Gavin Atkin Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 What's the current thinking on recording concertinas please? Are large diaphragm studio mics a good way to go? And what should the distance from the box be? Are there any other bits of useful techniquery here that a chap should know? If you know the answers I'd love to hear from you please! Thanks, Gav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David S Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I have a large diaphragm Rode and I play about 60cm away from it with the right hand end slightly inclined towards the microphone becuase I play melody mainly on the right with accompaniment on the left. However, I know of others who use a pair of small diaphragm Rodes and record two channels to very good effect. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Atkin Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) I have a large diaphragm Rode and I play about 60cm away from it with the right hand end slightly inclined towards the microphone becuase I play melody mainly on the right with accompaniment on the left. However, I know of others who use a pair of small diaphragm Rodes and record two channels to very good effect. David I guess I'd like to feel I can get good results from what we've got already, which amounts to: - t.bone SC450 condenser (it sounds fabulous to me, but it's out of bounds for the tina as we'll be using it for voices and while I'd like to buy two more that seems a little excessive! - two old AT small diaphragm back-electret condensers (I think they're AT8031s or earlier equivalents) - four no-name Russian made large diaphragm mics I won in a magazine competition 15 years ago (they're ok, but I don't know if they'd be the best thing for the job) Otoh, it may be that large diaghragm mics have moved on markedly, and that even the cheapest models today beat the cheap models of 15 years ago. In which case, I could be persuaded to invest in something new if it were very cheap and was going to be markedly better than what we've got. I notice the the Behringer C1, gets some wonderful reviews at about £30 a throw... As you've probably realised, I've got a weakness for microphones and believe in using models that suit particular instruments and voices without having to touch the eq... I should add that I'm a duet player, so will need to mic both ends of my box independently. Gav Edited February 21, 2009 by Gavin Atkin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_freereeder Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I've started using a pair of AKG C1000 mikes on stands. I have them a little in front of where I sit, pointing towards the ends of the concertina at an angle of about 45 degrees and also pointing down at about 45 degrees again aiming for the centre of each end. Each mike is about 60cm (2 ft in old money) from the concertina ends. At that distance, the effect of moving the concertina about doesn't seem to be noticeable. For digital sound capture the mike XLR leads go into a M-Audio Fast-Track Pro USB audio interface which has a USB connection to my laptop. The interface supplies phantom power to the mikes. I'm very happy with the resulting sound. I'll try to attach a mp3 file of a recording made using this set-up. Over the Hills to Glory and Riggs of Marlow... Over_the_hills_riggs_marlow.mp3 Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Atkin Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 I've started using a pair of AKG C1000 mikes on stands. I have them a little in front of where I sit, pointing towards the ends of the concertina at an angle of about 45 degrees and also pointing down at about 45 degrees again aiming for the centre of each end. Each mike is about 60cm (2 ft in old money) from the concertina ends. At that distance, the effect of moving the concertina about doesn't seem to be noticeable. For digital sound capture the mike XLR leads go into a M-Audio Fast-Track Pro USB audio interface which has a USB connection to my laptop. The interface supplies phantom power to the mikes. I'm very happy with the resulting sound. I'll try to attach a mp3 file of a recording made using this set-up. Over the Hills to Glory and Riggs of Marlow... Over_the_hills_riggs_marlow.mp3 Steve Nice work, and a very nice sound. I guess the nearest I've got to the C1000s at present are the ATs. Thanks for this! Gav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Atkin Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 I should explain that we've also got at Fostex MR-8HD to work with. It seems to work ok but I'm not a great fan of the manual... Gav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_freereeder Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 (edited) Nice work, and a very nice sound. I guess the nearest I've got to the C1000s at present are the ATs. Thanks Gav! Edited February 22, 2009 by Steve_freereeder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Timson Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 However, I know of others who use a pair of small diaphragm Rodes and record two channels to very good effect. Count me amongst them (although whether it's tp good effect others can judge). I have a Rode NT4, which is basically a pair of small diaphragm condensers mounted permanently in a stereo XY arrangement, and I like it so much that I recently got a matched pair of Rode NT5's as well. I'll try and post something later. As you've probably realised, I've got a weakness for microphones and believe in using models that suit particular instruments and voices without having to touch the eq... Totally agree with that too. In fact I'm something of a mic junky - mic lust has significant similarities to concertina lust. Recently got a British valve mic called (believe it or not) a Newmann (sic) Retro. Thing of beauty and sounds great. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Timson Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 OK, someone asked the other day for the sound of my Dipper C/G baritone anglo, so this should kill two birds with one stone. The full recording chain (starting with the Dipper, of course) is a Rode NT4 stereo SDC mic -> DBX 386 dual valve mic preamp -> Soundcraft Spirit SX20 analogue mixer -> Fostex D108 hard disk recorder. For mix down I used an E-mu 0202 USB sound card and Audacity on my PC. I added a little reverb during mix down with a TC Electronic M300. At no point did I use EQ, because that would get in the way of hearing what is going on here. The file is about 2Mb as the mp3 bitrate is 192 kb so s to keep impact on the sound to a minimum. Lily_Marlene_on_baritone.mp3 Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Drinkwater Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Very nice, Chris. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Atkin Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 OK, someone asked the other day for the sound of my Dipper C/G baritone anglo, so this should kill two birds with one stone. The full recording chain (starting with the Dipper, of course) is a Rode NT4 stereo SDC mic -> DBX 386 dual valve mic preamp -> Soundcraft Spirit SX20 analogue mixer -> Fostex D108 hard disk recorder. For mix down I used an E-mu 0202 USB sound card and Audacity on my PC. I added a little reverb during mix down with a TC Electronic M300. At no point did I use EQ, because that would get in the way of hearing what is going on here. The file is about 2Mb as the mp3 bitrate is 192 kb so s to keep impact on the sound to a minimum. Lily_Marlene_on_baritone.mp3 Chris Thanks Chris. A nice, plausible noise with some close-miked detail if one takes time to listen. I'll try to find time to record something - maybe the same tune, if that's ok - tonight or tomorrow using my mystery Russian-made mics, and also using the ATs. Gav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Atkin Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 (edited) Right... think of these as quickly made sketches. I seem to be unable to persuade the forum to accept my mp3s, so the links go somewhere else. Neither of these files have been eq'd, compressed or had any kind of reverb or mastering techniques applied - they have been digitised straight from the mics' terminals, so to speak. The first was recorded with the small diaphragm AT condensers: http://intheboatshed.net/wp-content/upload...ywithatmics.mp3 The second was recorded with the Russian large diaphragm mics (I've noticed they bear the initials ASM, by the way): http://intheboatshed.net/wp-content/upload...russianmics.mp3 I don't think there's much of a contest between these two. The playing's a bit scruffy in each case, but I think the message is clear enough. What do you folks think? Which is best and is it good enough? Gav Edited February 27, 2009 by Gavin Atkin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjcjones Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 They both sound OK to me. The large-diaphram Russian mic seemed to give a bit more presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boney Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 It's a little hard to tell, the level was quite low on both, but especially the AT. I equalized the volume for a more direct comparison, and the Russian mics were quite a bit better. They had a more natural sound, like the concertina was really being played in a room. It also had a bit more meat in the low end, and not as much of a "tin can" sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Atkin Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 It's a little hard to tell, the level was quite low on both, but especially the AT. I equalized the volume for a more direct comparison, and the Russian mics were quite a bit better. They had a more natural sound, like the concertina was really being played in a room. It also had a bit more meat in the low end, and not as much of a "tin can" sound. That's one way of putting it. I just think it sounds more like the instrument I know, which does have presence and a silvery quality. Gav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_freereeder Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I agree with Howard and Boney. The Russian mics give a warmer feel, with some depth to the sound as if you were really in the room listening. Lovely playing BTW, as ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jody Kruskal Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I also agree, the russian mics are better. I used a pair of Rode NT1 mics for "Naked Concertina" and for the concertina and vocal tracks in "Poor Little Lisa Jane." The large diaphragm style seems to capture presence better as you can hear in your samples. I also have a pair of AKG C 451's which I used for fiddles and other strings because of their brilliance and clarity. A/B testing is good. I did such a test between my Rode NT and a $6000 Neumann mic and though I could hear the difference with more detail and nuance in the expensive mic, you might think about it this way... will my audience enjoy the music more if I spend the $ for the expensive equipment? Perhaps, but the performance is so much more important than the recording quality. For the purposes of such a test it's fine to leave effects out of the picture, and of course you should use the mic that sounds the best, but don't shy away from EQ, reverb, compression and other effects to improve your sound after recording. These are all tools that can make your sound better if used with knowledge, discretion and good taste. These tools can make both a poor recording and a great one even better that it was. All mics impart an EQ to the sound. All rooms impart a reverb and presence to the sound. There is nothing wrong with taking control of these qualities after the recording session as long as you use professional software or equipment to do it. Artifacts and unnatural sounds can be created so care has to be taken to avoid these, but still there are many fine tools available for crafting sound. I decided that my Rode mics were good enough for my CDs. Your Russian mics sound pretty good too. That said, you might consider renting or borrowing better mics for your project. Really fine mics will sound better, but how important is that to you? Again, once you get to a decent level of mic, room and recording platform, the quality of the performance and mixing/engineering is so much more important than the quality of the equipment. Other folks might disagree, but that has been my thinking. The last link in the chain of delivery is the listening environment. How many of your listeners are going to be in a totally quiet space with great speakers in a room that sounds good? Few. They will be listening on their computers or in the car. Get your music out there with the best quality you can, but don't worry too much about that last little bit of technical quality. Most of us will not be aware of it. What we will hear is you and your music and that is what is most important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Atkin Posted February 28, 2009 Author Share Posted February 28, 2009 (edited) Jody: Having made several albums with the Florida dance band chaps I don't think I'd disagree with any of the points you make. Sound quality probably matters more to us than to our audience, though there are exceptions. For example, some years ago my studio experiences taught me that studio monitors, not hifi speakers, were the way to hear what the musicians and engineers heard in the studio, and so I bought some for my living room. It was a great decision, and I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to listen seriously to music. But your points beg questions that take me straight back to my request at the beginning of this thread. How do people these days process raw concertina recordings? I think I understand about reverb, but what about other common recording techniques? Do people compress concertina? Do they use valve preamps? Gav [edited for spellings and sense!] Edited February 28, 2009 by Gavin Atkin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now