Miking For Stage

[Terry McGee]

I've been reviewing previous discussions on miking the concertina for stage use. They have often been quite spirited, but don't ever quite seem to come to a conclusion. Some advocate the "small electret microphones on the ends" approach, but concede that they sound a bit bright, and are prone to feedback, wind and handling noise. Others prefer the richer sound from the "pair of stand mics" approach, but concede that they clutter up the stage and can present balance issues between the ends. I feel I'm hearing attempts, rather than solutions.

 

I wondered if things had moved on from there and a complete solution has presented itself? If so, what is it?

 

Alternatively I wondered if we should put some joint effort into developing a solution? I can offer the technical resources, but would want to discuss issues, bounce ideas, test theories, evaluate results, etc with others. I wouldn't be planning to go into mass production and marketing, but if we got to the successful prototype stage and it really had something to offer, it shouldn't be hard to find someone who'd like to offer them for sale. And those who have the skills and resources could build their own, or adapt their existing system to benefit from what we find.

 

Thoughts? Are we there yet, or do we still have some way to go?

[Jim Besser]

I've been reviewing previous discussions on miking the concertina for stage use. They have often been quite spirited, but don't ever quite seem to come to a conclusion. Some advocate the "small electret microphones on the ends" approach, but concede that they sound a bit bright, and are prone to feedback, wind and handling noise. Others prefer the richer sound from the "pair of stand mics" approach, but concede that they clutter up the stage and can present balance issues between the ends. I feel I'm hearing attempts, rather than solutions.

 

I wondered if things had moved on from there and a complete solution has presented itself? If so, what is it?

 

Alternatively I wondered if we should put some joint effort into developing a solution? I can offer the technical resources, but would want to discuss issues, bounce ideas, test theories, evaluate results, etc with others. I wouldn't be planning to go into mass production and marketing, but if we got to the successful prototype stage and it really had something to offer, it shouldn't be hard to find someone who'd like to offer them for sale. And those who have the skills and resources could build their own, or adapt their existing system to benefit from what we find.

 

Thoughts? Are we there yet, or do we still have some way to go?

 

I've basically given up the quest for a better system in the belief, based on a lot of experience, that two high quality mics pointed at the ends do the best job in the widest range of environments..

 

Microvox pickups work, but the sound can be harsh.

 

Any onboard system involves dangling cables that I find very awkward. I can't tell you how many times I've ended up tangled up in the wiring mess

 

I've seen high quality clip ons added to concertinas, but there's the cable issue, the extra weight and change in balance, etc.

 

I've talked to very good sound engineers about this and their consensus seems to be that for the best combination of good sound and stage ergonomics, the two mic system is generally best.

 

In some venues I've had to use a single mic, and honestly, that's not really bad, either.

 

I"m sure it's possible to get better amplified sound out of a concertina, but I strongly suspect that the gains would be marginal, and every system I can imagine has disadvantages.

[Dirge]

I think it may have been me that asked this last time; the best fix (for me anyway) seemed to be to have a couple of the electret thingies with wires to a waist mounted control box to balance them, then a cable I could just plug into the venue's sound system; it seemed a fairly simple fix at the time, and the majority favourite I think.

 

But in the end I put away the brass reeded instrument and acquired a loud aeola and use a single mic' on a stand. If I have my wits about me I can instantly turn the instrument end on as I play to emphasise tune or bass. The problem there is remembering to do it with everything else going on.

 

What happens next depends on the man working the mixing desk and is a bit variable, but there's not much to be done about that. This is just a 'music club' type setting so the soundman has to work it out on the spot!

[Jim Besser]

 

 

What happens next depends on the man working the mixing desk and is a bit variable, but there's not much to be done about that. This is just a 'music club' type setting so the soundman has to work it out on the spot!

 

That's spot on. We can talk about all these setups, but in the end it's the skill of the sound engineer that makes the most difference.

 

And the reality is that most sound people are not familiar with concertinas and have a hard time with them.

