[David Grant]

I ended up deciding to spend some money... Picked up a pair of Soundelux
U195s to spot the Yamaha C2. All I can say is WOW... having thought my
Josephson C-42s were a leap forward in sound quality from any previous cheap
chinese condensor I own, the U195s were yet another giant leap forward. I
haphazardly threw the pair in there and fell in love with the sound without
even bothering to tweak the positioning. I now have to wonder what a $5000
mic has to offer.

Anyways, the piano sounds great solo, but I wasn't successful in getting it
to sit in the mix. Sounds too upfront, but I couldn't seem to back the U195s
away without them picking up more drums than piano. Going to take some
experimentation I suppose.

I posted a while back about my C42s seeming to lack low end. Well this
recording confirmed that. The C42s were set up as an ambient pair, about the
same distance away (~6 or 8ft) from the kick drum as the piano spots were.
The kick was, however, in the null of the piano pair and yet they still
picked up more kick than the C42s. While I'm concerned that the U195s picked
up more bottom end than the C42s, I'm much more concerned that the C42s
didn't pick up any.

I'm going to post a link to a couple clips when I get back to the studio in
the hopes that someone here will take a listen and let me know if I'm
legitimately concerned.

One other question that stemmed from this session: Is the best way to make
sure the sax player doesn't drift on and off his mic during a tune to give
him a pair of headphones?

Thanks,

Dave



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Scott Dorsey]

David Grant wrote:
I ended up deciding to spend some money... Picked up a pair of Soundelux
U195s to spot the Yamaha C2. All I can say is WOW... having thought my
Josephson C-42s were a leap forward in sound quality from any previous cheap
chinese condensor I own, the U195s were yet another giant leap forward. I
haphazardly threw the pair in there and fell in love with the sound without
even bothering to tweak the positioning. I now have to wonder what a $5000
mic has to offer.

Try it and see.

Anyways, the piano sounds great solo, but I wasn't successful in getting it
to sit in the mix. Sounds too upfront, but I couldn't seem to back the U195s
away without them picking up more drums than piano. Going to take some
experimentation I suppose.

I think you will find that the pattern control on the C42 is actually better
than on the Soundeluxe... but sometimes that isn't the critical issue.

I'm going to post a link to a couple clips when I get back to the studio in
the hopes that someone here will take a listen and let me know if I'm
legitimately concerned.

The low end on the C42 is equalized to be a little light in the far field,
but it shouldn't be as dramatic as you describe, and you can always tweak
it with a little EQ.

One other question that stemmed from this session: Is the best way to make
sure the sax player doesn't drift on and off his mic during a tune to give
him a pair of headphones?

Sometimes. Also, stick an SM-57 up on a stand for him to sing into. You
don't have to plug the thing in... it's just to keep him in place.
--scott


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

[[email protected]]

dave - a common problem in lots of acoustic music. when you have
vocals that are rcorded from 6" away, it is usually not a problem to
also close mic the piano like you are doing, but when the piano is a
support instrument for other solo instruments, close micing the piano
will always make it sound like the piano is in your face with
everything els behind it - v bad. adding reverb to try and push the
piano back does not work. i have heard that some people try to push
it back by delaying the piano a few milliseconds, but i dont know if
that can work or not.

i do lots of instrumental duos, small ensembles, and audition type
recordings of piano/oboe, piano/flute, etc, and i have tried a million
setups. the only way that seems to work is to actually mic the piano
from surther wawy than your solo instruments. i generally use an ORTF
pair of SDCs about 4 feet out from the lip. this always works in the
mix, but as you mention, you dont always get the isolation you might
want (which is usually not bad, as bleed can be your friend), and you
dont get the same kind of bright clean piano sound you hear on lots of
pop records without doing some creative post work. however, the trade
off is well worth it - it is way more important that your group sound
is cohesive - that the group sounds like they are all playing inthe
same space and playing together. micing the piano too close will
always mess that up IME.

of course, the other method to getting a cohesive sound is to use a
main stereo pair on the entire ensemble, with spot mics anywhere you
think you need them. when you mix, you use about 80% main pair, and
just bring up the spots to fill in where you are light on some
instrument. good luck.

