[Jason]

I've been recording faculty performances at the college in town. They're
small ensembles - five or so players, one of them is almost always a
piano (a nicely-maintained Steinway concert grand). I'm using a Rode NT4
that's positioned in the front row of seats about 10 feet above the
stage floor. They won't let me get any closer.

The acoustics in the hall are pretty poor, and the ambient noise is
truly awful. I have recorded the empty hall just to capture the noise.
When I look at the recording with the spectral display in Audition--and
listen as well--there are several distinct aspects to its awfulness...
There is a persistant 60Hz background (not being induced in the
mic/cable - it's audible in the hall); lighting? There are at least two
sub-audible things going on: every 2.5 seconds, there's a strong
transient that lasts for about a tenth of a second. It looks like one
cycle of a distorted, very low-freq sine wave. I picture a humungous fan
with a long belt that makes one orbit over a pulley every 2.5s. There is
also a lower-frequency rumble that seems to ebb and flow, but the period
is not constant. It may just be air flowing through the vents.

So, what's the best approach to recording in this environment (and
cleaning it up after the fact)? I was reluctant to use the low-cut
filter built into the mic on general principles: capture everything as-
is and fix it later instead of deleting (potentially?) useful audio
before the fact. There is a similar function in the PMD-671; I am
reluctant to use that for the same reason. The noise-reduction in
Audition, used judiciously, seems pretty amazing to my ears, but it is
surely compromising the content I want even as it squelches the stuff I
don't want. Would I be better off to get rid of the low-frequency junk
up front with the filters in the mic or the recorder or Audition?

Then there's EQ for everything else. I seems that applying EQ (or any
other effects) before NR is the wrong way to go, but please let me know
if that's incorrect. Sometimes a bit of EQ improves the subjective
"focus" for particular instruments. I have the same question about
adding a touch of reverb. What's the right order for applying these?

Jason



--
reverse my name in email address

[Richard Crowley]

"Jason" wrote ...
I've been recording faculty performances at the
college in town. They're small ensembles - five or
so players, one of them is almost always a piano
(a nicely-maintained Steinway concert grand). I'm
using a Rode NT4 that's positioned in the front row
of seats about 10 feet above the stage floor. They
won't let me get any closer.

Why?
Why are they performing in such a venue?
Why don't they improve the environment?
Why won't they let you get any closer?
Why are you making the recordings?

The acoustics in the hall are pretty poor, and the
ambient noise is truly awful. I have recorded the
empty hall just to capture the noise. When I look
at the recording with the spectral display in Audition--
and listen as well--there are several distinct aspects
to its awfulness...
There is a persistant 60Hz background (not being
induced in the mic/cable - it's audible in the hall);
lighting?

What kind of lighting? Fluorescent? Metal halide?
What kind of hall is it? Purpose-built for classical
music performance? A gymnasium between games?

There are at least two sub-audible things going on:
every 2.5 seconds, there's a strong transient that lasts
for about a tenth of a second. It looks like one cycle
of a distorted, very low-freq sine wave. I picture a
humungous fan with a long belt that makes one orbit
over a pulley every 2.5s. There is also a lower-frequency
rumble that seems to ebb and flow, but the period is
not constant. It may just be air flowing through the vents.

I have also seen remarkable very low frequency
transients just before the begining of the music.
My latest theory is that it is the conductor giving
his downbeat. (I have no other viable theory,
unless it is all the musicians taking a preparatory
breath. :-)

So, what's the best approach to recording in this
environment

Depends a lot on the answers to the other questions.

(and cleaning it up after the fact)? I was reluctant to
use the low-cut filter built into the mic on general
principles: capture everything as-is and fix it later
instead of deleting (potentially?) useful audio before
the fact.

If you are just using the exercise to to experiment with
recording and post-production techniques, then you have
a good laboratory. If you are trying to produce something
actually acceptable for public distribution, sounds like
that isn't the place to be performing/recording, and
that you need some kind of lattitude in mic placement,
etc.

There is a similar function in the PMD-671; I am
reluctant to use that for the same reason. The noise-
reduction in Audition, used judiciously, seems pretty
amazing to my ears, but it is surely compromising the
content I want even as it squelches the stuff I don't
want. Would I be better off to get rid of the low-frequency
junk up front with the filters in the mic or the recorder
or Audition?