 

We recently did a dance gig at a huge hall with a lively and noisy crowd. We hired the best sound guy in our area. He set me up with two mics on stands.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8npIjfYq2U0

 

And the sound was great. In the hall, I was clear, with very good quality sound; on stage, I could hear myself clearly in the mix (not easy with seven instruments, including drums, electric bass and two horns).

 

The skill of the sound engineer and the quality of his/her equipment is, IMO, the single most important variable in this equation.

[Steve Wilson]

I use Microvox with all the issues that Jim mentions above.

 

In an article on Concertina Library Simon Thoumire says he uses Accusound mics and says they're very good. He also says he will do a seperate article on mics but I can't find anything, I don't think it's happened. Might be worth contacting him.

 

The Accusound mics don't seem to be contact ones, they sit on flexible necks that attact with a little plastic fitting. Still seems to be an issue with wires although they say they can be used with a wireless radio system. I imagine there would still be wires going to a belt mounted transmitter. All sounds very expensive. Check it out here.http://accusound.com/product-list/concertina/product/6-concertina-microphone-system

[Terry McGee]

Lot of good stuff there, thanks all.

 

Certainly, the two (or even one) quality mic on a stand remains the gold standard against which anything else will be judged by. I guess there remains the question which microphone type(s) work(s) best for concertina, and maybe we should have a look at that.

 

And the sound engineer (or pale imitation or total lack thereof!) can be a big stumbling block. Given that they rarely are familiar with folk music and folk instruments, it always seems to me that we should give them the sound we want, rather than rely on them finding it. If, as several have commented, the Microvox sound is harsh, it fails that rule.

 

The Accusound system looks very sensible, but at 402GBP it's certainly not cheap. Interestingly, they offer two variants - one with omnidirectional mics and one with hypercardioid, at the same price. And the mics stick out from the instrument on little stalks, so they are really are halfway-house between stand mics and on-board mics like the Microvox. Indeed, we can probably say there are a number of systems in use or proposed:

• single mono mic on stand, out front
• single stereo mic on stand, out front
• pair of mono mics on stands, to the sides (or perhaps more commonly, at about 45º to the ends?)
• pair of mono mics on stalks attached to ends, facing back inward (e.g. Accusound)
• pair of mono mics on end surfaces facing inward (e.g. Microvox)
• microphone inside concertina ends (e.g. Howard Jones)
• microphone inside bellows (talked about but perhaps never tried?)
• any other approach I've overlooked?

Terry

[Bob Tedrow]

Good to see you here, Terry. Greetings from Alabama

Bob

[fearfeasog]

I wish I had a ribbon mic to play with. I'd love to hear how that does on concertina. I do my youtube vids with a cheap large diaphragm condenser (Nady something or other--it can actually sound pretty decent) and sometimes an SM-57. Neither sounds particularly open or clear, but not bad.

 

I have 2 shure small diaphragm condensers that I have not tried yet--they are kinda noisy but I reckon they'd do ok.

[malcolm clapp]

Hi Terry, and welcome to the nightmare (I mean miking concertinas, not concertina.net)

 

Over the years I have miked both concertinas and accordions using a variety of microphone types, with varying results. However, my experience of stage PA (from both sides of the desk) ended around 12 years ago, so newer technology may have made life a little simpler, and my observations/suggestions may have gone the way of the dinosaur....

 

Certainly, open mics on stands tend to give the most faithful sound reproduction (subject to having a PA engineer who has half an idea as to what a concertina should sound like). However, it ties you to your spot on stage and can cause feedback, especially if you are using monitors. The best type of mic to use needs to be a compromise between a wide enough pattern to pick up sound from a greater source point than, say, a Shure 58 or similar vocal mic, but directional enough to avoid picking up sound from elsewhere than the ends of your concertina. I have found the AKG190 (a cheap older model probably no longer in production) fits the bill better than anything else I've tried, though care with mic placement is still essential.

