Nice article introducing mic techniques

Cloud ribbon mic

Often, a young engineer will start to position microphones based on what they see done by others or read in a magazine. 
Sometimes they experiment and move the mics to see if the sound improves, but usually once someone ends up with a mic setup they like they stop trying to improve it.
There are certain standard approaches that have been successful, but even these approaches should never be considered “etched in stone”. 
Always experiment, especially if it just means putting up a second mic to try a new position without moving the mic you are already happy with.
Once upon a time I had fallen into a typical routine of going with what I was told worked or what I watched the engineers I had assisted use. 
I was recording piano with a pair of matching mics in an XY pattern around the hammers. I knew of many approaches (another mic at the far end of the piano and then pan that mic over to the bass side of the stereo spread, pair of PZMs taped to the piano lid, throwing mics under, over, and in the holes, etc). 


Sometimes I would use a pair of mics just outside the lid but only when I could get away with more warmth and less percussive clarity.
One day I was working with the talented pianist Warren Wolfe. I was setting up my mics and he said, “You know, nobody ever wants to hear my advice to get the best piano sounds, they always just put mics in the same places.”
I stopped what I was doing, looked him right in the eye and said, “OK, tell me.”
He then said, “All you have to do is to put your head in the piano and listen. Where it sounds good is where you put the microphones.”
So, I moved the mic stands out of the way and listened while he played. Fortunately he played in a way that allowed me to hear how the different sounds from the piano at different ranges and volumes bounced around the piano box…the resonating chamber. 
I then put mics where my right and left ears where (very different from the tight XY I usually used) and played with the angles until I felt they were closer to my actual ear positions.  When I threw up the faders, I was blown away.
The sound was full, and had a more intimate sound than when I used outside mics (click here for an example).  Now I always move my head around inside the piano while the musician played not only wide range material but the actual parts and ranges they would be playing that day. 
Sometimes I went back to the XY over the hammers or pair just outside the box, but in general I always found places in the piano I liked.
I now find it especially helpful to listen to all instruments before placing the mic, often getting weird looks from the musician while I walked around them getting closer and farther and moving my head up and down searching for the sweet spots (you would be surprised there can be more than one, each slightly different). 

Even guitar amps deserve listening to as each speaker sounds slightly different.
Yes, you can accomplish the same thing by having someone moving mics around from an eye driven position while you listen in the control room until your mic hits the sweet spot, but doesn’t it make sense to go find the sweet spots first?
Sometimes you may need to find different spots that emphasize different parts of a sound, or even different parts of a sound that must be captured independently. 
A good example of this is how I record Sanshin, which sounds sort of like a fretless banjo made of snake instead of paper played with rhythmic syncopated notes rather than arpeggios. 
When I walked around and listened while the Rinken Band played, I noticed a spot where it sounded rich, and that within that spot I could easily hear both an attack and a throaty twang. 
To capture that I used a condenser for the highs and an old ribbon for the throaty twang, both in the sweet spot I prefered. 
Rinken told me nobody had every captured the real sound of the Sanshin before. Had I not listened first and in doing so learned what was important to capture I would have ended up with something typical (thin) rather than strong.
In general, you are best off moving your head around the area of an instrument (including above and below, close and far), then placing the microphone where your ear hears the best sound. 
Start with suggested positions, but put your head there and listen before you automatically put a mic there and assume it is the best starting placement.
The key to mic placement is understanding what you are tying to capture, choosing the right mic and finding the location and positioning to most strongly capture the sound source. 
You may have to make sacrifices for the performance (moving the acoustic guitar mic because the musician is wildly throwing his picking arm around) or sacrifices due to available microphones (etc) but you will always capture the music if you mic with your ears instead of your eyes.


Bruce A. Miller is an acclaimed recording engineer who operates an independent recording studio and the BAM Audio School website.

Mercury brings a message of hope, approaching rapidly

The new custom shop range is on the horizon. Keep your eyes peeled for these, they are gonna be amazing.

 

Stereo Versions of the tube EQ's & full tube channel strips (below)

MERCURY RECORDING EQUIPMENT COMPANY
The Mercury Custom Shop

"In 2010, the Mercury Custom Shop was started as an additional avenue to bring new Mercury products to the marketplace on a smaller scale," says David Marquette, "and a way to introduce some Mercury limited editions from time to time." The Mercury Custom Shop will also be a source to keep some of the company's original versions available while lowering user cost on some of their standard product line, like the Mercury M72s and M76m. The first new offerings from the Mercury Custom Shop are the Mercury EQP2, Mercury EQH2, dual channel versions of Mercury's popular tube program Equalizers and two 'Mercury Studio Channels' - the Mercury MSC-72 and Mercury MSC-76, which have a Mic amplifier and Program Equalizer in the same package. There are also plans for Mastering versions of some Mercury products in the near future as well, which would be special order through the new Mercury Custom Shop.