For classical music recording, things like that are traditionally
controlled by selecting an appropriate venue to start with.
If it is just a casual document of the event, so be it.

Then there's EQ for everything else. I seems that applying
EQ (or any other effects) before NR is the wrong way to
go, but please let me know if that's incorrect. Sometimes
a bit of EQ improves the subjective "focus" for particular
instruments.

Traditionally, we have done that by careful microphone
selection and placement, frequently aided by on-site
experimentation during rehearsals, etc.

I have the same question about adding a touch of reverb.
What's the right order for applying these?

IMHO, the "right order" is to start with a proper venue.
Else, just live with the anomolies, given the extreme
limitations.

I have an annual gig (coming up in a couple of weeks)
where we have a choir of ~100 choral conductors and
a world-class accompanist and a well maintained Steinway.
But the venue is a giant half-cylinder "quonset hut"
gymnasium with metal-halide illumiation (essentially
"street lights"). Alas, given the ambient conditions,
I can't ever expect commercial-quality recordings in
that space. :-(

[Scott Dorsey]

Jason wrote:
I've been recording faculty performances at the college in town. They're
small ensembles - five or so players, one of them is almost always a
piano (a nicely-maintained Steinway concert grand). I'm using a Rode NT4
that's positioned in the front row of seats about 10 feet above the
stage floor. They won't let me get any closer.

Would they let you put a small stand ON the stage?

The acoustics in the hall are pretty poor, and the ambient noise is
truly awful. I have recorded the empty hall just to capture the noise.
When I look at the recording with the spectral display in Audition--and
listen as well--there are several distinct aspects to its awfulness...
There is a persistant 60Hz background (not being induced in the
mic/cable - it's audible in the hall); lighting? There are at least two
sub-audible things going on: every 2.5 seconds, there's a strong
transient that lasts for about a tenth of a second. It looks like one
cycle of a distorted, very low-freq sine wave. I picture a humungous fan
with a long belt that makes one orbit over a pulley every 2.5s. There is
also a lower-frequency rumble that seems to ebb and flow, but the period
is not constant. It may just be air flowing through the vents.

Yeah, this is typical HVAC noise. There's nothing you can do about that
other than to shut the HVAC system off during concerts, really.

So, what's the best approach to recording in this environment (and
cleaning it up after the fact)? I was reluctant to use the low-cut
filter built into the mic on general principles: capture everything as-
is and fix it later instead of deleting (potentially?) useful audio
before the fact. There is a similar function in the PMD-671; I am
reluctant to use that for the same reason. The noise-reduction in
Audition, used judiciously, seems pretty amazing to my ears, but it is
surely compromising the content I want even as it squelches the stuff I
don't want. Would I be better off to get rid of the low-frequency junk
up front with the filters in the mic or the recorder or Audition?

My suggestion would be to use mikes with a narrower pattern. Don't worry
about the noise, really. Get the balance between the instruments and the
ambient sound right, and let the noise be there.

You can notch the 60 Hz fundamental out, but the thumping and hissing
you can't really fix without digital noise reduction systems. (You MAY
want to provide a sample disk that has been noise reduced as well as
an archive disk that has not been).

Then there's EQ for everything else. I seems that applying EQ (or any
other effects) before NR is the wrong way to go, but please let me know
if that's incorrect. Sometimes a bit of EQ improves the subjective
"focus" for particular instruments. I have the same question about
adding a touch of reverb. What's the right order for applying these?

These are things you do because your mikes or mike position is deficient.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Jason" wrote in message


I've been recording faculty performances at the college
in town. They're small ensembles - five or so players,
one of them is almost always a piano (a nicely-maintained
Steinway concert grand). I'm using a Rode NT4 that's
positioned in the front row of seats about 10 feet above
the stage floor.

Been there, done that.

They won't let me get any closer.

Do they want good sound or what? If they don't care about sound quality,
then take what you can get or move on.

The acoustics in the hall are pretty poor, and the
ambient noise is truly awful. I have recorded the empty
hall just to capture the noise. When I look at the
recording with the spectral display in Audition--and
listen as well--there are several distinct aspects to its
awfulness... There is a persistant 60Hz background (not
being induced in the mic/cable - it's audible in the
hall); lighting?

Lighting, HVAC

There are at least two sub-audible
things going on: every 2.5 seconds, there's a strong
transient that lasts for about a tenth of a second. It
looks like one cycle of a distorted, very low-freq sine
wave. I picture a humungous fan with a long belt that
makes one orbit over a pulley every 2.5s. There is also a
lower-frequency rumble that seems to ebb and flow, but
the period is not constant. It may just be air flowing
through the vents.

HVAC, right.

So, what's the best approach to recording in this
environment (and cleaning it up after the fact)?

Close mic the piano, and mix that with your current essentially ambient mic
recording. You need from 3-5 channels including the two you've got, to get
the best possible results.



I was
reluctant to use the low-cut filter built into the mic on
general principles: capture everything as- is and fix it
later instead of deleting (potentially?) useful audio
before the fact.

There are a wealth of filters in Audition, learn how to use them. I get the
most milage out of:

(1) The FFT filter - pretty fair for all purposes, but other filters are a
tad better for specific issues.
(2) The DTMF filter for narrow-band filtering of distinct noises like the
power line and its harmonics.
(3) Scientific filters for general high and low pass filtering that I
somehow don't want to use (1) for.

There is a similar function in the
PMD-671; I am reluctant to use that for the same reason.
The noise-reduction in Audition, used judiciously, seems
pretty amazing to my ears, but it is surely compromising
the content I want even as it squelches the stuff I don't
want.

I agree. It's good for being brainless, but you have a brain so you can do
better if you put your mind to it.

Would I be better off to get rid of the
low-frequency junk up front with the filters in the mic
or the recorder or Audition?

As long as the noises aren't so loud that they cause intermodulation or
dynamic range problems, you can safely do it in post. The advantage of
doing it in post is that it is easy to experiment. Keep an unaltered archive
copy. In addition to your archive copy, use the undo feature early and often
until you learn the right combination of filtering for the job at hand.


Then there's EQ for everything else. I seems that
applying EQ (or any other effects) before NR is the wrong
way to go, but please let me know if that's incorrect.

There are a number of NR tools in Audition/CEP. Try them all and then
listen carefully to the results, even on the day after you did the
filtering, so that you have a more objective view.

Sometimes a bit of EQ improves the subjective "focus" for
particular instruments.

It's easier to justify filtering to get rid of objectionable noises that are
outside the bandpass of the natural sounds generated by the instrument.
However, a little preference-based timbre shifting may be the right thing to
do.

have the same question about
adding a touch of reverb.

Seems like your recordings should have plenty of natural reverb.

What's the right order for applying these?

If you are trying to achieve a natural sound, then leaving out reverb is
often the right order of application for it. If things are really bad, you
make a dry, close-up low-reverb recording and then add most of the reverb
artificially. If you add reverb that has returned sound whose timing
matches that of the room, you can sometimes sucessfully shift the timbre of
an ugly-sounding room to something that is still natural-sounding, but
sounds better.

[Frank Stearns]

"Richard Crowley" writes:

- snips -

I have an annual gig (coming up in a couple of weeks)
where we have a choir of ~100 choral conductors and
a world-class accompanist and a well maintained Steinway.
But the venue is a giant half-cylinder "quonset hut"
gymnasium with metal-halide illumiation (essentially
"street lights"). Alas, given the ambient conditions,
I can't ever expect commercial-quality recordings in
that space. :-(

Richard! Are you sure??

With the right mics fairly tight on the chorus (three to four KM184s or 84s,
perhaps), something close on the piano, *maybe* something in the hall to use/not use
in post (sometimes a teeny bit of rear-hall signal from even the worst rooms has
some value in the mix), then time-alignment and the right flavor of reverb to
mitigate the intentionally dry recording just made, and you'd likely get something
quite presentable.

Not a lush European hall sound, true, but one can craft a pretty good illusion.

Now, the buzz from the halides would be interesting to deal with, but
probably not impossible.

Since we're in the same 'burg, contact me if you'd like. Sounds like a fun
challenge.

