TromboneChat

So, that's not really feedback though... it's cool to put up info about reverb, but how about your thoughts on what you heard? Based on that article, it sounded like mud?

FWIW, I am using FL Studio as my DAW.

I always get self conscious posting recordings here, because the thread will be going strong, I'll post and then it goes mostly silent.

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Sep 23, 2017, 10:41AMSo, that's not really feedback though... it's cool to put up info about reverb, but how about your thoughts on what you heard?

I always get self conscious posting recordings here, because the thread will be going strong, I'll post and then it goes mostly silent.

What I heard is terrific technique, but the recording quality is meh at best. I can tell you have an excellent sound, but your recordings are not doing you proud in that department, IMO. Welcome to MY world! So I guess that is why you started up this thread? I'm glad you did. Even if this thread goes dead now, it still has had dome excellent contributions that merit re-reading and probably even saving.

Dude! You aren't playing a bass trombone! 

...Geezer

I started it up for everyone. I've learned now that my recording setup blows.

So far we've seen a ton of different setups. I'm digging it!

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Sep 23, 2017, 11:11AMI started it up for everyone. I've learned now that my recording setup blows.

So far we've seen a ton of different setups. I'm digging it!

I am as well.

If I manage to learn anything about home recording as I go along, I'll make a mental to note to post it here in the future. It shouldn't be too hard to find this thread. In fact, I'll bookmark it.

One thing we need to be careful about is winnowing information about pro studio recording from home recording. I mean, let's face it - money IS an object. So is space at home. So is education & training. We don't have a masters degree in sound engineering. That is why I am hopeful that the book Pre59 suggested will help. After all, it IS called home recording in it's title.

Just by being involved in the process, I learn new things all the time about BiaB, Audacity and home recording in general. So at this point, I am not expecting a light switch to go on. There is enough info in this thread that you should be able to come up with a game plan for improvement. I have. I think I am going to replace my cables anyway, whether they need it or not. That will definitely be one link in the chain that I can check a box for and never give it another thought. If I can tweak my recording sound quality another 10%, I would be very happy.

...Geezer

If my recording quality is subpar, I wonder if it's because of my mic or because of room quality?

From your first post: "Altverb as the main reverb plugin, which puts the mono source trombone recording at a specified place in a digital hall, and outputs beautiful stereo sound with reverb."

FWIW: I wouldn't run my solo track through a reverb at home in real time while recording. Reverb can always be added later. It might be too much, along with whatever room dynamics you have. Try another recording without it. In fact, try another recording capturing your raw sound as much as possible by taking the room dynamic out of it by playing right into the mic. You will probably have to adjust your mic gain way down. In your case, your raw sound should be pretty darn good; so good you might not even need to EQ for the mic.

Once you get a good raw sound, you can tinker with other filters. But my little experience is that less is more. By the time I have run my solo track through an EQ, a low-pass filter and finally a reverb - it sounds like mud and I just go back to the raw sound with a little wee bit of reverb.

If we were really, really into this - and I mean in a super-nerd tech way - then we would know how to tinker with ALL the EQ settings and ALL other settings for ALL other filters to tweak out or augment the EXACT freaks that WE as individual players need. But until then, we recording novices tend to use filters to hit the solo track with sledge hammers, hoping for a finely-crafted gold chain.

...Geezer

Okay I'll bite. These are all really old recordings, just what I found saved in the email app on my phone.

These two were recorded with a Sennheiser e835 dynamic mic, sounds like a more open SM57. Placed about a 16" in front to the bell, center of the living room, not my current recording space. Straight into audacity, with a little corrective cut in the EQ on the highs. These were for a student that asked for an example, so one take rough recording.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzxU1vsZtb-CeWRxUFJPZ05xMVE/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzxU1vsZtb-CdGF2SFd2UFcyMmc/view?usp=drivesdk

I think it's good to show that your setup doesn't have to be complicated, or expensive.

This next one was a little more recent, but still with the same mic and room, this time placed a little closer. My mic technique was not great and you can hear I was waving the bell around a little. The biggest thing you'll notice on this one is the reverb. I believe I was using a free TDR plugin and the free version of Studio One. No EQ because of the reverb. I had it set to cut the frequencies of the room resonances on the reverb trail, so the digital reverb wasn't adding any tubbiness. I have a really bad room resonance around A at the top of the staff, and one octave above that. The stereo spread could be better on this one.

I think the reverb might've been overdone, but I was going for a stage sound. You've got to cover up your playing deficiencies somehow . The playing on this one wasn't as smooth as it could've been.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzxU1vsZtb-CUTA5WDRQYml4X1k/view?usp=drivesdk

Geezer, I did add the reverb after I was done recording.

I wonder if it is the room. Maybe I should record in stereo?

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Sep 23, 2017, 03:27PMGeezer, I did add the reverb after I was done recording.

I wonder if it is the room. Maybe I should record in stereo?

Okay. You have taken that out of the equation. Now take the room out by playing right straight into the mic, about maybe 8-16" or so away. You will have to experiment. I know you don't like to play into it that close but do it anyway. Just make very short test recordings until you have the mic at the right distance and angle. Find your sweet spot for that room. Don't initially raise or lower the mic. Play straight into it to get your bearings. And when you find the spot, you might find that even moving the bell sideways a little bit will change the sound - usually for the worse. So you will need to practice playing straight into the mic.