[David Grant]

of course, the other method to getting a cohesive sound is to use a
main stereo pair on the entire ensemble, with spot mics anywhere you
think you need them. when you mix, you use about 80% main pair, and
just bring up the spots to fill in where you are light on some
instrument. good luck.


This was my goal. Unfortunately the piano and bass sounded horrible through
my main stereo pair no matter where I placed them... only the cymbals came
through half decently. So I arranged the main pair to catch much less of the
piano and bass hoping that I could mask that nastiness with spot mics. The
main pair kept crawling closer to the drum kit until they were practically
drum overheads. Again, I strongly suspect something isn't right with
something in the signal chain of the main pair because of the bass issue I
mentioned before. It could also be a room issue but I had the place littered
with bass traps and wall absorbers.

One funny thing though: At the end of the session I decided to move the
piano spots in. They went from about 1' off the sound board to 4". On this
very last take of the night the piano fits in much better.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Scott Dorsey]

David Grant wrote:

of course, the other method to getting a cohesive sound is to use a
main stereo pair on the entire ensemble, with spot mics anywhere you
think you need them. when you mix, you use about 80% main pair, and
just bring up the spots to fill in where you are light on some
instrument. good luck.

This was my goal. Unfortunately the piano and bass sounded horrible through
my main stereo pair no matter where I placed them... only the cymbals came
through half decently. So I arranged the main pair to catch much less of the
piano and bass hoping that I could mask that nastiness with spot mics. The
main pair kept crawling closer to the drum kit until they were practically
drum overheads. Again, I strongly suspect something isn't right with
something in the signal chain of the main pair because of the bass issue I
mentioned before. It could also be a room issue but I had the place littered
with bass traps and wall absorbers.

Random placement of bass traps and wall absorbers is apt to do more harm
than good.

Wander around with a finger in one ear and see if you can hear places in
the room where there is good balance.

One funny thing though: At the end of the session I decided to move the
piano spots in. They went from about 1' off the sound board to 4". On this
very last take of the night the piano fits in much better.

What is the difference in sound? Is it less hollow, or just brighter?
--scott

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

[David Grant]

Random placement of bass traps and wall absorbers is apt to do more harm
than good.

For mid-high frequency absorbers on the walls I agree... but for
broadband bass traps I've been conditioned to think that you have
nothing to lose by adding them wherever you can (and the more the
merrier). For the former I concentrated them around the drums because
a) I've seen it done fairly often and b) the drums were the closest
instrument to any wall and I wanted to minimize early reflections.
Apart from that I just tried to spread the absorption around the room
evenly.


Wander around with a finger in one ear and see if you can hear places in
the room where there is good balance.

I'm in the habit of doing this, however the c42s don't sound good in
any of these places. The U195s in the piano did a much better job of
picking up a pleasant room sound of the drums, bass, and sax. The c42s
picked up lots of ride cymbal sizzle and snare pop (cymbals are in-
your-face and not especially ambient sounding), but the bass and piano
are pretty much inaudible dispite being well balanced at that location
with the one-ear test, and being very much on-axis with the stereo
pair.

The way I'm now mixing this is I'm using mostly the piano pair
(U195s), with a bit of the c42s to bring the drums forward in the mix.
This way the piano stands out a bit too much, but at least the rest of
the band blends really well.


One funny thing though: At the end of the session I decided to move the
piano spots in. They went from about 1' off the sound board to 4". On this
very last take of the night the piano fits in much better.

What is the difference in sound? Is it less hollow, or just brighter?
--scott

Better tonal balance I'd say... less obtrusive in the high end.

Next time around I'd be tempted to try the U195s as the ambient pair
and close mic the piano with the C42s. That way I'd get the better
isolation from the C42s where I need it and due to proximity would
hopefully get a little more bottom end through them.

Dave