[David Grant]

I just recorded a couple tunes of my piano-player friend's jazz trio for an
application submission to a competition in Jacksonville, FA.

I have some questions regarding mixdown. The room I recorded in is fairly
boxy sounding. If I use the main pair in the mix, there is a definite loss
of clarity in the piano. If I leave the main pair out, and just use the
piano, drum, and bass spots, the recording sounds very dry and un-jazz-like,
but the piano player can be heard clearly.

As someone reviewing a submission, which are you likely to rate above the
other? If I were mixing for an album I'd definitely go for the former, but
I'm wondering if the latter is more appropriate for judging performer
talent.

Thanks,

Dave

[kooz]

It's called "mixing" for a reason, Dave. You have to go with your own
judgement on this, that best presents the performance.
Take a whack at it, present the mix to the client, and take a Mulligan
if they don't like it.

[David Grant]

"kooz" wrote in message
...
It's called "mixing" for a reason, Dave. You have to go with your own
judgement on this, that best presents the performance.
Take a whack at it, present the mix to the client, and take a Mulligan
if they don't like it.

Surely someone can chime in with their own experience regarding what those
listening to competition submissions seem to prefer?

[Scott Dorsey]

David Grant wrote:
"kooz" wrote in message
...
It's called "mixing" for a reason, Dave. You have to go with your own
judgement on this, that best presents the performance.
Take a whack at it, present the mix to the client, and take a Mulligan
if they don't like it.

Surely someone can chime in with their own experience regarding what those
listening to competition submissions seem to prefer?

Depends on what the competition is, I bet. If it's a piano competition,
having the piano out front and clear is important. If it's an ensemble
thing, it's not so big a deal.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"David Grant" wrote...

"kooz" wrote in message

It's called "mixing" for a reason, Dave. You have to go with your own
judgement on this, that best presents the performance.
Take a whack at it, present the mix to the client, and take a Mulligan
if they don't like it.

Surely someone can chime in with their own experience regarding what those
listening to competition submissions seem to prefer?


Hey David,

I guess I actually get to speak for a change... since I've been doing such things
on behalf of the Dallas Independent School District for almost 12 years now.

One can not enter the mind of a handfull of judges. But I can say with relative
certainty, that clarity, presence and definition, are going to be the factors which
allow those judges to best comprehend the material which they are listening to.

This isn't something new to me, so I can also say that the general quality of
the recording should, IN NO WAY, effect the judging of the *performances*.

Even though we know that the quality of the recording has a certain level of
phychological 'influence', the judges should NOT be listening to the recording,
but rather to the performances... this is made clear to them in most cases.

So... I would give what ever is the *clearest* representation of the parts played,
or, mix in a slight amount of the more ambient sound for a compromise.

I realize that his isn't something where you just want to "take a Mulligan,"
because the results could be affecting someone's life and / or musical
futures... but do not get anal here if you can help it. Submit the clearest,
most defined representation of the performances. It is that which is being
judged, not your recording.

Is there some 'rule' which says that no reverb is to be added? (In many
cases among competitions in the educational field, there IS such a rule).
It's more important to follow all of the rules for submission than it is to
make a great recording that gets disqualified for other reasons.


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
Morgan Audio Media Service
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_____________________________
http://www.januarysound.com

[geezer[_2_]]

This is an easy call. IMO, you have to go for clarity, especially
since your room is not very good.

The judges need to able to hear the details of the playing, period.
That is ALL that matters. BTW, isn't there a point where you can add
some room, and not impede clarity? If so, do that. If not, leave it
out.

-glenn



On Feb 4, 12:56*pm, "David Grant" wrote:
I just recorded a couple tunes of my piano-player friend's jazz trio for an
application submission to a competition in Jacksonville, FA.

I have some questions regarding mixdown. The room I recorded in is fairly
boxy sounding. If I use the main pair in the mix, there is a definite loss
of clarity in the piano. If I leave the main pair out, and just use the
piano, drum, and bass spots, the recording sounds very dry and un-jazz-like,
but the piano player can be heard clearly.