Best,

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio

--

[Richard Crowley]

"Frank Stearns" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" writes:
I have an annual gig (coming up in a couple of weeks)
where we have a choir of ~100 choral conductors and
a world-class accompanist and a well maintained Steinway.
But the venue is a giant half-cylinder "quonset hut"
gymnasium with metal-halide illumiation (essentially
"street lights"). Alas, given the ambient conditions,
I can't ever expect commercial-quality recordings in
that space. :-(

Richard! Are you sure??

With the right mics fairly tight on the chorus (three to four KM184s or
84s,
perhaps), something close on the piano, *maybe* something in the hall to
use/not use
in post (sometimes a teeny bit of rear-hall signal from even the worst
rooms has
some value in the mix), then time-alignment and the right flavor of reverb
to
mitigate the intentionally dry recording just made, and you'd likely get
something
quite presentable.

Not a lush European hall sound, true, but one can craft a pretty good
illusion.

Now, the buzz from the halides would be interesting to deal with, but
probably not impossible.

Since we're in the same 'burg, contact me if you'd like. Sounds like a fun
challenge.

If you have the time, come down to Canon Beach sometime
between 30-Jul thru 3-Aug for the PSU Haystack Choral
Conducting Workshop (CB Elememtary School gymnasium)
We're in session from 9am thru 4pm M-F, with a concert
on Friday evening (free to public) at 7pm.

The buzz from the halides is pretty pervasive, and combined
with the unusual acoustics pretty much prevents any attempt
at removing the (reverberated) buzz.

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:

The buzz from the halides is pretty pervasive, and combined
with the unusual acoustics pretty much prevents any attempt
at removing the (reverberated) buzz.

Get a lighting guy to come in and throw up a couple trees on the side
of the room with some ellipticals. It'll quiet things down a whole lot
and everyone will think it looks cool on stage too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Carey Carlan]

Jason wrote in
:

that's positioned in the front row of seats about 10 feet above the
stage floor. They won't let me get any closer.

With all the other troubles you describe, distance is your enemy. The
background noise will be fairly constant regardless of mic position, but
the signal will get louder the closer you get. You must convince them to
let you record from the stage. If they need convincing, play your
recording for them--they'll either agree or cancel the recording.

You can try hypercardioids from a short distance (much closer than the
front row) or omnis practically in the group (just 2-4 feet away and up a
bit).

Digital noise reduction and added reverb will band-aid this closer sound
well enough to be listenable if used wisely.

[Jason]

In article ,
says...

Thanks to all for your responses.

The hall with the noise problems is a "standard issue" State U of NY
multipurpose auditorium that seats 400, built about 30 years ago with
fluorescent lighting, except for the stage lights which are
incandescent. And noisy HVAC...

These recordings really are, as one poster put it, documentation. Every
Tuesday during the academic year the music faculty puts on a
performance. Sometimes it highlights a particular genre, other times a
particular instrument/ensemble combo, other times a specific composer or
school. The recordings are both documentation and are also used in
classes by the teachers. I got started on this trek when my wife
returned to college at 50 for the theory/composition degree she'd always
wanted instead of the psych degree her parents agreed to pay for.

If anyone would like to hear the results of my mangling, there are mp3
examples on her website: http://www.washalee.com. Click Compositions on
the first page and scroll down to "Elegy for Margret."

She wrote that piece for English horn at the request of Joel Evans, who
performs on the recording with cello and piano. For this recording the
three players were arranged in a triangle - cor anglais and cello are
left and right in front, about 8 feet apart and about 10 feet from the
mic. The piano is behind them, probably 15 feet from the mic and *right*
in front of a cinderblock wall. Nobody remembered to draw the curtain in
front of it, and the piano was closed all but 3-4 inches. I kind of like
the echoy piano on the second piece - it sounds a bit honky-tonk, which
fits the music. Not so on the other three. There is another mp3 file on
the site that doesn't show up as a link. If you click on any of the
titles for the four movements and then alter the URL in your browser to
replace the xxxx.mp3 part with "McKennaAmbient.mp3" you'll be treated to
a bit of the sound of the hall with the audience coughing (February) but
no music. I've read the posts here about the CD "loudness wars" and one
of my goals was to preserve the dynamic range inherent in a small, non-
electric ensemble.

Jason

--
reverse my name in email address