Room mic vs applying a Room reverb

  • Thread starter Thread starter pure.fusion
  • Start date Start date
P

pure.fusion

New member
Hi all,

I've been mic'ing the guitar cab up close with a SM57 with "ok" results. Recently I've been trying to capture some of the room with a condenser mic with crap results. The room actually sounds pretty good, so I think the problem is the (cheap) condenser mic I'm using. It does capture the room and when I mix it in with the SM57 (and make sure the phase issues are minimised) it does add a natural space to the sound but it also adds something ugly to the signal (probably an EQ issue); so much so that I tend not to mix too much in as a result.

Should I just stop wasting time here, use a single SM57 to get that dry up-close direct sound and apply a small room reverb to mimic that natural room ambience? I guess what I'm asking is, it's effectively the same thing right?

I'm guessing that the only alternative is to try another mic as the room mic.

Cheers,
FM
 
Nothing wrong with either approach....new mic or adding some reverb, though unless you really have some nice ambiance in that room and the ability to capture it well, chances are you will have better results with adding some reverb.

I would still get a new/better mic....it never hurts.
 
Well I am a begginer, but Ive tried both (reverb and room mic). To my taste the room mic is always better. Condenser microphones are more sensitive than dynamics, so the sound it captures is more accurate than the sound a dynamic captures.

This can work on your favour or against you. Since it captures more details, it is posible that a crappy sounding room will be captured by the mike. You say this is not the case. If you like the sound of your room, I would suggest trying different positions. Move it around, no matter how long it takes to find that sweet spot. Once you do the results will be absolutely beautiful.
 
I spent some time just with the condenser mic (as opposed to blending with the SM57).

I got up close, I got further out to get a nice balance of room and cabinet. I spent a few hours. I couldn't get a good "tone" from it at all. So I don't think it's a position thing. I think it's the mic.

It *is* a cheap Condenser - I think it's a Studio Projects C1. I'm trying to get up the motivation to do the same test with my Rode NT1A(another cheap LDC) and see if it sounds any better.

FM
 
You know FM ..... as long as the minister if finance will be throwing microphone cables at you - go ahead and purchase a new microphone! :D
 
Can you borrow a mic from somebody to try before spending any money?

I suggest this because I tend to find that the "ugly" you mention is far more often the room than the microphone--most domestic rooms are boxy and boomy rather than nice sounding--and the mic (any mic--expensive or cheap) is just reproducing that accurately without all the psycho-acoustic processing that your brain automatically applies.

(For the record, I tend to slightly prefer the C1 over the NT1A but neither mic is horrible.)
 
It could be the mic, it depends on what is the "bad" sound you are getting. Maybe the mic isnt sensitive enough, but I think it could be more of a room and placement issue. Try the RODE mic, if it doesnt work I could bet its about room, placement (placement of your amp also) and mic pattern.
 
Wally's absolutes as side some rooms just aren't that interesting and really, any decent mic is sensitive enough.
The differences in mics is flavors and various versions between eh' and 'now that's more fun.
Rooms can have god awful and large peaks dips low and midrange ringing –the boxy sound?
For all we know (at this point) is the room is even messing with the close mic somewhat.
(Have you tried gobos to kill it around the amp?
So just for the heck, what is this room? What's it like?
What ugly'? What would you say you'd want less of? Is it a too small/close boring effect..?

They say a great room and grabbing some of that 'distance beats digi reverb.
But to say digi verb never beats a room....? (From my experience it sure as hell beats when it comes down to rooms you don't have
;)

+1 on trying/barrowing and further experimenting.
Also, try delaying the room.
+ another one for great rooms in a box for a few hundred bucks.
 
I feel the urge to say something stupid; "Get a room!" lol! No offense meant. :)

The only way to find out if your room is worthy, is to try it. Sometimes, a room mic is just what a song needs. Sometimes, it is a good reverb plug. Sometimes, neither is necessary at all.

We need a new smiley: JFTI, 'Just F***ing try it'.

Once again, not trying to be a smart ass here. There is no best way, only what works for you.
 
All good advice here, and food for thought.

Yes, I have a treated room that I mix in (where my pc and monitors sit). Well worth doing the treatment cause it made the bass issues (more) acceptable. But this room is carpeted and tends to be dull fr recording instruments.

Then I had an isolation box to stick my amp in which was about 2m x 2m x 2m and (as well predicted by everybody here) was totally useless. Dull and boxy. T'was a large waste of time and effort apart from the education.

Turns out that the room that the iso box sits in, which is concrete and brick room filled with a lot of random junk, sounds good. It sounds good to my ear when I'm in there playing and I've heard it sound good recorded when I did a close-mic/room-mic comparison between my treated room and my junk room. Junk room was lively.

