structural noise / vocals

coming soon

structural noise / vocals

Postby archive » Wed Mar 31, 2004 2:45 am

From: "Sjoerd Koppert" <sjoerd@n...>
Date: Sat Jan 13, 2001 3:29 am
Subject: structural noise / vocals

Interesting thread!
As I could well have been the person sending people to the bathroom
before a Floyd gig, depending on the date (the ones who'd just eaten
normally didn't make it), and 'coz it touches on some of my pet
peaves, here's my 2 pennies worth:
Structural noise used to be a huge problem in the '60's / early '70's,
when large PA's normally lived stage left & right. The introduction
of flying systems helped overcome the problem to a large extend,
especially with subs placed off stage, on the ground.
Now it is - in my opinion (and I'm an old opinionated bastard) the
main problem in small venues. Most small stages are boomboxes and
totally wreck the sound. Easy to fix, without spending a lot.
Recently I re-did a friends club (he wanted to buy a new PA system
'coz the sound was bad), by removing the stage's ply floor, building
compartments under the stage with cheap ply, and filling them with 4
tons of rough sand. (do the same with those awful monitor stands -
you'll notice a big difference). Glued / stapled spare peaces of ply
to the bottem of the floor before putting them in place again -
problem fixed for $250 instead of buying a new system.
Second - and in my opinion one of the most common structural noise
problems - drum risers and any other type of commonly used platforms.
How can you expect to get a good sound by placing instruments on a
resonating platform? Answer - you can't. It effect.s everything,
especially in the low to low-mid ranges. Doesn't matter if you use
good shockmounts on your mics - the instrument itself will sound
awfull. Dampen it!!! (bloody easy isn't it? them why don't people
do it?)

Vocal sound:
"Roll off is a matter of taste / kindo' music / style" - is it?
A LOT exists in the lower frequency ranges - especially in vocals.
This is where a voice's character becomes apparent, and where
psycho-acoustics come into play.
If you, or any singer, has a "midrangy" voice, that does NOT mean that
you should / could just roll-off the low end. Just think about it.
Some microphone manufacturers now make mic's especially for female
vocals like, for instance the AT 4055. What distinguishes the mic's
from the normal? A very much extended low end. It introduces warmth
and character.
Regardless of what type of music you are recording, shelving or
rolling off as a matter of cause is, in my opinion (and like I said,
I'm an opinionated so-and-so) wrong and lazy. Record with the best
possible microphone / pre-amp combination, at the widest range
possible. At least them you'll have something to work with when you
come to mix vocal and music together.
(people who roll-off as a matter of cause might as well record
everything 44.1 16 bit - it ends up on a CD anyway right?)
With regards to "cutting a hole" at 100 cycles to make room for the
vocals - A lot happens at around 100 - if you have to eq
instrumentation out to make room for vocals there is something
drastically wrong with your choice / setup of systems.
Finally - to return to structural born noise - one of the biggest
problems here is within speaker enclosures themselves. Ring
modulation is a serious problem, which has only recently become
recognised by some manufacturers, like EV. That is why EV's new PA
system sounds awsome, that is also why JBL has now for the first time
manufactured a brilliant monitor system.
So, thats my bit - but then - you know the rest.........
archive
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:26 am

Postby archive » Wed Mar 31, 2004 2:46 am

From: Stephen Foster <oncourse@i...>
Date: Sat Jan 13, 2001 2:19 pm
Subject: Re: [acoustics] structural noise / vocals

Well put. That concert was in/around Memphis somewhere in the 70s. I'm a
little fuzzy about that decade.

The whole thing with cutting a hole at 100 cycles has bothered me too. We
don't seem to have a problem with it at our studio, so I don't mess with
it. I'd guess it is used less these days with the advent of dig mixing and
cutting, because the tape buildup at 100 cycles is a goner. I do believe
it's still a Nville thang. Those mixes coming out of Nville are getting
fatter and fatter though, so maybe there's hope for them yet. (C'mon DM...
rise to the bait) *S*.

