My Recorded Solo Track Sounds Distant; It Lacks Presence

G

Geezerhorn

New member
Hi,

I have a Shur SM57 and I use Audacity as my wave editor. The mic connects to my desk-top PC via a Tascam US200.

I play tenor trombone. I can use Audacity to equalize my finished solo track so that it sounds pretty much the way I do live.

My background tracks are pre-recorded wave files. After I add my solo track, and do some editing, I mix everything down to an mp3 file.

However, when I listen to the recording, my solo track sounds rather distant, even though the gain is good. It lacks the same kind of "presence" that the pre-recorded background tracks have.

Could it be that I need a Cloudlifter CL-Z to put that mic on steroids, so to speak?

I have been working with my set-up for months now - constantly changing the environment, thinking that is the problem. But it isn't. No matter how I set my little home recording studio up, the result is always pretty much the same.

Thanks for any/all suggestions,

Tim
 
How far was the mic from your trombone? The pre-recorded tracks sound closer because those instruments were miked closer, or a lot of compression was used, or both.
 
What kind of room are you in....is it very reverberant?

It's also not always simple to match the ambience of pre-recorded/canned tracks with something you record in your space.
 
That varies. I have experimented with different distances from right smack up close, to about 4 feet away and all places in-between; as well as putting the mic up high, low or off to either side. I have used a tri-fold screen behind the mic in all positions and have taken the screen away for all positions. Of course, I getting varying results, but the common denominator is the same, my solo track lacks "presence".

I can boost the gain on my solo track to be behind, even with or out in front of the music on the background track.

But I'm thinking that even though I boost the gain on my solo track after it is recorded, a weak signal to begin with doesn't contain the "body" or "substance" or "presence" or "character" or "timbre" that I want. Sorry. I don't know the terminology that a sound engineer might use. I have a good sound and I am expressive on my horn. Those aspects come through. But it lacks the "life" that the background tracks have.

Thanks,
Tim
 
I'm thinking it's the mic. You know the old saying, "You can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but in the end it will be a sorry-looking silk purse".
With that in mind and NOT being able to afford the King of brass mics - a Neumann U87, I just now bought a knock-off mic - a Marshall MXL 2001. It's also a cardoid mic, important for recording a brass wind instrument. The idea is to point the mic right up the bore of the bell because the sound comes out in the pattern of a shotgun blast.

It'll take several days for the delivery, unless Amazon has their drones perfected already. And it will take another several days or so to test it out.

I'll dig up this post and do a follow-up.

Meanwhile, some good information gained.

Thanks,
Tim
 
I'd almost try dynamics or ribbons on brass. 57s make pretty damn good brass mics from what I've heard, and its only $100. You'll probably find it a better mic than the MXL.
 
I've never tried that particular Marshall mic but personally do prefer a condenser sound to dynamic when miking most brass instruments.

However, alongside the mic, a couple of other things to try.

First off, your pre recorded backing tracks will be a full frequency range without any thought of adding more instruments. You can often get around this by using EQ to "cut a hole" for the new instrument (or vocal). Try applying a very subtle EQ cut in the, say, 100-600Hz range of the backing track. Be subtle--no more than 3 or 4 dB cut or it'll start to affect the sound of the track--but, used sparingly, this can help your trombone sit in the mix. BTW, experiment with those frequencies I gave and the amount of cut.

Second, the backing track almost certainly has a little bit of reverb added. You just have to experiment but look around for a similar sounding reverb and apply some (again subtly) to your trombone to help it match the backing track.

Finally, mix down to a wave file (not MP3) to evaluate how things sound. MP3 uses an automatic sound messer-upper to save bit rate (actually "adaptive psycho acoustic techniques" but it does alter the sound and remove a lot of detail.
 
Very insightful information, guys. Thanks! Can't wait to do some experimenting.

Last night I had a breakthrough. I previously mentioned that I had experimented with the mic up close. Well, last night I practically jammed it up the bell. I mean, I positioned the mic as close to me as was possible, with the mic pointing dead-center up the bore of the bell. Then I made it a point to play directly into the mic as I recorded. And I used my normal playing volume; I didn't hedge my volume out of fear of damaging the mic. This "ground zero" position for the mic yielded me a solo track recording that was far superior in terms of that elusive "presence" I mentioned earlier. I learned that the sound coming out of a brass horn is kinda like a shotgun pattern; it is tight when it comes out and quickly diffuses. So, a mic that is as close to the bell as is humanly possible gets more of the wave than it does when it's even a foot away. I believe that is also why a cardoid mic with a larger diaphragm is also superior.

Other information I had received elsewhere "warned" me not to get the mic too close or I would only get blasts or spikes of articulation and little more. Heck, I even thought perhaps I would damage the mic if I got it too close. Last night I threw that caution to the wind. Glad I did. I reasoned that clip-on mics are as close to the bell as any mic could possibly be and they work just fine.