 

Close miking, be it internal or valcroed to the ends, electret, dynamic or crystal, high or low impedance (so many variables!) can avoid the above problems, and all work quite well, but are dependent on the signal processing beyond the mic itself. You will need some sort of equalisation or filtering to reduce the high frequencies (i.e.apparent harshness and finger/button/action noise) which tends to be more prone to being picked up by the closeness of the mics to the sound source. You may also need a preamp to boost the signal from the mics, plus some sort of impedence matching for the signal to be satisfactorially transmitted to a mixing desk or stage box which will requiring a low impedence output.

 

It is not difficult to spend more on these items than the cost of the mics!!! That is what most people who mic free reed instruments fail to consider (hobby-horse emoticom!!!).

 

Maybe add a few other toys pedals too; a compressor might be useful; an octave pedal probably not; perhaps a bit of delay?

 

Hmmm. Lots of leads/jacks to fiddle with, and to break down. And all time-consuming at set up.. And high impedence signal prone to RF interference....As I said above, welcome to the nightmare!!!

 

So pros and cons for both approaches..

 

And miking a flute is so, so simple, though I vaguely recall there were a few tricks there as well....

[Terry McGee]

Good to see you here, Terry. Greetings from Alabama

Bob

Yep, more than a bit out of my depth! Hi Bob!

 

Terry

[Terry McGee]

I wish I had a ribbon mic to play with. I'd love to hear how that does on concertina. I do my youtube vids with a cheap large diaphragm condenser (Nady something or other--it can actually sound pretty decent) and sometimes an SM-57. Neither sounds particularly open or clear, but not bad.

 

I have 2 shure small diaphragm condensers that I have not tried yet--they are kinda noisy but I reckon they'd do ok.

 

Interesting question on the ribbon mic - I'm not sure how they would go. Ribbon mics have a "figure-of-eight" directionality, so you probably wouldn't choose one for stage use, as it is as sensitive to interfering signals as it is to the instrument itself. But in the more controlled studio environment it might have something to offer.

 

I think it would be interesting to contrast your small diaphragm condensers with the large diaphragm and the SM-57. It might tell us if we would like more top end, or whether a brighter top end just makes the concertina sound a bit too edgy.

 

I had a quick look at the concertina spectrum, and on the face of it, it shouldn't be a demanding instrument to mic. Nothing useful below the fundamental of the lowest note (C3, 130Hz). Peak energy around 1200Hz, dropping by about 20dB by the time you get up to around 5kHz, considerably less above 7kHz and petering out around 15kHz. Most reasonable microphones should handle that pretty easily. (That was recorded using a Rode NT55 condenser with cardioid capsule, but I'd want to repeat that with other mics before relying on it.) Microphones with presence boost (eg the SM57) might be expected to sound different to those without (eg your large diaphragm condenser), but maybe not enough to stand out in casual observation.

 

So, on the face of that, it's not obvious why the Microvox mics are regarded by some as being harsh. If anyone had a recording made using that system, it would be interesting to listen to and submit to analysis. Even better if they could also record using a stand mic.

 

I have some capsules probably not a lot different to those used by Microvox. I'll do some playing this end.

[Terry McGee]

Hi Terry, and welcome to the nightmare (I mean miking concertinas, not concertina.net)

 

Over the years I have miked both concertinas and accordions using a variety of microphone types, with varying results. However, my experience of stage PA (from both sides of the desk) ended around 12 years ago, so newer technology may have made life a little simpler, and my observations/suggestions may have gone the way of the dinosaur....

 

Certainly, open mics on stands tend to give the most faithful sound reproduction (subject to having a PA engineer who has half an idea as to what a concertina should sound like). However, it ties you to your spot on stage and can cause feedback, especially if you are using monitors. The best type of mic to use needs to be a compromise between a wide enough pattern to pick up sound from a greater source point than, say, a Shure 58 or similar vocal mic, but directional enough to avoid picking up sound from elsewhere than the ends of your concertina. I have found the AKG190 (a cheap older model probably no longer in production) fits the bill better than anything else I've tried, though care with mic placement is still essential.