With requests from our valued clients, who made our mono Mercury EQH1 and EQP1 Studio Program Equalizer so successful, the Mercury Custom Shop is now offering all new, dual channel program equalizers. The EQH2 is two independent channels of the Mercury EQ-H1 in a 2U package. The EQP2 is two independent channels of the Mercury EQ-P1 in a 3U package, and it has a Mercury IST switch on each channel, offering the choice to switch the Interstage Transformer in or out of the circuit. Choose between our standard warm, musical, vintage tone (In) or a more more open and airy version of the same full, warm tone (out)! Both are fully transformer balanced with independent XLR Input and outputs.

The Mercury Custom Shop is also debuting two 'Mercury Studio Channels'. The Mercury MSC-72 and MSC-76. The MSC-72 has two independent channels: one of the Mercury M72s/1 Studio Microphone Amplifier and one of the Mercury EQ-H1 together in a single, 2U package. Both channels are fully transformer balanced outputs with independent XLR inputs and outputs. The MSC-76 has two independent channels: one of the Mercury M76m/1 Studio Microphone Amplifier and one of the Mercury EQ-P1 together in a 3U package, and also has fully transformer balanced outputs with independent XLR inputs and outputs. This provides the option to use the microphone amplifier and equalizer together or separately.

Retro Tube Powerstrip

Oh man! I have to have a pair of these!

PRO AUDIO: RETRO Instruments presents the POWERSTRIP

Retro Instruments, makers of critically acclaimed gear like the Retro Sta-Level and Retro 176 limiting amplifier, will debut the RETRO POWERSTRIP Recording Channel, the latest design from Retro Instruments’ Phil Moore, at the 2010 AES Convention.

The RETRO POWERSTRIP Recording Channel is a high powered “channel strip” that captures the tone of a tube mixing desk, Pultec-style tube EQ and British tube compressor all in one compact 2u rack unit. Described by Retro Instruments as a "vintage studio in a box," it includes transformer coupled Class-A tube microphone preamplifier with phantom power and industry-standard Passive EQ with authentic feel, controls and equalization curves.

“The RETRO POWERSTRIP has all the right inputs and enough gain for every microphone and instrument you can throw at it,” says Moore, Retro Instruments’ Founder and Chief Engineer. “With a balanced line level input for pro-interface instruments and for use during mix time, the performance is purely musical. It’s perfect for use in any size recording studio or on stage.”

• Transformer coupled Class-A tube microphone preamplifier with phantom power

• Industry-standard Passive EQ with authentic feel, controls and equalization curves

• Classic British variable-mu tube compression

• Front panel 1/4' instrument jack

• Rear panel XLR mic and line inputs and line output are fully-floating transformer balanced to eliminate ground-induced hum and noise

• Interstage-coupled Subsonic High-Pass Filter provides Peaking LF Boosts with alternate tonal characteristics

• LF Boost Settings of 20, 30, 60 and 100 Hz Complementary LF Cut settings of 20, 30, 60 and 100 Hz

• HF Boost Settings of 1.5 kHz, 3 kHz, 4 kHz, 5 kHz, 6 kHz, 8 kHz, 10 kHz, 12 kHz, 14 kHz and 16 kHz

• Complementary HF Cut Settings of 5 kHz, 10 kHz and 20 kHz

• Six selectable compressor attack/release time-constants

• 90 / 250 Hz compressor high-pass sidechain filter

• Easily recallable 100-position knob scales

• The compressor and equalizer can be independently bypassed

• Phase reversal switch. Front panel meter zero adjustment

• IEC power inlet with 120/240VAC 50/60Hz power mains standard

• Ability to use current production and new-old-stock tubes

• Tube enthusiasts have many options and resulting tone variations

• Tube changes require no alignment

• The instrument input loops to a rear panel jack for stage amplifier

• Rear panel line level XLR output and low-level balanced output for processed stage amplifier

• Design minimizes tube heat generation

• High stability components used throughout

• Steel Chassis built to last

• Manufactured in the USA

• Full factory support

Preparing for Mastering

I found an article I feel expresses the scenario of mastering really well: 

For many people, price will be one of their main criteria for deciding whether to use one mastering service over another. Charges do vary a great deal, but a CD album typically costs somewhere between £900 and £1800 including VAT in the UK. Surround and vinyl masters differ considerably, and will need to be budgeted for separately. It's also worth noting that mastering houses tend to quote their prices excluding VAT, so it's worth clarifying this before the session if you're not VAT registered.

