[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Boris Lau wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:

What Don Pearce said, and the reocrded room sounds plain boring,
what mp3 encoder have you used - treble is strangly splatty on s and
t sounds - overall the recording does have some charm to it.

Hi Peter,

thanks for your comment. The room is actually pretty interesting in
its nastyness - it's 4m x 4m, ceiling goes from 2.5m up to 4m, so
actually worse than just square. That's why I have put in a lot of
thick absorbers. I guess that makes it boring, but at least usable.

I default to have the religious conviction that rooms should be allowed to
be rooms and to be imperfect. A room for recording an acoustic guitar should
imo be a room in which the instruement has a pleasant sound. Try suspending
some 4 t0 8 mm laquer coated plywood panels near the walls. Or simply
cutting down on the amount of absorption. Which problem is it that you want
to solve by making it dead?

It is important to understand that the sound of acoustic instruments is
changed by the room they play in because the hear the room and are
influenced by the room sound, as well as - in an ensemble context - the
ensemble sound. That comes with them being acoustic instruments.

Something else may also matter. I tried replicating the KM184 treble boost
on a violin + piano recording made in the glyptotek, it did not give me more
treble detail on the violin, it gave me a steely sound with less perceived
treble detail and messed with the spatial perspective compared to not doing
it and just leaving my default compensation for the used microphone as it
is. Very strange ....

I have directly exported the mp3 from Cubase, don't know which codec
that exactly is. I will listen to the uncompressed files again.

One guy, singing and playing guitar seems to be a stereo pair thing to me
....


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Thanks,

Boris