 

Close miking, be it internal or valcroed to the ends, electret, dynamic or crystal, high or low impedance (so many variables!) can avoid the above problems, and all work quite well, but are dependent on the signal processing beyond the mic itself. You will need some sort of equalisation or filtering to reduce the high frequencies (i.e.apparent harshness and finger/button/action noise) which tends to be more prone to being picked up by the closeness of the mics to the sound source. You may also need a preamp to boost the signal from the mics, plus some sort of impedence matching for the signal to be satisfactorially transmitted to a mixing desk or stage box which will requiring a low impedence output.

 

It is not difficult to spend more on these items than the cost of the mics!!! That is what most people who mic free reed instruments fail to consider (hobby-horse emoticom!!!).

 

Maybe add a few other toys pedals too; a compressor might be useful; an octave pedal probably not; perhaps a bit of delay?

 

Hmmm. Lots of leads/jacks to fiddle with, and to break down. And all time-consuming at set up.. And high impedence signal prone to RF interference....As I said above, welcome to the nightmare!!!

 

So pros and cons for both approaches..

 

And miking a flute is so, so simple, though I vaguely recall there were a few tricks there as well....

 

Hi Malcolm

 

Seems I know more people here than I expected!

 

TIme might have moved on, but the laws of physics have remained reasonably intact! Electronics has become a lot cheaper, but considerably less reliable.

 

It certainly seems that if one wants to do on-board miking, there will be artefacts to be covered up. And I agree on connectors. Why people insist on using jacks and minijacks for audio completely astounds me. We've known for more years than I've been alive (66 on New Year's day!) that low level audio can only be transferred reliably via sliding contacts, and preferably silver or gold ones at that. Using pressure contacts in chrome or nickel or anything else that oxidises is just asking for trouble.

 

And yes, the flute is pretty easy to mic for stage. Nothing below 300Hz, not much above 5kHz, big hearty signal, easy-to-locate point-source of sound. As long as you keep the mic out of the airstream, you're in business.

[JimLucas]

I don't understand this seeming belief that a particular microphone type or setup is -- or even can be -- the most significant factor.

What happens next depends on the man working the mixing desk and is a bit variable, but there's not much to be done about that. This is just a 'music club' type setting so the soundman has to work it out on the spot!

That's spot on. We can talk about all these setups, but in the end it's the skill of the sound engineer that makes the most difference.

And the reality is that most sound people are not familiar with concertinas and have a hard time with them.

Never mind concertinas, I find that too many sound people are used to trying for a sound and "balance" practically opposite to what I want as a performer. The sound person should always consult with the performer(s) before making any adjustments. (Of course, that means that performers should have a good idea of what sound they want.)

• First and foremost, I'm a singer. I want the listeners not only to be aware that there are vocals, but to be able to easily hear and understand what I'm singing. I don't want my voice to be treated as a distraction from the instrumentals.
• I'm also pleased and even a bit proud of what I and my instruments sound like "acoustically". I consider it an insult when sound "engineers" automatically alter my sound (e.g., add reverb), without consulting me. I don't give a hoot "what everybody expects". If folks don't like my natural sound, they should go listen to somebody else.

Any given microphone will give different results in different acoustic spaces and if positioned differently within the space. But it's not just the mikes, it's also the positioning of the performer(s). I got this lesson when recording some sea shanties with a couple of friends as background for a film about rounding Cape Horn.

The studio engineer really knew his stuff. He used a variety of microphones, from totally up-to-date (for the time, at least) to one relic from before I was born. He placed them carefully; we recorded; he played it back; and we sounded great! But then we recorded again to overdub, specifically to double the number of voices of "the crew" on the chorus lines. He played back the mix, and it sounded terrible. He listened, thought a moment, then had Johnny and myself trade places. We re-recorded the second "layer" with no other change, and the result was great!

So I don't worry too much about the microphones themselves. For a while I carried with me two small clip-on mikes with a little box to mix down to one channel, but I gave that up as neither necessary nor helpful. I make do with what's provided. (And I love it when no sound system is needed.) The best amplified sound I've gotten, IMO, has been at two different Polish shanty festivals. At the one I was using my little clip-ons. At the other it was just two microphones set up to either side of me (but not too close) by the sound crew. In both cases it was the sound crew -- and their equipment, I'm sure -- that made the real difference.

