an exceptional way of conveying the reality of the listening experience.



As a totally solo performance, perhaps a Jecklin disk stereo mic setup.