Of course, the other option is to change where you record. But even then, you will have to experiment to find that sweet spot and stick on it. Fortunately, in a larger room where the room dynamics are super, that sweet spot expands.

I wouldn't record in stereo until I had a good monophonic recording procedure, appropriate for the room.

...Geezer

Posting so I can follow the thread. Interesting stuff! 

I haven't gotten into home recording yet - although it's a possible path in life.  I somehow landed a job as a Controls Engineer for my day gig, so a lot of the skills I use there overlap with recording. At least, I think they do. 

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Sep 23, 2017, 03:27PMGeezer, I did add the reverb after I was done recording.

I wonder if it is the room. Maybe I should record in stereo?

For whatever reason, my ears just don't seem to be as critical as others. Your recordings are very good to me, and I didn't hear anything to complain about. I'm also impressed with your playing, so maybe I end up listening to that more.

I think for your stated purpose of making recordings, to enable students to listen to how certain etudes or studies should be performed,  you got it.

What I fuss over the most in my recordings is the amount of reverb that should be mixed in. Too much or not enough. I'm never satisfied, but then again, I'm using built in reverb that comes with the software (RealBand), and I need to experiment more with it.

Great job though for sure!
 

Quote from: ddickerson on Sep 23, 2017, 03:50PMFor whatever reason, my ears just don't seem to be as critical as others. Your recordings are very good to me, and I didn't hear anything to complain about. I'm also impressed with your playing, so maybe I end up listening to that more.

I think for your stated purpose of making recordings, to enable students to listen to how certain etudes or studies should be performed,  you got it.

What I fuss over the most in my recordings is the amount of reverb that should be mixed in. Too much or not enough. I'm never satisfied, but then again, I'm using built in reverb that comes with the software (RealBand), and I need to experiment more with it.

Great job though for sure!
 

I have to agree with you as far as a demo is concerned. However, I chimed in the way I did b/c I was under the impression that Harrison had two goals:

1) A demo
2) The highest fidelity sound he could achieve in a home recording - for the sake of it.

He knocked down goal #1 cold. Heck, even a recording on an iPhone or Android could do that. Goal #2 needs more work, IMO.

...Geezer

Really appreciate it fellas. I wish that there was a more objective way to express #2 though. I guess at this point it's like the blind leading the blind. I should get an account at a recording forum.

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Sep 23, 2017, 04:35PMReally appreciate it fellas. I wish that there was a more objective way to express #2 though. I guess at this point it's like the blind leading the blind. I should get an account at a recording forum.

Experiment!!!!!!!!!!

Lol. I tried that. They will have as many opinions as we sometimes do on topics. But one take-away I still carry with me is to keep it simple.

...Geezer

I will ! 

I am moving soon and I'm going to set up my home recording studio. I've been dragging my crap into work every time and so it's a major PIA.

Keep it simple is really some of the best advice.

Recording in stereo is only going to pick up more of the room sound. If I were you, I'd be more worried about treating the lower frequency resonances in the room, and using a closer mic placement.

You might consider the frequency response of your mic, and how the natural EQ can accentuate or de exaggerate certain aspects. Some mics that have a rolled off lower end response are well suited to closer micing where the bass frequencies from the source are stronger than they would be at natural listening distance. Nobody listening to you live would be standing 8 to 16" from your bell, but the way the ear in combination with the brain hears subtlety in trombone "vowels" and "consonants" as being tone and articulation, is different than how the mic picks it up. Ears have selective listening and can focus in on certain aspects, whereas the mic is more "dumb". This is why the treble is boosted on most vocal mics, that presence and clarity is what the ear hones in on to comprehend speech. If you've ever heard a recording where someone is talking in a really reverberant room kind of far away and it just sounds like mud where you would be able to understand them fairly well in person, it's because of this phenomenon.

You should work on your understanding of your reverb settings to create the sound space with Altiverb. You have to compensate for your mic, at the position you placed it, with your trombone sound in front of the mic. The defaults or presets are a good starting point, but they won't get you all the way there. The handful of studios I've been in were all pretty live rooms, and the natural sound was used when it was useful. But it was worked out with mic placement when it wasn't desired, which is most of the time.

The closer you place the mic, the more detail of articulation and subtlety in nuance you can pick up. Bill Watrous' playing is ALL about nuance, and with the mic right up in the bell, every thing in his playing can be communicated clearly. In one of Mike Lake's videos, he refers to it as more "intimate" closer up. A lot of vocalists and voice artists describe the effect from closer micing with that word as well.

Your recording also has to be approached differently depending on what it's ending up as. You shouldn't mic for solo etudes the same as you would for over an accompaniment or backing track. You have to take into account the rest of the music and the space it occupies and where you want to fit into it.

Any sound source sounds different EQ wise at different distances, and different angles due to the directional nature of most sound sources, and the differential between fall off of low and high frequencies with distance, and the layout of the space. Low frequencies defract more easily than high frequencies, which mostly reflect. This affects how you hear the performer when you're at a concert, and you should take these things into account for determining your desired recording results.

