hummel said:
Clearly, harpsichord recording is an 'advanced' skill. I think I'll stick with piano and similar instruments for now until my skill level improves and then re-visit harpsichords.
Actually, I'm not sure what all the fuss about...
Yes, harpsichord is a challenging instrument to record well, but it's not *that* hard to make an acceptable recording. Certainly, I do not think it is something you should be avoiding until your skill level improves. The only way to get good at recording something is to keep trying to record it! In my experience, an acceptable harpsichord sound can be found quite quickly. A great sound takes a lot longer, however...
Unlike just about every other acoustic instrument, the harpsichord has little or no dynamic range, making it easy to get a healthy level. It also seems immune to the low frequency resonances and 'wolf notes' that can plague other string instruments.
The harpsichord is quite rich in harmonics, which places certain requirements on the microphone choice, but you can go three ways with that. One way is to take the aesthetically pleasing ribbon route as suggested repeatedly in this thread, which tends to mellow out the 'wiry' sound while maintaining detail and adding warmth. Another is to take the accurate route by using small diaphragm condensers, which will resolve all the fine detail but perhaps sound a bit etched if using cheaper condensers. Both approaches are capable of producing good recordings, with the preference being in the ear of the beholder.
The third approach is to use dynamic microphones. Think of them as poor man's ribbons in this application. They won't get the harsh etched sound of lower cost condensers, but they won't have the mellowed detail of the ribbons. I have made very acceptable harpsichord recordings with Sennheiser 421s in XY, and I suspect a pair of large diaphragm dynamics using neodymium magnets (e.g. EV N-Dym series) could also do a nice job of it. May need a bit of EQ and reverb, but you'll get an acceptable result and, with linear phase EQ and convolution reverb, who's complaining?
If you've got a good harpsichord in a good position in a good room, the problem is 40% solved. Getting your microphones (whatever you choose to use) in the right position adds another 40% to that. The next 10% will come down to the microphones themselves: ribbons, dynamics or condensers. Cheap condensers are simply not going to sound good: the harpsichord's rich character and harmonic detail is *precisely* the kind of sound that brings out the worst of cheap condensers.
The remaining 15% is the surprise that few people think about or realise: after getting the best sound you can, record a couple of minutes and ask the musician to listen to the playback. Assuming the musician thinks the sound is acceptable, you will find that, after hearing playback, the musician will alter his/her playing style (louder, softer, brighter, duller, more or less sustained, etc.) to steer the sound in his/her desired direction. I have seen and heard this happen many times in my experience of making direct-to-stereo recordings in less than ideal situations, and it never ceases to amaze me. Whenever possible these days, I try to give the musicians a listen before making any serious takes.
[Yeah, I know that 40% + 40% + 10% + 15% = 105%... That extra 5% is what you get when the musician consciously contributes to the recorded sound!]
, the price isn't quite as high as I expected.
