Is stereo worth it in this case

  • Thread starter Thread starter andyhix
  • Start date Start date
andyhix

andyhix

:dank:
I'm going to be recording a few hand percussion instruments - triangle, tambourine, sleighbells. They are quite likely going to be hardpanned 90-100% one way or another. Let's say it's 90% R, is it worth it at that point to record the signal in stereo, since most of the L channel info is so quiet?

Stereo Question #2 - same scenario as above. Is there any benefit to recording an instrument in stereo, and hardpanning both mics in the same direction together? Obviously it woundn't be stereo anymore, but would it be fuller or anything, since you have 2 mics from 2 different locations, with slightly different room reflections, etc.?

Or possibly, both scenarios are just a waste of HD space and my time and effort?
 
Question 1: I don't see any benefit in the ultra wide-stereo triangle track. :D Might be fun, though, so you never know.

Question 2: Generally speaking, I like to try and keep things simple, but if you hear a sonic benefit to using two mics, then go for it. One possible benefit is that the two mics can give you varying perspective, and either one could be brought forward (or back) to emphasize or de-emphasize certain qualities that either one might accentuate.

.
 
chessrock said:
One possible benefit is that the two mics can give you varying perspective, and either one could be brought forward (or back) to emphasize or de-emphasize certain qualities that either one might accentuate.
Click to expand...
Good point. Maybe rather than a stereo mic setup, one close and one far off might even be an interesting set up, giving the same sort of options. And, I'll have you know, I can rock a triangle like nobody's business. ;)
 
I would go for 2 mics. Maybe xy setup.
But do not pan them together.

Let's say for instance you want a "hard right" sounding instrument. Just pan the mic in the XY configuration that was pointiong at the right, to the right. Leave the left mic. Turn the left mic down, but not all the way off. That will give you a "hard pan effect" only with more realistic 3D soundscape because you have the added benefit of natural reverberation and spacial difference captured by the XY mics. You just turn one mic down so far that it "seems" gone but it is there for the small aural queues. The other mic will be the primary sound source.

Again, don't pan them on the same channel.
 
tarnationsauce2 said:
I would go for 2 mics. Maybe xy setup.
But do not pan them together.

Let's say for instance you want a "hard right" sounding instrument. Just pan the mic in the XY configuration that was pointiong at the right, to the right. Leave the left mic. Turn the left mic down, but not all the way off. That will give you a "hard pan effect" only with more realistic 3D soundscape because you have the added benefit of natural reverberation and spacial difference captured by the XY mics. You just turn one mic down so far that it "seems" gone but it is there for the small aural queues. The other mic will be the primary sound source.

Again, don't pan them on the same channel.
Click to expand...
Cool. That's what I originally was thinking, but then, perhaps, started overthinking it...
 
give someone else the triangle. back up 10 feet and have them play it. does the triangle come from one single place in the room or across a wide stereo field?

that's my litmus for whether something gets "stereo" or not.

so i would record everything in mono and pan accordingly. i'm with cheeserock on that ultrabig triangle track. :D


cheers,
wade
 
I've done stereo percussion sections where we had two percussionist set up with a ring of stuff to hit and bang around them... mic'ed the "percussion area" in stereo and just let them go to town. Sometimes they'd move more to the middle for some sounds, more to one side for others, switch places, all kinds of groovy shit.

The guys playing the percussion were consumate professionals and understood what we were doing with the recording and the tracks so it worked better than I could have ever imagined... much better than if we had tracked each thing in mono and tried to "create" some of the stuff they just did in performance.

Peace.
 
mrface2112 said:
i'm with cheeserock on that ultrabig triangle track. :D


cheers,
wade
Click to expand...
I dunno. I could ultimately become known for creating a widely copied technique known as "The Wall of Triangle." :D

Seriously, though, your "litmus test" makes sense. I'll do that for sure.
 
Yeah but is it an acoustic triangle or an electric? For the later, I'd record it direct to eliminate bleed from the wood block.

:D.

G.
 
And take the damn pillow out of the triangle...It's not the 70's any more.
 
andyhix said:
I'm going to be recording a few hand percussion instruments - triangle, tambourine, sleighbells. They are quite likely going to be hardpanned 90-100% one way or another. Let's say it's 90% R, is it worth it at that point to record the signal in stereo, since most of the L channel info is so quiet?

Stereo Question #2 - same scenario as above. Is there any benefit to recording an instrument in stereo, and hardpanning both mics in the same direction together? Obviously it woundn't be stereo anymore, but would it be fuller or anything, since you have 2 mics from 2 different locations, with slightly different room reflections, etc.?
Click to expand...

1) Here's something you could try: pick your choice of stereo mike technique and then use it consistently for each of the hand percussion instruments, but leave the mikes in the same orientation and play the instruments in different stereo locations relative to the stereo mike pair. Then mix them straight up (the two channels panned left and right) and let the stereo info encoded in them do the "panning" for you. I've done this and it can be cool.

2) You don't want to hard pan them together if they were recorded by non-coincident mikes unless you want the comb filter effects the timing difference will produce.

Cheers,

Otto

Cheers,
 
A couple of possibilities spring to mind . . .

1 if the percussion plays a relatively minor part in the scheme of things, I would record it with a single mike onto a mono track, then pan that wherever it has to go.

2 if the percussion is critical, i would mike the ensemble up with a stereo pair onto a stereo track. Hard panning would reduce the value of this, and were I in this position, I would bve inclined to give the percussion a more central place in the mix.

3 another option is to record each percussion intrument on its own mono track, which gives you a whole heap more flexibility with separation and placement.

As a general rule, I don't record stereo tracks unless the instrument demands it (e.g. a drum kit or a vocal ensemble). From time to time I record acoustic guitar in stereo.
 
Thanks for all the ideas everyone. Per usual, it comes down to "try a few things and see what you like best." I knew that would be the case, but I did glean some good things to try that I might have otherwise overlooked. As for the "importance" of said tracks, I'd say pretty minor. It'll be just 1/8 or 1/16 notes for like the second half of one verse, just for some added seasoning.

I just need to figure out which instrument to go with. I was serious about the sleighbells, by the way. I have some really great sounding authentic sleighbells from god-knows-when. We found them in by grandpa's basement when he died in the mid-80s. They have a really full, rich tone, and I really want to use them on something. The challenge will be how to use them without making the song sound christmas-y.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top