I'm not quite sure what you don't like about your recordings so far, or what you want to change. You have to have a clear idea of what you want before you can place a value on the different changes or suggestions that we can offer. Maybe give us an idea of recordings that you'd like to emulate sonically and we can probably help more.

The only stereo recording style I think would produce usable results on a single source like trombone is something like mid-side processing or different mics and/or mic placements where the blend between the two can be used as an effect to get a more in depth sound or capture different information. I don't think stereo is worth going for in a home studio.

Quote from: M.R.Tenor on Sep 23, 2017, 05:37PMKeep it simple is really some of the best advice.

Recording in stereo is only going to pick up more of the room sound. If I were you, I'd be more worried about treating the lower frequency resonances in the room, and using a closer mic placement.

You might consider the frequency response of your mic, and how the natural EQ can accentuate or de exaggerate certain aspects. Some mics that have a rolled off lower end response are well suited to closer micing where the bass frequencies from the source are stronger than they would be at natural listening distance. Nobody listening to you live would be standing 8 to 16" from your bell, but the way the ear in combination with the brain hears subtlety in trombone "vowels" and "consonants" as being tone and articulation, is different than how the mic picks it up. Ears have selective listening and can focus in on certain aspects, whereas the mic is more "dumb". This is why the treble is boosted on most vocal mics, that presence and clarity is what the ear hones in on to comprehend speech. If you've ever heard a recording where someone is talking in a really reverberant room kind of far away and it just sounds like mud where you would be able to understand them fairly well in person, it's because of this phenomenon.

You should work on your understanding of your reverb settings to create the sound space with Altiverb. You have to compensate for your mic, at the position you placed it, with your trombone sound in front of the mic. The defaults or presets are a good starting point, but they won't get you all the way there. The handful of studios I've been in were all pretty live rooms, and the natural sound was used when it was useful. But it was worked out with mic placement when it wasn't desired, which is most of the time.

The closer you place the mic, the more detail of articulation and subtlety in nuance you can pick up. Bill Watrous' playing is ALL about nuance, and with the mic right up in the bell, every thing in his playing can be communicated clearly. In one of Mike Lake's videos, he refers to it as more "intimate" closer up. A lot of vocalists and voice artists describe the effect from closer micing with that word as well.

Your recording also has to be approached differently depending on what it's ending up as. You shouldn't mic for solo etudes the same as you would for over an accompaniment or backing track. You have to take into account the rest of the music and the space it occupies and where you want to fit into it.

Any sound source sounds different EQ wise at different distances, and different angles due to the directional nature of most sound sources, and the differential between fall off of low and high frequencies with distance, and the layout of the space. Low frequencies defract more easily than high frequencies, which mostly reflect. This affects how you hear the performer when you're at a concert, and you should take these things into account for determining your desired recording results.

I'm not quite sure what you don't like about your recordings so far, or what you want to change. You have to have a clear idea of what you want before you can place a value on the different changes or suggestions that we can offer. Maybe give us an idea of recordings that you'd like to emulate sonically and we can probably help more.

The only stereo recording style I think would produce usable results on a single source like trombone is something like mid-side processing or different mics and/or mic placements where the blend between the two can be used as an effect to get a more in depth sound or capture different information. I don't think stereo is worth going for in a home studio.


I like the concept of two different mics in a stereo recording. I think I used the term, a second opinion.

I think recording in stereo is useful to me for the above reason and b/c I can hear my solo track connecting better to the stereo backing track when I mix them down. It's subtle, but it's there and I'll take any incremental improvement I can get.

Good info; especially about mic proximity and intimacy, or nuance as you mentioned!    

OTOH, my experience is that I also have to be much more careful with my dynamic on a close mic placement. That tends to handicap me a little and if I am not careful, I can end up with a mono-dynamic recording, which I think is boring. As soft as I want to play is okay, but as loud as I want can be a problem if I over-do it when the mic is very, very close. Knowing this, I will "cheat" and edit my solo track to add gain in places when I want a louder dynamic. But it isn't quite the same effect as playing louder.

...Geezer

Quote from: Geezerhorn on Sep 23, 2017, 06:12PMOTOH, my experience is that I also have to be much more careful with my dynamic on a close mic placement. That tends to handicap me a little and if I am not careful, I can end up with a mono-dynamic recording, which I think is boring. As soft as I want to play is okay, but as loud as I want can be a problem if I over-do it when the mic is very, very close. Knowing this, I will "cheat" and edit my solo track to add gain in places when I want a louder dynamic. But it isn't quite the same effect as playing louder.

With the RE20? That mic is capable of such high levels that they don't even feel the need to rate it. 

But seriously, you won't get distortion from that mic, just adjust the gain on the interface. Before you play, go ahead and blow some loud middle register stuff to set the levels. A little low is fine, we're not battling a high noise floor. There's no harm in having to turn up the gain on the whole solo part a little

Quote from: M.R.Tenor on Sep 23, 2017, 06:23PMWith the RE20? That mic is capable of such high levels that they don't even feel the need to rate it. 

