I enjoyed both videos. The first one was more even between right and left(probably to be expected.) I also think the playing was a bit better on it for the "Ain't She Sweet" part. That being said I preferred the sound of the microphones in the second video. The second recording had more ambiance, mids and life to the recording IMHO.
Hi ohmless!
Thanks for the feedback. With the first video, the tutorial was more of a testing-the-waters and proof of concept of the HaaS effect.
The SM58 mics in the second video unfortunately also captured the background noise from two 16" oscillating pedestal fans that were running (was still humid until it rained today).
The liveliness you refer to in the second video I think is a combination of the fact that this was recorded in a room with hardwood floors, and about 4ft from the corner on each side, so possibly some high-frequency reflection going on, and despite the cardioid nature of the SM58s, the sound that leaked in from the ambiance, seems to be pleasing to my ear as well.
Great demos (and playing!) - I left comments on YouTube but will say here that I prefer the Apogee Mic with the 'Haas Effect' sound the best. The true stereo is great (perhaps more 'nuanced' if that's really a word...) but I think the Apogee Mic is simply better (cleaner & more accurate) in a studio setting than the SM58's... and I think the hardware, cables, etc. necessary for the "true stereo" recording may add some not-so-desireable (to my ears) electronic 'clutter' (or maybe that's A.R.T. tube effect) to the recording. (I confess I only listened to the YouTubes and not the Sound Cloud versions.)
This is a valuable demonstration project for anyone who is doing home recordings; it shows very effectively what a great sound (such as you achieved with Apogee Virtual Stereo track) can be achieved without a lot of DAW effects & processing. Really a nice job done here and I thank you.
Hi Surly-Mac!
Thanks for the feedback. Yes in the first video there was only the tiny amount of echo added
only to the right channel, so there was less gear the signal had to run through, as well as only a tiny amount of post-processing.
Very cool and informative demos, Booli, thanks for uploading.
I listened with my old 280 pros and also on my desktop system. There is something about the sound of the 58s I liked for the fingerpicking especially. Did you record the 58s at a much higher gain level? There was a lot more hiss or maybe fan noise.
I preferred the mono to the simulated stereo. The stereo had some kind of weird effects in my headphones--but then those are kind of weird cans and maybe that was what happened. The mono strumming comes dead center out of my monitor (an illusion, of course, since I have two bookshelf speakers on either side), which I like; but the simulated stereo gave the impression of a _huge!_ ukulele
. It did make the room seem a bit more realistic and live--I wonder if that's the echo acting like reverb? I wonder how it would sound if you only panned a bit instead of full left and right.
Thanks again, it was good to put a voice to the screen name.
Hi Miguel, and thank you also for your feedback and kind words.
Yes, the SM58s that I have are an oddball set, in that they measure out to 1kOhm impedance instead of they typical 250 Ohm of most other dynamic mics or the 600 Ohm of most other SM58s. As such they need more boost to the signal to achieve unity gain.
That is why I had to use two preamps in a daisy-chain in order to get a usable signal. With either preamp alone the sound is way too quiet to get a usable signal, and only gets up to around -25 db, but with both together I can go up to +4db if I needed to for 'pro' gear connectivity.
The first preamp is a small solid-state 2-channel unit (now discontinued) made by M-Audio called the AudioBuddy ($69), The the output of the audio buddy goes into the A.R.T. USB Dual Tube Pre (also now discontinued, $129), which is a pretty nice unit on it's own. The tube I have inside is an Electro-Harmonix 12AX7 and really makes a difference if you run a piezo through it, as I've found that there's nothing like 'hot glass' to tame the piezo issues and beautify the sound.
The A.R.T. also has an independent adjustable optical limiter for each channel, but I left it disengaged for these recordings, as it tends to be overly sensitive when percussively strumming, regardless of the settings, and acts more like a 'brick-wall' limiter and flattens the sound such that you have no dynamic range, i.e., the difference betw the softer parts and louder parts of what you are recording is so small that the music captured sounds uninteresting and lifeless.
Running some test tones through the mics, of 100hz, 1khz and 8kz I was able to pretty easily achieve unity gain, and then verified with my own ears when playing.
Lots of folks say you cannot use SM58 or SM57 mics to RECORD a ukulele, but remember that the human vocal range is wider than the range of most ukuleles and even though these Shure mics tend to have a 1-2db boost at around 1kz with a Q o bandwidth of about 20 hz, which is great for a vocal to cut through the mix, it also works well for the ukulele. Most tenor ukes seem to have a usable frequency range of about 100 to 2kz, and I rather like the way these mics capture the sound. It's a different color than if I use my AKG Perception 200 or AKG C414 MKII mics, but as condensers, even with a cardioid pattern they pick up EVERYTHING - that is why I will eventually have some form of sound-proofed environment, or one of those Kaotica Eyeball type things.
Also, I should mention for all those reading this thread, that I made another recording today, that I will likely upload tomorrow (it's 3:30AM NOW!!! LOL), that is a second comparison of the Apogee MiC in mono, vs. the same mic with a slightly more intense version of synthetic stereo processing.
For me, the goal is to try and capture the intimacy of sitting near someone playing, and not have the recording sound either too dry and sterile or too syrupy and dripping with over-use of reverb.
I used no reverb on these previous recordings, nor on the new one I made today. Novice recordists tend to have the wet/dry settings for reverb like 60% wet/40% dry and this sounds like your are in either a deep cave or empty swimming pool, both unnatural. A more natural sound is typically had with a 15% wet/85% dry effect setting, regardless of pre-delay, HF/LF damping and other twisty (virtual) knob settings.
Sometime tomorrow (SUNDAY, Sept 13), I will post back to this thread with the new recording I made today.
Again, thanks everyone for your kind words, encouragement and otherwise meaningful feedback.
Once I go through all of these things and find the sweet spot, I will likely also make more tutorials, either using Audacity or Garageband so that other folks can benefit from my recording experiments, and maybe don't have to get talked in to taking a second mortgage to afford some decent recording gear - it's really not necessary in 2015.
Mahalo!