In light of the other info posted earlier, I have some more experimenting to do. I figured that last night, I was able to take it to maybe 85% of where I want my solo track sound to be. Perhaps I can still kick it up some more.

Thanks again,
Tim
 
Geezerhorn, It sounds like you're fighting the same battle most people fight with vocals, acoustic instruments etc.
If the room isn't treated it may or may not seem echoey to you in real life, but once you record in it you realise everything sounds kinda far away.
The two options, as you're figuring out, are to treat the room or get the mic as close to the source as possible.

No rules but a reasonable guideline is Bad room - close dynamic mic : Good room, far condenser mic.
 
My New Recording Method

Thanks, man.

Here is a sample recording I did this morning. Believe, me - it's a quantum leap in getting a solo track that is married to the background. Disclaimer: I've only been playing the trombone for a little less than two years; I'm not a pro - not even close.



Okay, it's a little pitchy in places.

Yeah, I've been fighting a losing battle with my little music studio, aka unfinished basement. But last night I made nice with it.

Thanks for all input on recording,

...Tim
 
I vaguely remember your thread about this from last time.
Didn't it result in some kind of revelation?

I listened to your video.
I'd be inclined to play with a high pass filter and find a reverb for the lead which suits the background.
Your room reverberations are audible there too, I think, but you might get away with it if you do the above.

I recently had a guy send me saxophone tracks for a project. You video sounds like his sax tracks before I mixed them in. (in the nicest way possible.) ;)
 
Yep. That was me and it did get me started.

I tinkered just now with a high pass filter. I found that a low setting of about 500 at 6db seemed to be okay. If I took it any higher, I lost some bottom. It's a personal taste preference thing. Some like a bright sound and some like a dark sound on trombone. It depends upon which size horn I use and what the music is. So I don't think there will be one set-it-and-forget-it setting.

Another gentleman suggested I don't mix down to an mp3 file. I found that suggestion very serviceable as well. Turns out that when I make a movie with MS Movie Maker, it mixes the file down to mp3 for uploading to YouTube. That's unavoidable, but apparently MSMM was compressing the already compressed file I gave it. Bad enough to have a file compressed once. So giving MSMM a wave file to start with was a help to me.

I should become a pro sound engineer! But it's all cumulative, so every new thing I learn chips away and get me closer. I'm a LOT closer than I was a year ago.

Of course, I learned right away that if I want to sound better in a recording, I need to sound better live. So it's plenty of time in the woodshed every day with my horn and that has also made quite a difference in a year.
 
Yeah, it is personal taste. It's probably pretty common to get rid of some of the lowest lows though.
I don't remember what mic you're using but if it's cardioid you're going to get proximity effect by using it up very close.

That almost guarantees that it won't sit well in a mix without some counter eq.

If two things are gona make your track stick out like a sore thumb it's too much bass and no ambience.
 
I'm going to continue experimenting with the high pass filter to take out unnecessary lows that do not contribute to a nice round, fat and full sound.

I found that an EQ setting with a bell curve works very nicely. I first listened to the raw sound and it was bloody awful. Then I experimented with the EQ, trying a lot of settings before I settled on a bell curve. It took some nasty buzziness out of my sound and pretty much trued it back up to where I sound live. A trombone should primarily have a solid mid-range sound, with some high and low overtones. Too much of one or another is not good. After I ran my solo track through the EQ, I observed that the wave sat pretty much dead-center on the line; with about as much over as there was under. If anything, maybe just a tad under the line.

I like to examine the wave of my solo track visually. I can pretty much tell if it will be a good sound just by looking at the wave. For example, if I see a brick wall at the end of a sustained note, then I know I didn't end that note with a graceful taper and it's time to hit the "fade out" button. If I see a lot of jaggedness on a note, I can bet that note sounds shaky or otherwise bad. I want my waves to look symmetrical and even. No real high or low spikes. I can even tell by looking at the solo wave if I am square on the beat.

Even now, with the changes I have most recently made, my recordings are on a par with my peers - as far as the quality of the recording itself is concerned.

Having a basically good quality recording is a help to playing more expressively. It's easier to play well when I have more confidence that my recording will nicely reflect or even enhance what I play.

At my age, I'll never turn a dime on my playing. I'm more interested in the enjoyment of the art as an amateur participant. Since I am self-taught, quality recordings that are consistent help show me where I need the most work.
 
Cool.
Just be aware that the waveforms displayed are no where near accurate in most cases.
To test the theory zoom in and out whilst keeping track of the same point in the waveform.

Quite often I zoom into to investigate a big spike or peak only to find out that it's not visible in the next closest zoom setting!
Use your eyes, sure, but trust your ears.
 
Agreed.

Weird how that works, eh? I'll do the very same thing; look for a spike that disappears when I magnify the wave too many times. Maybe it's more the fault of screen resolution. I dunno. But yes, I trust how waves look about as much as I trust the weather forecast. Still, looking at the visual representation of a wave is a tool to be used under certain restraints and conditions. IOW's, good for some things; not so much for others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top