But seriously, you won't get distortion from that mic, just adjust the gain on the interface. Before you play, go ahead and blow some loud middle register stuff to set the levels. A little low is fine, we're not battling a high noise floor. There's no harm in having to turn up the gain on the whole solo part a little

Thanks. I do have the gain on the mic turned down as low as I can. I guess I can be a real Blaster Master when I want to be. lol Perhaps the real problem is that if I play very loudly, distortion from the room enters the party, even though I play pretty much right into the mic.     But I do have to use restraint.

I wouldn't mind recording in a totally dead room, but I also have to practice and play for my own entertainment in that room, so I want some liveliness and it is a double-edged sword.

...Geezer

Learn about "Gain Structure", it's a thing. It's what those little flashing lights are for on your interface, and goes on through you your DAW.

Quote from: Pre59 on Sep 24, 2017, 01:59AMLearn about "Gain Structure", it's a thing. It's what those little flashing lights are for on your interface, and goes on through you your DAW.

"The goal in setting the preamp gain is simple – get as much level as possible without allowing any clipping."

Seems reasonable...

...Geezer

Quote from: M.R.Tenor on Sep 23, 2017, 06:23PMWith the RE20? That mic is capable of such high levels that they don't even feel the need to rate it. 

But seriously, you won't get distortion from that mic, just adjust the gain on the interface. Before you play, go ahead and blow some loud middle register stuff to set the levels. A little low is fine, we're not battling a high noise floor. There's no harm in having to turn up the gain on the whole solo part a little

+1, An application that the RE 20 is commonly used for is for miking up a single instrument like a sax inside very loud bands, behind an equally set of monitors without feeding back. Shouting radio shock jocks also use them for a very "in ya face" sound without any ambient sound being present.
Geezer, I'd be be surprised if you could make it distort, look elsewhere for that, it won't be the room.

Quote from: Pre59 on Sep 24, 2017, 04:42AM+1, An application that the RE 20 is commonly used for is for miking up a single instrument like a sax inside very loud bands, behind an equally set of monitors without feeding back. Shouting radio shock jocks also use them for a very "in ya face" sound without any ambient sound being present.
Geezer, I'd be be surprised if you could make it distort, look elsewhere for that, it won't be the room.

YUUUUP!   

...Geezer

Hold the fort!

After carefully listening to the recording I posted, clipping is not an issue. Therefore the mic is not an issue. Check. Neither is the mic input level into my wave editor. Check.

What I hear is some added reverb when I play loud. That's the dynamic of the room bleeding in. I need to deaden the room a little more and continue to play dead straight into the mic, which - as mentioned - is an art in itself.

...Geezer

Quote from: M.R.Tenor on Sep 23, 2017, 05:37PM
I'm not quite sure what you don't like about your recordings so far, or what you want to change. You have to have a clear idea of what you want before you can place a value on the different changes or suggestions that we can offer. Maybe give us an idea of recordings that you'd like to emulate sonically and we can probably help more.

The only stereo recording style I think would produce usable results on a single source like trombone is something like mid-side processing or different mics and/or mic placements where the blend between the two can be used as an effect to get a more in depth sound or capture different information. I don't think stereo is worth going for in a home studio.


I want my recordings to have the same recording quality and accoustics as:

1. BIS "Unaccompanied" C. Lindberg
2. BIS "The Solitary Trombone" C. Lindberg

These are some of the most fantastic efforts in recording and they got a particular sound with just a few things:

1. A guy who knows how to record (Robert von Bahr)
2. A great room (Danderyds Gym)
3. 4 Neumann U89 mics, 2 in a stereo config, and two for the room
4. A great mic preamp



Now, I'm not delusional. I realize that, at most, a home studio can only have a good sound engineer and good equipment -  not a great space. I know I can never get a home studio to sound like those two CDs. But I want to get as close as possible with a combination of recording in a dead room and then adding the best digital space in post production. The closer I can get, the less it will matter once I start adding in premium sound libraries for my piano or string libraries to my tracks.

I actually want to create tracks that are of a professional quality. I have my own music and compositions that I'd love to put out on a CD or digital album. Mike Lake inspired me heavily. It's going to take a lot of time and work though.

Quote from: Geezerhorn on Sep 24, 2017, 07:34AM I need to deaden the room a little more and continue to play dead straight into the mic, which - as mentioned - is an art in itself.

...Geezer

Try hang a duvet behind you to reduce the "early reflections" (standard term) bouncing back mixing with the Direct sound (st), causing "comb filtering" (st again). If you're playing on a wooden or non carpeted floor, put a rug under the mic stand. You don't have to overdo sound treatments, it's possible to overdo them and deaden the ER's which which no amount of fiddling with effects can put back.

I used to carry an 6'x8' sheet of plywood heavily varnished on one side and natural on the other, and a circular rug. The wood to liven a dead area, and the rug to tighten an over live one.

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Sep 24, 2017, 09:02AM
Now, I'm not delusional. I realize that, at most, a home studio can only have a good sound engineer and good equipment -  not a great space. I know I can never get a home studio to sound like those two CDs. But I want to get as close as possible with a combination of recording in a dead room and then adding the best digital space in post production. The closer I can get, the less it will matter once I start adding in premium sound libraries for my piano or string libraries to my tracks.