As someone reviewing a submission, which are you likely to rate above the
other? If I were mixing for an album I'd definitely go for the former, but
I'm wondering if the latter is more appropriate for judging performer
talent.

Thanks,

Dave

[Mike Rivers]

On Feb 4, 12:56 pm, "David Grant" wrote:

I have some questions regarding mixdown. The room I recorded in is fairly
boxy sounding. If I use the main pair in the mix, there is a definite loss
of clarity in the piano. If I leave the main pair out, and just use the
piano, drum, and bass spots, the recording sounds very dry and un-jazz-like,
but the piano player can be heard clearly.

Is it a piano competition? A band competition? A bass competition? God
forbid a drum competition? Or a recording competition?

Based on your description, since you don't seem to care for the main
pair by itself, I'd make a mix with the close mics and then mix in
enough of the overally pair so that it doesn't sound too dry, but
little enough so that they don't take over and start clouding things
up.

No matter what kind of competition it is, I think the judges would
like to hear something that's comfortable to listen to and doesn't
require straining to hear the performance.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On Feb 4, 12:56 pm, "David Grant" wrote:

I have some questions regarding mixdown. The room I recorded in is fairly
boxy sounding. If I use the main pair in the mix, there is a definite loss
of clarity in the piano. If I leave the main pair out, and just use the
piano, drum, and bass spots, the recording sounds very dry and un-jazz-like,
but the piano player can be heard clearly.

Is it a piano competition? A band competition? A bass competition? God
forbid a drum competition? Or a recording competition?

Based on your description, since you don't seem to care for the main
pair by itself, I'd make a mix with the close mics and then mix in
enough of the overally pair so that it doesn't sound too dry, but
little enough so that they don't take over and start clouding things
up.

Don't forget the fake reverb! If you add some reverb with a pre-delay
so the reverb starts picking up as the short-term reverberations in the
room drop off, you can hide that boxiness somewhat without making it too
muddy.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Federico]

Just for fun you can try this:
1) Take the M out of the main pair using a MS encoder, bring the left
channel down and then decode again to stereo.
2) Time align the stereo pair to the close mics.
3) Blend to taste using the close mics as main mics.

You can EQ the M and S of the stereo pair to taste.

F.

[David Grant]

"Federico" wrote in message
...
Just for fun you can try this:
1) Take the M out of the main pair using a MS encoder, bring the left
channel down and then decode again to stereo.
2) Time align the stereo pair to the close mics.
3) Blend to taste using the close mics as main mics.

You can EQ the M and S of the stereo pair to taste.

F.


Interesting technique. Never heard of this before, I will give it a shot.
Only question is, which close mics do I time align to? The piano spots are
almost as far away from the drums as the main pair are from the drums. Would
it make more sense to time align the close mics to the stereo pair instead
of the opposite?

Thanks,

Dave

[Scott Dorsey]

David Grant wrote:

"Federico" wrote in message
t...
Just for fun you can try this:
1) Take the M out of the main pair using a MS encoder, bring the left
channel down and then decode again to stereo.
2) Time align the stereo pair to the close mics.
3) Blend to taste using the close mics as main mics.

You can EQ the M and S of the stereo pair to taste.

F.


Interesting technique. Never heard of this before, I will give it a shot.

The seperate EQ of M and S is something that was very common in the LP days
when control of out-of-phase bass was a big deal. People don't do it much
any more but it can still be useful.

Only question is, which close mics do I time align to? The piano spots are
almost as far away from the drums as the main pair are from the drums. Would
it make more sense to time align the close mics to the stereo pair instead
of the opposite?

Try it. Turn the knob, listen to the sound, listen for it to congeal.
If it doesn't congeal, try something else.

If the leakage on your spots isn't very high, the effect will be minimal.
If there is a lot of leakage, as you change the delay the sound of whatever
is leaking into the spots will change considerably.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."