Professional Paris based early music group

[Marais]

Hello,
After years of recording with MAJOR labels (a dozen with Universal) https://a2violes.wordpress.com/discographie-de-lensemble-a-2-violes-esgales/
I finally bit the bullet as we're in 2015 and I'm very computer literate.
The result was my first "home made" album recorded by my nephew a sound engineer and edited by me myself and I.
It has already been selected by amazon.com as a "hot new release" for the last few days! Amazon.com Hot New Releases: The best-selling new & future releases in Early Music

This has therefore confirmed to me what I always suspected :
1 - The record companies rip us off (we need to sell 5000 albums before we collect maximum 8% royalties)
2 - Cross fades although proposed by my sound engineering friends as something only the happy few can understand and master are not complicated and editing easier than Microsoft Word

*To GET TO THE QUESTION*

As a professional classical performer (viola da gambist) what could you recommend as a good set of microphones (not the most expensive) to record more albums like the amazon.com at home?

I have tons of computers would it be necessary also to invest in a sound card?

Thank you all for any suggestions!

Jonathan Dunford, Paris

 

[John Willett]

Probably a good pair of small doaphragm condenser cardioid mics in ORTF would cover most classical performances - providing the room is good.

A Gefell M300 stereo set would be a good start - high quality and not too expensive. The Neumann KM184 are also OK and the Sennheiser MKH8040 are akso good - all available as stereo sets.

The best ORTF mount I have seen is the 3D printed one from Shapeways.

This is the one for the M300 stereo set:



Yes - you will aso need a good interface (sound card) - an RME Babyface Pro would be a good place to start.

You will also need headphones - closed and open (I use Sennheiser HD 25-1 and HD 600) and a good microphone stand (K&M pro series).

I hope this helps.

 

[Marais]

Thank you so much I'll start checking it out.
I spoke to one of my former labels a friend who used to deal in high-fi.
He says nowadays the reverb on computer programs equals any actual real acoustic.
I did my own tinkering with the last recording that was done in a church.
But I've made multiple sound tracks for movies and some pop music in studios.
I find that it's much easier - especially for the noise factor - to record in a studio and add the reverb later.

Second subject for this thread and maybe out of place in the "microphone" section - but what is all your take on this?
Actual acoustic, reverb box or computer generated acoustic?

 

[gecko zzed]

Second subject for this thread and maybe out of place in the "microphone" section - but what is all your take on this?
Actual acoustic, reverb box or computer generated acoustic?

One answer is that you use whatever is going to give you the results closet to what you want.

In some cases, you will want to record in an acoustically sympathetic environment (e.g. recording a choir in a church).

For me, though, I like recording dry and using reverb plug-ins to dial up the type and amount of reverb I'm seeking.

 

[Marais]

Indeed, One of our albums was recorded in THE WORST acoustic, really dead. This in 1997. They then added some reverb and the French music magazines praised the "beautiful sound, and natural reverb". We of course laughed. The last album I cut 15 db from the higher range and already a man at the CBC who's in charge of recordings has commented : "The pieces are beautiful and beautifully played and production-wise, the album has a drier, more intimate atmosphere, and hasn't suffered the fate that so many solo viol (and lute) discs have...that of drowning in too much reverb, natural or otherwise. Bravo!" So there you go.
I prefer dry and adding afterwards.