I actually want to create tracks that are of a professional quality. I have my own music and compositions that I'd love to put out on a CD or digital album. Mike Lake inspired me heavily. It's going to take a lot of time and work though.

Something to bear in mind as well is background noise from distant sounds that you never even knew existed until playback, it's a plague on acoustic music recording. Also .547 horns are made to project into an concert space, check out my comment to Geezerhorn in my last post about over dead rooms. Convolution reverbs can sound gorgeous, but get it wrong and you may end up with a dead tbn in a live space. The 2 elements need to be a good fit.

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Sep 24, 2017, 09:02AMI want my recordings to have the same recording quality and accoustics as:

1. BIS "Unaccompanied" C. Lindberg
2. BIS "The Solitary Trombone" C. Lindberg

These are some of the most fantastic efforts in recording and they got a particular sound with just a few things:

1. A guy who knows how to record (Robert von Bahr)
2. A great room (Danderyds Gym)
3. 4 Neumann U89 mics, 2 in a stereo config, and two for the room
4. A great mic preamp



Now, I'm not delusional. I realize that, at most, a home studio can only have a good sound engineer and good equipment -  not a great space. I know I can never get a home studio to sound like those two CDs. But I want to get as close as possible with a combination of recording in a dead room and then adding the best digital space in post production. The closer I can get, the less it will matter once I start adding in premium sound libraries for my piano or string libraries to my tracks.

I actually want to create tracks that are of a professional quality. I have my own music and compositions that I'd love to put out on a CD or digital album. Mike Lake inspired me heavily. It's going to take a lot of time and work though.

I think you have a good concept, which is the best way to start on a project like that.

I have always tried to keep in mind that if I can get my solo track to sound like a million bucks, then with a dy-no-mite backing track, it should sound like 2 million bucks. You are on that path!

Quote from: Pre59 on Sep 24, 2017, 09:03AMTry hang a duvet behind you to reduce the "early reflections" (standard term) bouncing back mixing with the Direct sound (st), causing "comb filtering" (st again). If you're playing on a wooden or non carpeted floor, put a rug under the mic stand. You don't have to overdo sound treatments, it's possible to overdo them and deaden the ER's which which no amount of fiddling with effects can put back.

I used to carry an 6'x8' sheet of plywood heavily varnished on one side and natural on the other, and a circular rug. The wood to liven a dead area, and the rug to tighten an over live one.

I have an indoor/outdoor carpet on my cement floor. I have some of the same carpet hung on some walls. I need to experiment with more. I may have to find a way to treat the unfinished ceiling as well. But I'll take it one step at a time until I am happy.

...Geezer

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Sep 24, 2017, 09:02AMI want my recordings to have the same recording quality and accoustics as:

1. BIS "Unaccompanied" C. Lindberg
2. BIS "The Solitary Trombone" C. Lindberg


Great! Having a solid sound concept as your own recording engineer is just as important as having a solid sound concept as a player.  Everything you do from the beginning is going to either get the sound closer to what you want, or farther away. Nothing is neutral, every decision affects the sound. Digging deeper like you did and knowing about how Christian and Robert Von Barh got the sound that they did is a good first step, but as you pointed out, your home studio does not sound like Danderyds Gym and there's no treatment in the world that will get that sound. Presumably your T350 and 1C with your lips buzzing into them doesn't sound the same as Christian did on stage either.

What I'm hearing in those recordings if I was trying to recreate the sound is how specific the reverb needs to sound to emulate the hall. There's definitely a tone to the trail, and it's dynamic. It's not the same tone when he puts more energy into the space as when he's playing softly. I would focus on getting a dry sound that is clean in the low end. Mike does this "in the box" with EQ, though depending on the mic and the filtering options available to you, it could be quite simple.

I'd recommend, not knowing which mic you have, but that it's a condenser, a placement of about 16" to 2 ft in front of the bell, but off to the side, in line with your right shoulder. You still want it aimed at the bell such that the source to room sound is ratio is high, but you don't want to be picking up too much direct fuzz, or air sound in articulations. I'd shelf the low end down a couple db below roughly 200-240hz with a gentle Q setting, and low pass the signal around 12-13k. Tuning the tone of the reverb is going to be the hard part, I'm not familiar with Altiverb sorry. Pre59 brought up gain staging, which is going to be critical every time you have additional processing on the signal. The dynamics of the reverb are going to be affected by how much signal is going into the plugin, and you can compensate with the out levels of the verb to get the signal where you want it. You might have to add some slight compression before the verb to get it to respond how you want to.

I'd use some tape saturation and very subtle EQ after that for mastering, depending on how much is going on in the mix and what you have to deal with relative to the solo track, which is the most important part, you might leave these as a mastering stage on everything, or just apply it to the trombone sound.

Find the settings that work for you, as it'll be slightly different with your mic, your playing, your room etc. Good monitoring is key, and using a reference track from the Lindberg recordings is critical.

I would love for you to follow up when you get your studio set up, and I look forward to other suggestions.