MixingSetup

For the example project, mixing was carried out in a typical home-studio environment, with little in the way of acoustic treatment. However, consultation with the mastering engineer during the mixdown process ensured that the final mixes would respond well at the mastering stage.

In most cases, though, mastering services are charged by the hour, so it is not always certain how much a project will eventually cost. Ray Staff explains: "An average album will take about a day's work, but how much that costs still depends on the length of the session. It could be eight or ten hours work. Sometimes I'll work on a record for a couple of days because there are so many bits to EQ or marry up. That's often because of differences in sound where people have worked in more than one studio. You can also find that a mix done in the middle of the night can sound very bright whereas another done during the day is fresh and sweet, but you've got to make them sit side by side. Until you get going you just don't know."

There are a number of services advertising on the web which offer cheap mastering for small labels. Most allow tracks to be sent for mastering via email, either one at a time or as part of an album project. Paying a little bit more for a more personal service may well be worthwhile in the end, though, largely because being present at the session is the only way to interact with the engineer. It also enables you to see what equipment is being used and who is doing the work.

I asked Ray what factors might account for the large differences in price between budget mastering jobs and the more expensive ones. "If someone is offering to master an album for £300, there will be a reason. It is not unusual for us to get calls from someone saying that the record company has sent it to somebody who thinks they are a mastering engineer because they have a PC at home. The artist has ended up being disappointed with the result and have come here to have it all done again. Some places use cheap equipment, software, and plug-ins, and bosh stuff up very quickly, breaking all the quality rules in the process.

"This is particularly the case if you want to release your album on vinyl, because your engineer needs to have the relevant experience. I have often received masters prepared without this experience and they are totally unacceptable. There are many things that contribute to a good vinyl cut and they all have to be addressed.

"To do a good job for CD mastering you have to know how to hook up digital equipment properly, understand things like clocking and dithering, and how to increase levels while avoiding distortion. Digital is always sold as something that is perfect, but there is good digital and bad digital, as well as cheap and expensive digital. Off the top of my head, I can think of only three or four digital equalisers that I would say are OK. I also have a bee in my bonnet about people sending stuff to the factory on CD instead of using DDP format on Exabyte tape. To me, most CDs manufactured from a master CD sound crap, but that is the only format many of the cheaper places can give you."

Getting Started

Knowing that my room at home was quite likely to have uneven acoustics, I wanted to find out from Ray if there were any tests I could conduct to establish if my mixes were reasonably well balanced. Ray explained that unless I had a properly calibrated or acoustically treated room set up by a specialist, I could never be certain that my mixes would be free from problems. As few home studios have neutral acoustics, Ray allows people to send him tracks at the start of the mixing process so that they can be demoed on the mastering setup. He is then able to provide some sort of feedback and advice wherever necessary.

"The pitfall in doing that though," warns Ray, "is that other songs can have a completely different spectrum to the ones sent to us. For example, the person mixing may have a big hole in their monitoring at 60Hz which has not affected anything in the sample song. If the next tracks have a bass guitar around that area then they could find themselves boosting those frequencies so that when it gets here everyone is wondering where all the extra bass has come from. So you can't be certain if the rest of the tracks will sound fine, you can only generalise and say that things seem about right.

"There are one or two people who have sent stuff in to ask our opinion prior to a mastering session who have subsequently gone away and mixed things differently. Recently, a chap brought in a recording that was so over-compressed that I had to say to him that there was not a lot I could do with it, but as the project was still in the recording process, he took it back to the studio, recalled the settings, and reduced the processing to make a nicer-sounding mix."

Spotting Mistakes

Although I'd spent many hours mulling over the relative levels of the various elements in my mixes, I wanted to know what sort of mistakes were commonly encountered by a mastering engineer so that I could check that I wasn't making any of them! "It is not uncommon for domestic stuff to sound really hard, especially if it's been recorded in the digital domain," says Ray. "You might think that it is a result of people using domestic hi-fi speakers that are too flattering, but a lot of modern monitors already sound quite brash, so it's surprising that people don't back off the mid-frequencies a bit. I think it's probably because they are trying to enhance the energy of the track, but have gone about it in the wrong way. I recently had an album to do where someone had really boosted the 3-5kHz range on a couple of tracks, making them sound brash and edgy. The rest of the mix elements were fine, but I couldn't just take the 3-5kHz region down, because all the song's energy was mashed up in that one area. In that situation, reducing the mid-frequencies is almost the same as lowering the volume, so problems like that are really hard to fix at this stage."