I am an advocate and practitioner of "layering", or whatever it's being
currently called. We just put in a subwoofer system (I had UREI 811Bs in
my old studio and got used to mixing from the bottom up, hearing all those
lows and getting them sorted out BEFORE messing with anything else in the
mix) and I am in happy-land again. We don't have a monster playback
system, but at least now I can hear all the freq range of my favorite CDs,
and our mixes are sounding great on other systems. I drive my friends nuts
going over to play new mixes on any system they have, from giant quad to
boom boxes. If it sounds right on all of them, then it's a go. Plus, with
a good lowend system, I can "feel" like I'm mixing at a good level. I just
like it loud... I think Billy bought the subwoofer to keep me from blowing
his EVs up.

Isn't it interesting how diff mixers work, and yet things still come out
OK. Just goes to show that we as engineers are a LOT more worried about
little stuff than the buying public. Most of them couldn't give a rat's
ass about most of the stuff we work for weeks on. Sometimes I think I'm
critical-mixing for about 50-60 people, and the other 250 million would
just as soon have a copy of the session reference mix.

sf

>Interesting thread!
>As I could well have been the person sending people to the bathroom
>before a Floyd gig, depending on the date (the ones who'd just eaten
>normally didn't make it), and 'coz it touches on some of my pet
>peaves, here's my 2 pennies worth:
>Structural noise used to be a huge problem in the '60's / early '70's,
>when large PA's normally lived stage left & right. The introduction
>of flying systems helped overcome the problem to a large extend,
>especially with subs placed off stage, on the ground.
>Now it is - in my opinion (and I'm an old opinionated bastard) the
>main problem in small venues. Most small stages are boomboxes and
>totally wreck the sound. Easy to fix, without spending a lot.
>Recently I re-did a friends club (he wanted to buy a new PA system
>'coz the sound was bad), by removing the stage's ply floor, building
>compartments under the stage with cheap ply, and filling them with 4
>tons of rough sand. (do the same with those awful monitor stands -
>you'll notice a big difference). Glued / stapled spare peaces of ply
>to the bottem of the floor before putting them in place again -
>problem fixed for $250 instead of buying a new system.
>Second - and in my opinion one of the most common structural noise
>problems - drum risers and any other type of commonly used platforms.
>How can you expect to get a good sound by placing instruments on a
>resonating platform? Answer - you can't. It effect.s everything,
>especially in the low to low-mid ranges. Doesn't matter if you use
>good shockmounts on your mics - the instrument itself will sound
>awfull. Dampen it!!! (bloody easy isn't it? them why don't people
>do it?)
>
>Vocal sound:
> "Roll off is a matter of taste / kindo' music / style" - is it?
>A LOT exists in the lower frequency ranges - especially in vocals.
>This is where a voice's character becomes apparent, and where
>psycho-acoustics come into play.
>If you, or any singer, has a "midrangy" voice, that does NOT mean that
>you should / could just roll-off the low end. Just think about it.
>Some microphone manufacturers now make mic's especially for female
>vocals like, for instance the AT 4055. What distinguishes the mic's
>from the normal? A very much extended low end. It introduces warmth
>and character.
>Regardless of what type of music you are recording, shelving or
>rolling off as a matter of cause is, in my opinion (and like I said,
>I'm an opinionated so-and-so) wrong and lazy. Record with the best
>possible microphone / pre-amp combination, at the widest range
>possible. At least them you'll have something to work with when you
>come to mix vocal and music together.
>(people who roll-off as a matter of cause might as well record
>everything 44.1 16 bit - it ends up on a CD anyway right?)
>With regards to "cutting a hole" at 100 cycles to make room for the
>vocals - A lot happens at around 100 - if you have to eq
>instrumentation out to make room for vocals there is something
>drastically wrong with your choice / setup of systems.
>Finally - to return to structural born noise - one of the biggest
>problems here is within speaker enclosures themselves. Ring
>modulation is a serious problem, which has only recently become
>recognised by some manufacturers, like EV. That is why EV's new PA
>system sounds awsome, that is also why JBL has now for the first time
>manufactured a brilliant monitor system.
>So, thats my bit - but then - you know the rest.........
>
>
>
>For more info, unsubscribe, large file uploads, ect: http://www.studiotips.com
>Send small drawing files to dan@s...
>To Unsubscribe: Send email to
>acoustics-unsubscribe@e????ups.com

Stephen Foster
MillKids/Howler Studios/MFoV Info
http://www.idnmusic.com/howler
WhiteHorse Records
IDNMusic.com
http://www.idnmusic.com
all music. all indie.
archive
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:26 am