To get a fantastic professional recording means that you will have to spring for a professional reverb system that the pro's use. There's a lot out there to choose from, but don't settle for less. I'm not aware of the altiverb, and it may be 100% professional. I just don't recognize it, that's all.

I estimated that Mike has about $10K worth of sound equipment. Is it worth if for us average home recording "artists"?

I think Dusty is getting a GREAT bang for his buck! We can, too.

...Geezer

Quote from: Geezerhorn on Sep 24, 2017, 10:42AMI estimated that Mike has about $10K worth of sound equipment. Is it worth if for us average home recording "artists"?

I think Dusty is getting a GREAT bang for his buck! We can, too.

...Geezer

Thank you Geezer!

Yesterday, I experimented with the RealBand program to do more integration. I was right in that you don't need to take you BIAB files and create a WAV file at all. Open RealBand, and open up one of your BIAB files. It will take a couple of minutes to generate each track, but then in the end, you will have about 10 or 11 separate tracks from your BIAB file that can be mixed separately.

You then just record all of your audio files that you want. For me, it's just trombone and piano.

Then final mixdown, and export to a WAV file. 

 

Mike would be able to sound just as great using lesser gear.

Altiverb shouldn't be limiting Harrison any, it's plenty professional. I reckon it's just a learning curve, as is the problem with most software these days, worrying about adding features to be able to market and hook purchases instead of usability and interface.

A few other thoughts I had today:
Processing on just the reverb track isn't unheard of. A lot of times it can be useful to layer different reverbs, and process some of them, adjusting stereo width. We're recording mono here, but after the reverb it goes stereo. There's usually a width adjustment affecting the size of the field. It can be useful sometimes to bus the main signal into 3 different, and separate reverbs with different tone, damping, and stereo width. You might pan the original signal slightly off center. The main reverb, ie the loudest, should be the narrowest, so you don't get a weird "soloist surrounding you" kind of sound. Add a second reverb, at a far lower output level, though still driven the same on the input, but with different reflections and less highs and lows. A third reverb can be even lower in the mix, and affecting only part of the original signal, maybe with lots of compression or a telephone style eq. You'd want this to be barely perceptible to the listener, and very wide, with more focus on a mid range frequency, about 1.2-2k. Some very subtle chorus, or a muted delay on just this third reverb can add sparkle. You don't want to be able to hear this, it's just to enrich and liven the sound, making the virtual room seem more interesting and complex.

That is a very interesting concept and the possibilities seem endless. Thank you!

...Geezer

One thing I had thought of was having the unprocessed raw audio come through the mix, and the Altverb track set at 100% wet as a second track, and then adjusting the levels with the DAW.

I was going to go stereo, but I think I will detour from that and record with one mic for an experiment. I'll try copying the mono track over to two other tracks and tinker with EQ's and reverb on two of them, leaving one "raw". If we experiment like that, we will doubtless have to cut the gain on all three tracks or the combined effect will be much too strong.

I like his concept of having a different quality of sound on each track to make a very broad and vibrant sound when mixed down.

We should be careful to save the raw solo track first, though.

I have to disagree with his statement that Mike would sound AS good on lesser equipment. No one would. That's why there IS the best equipment out there for those who can afford it.

...Geezer

I remember on one of my trips to Nashville back in the 70's we went to Porter Wagoner's personal studio. What stuck out in my mind was he had a row of mics (at least 50) lined up against the wall on mic stands. Each mic was a different brand and model, no two alike.

I asked about why he had so many mics like that, and he said that in every recording session, they would go down the line and test each mic until they found the one that sounded the best for each singer. I guess when a singer made a return trip they could cut to the chase, and use the one they had before. But back in those days they didn't have the sound processing to change things up like we do now, so they basically got the sound by looking for the right mic.

 

Quote from: Geezerhorn on Sep 25, 2017, 04:33AMI was going to go stereo, but I think I will detour from that and record with one mic for an experiment. I'll try copying the mono track over to two other tracks and tinker with EQ's and reverb on two of them, leaving one "raw". If we experiment like that, we will doubtless have to cut the gain on all three tracks or the combined effect will be much too strong.

Just to clarify, I meant that only one of the raw solo track would end up in the final mix, and to do additional processing/layering on just the wet reverb signals. Just to make the reverb more complex, if you're using a simpler style reverb. I've known more expensive reverb plugins that just do this layering and tweaking by default on certain presets to achieve a more vibrant and interesting sound. A convolution verb will be doing much more, and can get very complex sounds on it's own, though it's all just a means to an end. You would only have to turn down if the loudness of the reverb was pushing you up too high, but I end up setting the main wet signal around -20db from the dry, so it really isn't that big of a level push, as the additional reverbs are even lower than that.

Quote from: Geezerhorn on Sep 25, 2017, 04:33AMI have to disagree with his statement that Mike would sound AS good on lesser equipment. No one would. That's why there IS the best equipment out there for those who can afford it.

Well... I have to disagree with your disagreement. Hopefully I can make a better argument.