The natural scattered sound reflections in the junk room sound like they're doing a nice thing. So I guess it looks like my ugly eq is either the mic eq, or the room eq

Does anybody ever pull the SM57 away from the grill cloth and get some 'room' that way or does this rob too much amp from the signal? I know from experience that the sound really thins out when you move that SM57 away from the grill.

Really, I should bring it back to the heart of the thread. If the room thing is getting too hard, maybe some room-type-reverb is the way to go.

Hehehe, maybe I should throw up two samples. One close SM57 with real room mixed in one close SM57 with post room reverb added. Post them both and see who can tell the difference....

FM
 
Getting your amps off the floor can help along with some of the other stuff already mentioned

amp stands or surprisingly THIS from Auralex, which is one of the few things they make that really make a useful difference (along with Mopads for monitors), can really open up the sound of the amp in the room for recording, or performing for that matter
 
Bristol Posse said:
Getting your amps off the floor can help along with some of the other stuff already mentioned

amp stands or surprisingly THIS from Auralex, which is one of the few things they make that really make a useful difference (along with Mopads for monitors), can really open up the sound of the amp in the room for recording, or performing for that matter
Click to expand...

My amp is off the floor.

FM
 
Some examples might be a good idea.

One thought that occurred after my previous post is that you may be encountering some phase issues when you try to combine the two mics. This could result in some comb filtering with some frequencies accentuated while others are attenuated. If this is the problem, some adjustment of the position, particularly of the room mic, would result in quite large changes to the overall sound. Even a few inches at a time could make noticeable changes. It might be worth some experimentation to either confirm or rule out this possibility.
 
Bobbsy said:
Some examples might be a good idea.

One thought that occurred after my previous post is that you may be encountering some phase issues when you try to combine the two mics. This could result in some comb filtering with some frequencies accentuated while others are attenuated. If this is the problem, some adjustment of the position, particularly of the room mic, would result in quite large changes to the overall sound. Even a few inches at a time could make noticeable changes. It might be worth some experimentation to either confirm or rule out this possibility.
Click to expand...


That has been a solution for me as well. Also, lining up the room mic event (in DAW) with the close mic, can make a huge difference in your sound, regarding phase issues. Mic positioning is the first step. It does not however mean that it is the only way to make it work after recording has been done.
 
jimmys69 said:
That has been a solution for me as well. Also, lining up the room mic event (in DAW) with the close mic, can make a huge difference in your sound, regarding phase issues. Mic positioning is the first step. It does not however mean that it is the only way to make it work after recording has been done.
Click to expand...

What did you mean by "lining up the room mic event"?

Sorry, total noob to DAW :D (also english is my second lenguage)

What else would you suggest besides room mic position?
 
After recording, you can move the recorded track in time. If one mic is further away from the source than another, it can, or likely will be out of phase with the close one. Move the track so that the transients line up. This does not however, work in all situations, nor is it always a desirable remedy. Every situation is different.
 
jimmys69 said:
After recording, you can move the recorded track in time. If one mic is further away from the source than another, it can, or likely will be out of phase with the close one. Move the track so that the transients line up. This does not however, work in all situations, nor is it always a desirable remedy. Every situation is different.
Click to expand...

You mean like moving the tracks so that they play at exactly the same time? (Since sound gets to the mics at different times)

That makes sense. But time difference is very little. I bet is not an easy thing to do
 
Zoom in young Skywalker. Zoom in....

That is what the visual waveforms are there for. They represent the audio in a visual format, so that you can 'see' audio. :D
 
I believe Jimmy means using your DAW to physically slide the room mic track a few milliseconds earlier.

A bit of physics here:

First off, at the average speed of sound, your music takes about 1.1 milliseconds to travel a foot. This means that, if your room mic is six feet farther away than the SM57, sounds arrives there about 6.6 ms later than at the close mic.

Besides this, the sound is physical waves in the air--and, as a wave, it has peaks and troughs. At 100Hz, each full wave is over 11 feet long--but, at 10,000Hz, each wave is about 1.3 inches.

This becomes important because, if the distance is such that the SM57 records a peak at the same time as the room mic is recording a trough, the two movements can at least partially cancel each other out when mixed together. Two peaks will increase the volume. Since the wavelength varies with frequency, some parts of your music will get louder and other parts softer but in an unpleasant alternating pattern known as comb filtering.

Sliding the room track earlier by the right number of milliseconds can greatly improve things--basically you're "changing the laws of physics" (read that in a a Scottie-esque bad Scottish accent) by making it seem like the two mics were the same distance from the speaker. When I have to do this, I tend to zoom in on the two waveforms, get a rough adjustment by assuming 1ms per foot difference, then do the final tweak by ear. You can usually get a sudden "it sounds better" when you get it right, though it can take a bit of practice.

Edited to add: your last exchange appeared while I was typing this tome but I guess it's still a bit relevant so I'll leave it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top