Postby archive » Wed Mar 31, 2004 2:46 am

From: "Dave Martin" <dave.martin@n...>
Date: Sat Jan 13, 2001 2:54 pm
Subject: Re: [acoustics] structural noise / vocals

----- Original Message -----

: Well put. That concert was in/around Memphis somewhere in the 70s. I'm a
: little fuzzy about that decade.
:
: The whole thing with cutting a hole at 100 cycles has bothered me too. We
: don't seem to have a problem with it at our studio, so I don't mess with
: it. I'd guess it is used less these days with the advent of dig mixing
and
: cutting, because the tape buildup at 100 cycles is a goner. I do believe
: it's still a Nville thang. Those mixes coming out of Nville are getting
: fatter and fatter though, so maybe there's hope for them yet. (C'mon
DM...
: rise to the bait) *S*.

Nope - I'm going to ignore it, as it deserves to be ignored. If you want to
stop by and give a listen on my Dynaudios, though, I'd be happy to play you
some of the current crop of 'country' as well as some of Metallica's singles
and let you show me where the low end is missing in the country tracks...
:
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc.
Nashville, TN
archive
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:26 am

Postby archive » Wed Mar 31, 2004 2:47 am

From: "Sjoerd Koppert" <sjoerd@n...>
Date: Sat Jan 13, 2001 10:01 pm
Subject: Re: structural noise / vocals

--- In acoustics@e????ups.com, "Dave Martin" <dave.martin@n...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
"That concert was in/around Memphis somewhere in the 70s. I'm a
little fuzzy about that decade".

If it was before '76, it must have been me - I think - what decade?

"Those mixes coming out of Nville are getting fatter, so maybe there's
hope for them yet".

Don't worry - they're always some 15 years behind ..... but they'll
catch up eventually .... I mean .... they'll see the light ..... but
then .... we'll be 15 years ahead again won't we?? ***grin***

In the meantime - what about a nice country 5.1 mix in 24/96 with good
use of the subs? Eeehhhh -- Have they got enough bathrooms there?
archive
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:26 am

Postby archive » Wed Mar 31, 2004 2:47 am

From: Stephen Foster <oncourse@i...>
Date: Sat Jan 13, 2001 10:39 pm
Subject: Re: [acoustics] structural noise / vocals

Heeeheeee.. I knew you'd get into that one...
archive
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:26 am

Postby archive » Wed Mar 31, 2004 2:48 am

From: Stephen Foster <oncourse@i...>
Date: Sat Jan 13, 2001 11:06 pm
Subject: Re: [acoustics] Re: structural noise / vocals

yeah... it was before '76, 'cause I was in Muscle Shoals during that period.

15 years is 15 years *S*

Did you see Dave Martin's comeback? He's one of those guys that the old
Nville people shake their heads over. Can't be worth much... he's a friend
of Randy Bleveins.

Regarding bathrooms, I think Annie Lennox and Dave Stewart are the nick on
that, hmm? Still some of the best reverb around.

sf
archive
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:26 am

Postby archive » Wed Mar 31, 2004 2:49 am

From: perrault@i...
Date: Sun Jan 14, 2001 2:00 pm
Subject: structural noise / vocals

>,,,,,,,Nope - I'm going to ignore it, as it deserves to be ignored.,,,,,,

It's a good point DM makes. Listen to the *Love Me Do* re-master on
that hot selling Beatles compilation.

Can you say, "Camaro mix"? <g>

DP
archive
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:26 am

Postby archive » Wed Mar 31, 2004 2:53 am

Date: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [acoustics] structural noise / vocals

HAHAHAHA

You guys are killin me!
archive
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:26 am

Postby archive » Wed Mar 31, 2004 2:54 am

From: "Dave Martin" <dave.martin@n...>
Date: Sun Jan 14, 2001 4:44 pm
Subject: Re: [acoustics] Re: structural noise / vocals

From: "Stephen Foster" <oncourse@i...>
:
: Did you see Dave Martin's comeback? He's one of those guys that the old
: Nville people shake their heads over. Can't be worth much... he's a
friend
: of Randy Bleveins.
:
Everybody's a friend of Randy Blevins (unless he won't give them the price
they want to pay...). And I spend as much time as I can in the company of
the 'old Nashville people', because they're the guys who still know how to
make great sounding records with a live band. From Lou Bradley to Bil
Vorndick to Glenn Meadows - I'm there to pick their brains for all the
information that I can get (and they're surprisingly open with methods and
techniques).