The more expensive equipment is often bought because it makes it easier to get the sound that you want, not necessarily because it can get a sound that is impossible to get by other means, up to a certain point. Sometimes it's bought simply because that's what others are using, and you need to sound like the standard to sound "good". There is no best sound or setup, only different ones depending on how the finished product needs to be. It is all in how it conveys differences in performance. As you've heard yourself, different mic placement by a couple of inches or a slight angle or moving between multiple page charts will make more of a difference than a change in mic, if you have a reasonable quality microphone already. No expense spent on a microphone can FIX the sound if it was recorded in a way that isn't conducive to the sound you want to capture.

On your own playing, you are often much more discerning with regards to what you want to sound like, and will hear things that other listeners will not. Sometimes these factors are what drives an upgrade in gear, as it's easier to make good music if you're satisfied with how it sounds. But it's absolutely susceptible to diminishing returns, and there's so much processing available now in the box for free, that I can't imagine it would be unattainable to achieve a sound that is not noticeably different than one recorded with more expensive gear, provided that the basic signal integrity is there in the first place. It's just a difference in how you get to that sound, and how close you can get relatively simply with different gear, as opposed to introducing complex signal chain elements and emulation to achieve the same effect. You're working with a relatively simple waveform represented by a voltage that's quantified by a single number at a single point in time 44,100 or more times a second.

If you know what sound you desire, there are only so many changes you can make to the waveform that keep it in the realm of your trombone sound, and better playing, performance practices, mic technique and better sounding rooms will make more of a difference in the end recording than a couple thousand dollars more on a microphone.

Quote from: ddickerson on Sep 25, 2017, 05:47AMI asked about why he had so many mics like that, and he said that in every recording session, they would go down the line and test each mic until they found the one that sounded the best for each singer. I guess when a singer made a return trip they could cut to the chase, and use the one they had before. But back in those days they didn't have the sound processing to change things up like we do now, so they basically got the sound by looking for the right mic.

This rings true, but if a singer was doing different styles or had a different vibe, or their vocals had improved since their last recordings, or their voice aged, or even just if other studio equipment had changed, I reckon that the preferred mic on the last trip might not be the best mic on this one, even if the vocalist insists. In that case, you do what they want anyways, but if you are your own engineer you have to consider everything. I bet often they wouldn't end up with the most expensive mic in the studio, so it's not as if the best equipment is only there for those that can afford it. Michael Jackson did thriller with the SM7b that's now "only" $400.

One thing I've learned recording others on different styles throughout this year is that there is no best mic for a given source even in all studio situations on the same song. E.g. if you change the drum sound, maybe you have to change the bass, and where the piano/guitar sits with that, and consequently you need a different sound on the vocals now. It can be a lot easier to have different microphones that suit the changes you want, but often basic free plugins are capable of a good enough sculpting of the sound if you learn how to use them and know what you want. Having different players on the session in the band will change how the vocalist needs to sound, unless you work backwards through the band starting from the vocals, though I haven't known any vocalists so far that want to work that way.

Often after extensive live performance the vocalist will have developed a certain mic technique with their handheld stage mic that works really well in maintaining the balance of the band and the vocals in the different sections of the different songs in a live situation where there's minimal processing. It can end up being a lot easier to balance the band in the end by just letting the vocalist who knows the band and the songs and how they play, a lot better than you do I might add, just "perform live" for you rather than setting up a condenser in front of them and spending hours adding compression and automation all over the track to make sure the important parts the band wants are coming out where they're supposed to.

In home studio, it can sometimes become a justification of the purchase. I can't remember exactly where I heard this or if I'm repeating it correctly but there's something along the lines of, "If you spent half as much on a microphone as you would've remodelling your bathroom, you darn well better be using it on everything you do, because chances are you spend more time in the bathroom than you do in front of the mic." Being consistent and controlling all the variables can make it clearer what effect the changes you make are having, but if you didn't start with a clear idea of what you wanted the sound to be, you're just constructing it as you go using what you have to work with. The studio professionals work with a sound they want, and then match gear to achieve that sound the easiest way they can. I wouldn't think there is a such thing as a best piece of gear, and definitely gear isn't better just because the price tag is higher. There are plenty of multi thousand dollar "custom" preamps that the part of the circuit affecting the color of the sound isn't very different from a $5 tube radio from the 40s.

If you had a list of the importance of things in your recordings, and in playing, the microphone is somewhere down in the list where the mouthpiece would be. It makes a difference which one you use, but if you use the same mouthpiece as your favorite player, it won't make you sound like him/her. You need the one that fits you and what you're trying to accomplish. Same with gear. If you don't know what you want from your sound, how can any mouthpiece/microphone be better than another? It's a means to an end, and there are infinitely many ways to get you there. You will still sound like you and you need to work with that, however it changes from day to day and song to song.

Okay guys. Good stuff all 'round! 

I did some tinkering. I put another large rectangle of indoor/outdoor carpeting up on a remaining bare wall in my music studio. Then I did a recording by playing square into the mic, about 14" (or so) away. It made a difference. I don't hear the room dynamic bleeding into the solo track on louder passages. That is a distinct improvement.