SoundMasters

Some mastering companies, such as Soundmasters, offer a remote mastering service, where you send and receive the audio files over the Internet. While this approach is undoubtedly convenient, you'll miss out on observing and interacting with the mastering engineer during the session.

One of the hardest things to judge in a home environment is the bass end. This is because it takes a greater mass of material to attenuate lower frequencies than it does higher ones, so filling a room with soft furnishings will help reduce the highs, and can help remove flutter echo, but it usually takes custom-made acoustic bass traps to effectively neutralise bass hot spots. What's more, when recordings are made in rooms with wooden floors there is the possibility that the entire floor may resonate in sympathy with the bass, making it sound relatively powerful in relation to the mid-range and upper frequencies. To a certain extent, the mastering engineer can be expected to take care of bass problems, but any processing does come at a cost, as Ray explains: "It's quite common to get recordings where one note is very dominant, especially on the bass around 60Hz or 70Hz, but if you try filtering it out with EQ or compressing the bass end, the process affects everything else in that area. For example, taking the bass down sometimes affects the low end of the vocal, drum kit, or it can take the body out of the guitars. I can usually tidy up very low-end rumble at 20-35Hz, but loud bass notes force you to make bigger compromises.

"Every time I try to tackle an individual instrument it's a compromise, because the whole mix is affected. Bass isn't the only problem, though — aggressive sibilance is also common. There is no one area where everyone makes a mistake. A lot of people haven't experienced working in a studio with an engineer on a variety of material. In their studio it's been sounding great so there is huge disappointment when they get to the mastering stage and it doesn't sound right. Sometimes professional studios don't get it right either, though. It doesn't matter what kit they've got, just who's engineering. Good engineers with lots of experience often put things right so mastering is less fiddly. On the other hand, some small guys turn out really good work."

The Mix As A Whole

Apart from problematic frequencies within the mix, there is also the question of how the entire mix should be treated prior to mastering. I wanted to know if there were any processes I should apply to the stereo buss that would enable me to test if my mixes were actually finished enough for mastering. Ray: "I don't have a general rule because my choice is always designed to suit each individual song, and the style of music that's playing, and that's a matter of experience. Compression changes the sound and musicality of what you've got, so it has to be selected properly to be really effective.

Labelling

Mastering houses are inundated with CDs labelled 'Masters', so make sure to include as much relevant information as you can on your own CD-ROMs — CD/file formats, sampling frequency, bit depth, project name, track listing, and contact details can all be useful.


"One thing I would say though is not to use too much compression. A lot of people working in the modern era tend to over-process their audio, but if something is over-compressed it will be too dense for us to manipulate further. You can only compress so far before it starts to take the energy out of the track and then everything starts to sound quiet. Before using a compressor you have to ask yourself why you need to use it, and what it is going to achieve. If compression raises the level, it's worth taking the master volume down to the level of an uncompressed file in order to compare the sound of the two to see what it is really doing, and if it is worthwhile. Originally, compression was used a lot on bass guitars because bass can go everywhere if it's not controlled, and that's a good reason for using it, but you still need the right kind. If it's not appropriate, don't do it."

"It also pays to avoid normalising everything up to maximum level. There's no need to be hammering the end scale, so I suggest that people simply mix to a sensible level and don't normalise at all. It's not so problematic if I'm feeding a digital signal straight into the analogue domain, because I have to control the level anyway, but if it's staying within the digital system and it is very loud, the first thing I have to do is take the level down to regain some headroom, otherwise there's no space for adding a little bit of bass or top.

"Experienced engineers usually provide us with two mixes, one without any mix compression and one where they've compressed for listening purposes, just so they've had something that's a bit louder. Most just use a limiter plug-in like the Waves L2 Ultramaximizer and apply 2-4dB of lift. Having the two versions gives us the opportunity to take the uncompressed version and work on it further."

Supply & Demand

Apart from getting the music sounding right, it is just as important to supply the mastering engineer with the right information so that they can proceed with the job satisfactorily. Certainly any audio files sent to the mastering house prior to the session require detailed labelling so that they can be properly identified, but anyone attending a session also needs to have all the necessary information to hand. If ISRC codes are being used then, in the UK, these need to be obtained from Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) in advance, so that they can be allocated to each track at the end of the session. Ray explains what else is and isn't needed. "We don't need to know lyrics, just song titles and labelling to tell us who owns the project and who's the artist. It is not unusual to get given a CD that just says 'Masters', and in a place like this where there are hundreds of CDs flying around, that's really inadequate. The running order we do need to know. We can amend it, but it is much more cost effective if someone has sat at home and made the decision beforehand. Every time you make a change it will delay proceedings and/or cost more money."

If you're wanting to use ISRC codes to track the broadcast use of your music in the UK, then you'll need to apply to Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) for these — in the first place you might want to use their web application form.

There are also the all-important gaps between songs to consider. "Normally, I prefer people to attend the session and listen to the gaps for themselves, because opinions can differ. I've had people send me an unmastered CD saying that they've worked out all the gaps, so I've read their CD's Table Of Contents to get their timings, and matched mine up exactly. After hearing the master they've then decided that the gaps don't sound right. That's because they're hearing different detail, or because my fades are smoother making it sound different. If someone says 'I prefer my gaps tight', then that's fine, because I have a yardstick to work from, but there is no substitute for attending the session to confirm how the gaps sound.

"On the day we get them as good as we can, but you can only really be sure when you've sat back and listened through a couple of times. It's funny how gaps seem to vary according to what mood you're in. It's not unusual for people to say 'start the next one there' straight after the previous song has finished, and that's because they're not relaxed and are sitting there in anticipation. They often end up calling back later asking if we can add another second to every gap. If you have two energetic songs together you might place them straight after one another, but you might need a longer gap between a big lively song and a moody one, so you have to listen on a musical and emotional level, and do what feels right. Most mastering engineers are used to doing it and do it reasonably well."

Compare & Contrast


In an ideal world, the artist or producer would have time to sit down with the mastering engineer and discuss how the energy of each song is supposed to ebb and flow, as well as how every track relates to the others on the album. Of course, such a discourse would prevent the mastering engineer from getting any work done at all, and it would end up costing a fortune! Ray explains what can be done, though. "I advise people to bring a couple of CDs they know well so that they can listen to them in this room and get used to the environment. Not only does that help them feel comfortable in the studio, but it also gives me an idea of the sort of thing they are trying to emulate. The music has to be something they know and love, and perhaps something they are aspiring to sound like. Obviously if they've got a home recording that they want to sound like U2 then it isn't going to get there. I've had a couple of people who wanted the stuff they'd recorded at home for £5000 to sound like Anastacia, when she's probably spend $300000 making her album. I can't give them that quality, but I can take them in that direction so that it sits in the same stable."


After taking into account Ray's advice, I completed my final mixes, burnt them as 24-bit WAV files to a CD-RW disc and transferred them to my PC where I could gather them together in a folder. The total size of all the tracks was larger than the capacity of one CD, so I split them into two groups. In Easy CD Creator I selected the option for creating a data CD-ROM and set it from Joliet to ISO9660, to be absolutely certain that it was going to be compatible with Ray's system (see the 'Formats Issues' box elsewhere in this article).

On the body of each CD-ROM, I wrote my name and telephone number, the band name, and the date. I also added information about the data saved onto each CD. I included the number of songs, the format, and bit rate, and the fact that they were saved in ISO9660 format. I repeated the same information on the jewel case's paper inlay, together with a complete list of the songs. I made sure that the CDs were labelled '1 of 2' and '2 of 2' so that it was clear they were together.

I posted the lot to the mastering house together with a covering letter explaining the content, and then followed up the posting with a phone call to let Ray know the recording was on its way. We agreed that I would phone back in a few days, giving him a chance to listen to the material. In case he didn't have time to check each file, in the covering letter I had highlighted one key track which I thought was representative, but when I rang back it turned out that Ray had actually listened to a snapshot of each track.

Fortunately there seemed to be no formatting problems and Ray felt the mixes were 'quite pliable' and in a state from which he could make them sound pretty much how I wanted. I had deliberately left off any mix-buss compression or EQ so that he would have more to work with, so I was glad to hear that this had turned out OK. The next step was to book a day for the mastering session, which was simply a matter of phoning the studio, giving my details, and making sure that Ray was working that day. In the mean time, I planned to revisit a couple of the mixes, slightly alter a few fader moves here and there, and take the results to the mastering session on a new CD-ROM.

- Source: Sound on Sound Magazine