[Jim Besser]

I don't understand this seeming belief that a particular microphone type or setup is -- or even can be -- the most significant factor.

 

What happens next depends on the man working the mixing desk and is a bit variable, but there's not much to be done about that. This is just a 'music club' type setting so the soundman has to work it out on the spot!

That's spot on. We can talk about all these setups, but in the end it's the skill of the sound engineer that makes the most difference.

 

And the reality is that most sound people are not familiar with concertinas and have a hard time with them.

Never mind concertinas, I find that too many sound people are used to trying for a sound and "balance" practically opposite to what I want as a performer. The sound person should always consult with the performer(s) before making any adjustments. (Of course, that means that performers should have a good idea of what sound they want.)

• First and foremost, I'm a singer. I want the listeners not only to be aware that there are vocals, but to be able to easily hear and understand what I'm singing. I don't want my voice to be treated as a distraction from the instrumentals.
• I'm also pleased and even a bit proud of what I and my instruments sound like "acoustically". I consider it an insult when sound "engineers" automatically alter my sound (e.g., add reverb), without consulting me. I don't give a hoot "what everybody expects". If folks don't like my natural sound, they should go listen to somebody else.

Any given microphone will give different results in different acoustic spaces and if positioned differently within the space. But it's not just the mikes, it's also the positioning of the performer(s). I got this lesson when recording some sea shanties with a couple of friends as background for a film about rounding Cape Horn.

The studio engineer really knew his stuff. He used a variety of microphones, from totally up-to-date (for the time, at least) to one relic from before I was born. He placed them carefully; we recorded; he played it back; and we sounded great! But then we recorded again to overdub, specifically to double the number of voices of "the crew" on the chorus lines. He played back the mix, and it sounded terrible. He listened, thought a moment, then had Johnny and myself trade places. We re-recorded the second "layer" with no other change, and the result was great!

So I don't worry too much about the microphones themselves. For a while I carried with me two small clip-on mikes with a little box to mix down to one channel, but I gave that up as neither necessary nor helpful. I make do with what's provided. (And I love it when no sound system is needed.) The best amplified sound I've gotten, IMO, has been at two different Polish shanty festivals. At the one I was using my little clip-ons. At the other it was just two microphones set up to either side of me (but not too close) by the sound crew. In both cases it was the sound crew -- and their equipment, I'm sure -- that made the real difference.

 

I'm totally with you here, Jim.

 

For me, the time I spent trying over a number of years trying to figure out better systems for the concertina was mostly wasted - I would have been better off just playing!

 

I think the best sound I ever had on stage was with the Microvox. And the worst sound I ever had was with the Microvox. Both on the same stage, different times and - most importantly - different sound guys.

 

I've had splendid results with a single SM57, about as basic a mic as you can get, and some memorably mediocre results with '57. At our raucous pub ceilidhs, I get very good results from two SM57s; it's on my own system, and the quality of sound in the pub depends mostly on how carefully I set things and get input from the audience about how it sounds.

 

Last year I did 9 performances at a huge auditorium using the mic system at the edge of the stage and overhead for the singers in the chorus; one of our area's top sound engineers was at the board and people tell me the sound of the concertina was great even tho I didn't have an individual mic.

 

This is obviously personal; I am not making any universal statements here. But I've found it best to work with the sound engineers at each gig with the equipment they have, explaining what I want, cluing them in to the sound idiosyncrasies of concertinas and then working with him/her to tweak things.

 

As a general rule, I've found that sound people work best with their own equipment, and tend to have problems with gear musicians thrust into their hands and say "make this work."

Edited December 19, 2013 by Jim Besser

[Terry McGee]

I thought it might be of interest to see what a concertina note looks like in the "frequency domain". That's where we look at a graph of its "partials" (also sometimes referred to as harmonics or overtones). It's also an opportunity for me to try out this forum's attachment system!

 

The concertina was made by Ian Simpson, who lives on the other (Victorian) side of Australia's Snowy Mountains from me. The note is C4 in the International note naming system, or C row LH middle button push. The microphone is a Rode NT55 studio condenser with the cardioid capsule fitted, held reasonably close to minimise background noise and room reflections. I'm using the analysis system in the free Audacity Digital Audio Editor, so you can try this at home! I've left the FFT resolution on the low side to make the peaks easy to see.

 

The frequency is set out across the bottom of the graph. We normally take our audible spectrum as being from 20Hz to 20kHz. The amplitude (loudness) is up the left side, measured in dB. As a useful rule of thumb, a change of 1dB is virtually inaudible, 3dB just audible, 10dB a doubling or halving of the sound level, 20dB a quarter or 4 times louder, 30dB an eighth or 8 times, 40dB a sixteenth or 16 times louder.

 

 

We can see that the large peak at slightly less than halfway across is indeed the Fundamental of C4 at 261.6Hz. Going to our right we see peaks at all the expected intervals in the harmonic series. Including the Fundamental, the partials are: C4, C5, G5, C6, E6, G6, A#6, C7, D7, E7, F7, G7, after which they are becoming increasingly close together, increasingly discordant, but fortunately for us, decreasingly significant in amplitude.

 

You'll notice that the highest peak, A#6, is discordant with the rest of the series, probably adding a certain piquancy to the flavour. But that is the nature of the 7th harmonic. In some instruments, eg pianos, the hammers can be placed in the ideal location along the string to minimise exciting it. Not much you can do with a concertina reed!

 

You'll see there's nothing of interest below (to the left of) the Fundamental, other than a gentle rise in the noise floor, probably a combination of real-life noise in my office/lab, and microphone self-noise.

 

And not an awful lot of significant content above say 6kHz - these upper harmonics are 30dB (one eighth) or more down on the main partials, so not likely to interest us much. The higher pitch reeds might be more adventurous. We can certainly afford to ignore that top octave of the audible spectrum, from 10kHz to 20kHz! Concertinas aren't "bright". Harpsichords are "bright"!

 

One thing I'd be a little suspicious of is the extra amplitude around the 7th to 9th harmonics. Note that the noise floor also features a bump there of about the same amplitude. That could be a resonance in the microphone capsule (perhaps left in to add a little extra brightness), a room resonance, or something else spurious. I'd want to check that before relying on these results.

 

If we were to subtract that extra height (about 12dB or so), the tops of those three peaks would now be in line with a linear decay at a rate of about 9dB per octave from about the 3rd peak to where it starts to really drop off around 6K. This "flat top for the first few partials, then a linear decay" is a common pattern in many musical instruments.

 

So, interesting stuff. If we now look at what a tiny electret capsule sees, we'll see if they could be convinced to come to similar conclusions.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Terry McGee

[Terry McGee]

Hi Jims

 

I certainly sympathise with you in terms of sound people who take it upon themselves to "redesign" the sound. Many of them seem to believe that the role of melody instruments and singers is to provide a harmonic background for the rhythm guitarist. When I'm the rhythm guitarist I'm appalled to be booming over everybody else. Playing softer of course is not a solution - then the determined re-designer simply cranks the level up to the point where you don't need your right hand at all - fingering the chords is loud enough! And when you tell them that our tunes and songs are the main bit and the guitar is just accompaniment, they give you that strange look normally reserved for potentially dangerous madmen.

 

I think the spectrum analysis above supports your view that the microphone (properly used) should not be much of an issue. I suspect we'll find that the words "properly used" might be critical in the case of the on-board systems. The challenge might be to find better ways to use them.

 

We often find ourselves in situations where there is no sound operator - just our own or the house PA. That of course gives you total power, total responsibility and a problem being in two places at once - up on stage playing, and down in the venue listening and adjusting. Can't see any technical solution to that one yet!

[JimLucas]

We often find ourselves in situations where there is no sound operator - just our own or the house PA. That of course gives you total power, total responsibility and a problem being in two places at once - up on stage playing, and down in the venue listening and adjusting. Can't see any technical solution to that one yet!

 

Sound equipment by Schrödinger?

I think the company logo is two cats.

[Terry McGee]

Hmmm, didn't we determine elsewhere that cats don't like concertinas?