Misunderstanding, I copied my solo track over to three tracks. I had to reduce the gain WAY down, but that's okay. All I did to the top track was to add some reverb. I ran the second track through a low-pass filter. To the third track, I added some EQ to take off some low, add a bit of middle and add some high. Then I mixed them all down with the accompaniment track.

Here it is: Stardust

You may think my solo is too prominent and/or the reverb too strong. Those are style points, as is the way I play. But I belief I have captured a higher fidelity recording.

OBTW: for new eyes on this thread, I took this hobby up when I retired a few years ago.

...Geezer

I guess Harrison is gone. 

Anyway, that book - "Home Recording For Dummies"; I didn't learn much. But one thing it did argue is that cheap cables either work or they don't and it would take a tech with very keen ears to hear any difference between cheap ones and "better" ones. So I'm siding with Dusty on this...

Since I use Audacity, I ordered "Audacity 101". I need to understand what all the different values for all the different settings on EQ and Reverb are supposed to do. And I think there is a whole lot more functionality I have no clue about. Also, that Dummies book mentioned to use whatever wave editor we like, regardless of all the hype.

So I guess there IS value in that Dummies book in that it will keep me from squandering money on things that will not help my efforts much, if any.

I'm basically happy with my home recording efforts, so everything from now on will be gravy on the cake. 

...Geezer

I tried to do some home recordings and this is how I do it. I make the background music with band in a box. I put it into my old cubase software. I have rather old computers both at home and in work, but I do it simple. The mics are rather cheap ones. At home its Apex 205, very good for the money. And I also use Shure 58 at work. Both my rooms are very dead so I record rather close to the mic. Before I had a bigger room and put the mic further away.

Then I use earphones and play with the background music. Sometimes there is problem listening both what I do and what the background music is. But mostly it goes OK. Then I put a little compression and reverb. Dont know if they are good but they works. Never tried EQ or the other effects.

Well, Im fare a way from knowing much about this but have found a way that works for my home use. In my experience the mic placement and the room is the most important factors. In a big hall like a church I found out that just two stereo mics (zoom) in rather long distance, can record nearly everything very nice. In a little room its more sensitive for mic placement. And of course if I one day sound **** out of the bell, there is not much to do other than wait for a better day.


Leif

I'm still here Geezer. I'm just doing a lot of listening. I won't be recording for a few months, because we have to move first. This is a great thread. I'll listen to your Starlight when I get some time on my monitors and not phone speakers.

I want to improve my ears and hear the differences between the recording quality of the BIS CDs and my feeble attempts. I have many great ideas, and some really insane ones (like recording the Rach Piano Concerto 2 with just piano and trombone) , but my end goal is to create a few professional level piano/trombone albums of the repertoire and some of my own music for that instrument combination. If I can pull that off, I want to get the vienna solo strings library and do some recordings with a digital chamber ensemble of the classical rep. It might well take me years and years, but I'll be better for trying it out. Sound engineering is very interesting!

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Sep 26, 2017, 07:01AMI'm still here Geezer. I'm just doing a lot of listening. I won't be recording for a few months, because we have to move first. This is a great thread. I'll listen to your Starlight when I get some time on my monitors and not phone speakers.

I want to improve my ears and hear the differences between the recording quality of the BIS CDs and my feeble attempts. I have many great ideas, and some really insane ones (like recording the Rach Piano Concerto 2 with just piano and trombone) , but my end goal is to create a few professional level piano/trombone albums of the repertoire and some of my own music for that instrument combination. If I can pull that off, I want to get the vienna solo strings library and do some recordings with a digital chamber ensemble of the classical rep. It might well take me years and years, but I'll be better for trying it out. Sound engineering is very interesting!

Whew! I thought we lost you!

By "monitors", I hope you mean a decent set of headphones. I guess I date myself. 

Anyway, disregard my clumsiness in playing, I'm just learning this articulation, intonation, phrasing, style, timing thing. Focus on the quality of sound. I think it's pretty good for a home recording. And at this point, I believe the best thing I can do to get a better quality home recording is to continue on my playing/learning curve. Oh, and maybe something from the "Audacity 101" book on order.

I admire your aspirations! There are plenty of excellent examples of recitals of classical pieces with trombone and piano. It can work marvelously.

Good luck with your move. I would volunteer to help you, but you see - my back...

...Geezer

If anyone is using Audacity, then "The Book Of Audacity" is the one to consult, not the Dummies book. "The Book Of Audacity" is pretty thorough.

...Geezer

Well, just sold my town home! Looks like I'll be getting a single family home, possibly on the Air Force Academy! 

Home studio, here I come!

PS, did you know that a lot of Alessi's non-orchestra recordings were made in his basement? ?!!

 

 Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Oct 22, 2017, 09:36AMWell, just sold my town home! Looks like I'll be getting a single family home, possibly on the Air Force Academy! 

Home studio, here I come!

PS, did you know that a lot of Alessi's non-orchestra recordings were made in his basement? ?!!

 

 

 Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Oct 22, 2017, 09:36AMWell, just sold my town home! Looks like I'll be getting a single family home, possibly on the Air Force Academy! 

Home studio, here I come!

PS, did you know that a lot of Alessi's non-orchestra recordings were made in his basement? ?!!