In fact, I just heard about another New York recording technique that I'm
gonna try as soon as I can, simply because it 'seems' wrong. A friend
suggested that if I want that classic jazz piano sound (like the old Blue
Note records), use a single RCA 44 ribbon on a Steinway. He told me that
this is how they did it back then. I look forward to the opportunity to try
it...

Dave Martin
DMA, Inc.
Nashville, TN
archive
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:26 am

Postby archive » Wed Mar 31, 2004 2:56 am

From: Stephen Foster <oncourse@i...>
Date: Sun Jan 14, 2001 7:34 pm
Subject: Re: [acoustics] Re: structural noise / vocals

Dave Martin wrote:
A friend
suggested that if I want that classic jazz piano sound (like the old Blue
Note records), use a single RCA 44 ribbon on a Steinway. He told me that
this is how they did it back then. I look forward to the opportunity to try
it...

We pulled out an old 50s EV644 last nite and cut a slide guitar through a
Marshall, and it was so smoothe and bell-like we nearly croaked. Now it's
in a safe place. Hammerheads, we call them. Also found a Radio Shack copy
of the Crown PZM. I've used them before, and they're absolutely amazing..
totally flat and sweet. RS is selling out the line, and I got this one for
$4.97 plus tah. HEEEEHEEEEEHEEEE. I wish I could find 5-6 more. I've
used them on acc pianos, acc guitars, drums, as wall mics, ceiling, flat in
the middle of the floor, and they're totally seamless. Actually smoother
than the EV original. Less mid-range and not as harsh. Hi-Z, so you gotta
convert, but so what?

sf

Stephen Foster
MillKids/Howler Studios/MFoV Info
http://www.idnmusic.com/howler
WhiteHorse Records
IDNMusic.com
http://www.idnmusic.com
all music. all indie.
archive
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:26 am

Postby archive » Wed Mar 31, 2004 2:58 am

From: Stephen Foster <oncourse@i...>
Date: Sun Jan 14, 2001 7:34 pm
Subject: Re: [acoustics] Re: structural noise / vocals

Hey... all my old friends are up in Nville.... Randy McCormick, Bob Wray,
Milton Sledge, on and on... I take potshots at them whenever possible.
They wouldn't know what to do if I told them I think they sound great these
days. The whole Southern music experience is blending together again... I
was part of it back in the 70s, and it was funnnnn to use flatpickin licks
on rock & roll records, and heavy guitars on a country chorus. It's
turning into a whole new genre. I love it!
As long as it has an edge, I'm there.

sf

>From: "Stephen Foster" <oncourse@i...>
>:
>: Did you see Dave Martin's comeback? He's one of those guys that the old
>: Nville people shake their heads over. Can't be worth much... he's a
>friend
>: of Randy Bleveins.
>:
>Everybody's a friend of Randy Blevins (unless he won't give them the price
>they want to pay...). And I spend as much time as I can in the company of
>the 'old Nashville people', because they're the guys who still know how to
>make great sounding records with a live band. From Lou Bradley to Bil
>Vorndick to Glenn Meadows - I'm there to pick their brains for all the
>information that I can get (and they're surprisingly open with methods and
>techniques).
>
>In fact, I just heard about another New York recording technique that I'm
>gonna try as soon as I can, simply because it 'seems' wrong. A friend
>suggested that if I want that classic jazz piano sound (like the old Blue
>Note records), use a single RCA 44 ribbon on a Steinway. He told me that
>this is how they did it back then. I look forward to the opportunity to try
>it...
>
>Dave Martin
>DMA, Inc.
>Nashville, TN
>
>
>For more info, unsubscribe, large file uploads, ect: http://www.studiotips.com
>Send small drawing files to dan@s...
>To Unsubscribe: Send email to
>acoustics-unsubscribe@e????ups.com

Stephen Foster
MillKids/Howler Studios/MFoV Info
http://www.idnmusic.com/howler
WhiteHorse Records
IDNMusic.com
http://www.idnmusic.com
all music. all indie.
archive
 
Posts: 4697
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:26 am


Return to 2001 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest