SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I had a live location recording yesterday where I had to record a baby grand piano recital. My signal chain was going from a Rode NT4 coincident-close miking the strings about 6" below the hammers and an early-production NT1 about 6-8 feet away for a little ambient fill into a Mackie CR1604-VLZ (not the newer VLZPro) for level control and stereo submixing. From there I ran the stereo subs 1&2 out of the Mackie into a Tascam us122, which acted as the USB interface into a laptop recorder using Audobe Audition 1.0.
We worked on it all day, trying to get the right piano sound, trying all sorts of different microphones and mic placements (the Rodes/placement combination described above actually sounded the best of all the permutations), but we just couldn't get the sound "right". There was definitely a lack of definition and air in the higher registers, the transients felt somewhat squashed.
Finnaly, in an act of almost desparation, we eliminated the Mackie mixer from the chain, plugging the two channels from the NT4 directly into the Tascam (eliminating the ambient mic for the time being.) Whammo, the sounds from the NT4 direct into the Tascam were what we had come to expect from that mic. It was as if a veil had been lifted; the high freqs were now focused and airy. Before even turning up the monitors or slapping on the headphones, we could *see* the difference in the envelopes of the waveform displays in audition. Though the RMS and peak levels on the meters were the same, the transient dynamics in the waveforms were much more evedent.
Just as a test, we ran the NT4 by itself back through the Mackie and Tascam combo and that put the veil right back on the signal. This proved to us that it was not the third channel of ambient signal from the NT1 causing the problems, it was the inclusion of the Mackie itself into the signal chain. BTW, all channel strip EQs were set flat, there were no devices plugged into any of the channel inserts, and all Aux sends were inert, so there was no extra funny business going on there.
Now, I know that the Crystal preamps on the 1604VLZ are no Apogees, but I also know that they ain't all *that* bad. And as much as I admire the Tascam 122 as a 2-channel PC interface, I'd find it very hard to believe that its preamps were actually any better than the Mackies, expecially by such a dramatic amount. And finally, I also know and believe with every fiber of my being in the axiom "keep your signal chain as short as possible", but I also find it hard to believe that the addition of one mixer of the known quality of the Mackie (and a mixer which I have used for 5 years, and know how it "should" sound.) into the chain should/would cause such a dramatic difference in sound quality.
Questions: Has anybody had a similar problem either with the Mackie or the Tascam? Is this simply a length-of-signal-chain problem? Are the Crystal preamps on the VLZ that bad with acoustic piano? Or is there perhaps a problem with the Tascam in the quality in it's TRS inputs (into which the Mackie was plugged, with the signal level set to "Line") versus it's Mic XLR inputs (into which the NT4 was plugged direct.)?
Any useful input on this matter would be appreciated.
G.
We worked on it all day, trying to get the right piano sound, trying all sorts of different microphones and mic placements (the Rodes/placement combination described above actually sounded the best of all the permutations), but we just couldn't get the sound "right". There was definitely a lack of definition and air in the higher registers, the transients felt somewhat squashed.
Finnaly, in an act of almost desparation, we eliminated the Mackie mixer from the chain, plugging the two channels from the NT4 directly into the Tascam (eliminating the ambient mic for the time being.) Whammo, the sounds from the NT4 direct into the Tascam were what we had come to expect from that mic. It was as if a veil had been lifted; the high freqs were now focused and airy. Before even turning up the monitors or slapping on the headphones, we could *see* the difference in the envelopes of the waveform displays in audition. Though the RMS and peak levels on the meters were the same, the transient dynamics in the waveforms were much more evedent.
Just as a test, we ran the NT4 by itself back through the Mackie and Tascam combo and that put the veil right back on the signal. This proved to us that it was not the third channel of ambient signal from the NT1 causing the problems, it was the inclusion of the Mackie itself into the signal chain. BTW, all channel strip EQs were set flat, there were no devices plugged into any of the channel inserts, and all Aux sends were inert, so there was no extra funny business going on there.
Now, I know that the Crystal preamps on the 1604VLZ are no Apogees, but I also know that they ain't all *that* bad. And as much as I admire the Tascam 122 as a 2-channel PC interface, I'd find it very hard to believe that its preamps were actually any better than the Mackies, expecially by such a dramatic amount. And finally, I also know and believe with every fiber of my being in the axiom "keep your signal chain as short as possible", but I also find it hard to believe that the addition of one mixer of the known quality of the Mackie (and a mixer which I have used for 5 years, and know how it "should" sound.) into the chain should/would cause such a dramatic difference in sound quality.
Questions: Has anybody had a similar problem either with the Mackie or the Tascam? Is this simply a length-of-signal-chain problem? Are the Crystal preamps on the VLZ that bad with acoustic piano? Or is there perhaps a problem with the Tascam in the quality in it's TRS inputs (into which the Mackie was plugged, with the signal level set to "Line") versus it's Mic XLR inputs (into which the NT4 was plugged direct.)?
Any useful input on this matter would be appreciated.
G.