Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 21:02:04 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:
If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room
interaction.
A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?
Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't
hearing it in what I consider a natural manner.
Meaning that the instrument sounds better with some room sound? But
if we can get the BAD room sound down to a trivial level, we have
pretty good ways of adding better room sound.
At a chamber music recording at the New Carlsberg Glyptotek we had
everything set up and sweet sounding. Then the arranger entered the room and
noticed that the ensemble was three feet off of the center line and asked
for it to be centered. They moved 3 feet, we moved the mic stand three feet
and that should be it ... NOT: it simply sounded like a cheaper pack of
cats. Likewise in the room. The room matters for the sound of the instrument
because all instruments are microphonic and react to room sound.
And what Hank said: you can not get the sound of the instrument if you are
close than the longest dimension of the instrument, you will instead get the
sound of the closest part of the instrument. THAT may be exactly what fits
the actual recording, but you need to know what it is you choose.
The 3:1 rule can rapidly reduce the deployable number of mics if you "go
distant" .... but it is not fun to come home with a live remote that is not
mixable because of bleed, surely an experience that prompts assertive
miking; be it a pair or a bundle or whatever number that fits.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen