Mixing classical violin

T

tvolhein

Tom Volhein
I have a small studio. The recording room is 12'x12' and is acoustically treated to be dead. Classical players don't like this. They want their recording to sound like it was tracked in a concert hall. I would like to get that sound also.

FYI
1)
I use two mics, one that is about 24" in front of the violinist and one that is across the room.
2)
I use a convolution reverb with settings that are to approximate a "long, dark hall."

The sound is good, but still appears too close.

What technique can I use to get the violin to sound like it is some distance from the mic and recorded in a concert hall?

Thanks in advance.

Tom
 
Not meaning to be facetious but the only real solution is to record in a large concert hall...or old church...or something similar. I've been known to record classical guitar in the brick stairwell of a 5 story building to get that sort of sound.

If that's not possible then the only thing I can suggest it to play with the settings on your reverb until you find something you like--maybe even borrow a large concert hall (or church or something) and record your own pulse for the convolution reverb. Or maybe download and have a play with DaSample Glaceverb--it's free but as a 'verb it often seems to do a good job on classic and theatrical stuff...you'll have to play with the pre sets and setting--though there are some things aimed at strings that might work for you once you tweak it.

Finally, in a dead room I might not bother with two mics--since you're not getting any "pleasant" room tone, the more distant mic may just contribute to some muddiness and blurring of detail. Just pick a distance with the right combination of "air" and detail then stick with that.
 
Bobbsy said:
Not meaning to be facetious but the only real solution is to record in a large concert hall...or old church...or something similar. I've been known to record classical guitar in the brick stairwell of a 5 story building to get that sort of sound.

If that's not possible then the only thing I can suggest it to play with the settings on your reverb until you find something you like--maybe even borrow a large concert hall (or church or something) and record your own pulse for the convolution reverb. Or maybe download and have a play with DaSample Glaceverb--it's free but as a 'verb it often seems to do a good job on classic and theatrical stuff...you'll have to play with the pre sets and setting--though there are some things aimed at strings that might work for you once you tweak it.

Finally, in a dead room I might not bother with two mics--since you're not getting any "pleasant" room tone, the more distant mic may just contribute to some muddiness and blurring of detail. Just pick a distance with the right combination of "air" and detail then stick with that.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I plan to play with the reverb to see if I can get a better sound. Also, the second (farthest) mic still sounds sharp, so I think that I will just use it. Having recorded both mics, I can mix with just the far mic and work it from there.

t
 
What technique can I use to get the violin to sound like it is some distance from the mic and recorded in a concert hall?
Click to expand...
The best way to get space and depth in a recording is to record space and depth.

No matter what you do after, the mic hears something completely different during recording. The source is not the same -- Add all the reverb you want to it later and that isn't going to change.

You can roll the top end off, you can vary the amounts of [reverb / early reflections] from the close mic to the far mic, you can delay and spectrally alter the signal to the reverb (darkening the send *to* the reverb can induce a completely different effect than dampening the reverb itself - again, it's all about the source), you can delay the room mic (approx 1ms=1ft) -- Those can all help -- But the source is the source.

At the risk of sounding discouraging -- I don't do a boatload of recording and mixing anymore. But I do about a dozen or more classical recordings annually. Most are in a relatively "non-lively" auditorium. The mics hung from the first electrics hear something completely different from the mics hung from the first FOH and those mics hear something completely different from the mics at the second FOH. And I can tell you that the mics on the first electrics (the closest at only around 15' from the source) are pretty useless as anything other than a source for the reverb. And as "natural" as I can make it sound in the end, they don't compare to the rare occasion that I'm working (CSO's) Orchestra Hall or recording remotely at some amazing sounding church or something.
 
I can see 2 problems in this quote: "The recording room is 12'x12' and is acoustically treated to be dead. Classical players don't like this. "

I never like dead rooms for anything.

12 X 12 is a terrible room ratio.

In stead of deadening the room you need some proper bass and broadband trapping, once the room sounds OK if you have carpet on the floor, lay down some thin wood sheets under where the players are to open the sound up. Now you are on the way to making the classical players feel comfortable with the room sound they hear.

By the way I find working with classical musicians about as hard as working with jazz graduates. LOL.

Alan.
 
agree with what the others have been saying, I'm also very picky as a classical musician, we have the most critical hearing lol violin is not easy to capture, personally I think using two mics was a bad idea, you are going to get weird phase issues in a 12 x 12 room, so I would mute the distant mic and add reverb to the close mic creating a fake stereo image, it might sound bigger and less cluttered. It would be nice to hear some samples as well!
 
Massive Master said:
The best way to get space and depth in a recording is to record space and depth.

No matter what you do after, the mic hears something completely different during recording. The source is not the same -- Add all the reverb you want to it later and that isn't going to change.

You can roll the top end off, you can vary the amounts of [reverb / early reflections] from the close mic to the far mic, you can delay and spectrally alter the signal to the reverb (darkening the send *to* the reverb can induce a completely different effect than dampening the reverb itself - again, it's all about the source), you can delay the room mic (approx 1ms=1ft) -- Those can all help -- But the source is the source.

At the risk of sounding discouraging -- I don't do a boatload of recording and mixing anymore. But I do about a dozen or more classical recordings annually. Most are in a relatively "non-lively" auditorium. The mics hung from the first electrics hear something completely different from the mics hung from the first FOH and those mics hear something completely different from the mics at the second FOH. And I can tell you that the mics on the first electrics (the closest at only around 15' from the source) are pretty useless as anything other than a source for the reverb. And as "natural" as I can make it sound in the end, they don't compare to the rare occasion that I'm working (CSO's) Orchestra Hall or recording remotely at some amazing sounding church or something.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm not going to argue with that. But given the fact that the OP's recording wasn't done in the sort of environment one would hope for, how about putting two or three different reverbs on the very dry signal he DOES have?
 
dobro said:
Okay, I'm not going to argue with that. But given the fact that the OP's recording wasn't done in the sort of environment one would hope for, how about putting two or three different reverbs on the very dry signal he DOES have?
Click to expand...

On signal processing, less is more. (Gawd I hate that cliche but in this case it's right.) Every time you add another mic or another reverb you muddy the signal. As posted before I'd use just the mic that was a couple of feet away then search high and low for a single reverb that gives the effect you want (or, at least, can live with). Also as previously posted I'd be trying to make Glaceverb work for me.

Massive Master is totally correct that the BEST way is to record in an environment that gives you the sound you want--but this won't be a normal domestic property no matter how clever you are with acoustic treatment. It's genuinely worth approaching some local churches or whatever--a small donation can often get you a few hours access. Or, think outside the box and find big stairwell or empty industrial property.

However, if you have to work with what you have, keep it dead, keep the miking simple and fairly close then try every reverb algorithm you can find until you get one you can live with.
 
dobro said:
Okay, I'm not going to argue with that. But given the fact that the OP's recording wasn't done in the sort of environment one would hope for, how about putting two or three different reverbs on the very dry signal he DOES have?
Click to expand...
Could very well do something - As could the rolling off of frequencies and delay, etc., etc. -- But it still won't change the source -- Just trying to drive that home in case it "still just doesn't sound real" in the end.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top