M
mwarkentin
New member
I record in a church sanctuary.. high ceilings.
My dad's the pastor.
My dad's the pastor.
T
toorglick
New member
Michael Jones
New member
C
cjogo
New member
converted garage
a convertered garage---http://fp2k.redshift.com/cjogo/crystalrecording.htm
C JoGo
a convertered garage---http://fp2k.redshift.com/cjogo/crystalrecording.htm
C JoGo
H
hk_runner
New member
shielding the mic
I notice that some of you record a single voice, and try to minimize the reverberation recorded. Normally you try to create a deader space by room treatment and draperies, which are relatively expensive. In fact the bigger the room, the more expensive it is.
Why can't we simply make a sound-absorbing hollow cylindar (say 6 - 10 inches in diameter) to encase, but not touching the mic (with some space between the inside of the cyclindar and the mic). The cylindar can be mounted on where the shock mount is, or we can cut a small hole through the bottom of the cylindar and put the top of the mic stand through it.
The cylindar will point towards the singer. The longer the cylindar is, the less room reverberation will be picked up, except the small amount of reverberation from directly behing the singer.
Diagrametically, if we cut along the length of the cylindar and let @ represent the mic capsule, the section will look like:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
====@ <------------------------------------------------- mouth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The cylindar can easily be made by rolling a thick sheet of sponge-like sound absorbing material into a funnel shape or cylindrical shape, fixed by adhesive tape or stapler.
As long as the inside of the cylindar is not too close to the mic, it will not affect the operation of the mic capsule.
In theory the small diameter of the cylindar could exercerbate any residual sound REFLECTED BY the inside of the sound-absorbing cylindar. So it is important that the material has a very high aborbing power. Otherwise there will be horrible echoes like singing into a metal tube.
I confess that I haven't tried this, but I will. This is admittedly ridiculous looking, but if it works, a lot of money in room treatment can be saved. In any case the cost of the cylindar will be independent of the room size.
I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of this. Has anyone tried something like this? Thanks in advance and sorry about the length of message.
I notice that some of you record a single voice, and try to minimize the reverberation recorded. Normally you try to create a deader space by room treatment and draperies, which are relatively expensive. In fact the bigger the room, the more expensive it is.
Why can't we simply make a sound-absorbing hollow cylindar (say 6 - 10 inches in diameter) to encase, but not touching the mic (with some space between the inside of the cyclindar and the mic). The cylindar can be mounted on where the shock mount is, or we can cut a small hole through the bottom of the cylindar and put the top of the mic stand through it.
The cylindar will point towards the singer. The longer the cylindar is, the less room reverberation will be picked up, except the small amount of reverberation from directly behing the singer.
Diagrametically, if we cut along the length of the cylindar and let @ represent the mic capsule, the section will look like:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
====@ <------------------------------------------------- mouth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The cylindar can easily be made by rolling a thick sheet of sponge-like sound absorbing material into a funnel shape or cylindrical shape, fixed by adhesive tape or stapler.
As long as the inside of the cylindar is not too close to the mic, it will not affect the operation of the mic capsule.
In theory the small diameter of the cylindar could exercerbate any residual sound REFLECTED BY the inside of the sound-absorbing cylindar. So it is important that the material has a very high aborbing power. Otherwise there will be horrible echoes like singing into a metal tube.
I confess that I haven't tried this, but I will. This is admittedly ridiculous looking, but if it works, a lot of money in room treatment can be saved. In any case the cost of the cylindar will be independent of the room size.
I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of this. Has anyone tried something like this? Thanks in advance and sorry about the length of message.
Michael Jones
New member
Hmmm, well, see, the thing is: In a recording environment, you try to avoid structures that will cause too much reverberation, or reverberations of short times. Most of us have relatively small rooms which have inherently small reverberation times. So we deaden them, to eliminate those short reverb times.
Other thing that can be done structurally, is to eliminate parallel walls, which cause some nasty reverberations. But a cylinder, you see is INFINATELY parallel. Not a good thing for a recording environment at all. Imagine hollering down a well. The cylinder idea would make it sound like, well, like you were hollering down a well. Even if you tried to deaden the cylinder, it's still going to sound like a well, or maybe a megaphone.
If your looking for inexpensive isolation, try making a simple frame out of PVC piping, say 42"x42", hang it from the ceiling, and drape blankets over it. That'll work much better.
Other thing that can be done structurally, is to eliminate parallel walls, which cause some nasty reverberations. But a cylinder, you see is INFINATELY parallel. Not a good thing for a recording environment at all. Imagine hollering down a well. The cylinder idea would make it sound like, well, like you were hollering down a well. Even if you tried to deaden the cylinder, it's still going to sound like a well, or maybe a megaphone.
If your looking for inexpensive isolation, try making a simple frame out of PVC piping, say 42"x42", hang it from the ceiling, and drape blankets over it. That'll work much better.
H
hk_runner
New member
Michael, thanks for the suggestion for a frame, although I may have to make it smaller than 42" * 42" which is too big for my room.
I agree with you. A cylindrical shape probably won't work. I guess in practice none of the sound-proof materials currently available in the market has high enough absorbing power. So there will always be considerable reflections inside the tube -- hence the likely effect of singing down a well.
Maybe a better shape is a "triangular column", like a bar of "Tuberone" chocolate. It doesn't have parallel walls inside.
Regarding room treatment, it's expensive to sound proof all the four walls of a room. It will be more cost-effective to heavily sound proof the part with the worst reverberation -- corners. Maybe it's a good idea to heavily sound proof a corner (i.e. intersection between two walls, NOT the three-plane intersection between the floor and two walls) of the room, and put the mic THERE. It may be necessary to sound proof the opposite corner of the (rectangular) room as well.
This method may, in a given room of fixed dimensions, maximize the distance travelled by the sound before it bounces at untreated walls and travels back to the mic. Hence the duration of the reverberation will be longer -- and less annoying.
I agree with you. A cylindrical shape probably won't work. I guess in practice none of the sound-proof materials currently available in the market has high enough absorbing power. So there will always be considerable reflections inside the tube -- hence the likely effect of singing down a well.
Maybe a better shape is a "triangular column", like a bar of "Tuberone" chocolate. It doesn't have parallel walls inside.
Regarding room treatment, it's expensive to sound proof all the four walls of a room. It will be more cost-effective to heavily sound proof the part with the worst reverberation -- corners. Maybe it's a good idea to heavily sound proof a corner (i.e. intersection between two walls, NOT the three-plane intersection between the floor and two walls) of the room, and put the mic THERE. It may be necessary to sound proof the opposite corner of the (rectangular) room as well.
This method may, in a given room of fixed dimensions, maximize the distance travelled by the sound before it bounces at untreated walls and travels back to the mic. Hence the duration of the reverberation will be longer -- and less annoying.
V
Vago
New member
Tips for Recording Spaces.
Hey,
i've found after years of listening to different sounds of different rooms and spaces, and the way materials sound when a mic is on.. that I prefer to record in a room that is completley silent but has a liveness to it.. usualy I will put the mic for vocals close to the corner of the room (witch is, tiled floor and wooden walls with a high roof, small bathroom size), and I hang a few sheets near the mic.. then I will usualy treat the rest of the room away from the mic, then I find you get that silence but because the sound can still bounce you get a crisp sound that fits better in a mix,
deadening can destroy the sound, giving it the wrong qualities..
anyway let your ears decide.. set up a mic and treat the room in different ways.. then try diff rooms and record tests and see witch you like the best..
later,
The Prez.
Hey,
i've found after years of listening to different sounds of different rooms and spaces, and the way materials sound when a mic is on.. that I prefer to record in a room that is completley silent but has a liveness to it.. usualy I will put the mic for vocals close to the corner of the room (witch is, tiled floor and wooden walls with a high roof, small bathroom size), and I hang a few sheets near the mic.. then I will usualy treat the rest of the room away from the mic, then I find you get that silence but because the sound can still bounce you get a crisp sound that fits better in a mix,
deadening can destroy the sound, giving it the wrong qualities..
anyway let your ears decide.. set up a mic and treat the room in different ways.. then try diff rooms and record tests and see witch you like the best..
later,
The Prez.
FZfile
New member
the bliss of silence
Vago I agree with the "silent-but-live" type of thing...
that is my biggest obsticle right now.
i record in an open corner of our basment.
total space is about 11x14 but there is the furnace and the washer and dryer and hard wood floors troughout the upstairs.
I have to do a lot of direct stuff but I really like micing.....so my fist project after finishing my DAW is to put up a few walls.
I will eventually use a fake wood floor and hinged absorbers on the walls because I like the sound of a room some times.(even a very small one)
-mike
Vago I agree with the "silent-but-live" type of thing...
that is my biggest obsticle right now.
i record in an open corner of our basment.
total space is about 11x14 but there is the furnace and the washer and dryer and hard wood floors troughout the upstairs.
I have to do a lot of direct stuff but I really like micing.....so my fist project after finishing my DAW is to put up a few walls.
I will eventually use a fake wood floor and hinged absorbers on the walls because I like the sound of a room some times.(even a very small one)
-mike
A
althofma
New member
home recording
I record in the upstairs of my house...I don't think you could technically call it an attic, since it's finished, but you could probably get away with it if you wanted to. The house is an average sized Cape, so the ceiling is slanted on either side of the roof line, which makes it seem smaller than it really is. My setup is really amateur right now, in fact it's not even amateur...it's kind of ghetto. I have a 1ghz PIII workstation with Soundforge, Cakewalk Home Studio, N-Track or whatever I feel like using on any given day. I'm currently experimenting with a lo-fi DIY sound, so sometimes I record into my old Tascam Porta One that I got off of ebay for $50 and digitize it through my Soundblaster Live sound card. As for the room, I don't feel like it flavors my music at all, but I kind of wish it did...my philosophy on recording is that you should choose a space that gives you the flavor you desire, dead rooms seem a little sterile and generic to me. I've thought about bringing some recording equipment down to the bathroom or the partially finished basement and seeing what sounds I can get from them, but it would be kind of a hassle.
-max
I record in the upstairs of my house...I don't think you could technically call it an attic, since it's finished, but you could probably get away with it if you wanted to. The house is an average sized Cape, so the ceiling is slanted on either side of the roof line, which makes it seem smaller than it really is. My setup is really amateur right now, in fact it's not even amateur...it's kind of ghetto. I have a 1ghz PIII workstation with Soundforge, Cakewalk Home Studio, N-Track or whatever I feel like using on any given day. I'm currently experimenting with a lo-fi DIY sound, so sometimes I record into my old Tascam Porta One that I got off of ebay for $50 and digitize it through my Soundblaster Live sound card. As for the room, I don't feel like it flavors my music at all, but I kind of wish it did...my philosophy on recording is that you should choose a space that gives you the flavor you desire, dead rooms seem a little sterile and generic to me. I've thought about bringing some recording equipment down to the bathroom or the partially finished basement and seeing what sounds I can get from them, but it would be kind of a hassle.
-max
Badger
Active member
mwarkentin said:
Ah....another PK....Mine too...