Not a professional recording artist, so weigh my opinion for what it's worth: so much fish. I'm torn on the issue of close mic'ing acoustic music. Electric instruments and ensembles depend entirely upon some kind of processing for sounding like they do, so close mic'ing and processing the sound however you'd like after the fact is wholly appropriate. However, I do think there is something to be said for chamber ambience (within reason) in recordings of soft-voiced acoustic instruments--or even full modern orchestras--where deliberately added processing is not necessarily a part of the performance tradition.
I don't often listen to recorded music in a setting like that in which I hear live music; i.e., an acoustic instrument's cleanest "pure" sound isn't necessarily appropriate to a recording that is intended to capture the sound of performance because my car or carpeted living room can't add the chamber ambience I expect of the sound of performance. That ambience has to be included in the recorded sound, whether added via processing to a close-mic'ed recording or captured in recording process itself. In an acoustic performance setting, the audience's ears don't find themselves planted tightly against the performers' instruments. There is a certain logic to capturing the timbre of tone of any acoustic instrument at what could be a reasonable expectation for a hearer's position in relation to the instrument. Of course, much of that can be emulated electronically, and sometimes pretty convincingly, but it doesn't always have to be. I find close mic'ing, especially of relatively quiet instruments to also be very good at capturing the noise associated with acoustic music: finger squeaks, clothing rustling, the aspiration-like percussive attack of a plucked string, etc. A little extra care has to be taken too not generate noise in proximity to a closely positioned mic. Mics either positioned to capture some degree of chamber ambience or close to capture a "pure" tone for later processing: the technology to make either work convincingly to somebody's taste is pretty readily available nowadays. I don't think either is panacea. Best, Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On > Behalf Of chriswi...@yahoo.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:44 AM > To: Daniel Shoskes; Arto Wikla > Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings > > (Back to commercial recordings, not folks' 'tube submissions) > > In my view, if you notice the reverb, its too much. > > I'm also a big advocate of close miking. This is another thing that is > especially appropriate for a soft instrument like the lute, but is rarely > done. Its funny, I've done a fair amount of recording with LOUD rock > bands where the philosophy is to get the cleanest example from each > instrument by putting the mics right on the amps or drums. > > Name the last movie you've seen that featured a scene with characters > whispering in which the sound engineer decided it would be a good idea to > record in a warehouse with mics on the other side of the room. > ("Hhhhere'sssss thhhhheeeeh ssssseecccret-t-t-t > iiinnnnfffforrrmmmmmationnnn yyyoouuu wwwwannnt-t-t-ed-ed-ed." > "Wwwwhhhhat-t-t-t?") How ridiculous would that sound? > > > --- On Wed, 3/17/10, Arto Wikla <wi...@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote: > > > From: Arto Wikla <wi...@cs.helsinki.fi> > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings > > To: "Daniel Shoskes" <kidneykut...@gmail.com> > > Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > > Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 2:23 AM > > Hi Danny and the List, > > > > The sound of that "tubing is really very natural, and I > > cannot hear any extra reverb, either. And very nice and > > relaxed playing, too! > > > > All the best, > > > > Arto > > > > > > Daniel Shoskes wrote: > > > I've posted several times the processing > > I use, based on the > > > recommendation of my sound engineer > > uncle. I apply an "inverted smile" > > > EQ and if I am recording in my small > > office, I add a small amount of > > > reverb (if I am alone in the house and > > can record in the big living > > > room the reverb is not necessary). The > > "inverted smile" corrects for > > > inadequacies in the response of the mic. > > I was once recorded with a > > > $15,000 mic and that led me to believe > > that cheaper mic+EQ is very > > > close to the reality captured by the > > expensive mic and therefore that > > > the EQ isn't "cheating". In my most > > recent recording, using a superior > > > mic (but not in the thousands of dollars) > > I thought the sound was much > > > better and only the tiniest adjustment > > (taking down the highest and > > > lowest bands in the EQ) was needed: > > > > > > [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2w15WCzoWY > > > Danny > > > (not a "lute hero" but a regular > > "y-tuber") > > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > >
