Though often one long advertisement for gear, this month's issue contained a fantastic discussion of phase issues inherent to recording drums with overheads. The author (can't remember who) gives a detailed example of a great way to fix problems. I jumped right to my DAW and followed his instructions on some recent drums tracks I recorded. To my delight it much improved the kick and snare tone, and most notably the stereo field of the recording. Check it out!
AG
Topic Tags
Comments
ErikFlipside wrote: I stopped subscribing to RM a long time ago.
ErikFlipside wrote: I stopped subscribing to RM a long time ago. What's the trick? Is it nugging the overhead tracks to line up with the kick and snare tracks?
Yeah, more or less. Nudge the snare, tom and kick tracks to line up with the OH's. Also, and this was the little twist that I was missing ... flip the phase of everything except the kick and under snare. Worked magic for my tracks.
AG
Reggie wrote: I don't get it. Why not just flip the phase of th
Reggie wrote: I don't get it. Why not just flip the phase of the kick and under snare instead?
It has to do with how the head starts its cycle, and how its transient is not symmetrical (a drum is not like a sine wave - it is highly asymmetrical on the attack). The top snare mic is going "negative pressure" on the start of the hit (the head is moving away from the mic - rarefraction), and the bottom mic is providing "positive pressure" (moving towards the mic - compression). You want to start with the "positive pressure" (compression) of the wave, so you invert the top snare mic.
Same with the kick - you want the positive pressure to lead the wave. With the inside mic, or a resonant front head, the "positive pressure" is already reflected properly at the mic. If you mic the batter head by the kick pedal, this may need to be flipped (the head will initially move away from the mic in this case).
I couldn't see why this would matter until I saw what a Kick Drum's waveform actually looks like, and how we hear its transient as a listner (a drummer may prefer opposite polarity to match how he hears the kit at the throne - with the kick and snare going negatve pressure, or "moving away" from the drummer on initial impact). Makes sense now...
Something to that effect :cool:
I will only add: If you put on your favourite records, the very
I will only add:
If you put on your favourite records, the very best recordings you know, of all time...
ask yourself how many of them recorded drums (or anything else) using those techniques.
I suspect the answer is NONE.
learn to put the mics where the sounds work. Then you don't need to "fix" them later.
Some people seem to ENJOY "needing" to manipulate things in the computer as much as possible.
I repeat, NO great recordings were made that way.
Odd, isn't it?, how Dark Side Of The Moon or Abbey Road or WHo's Next or Crime Of The Century and on and on... odd how they have amazing drums sounds without "needing" to align tracks in a computer.
perhaps it's because they knew how to record.
wwittman wrote: I will only add: If you put on your favourite r
wwittman wrote: I will only add:
If you put on your favourite records, the very best recordings you know, of all time...
ask yourself how many of them recorded drums (or anything else) using those techniques.
I suspect the answer is NONE.
learn to put the mics where the sounds work. Then you don't need to "fix" them later.
Some people seem to ENJOY "needing" to manipulate things in the computer as much as possible.I repeat, NO great recordings were made that way.
Odd, isn't it?, how Dark Side Of The Moon or Abbey Road or WHo's Next or Crime Of The Century and on and on... odd how they have amazing drums sounds without "needing" to align tracks in a computer.
perhaps it's because they knew how to record.
They didn't have digital reverbs and delays either. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have used these techniques if the ability to do so was available to them. What we do is the art of recording, not the art of recording they way they did 30 years ago. To ignore a new tool because Pink Floyd didn't use it (because it didn't exist) seems a little short sighted and a needless handicap to achieveing the goal of recording the best audio possible. Isn't that what the client is paying for?
TheArchitect wrote: They didn't have digital reverbs and delays
TheArchitect wrote:
They didn't have digital reverbs and delays either. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have used these techniques if the ability to do so was available to them. What we do is the art of recording, not the art of recording they way they did 30 years ago. To ignore a new tool because Pink Floyd didn't use it (because it didn't exist) seems a little short sighted and a needless handicap to achieveing the goal of recording the best audio possible. Isn't that what the client is paying for?
If you can make something today sound as remotely good as any of the records quoted By WW then you'll have little lack of cleints..the real trick to that is mostly with the client though. Biggest Catch-22 or 'em all.
Actually I would prefer my recordings NOT sound like that. Sure
Actually I would prefer my recordings NOT sound like that. Sure they are great recordings, but my goal is not a retro sound. I am one of the weirdos that likes the crisp, modern sound. Classic stuff recorded in the 60's/70's are not the be-all-end-all of the correct way a record should sound. I don't think any of us really think phase flipping is a cure-all, just another tool that is useful at times. Something to fool around with mostly. I would actually be surprised if the phase wasn't flipped on a mic here and there on at least a few of your favorite tunes.
Pink Floyd, Beatles, Zep, etc records would be great even if they were recorded on a modern-day DAW. Heck they would still probably turn out great if I was the fool recording them; the music just transcends recording gear sometimes. 2¢>
With all due respect good sirs.
BTW: Next session that I have some extra fool around time, I plan on trying the Recorderman micing technique. People say good things. 8-)
The only phase problem I really notice are with ride and high ha
The only phase problem I really notice are with ride and high hat mics. I never mic the hh anymore because there is already enough in the overheads. When the drummer is going to the toms, they aren't doing much else. Everybody (in rock or metal anyway, even blues and country) demands at least a little sound replacing/drumagog no matter how good the original tracks, which actually helps any possibility of problems. Trimming around the toms in the DAW helps immensly. Trimming the ride also sounds quite nice so the only thing you hear on the track is when the ride is played. Usually I do spaced pair on the overheads, panned 9 and 3...the ride goes hard right (drummer perspective). I haven't noticed any problems with 7-9 mics, just good sound when done right.
Reggie wrote: Actually I would prefer my recordings NOT sound
Reggie wrote: Actually I would prefer my recordings NOT sound like that. Sure they are great recordings, but my goal is not a retro sound. I am one of the weirdos that likes the crisp, modern sound. Classic stuff recorded in the 60's/70's are not the be-all-end-all of the correct way a record should sound. I don't think any of us really think phase flipping is a cure-all, just another tool that is useful at times. Something to fool around with mostly. I would actually be surprised if the phase wasn't flipped on a mic here and there on at least a few of your favorite tunes.
Pink Floyd, Beatles, Zep, etc records would be great even if they were recorded on a modern-day DAW. Heck they would still probably turn out great if I was the fool recording them; the music just transcends recording gear sometimes. 2¢>With all due respect good sirs.
BTW: Next session that I have some extra fool around time, I plan on trying the Recorderman micing technique. People say good things. 8-)
I don't think WW was referring to making your drums sound like they did in the 70's, I think his point was to avoid phase issues when tracking rather than fixing it in the mix. The kit, heads, tuning and room will determine whether or not it sounds classic or modern.
I do agree it's nice to have a way to fix a problem that was not apparent when tracking but care taken with mic placement up front can almost make this a non issue.
BTW Reggie, you're gonna love RM's technique. Not only does it avoid the issue above but the image is fantastic and it really let's the drums sit in the mix perfectly. I can't say enough good things about it. I've been using it for about a year now and have gotten pretty quick at setting it up (in other rooms). Since I do most of my recording in my room (usually my kit also) I dedicated a pair of booms just for this and marked their location on the floor with masking tape. Setup takes all of about 30 seconds since all I have to do is line up the booms and check the distances. Good luck with it.
I'm not sure this technique is really intended to fix a 'problem
I'm not sure this technique is really intended to fix a 'problem' so much as simply tighten up an already good sounding recording. Lets face it, the OH's are going to be a good distance further away than the spot mic of a given drum. By definition that mic will be slightly out of phase. It may sound just fine as is but this technique has potential for making it better.
Everyone has their own methods for recording. Its seems odd that people like ourselves who thrive on creativity get so dedicated to techniques refined 30 years ago. Of course they work and we need to know them as a baseline but to believe nothing else has come along since then that is as good or better seems to be a short circuit of audio potential.
true..but that's always been the case..pushing the envelope. I g
true..but that's always been the case..pushing the envelope. I guess some of us geezers have come about our opinion from the "fact" (very subjective) that things have past the prime and not really gotten any better even with 30 years of pushing the envelope to do so.
Still every once in a while....
With all due respect to the "geezers", I wonder if it's really t
With all due respect to the "geezers", I wonder if it's really the recording methods that you feel have "past their prime." Could it be the crappy music being churned out by big labels?
Clearly mic choice and placement, drum tuning and the room are the most important factors in getting great drum tracks. But, if there had been an easy way to tweak tracks back in the day to make them just that much tighter and fuller, every engineer worth their salt would have done it.
poprocks wrote: With all due respect to the "geezers", I wonder
poprocks wrote: With all due respect to the "geezers", I wonder if it's really the recording methods that you feel have "past their prime." Could it be the crappy music being churned out by big labels?
Clearly mic choice and placement, drum tuning and the room are the most important factors in getting great drum tracks. But, if there had been an easy way to tweak tracks back in the day to make them just that much tighter and fuller, every engineer worth their salt would have done it.
nice what ifs' ..just not the reality.
My experience is that their are far fewer well trained bands of musician's than 25+ years ago. Maybe that's why there is such "crappy" music out there. It's not like you surf through myspace and hear some qualitative difference between the unsigned/indy and major label stuff. You guys (current generation) have sat in your bedrooms trying to make records..instead of play, play, play live.
You don't need to tweak and tighten a well played performance..it's right as it is. Same with the recording aspect as well.
I'll try not to go off on too many tangents here ... I agree th
I'll try not to go off on too many tangents here ...
I agree that one good take always feels better than "the perfect track" which is comp'd from several passes. And I agree that "fixing it in the mix" is a lazy mindset. However, I still have to believe that an engineer should strive to harness all the power that digital editing affords us.
Gotta go, I have rehearsal. Playing two shows on Saturday. RM, I see you're in LA ... we'll be at the Joint on Pico Saturday night.
AG
pop, I just don't get it, this doesn't seem like a new technique
pop, I just don't get it, this doesn't seem like a new technique at all. people have ALWAYS used delay to fatten or tighten up sounds, haven't they? Just now they do it visually, as if that actually helps. Sometimes having the different drum tracks more seperate from each other makes the final sound more 'tight' and 'in-phase'.
RecorderMan wrote: [quote=poprocks]With all due respect to the "
RecorderMan wrote: [quote=poprocks]With all due respect to the "geezers", I wonder if it's really the recording methods that you feel have "past their prime." Could it be the crappy music being churned out by big labels?
Clearly mic choice and placement, drum tuning and the room are the most important factors in getting great drum tracks. But, if there had been an easy way to tweak tracks back in the day to make them just that much tighter and fuller, every engineer worth their salt would have done it.
nice what ifs' ..just not the reality.
My experience is that their are far fewer well trained bands of musician's than 25+ years ago. Maybe that's why there is such "crappy" music out there. It's not like you surf through myspace and hear some qualitative difference between the unsigned/indy and major label stuff. You guys (current generation) have sat in your bedrooms trying to make records..instead of play, play, play live.
You don't need to tweak and tighten a well played performance..it's right as it is. Same with the recording aspect as well.
You don't need reverb or delay on a killer vocalist but we use it don't we? If we need eq and reverb on the kit we didn't exactly nail the engineering of the track so we use these tools to fix those issues. This is no different in my view. Could a perfect performance with perfect engineering benefit from it? Does the technique add something to a mix? No one is denying that a great performance properly recorded can sound great as is. Thats not the point. Can this technique take that to an even higher level? I haven't tried it yet so I don't know but to dismiss it outright seems contradictory to why I at least got into audio recording.
poprocks wrote: Gotta go, I have rehearsal. Playing two shows o
poprocks wrote: Gotta go, I have rehearsal. Playing two shows on Saturday. RM, I see you're in LA ... we'll be at the Joint on Pico Saturday night.
AG
Cool, I'll try and make it.
"My" band (I'm the P&E) is playing @ The Gig Hollywood. 7302 Melrose Ave. Hollywood, CA. 90010... (323) 936-4440
For Len Fagan's & Music Connection's Series.
UNsure of which slot yet..let's trade attendance!!
Peace.
Can Someone please explain exactly how this technique is used: s
Can Someone please explain exactly how this technique is used: step by step would be great.
Does it use standard lic placement? How many mics usually involved with this technique? Which ones out of phase exactly? Can they be put out of phase after recording? etc.
Many thanks.
Can Someone please explain exactly how this technique is used: s
Can Someone please explain exactly how this technique is used: step by step would be great.
Does it use standard lic placement? How many mics usually involved with this technique? Which ones out of phase exactly? Can they be put out of phase after recording? etc.
Many thanks.
i like others agree we can use whatever the heck we can get our hands on to improve an already good sound!
To say otherwise is like saying the recordists of the days of yore should not have used panning! It's ridiculous.
yes recorderman, PLEASE I hate to trouble you but could you pos
yes recorderman, PLEASE
I hate to trouble you but could you possibly reiterate your drum mic'ing method? I did see your original post/explanation, and I actually have tried it a few times. I think I'm still slightly unclear as to the exact placements. Perhaps you have a picture or diagram somewhere?
Thanks so much! 8-)
with regards to the in-phase out of phase thing. In my personal
with regards to the in-phase out of phase thing. In my personal experiences, when a source is heard by 2 mics that are recorded, there will be conflict. An example of this is overhead mics, or top & bottom mics on a snare I've posted this somewhere here before. Your local TV news actually use this conflict to their advantage. In a news helicoptor, there are 2 mics. One for the newscaster, and one for the ambient sound within the helicoptor. The 2 mics are IN PHASE and the newscaster's vox mic cancells out the noise (ambient mic) inside the helicoptor,
Chance wrote: with regards to the in-phase out of phase thing. I
Chance wrote: with regards to the in-phase out of phase thing. In my personal experiences, when a source is heard by 2 mics that are recorded, there will be conflict. An exapple of this is overhead mics, or top & bottom mics on a snare I've posted this somewhere here before. Your local TV news actually use this conflict to their advantage. In a news helicoptor, there are 2 mics. One for the newscaster, and one for the ambient sound within the helicoptor. The 2 mics are IN PHASE and the newscaster's vox mic cancells out the noise (ambient mic) inside the helicoptor,
hmmm..chance..they would flip one so that they are out-of-phase..to cancell what is common in both mics. In this case that would be the ambient noise. Since the announcer is only in one mic..his/her voice is not cancelled.
I remember reading years ago how "The Band" did the same thing w
I remember reading years ago how "The Band" did the same thing with Levon helms vocals ... He would sing at the same time they recorded drums and rhythm tracks, so the would put a mic out of phase with the vocal mic to cancel out the drum kit from the vocal track.
"Cowboy" Jack Clement also used the same phenomenon when tracking vocals sans headphones ... Mono cue mix, 2 Auratones out of phase with each other and the mic and speakers set in an equilateral triangle. The out of phase sound from the speakers reach the mic at the same time and cancel each other out. Fun with phase anomalies!
I agree with Chance for the most part. More than one mic on a source is asking for trouble. But I have been known to double mic kicks and snares as well as overheads. You just need to be aware of the problems that may arise from phase issues and deal with them at the time of set up. You don't want to be f#$@ing around with that stuff at mix.
As far as tweaking and editing ... I do it .... I hate it. I think it sucks and again, I do it all the time.
I would much rather have a great performance that doesn't need to be edited. Recording has become all about the producers instead of the players. The best records were made in an age when no one knew who the producer or the engineer was on a record for the most part. Now days it's almost like having a really well known producer and engineer is more important than who is actually singing and or playing. I think this is much of what's wrong with the recording industry these days.
A lot of producers / engineers are on a power trip with all the technology. Editing, pitch and time correction, cut and paste, it's like that kid on MAD TV, (Stuart) in his underwear and socks jumping up and down like a spaz and saying "Look what I can do!" I hate it but I'm guilty of doing it myself. It's hard to not do it when everone else does as well. You gotta go with the flow.
you watch mad TV? i compleatly agree with you about the whole p
you watch mad TV?
i compleatly agree with you about the whole producer/engineer comment.
this has nothing to do with phase but in WW2 the tank comanders would wair a special mic around there neck to cut out the noise, it would be pressed right up to there neck. almost compleatly isolated from the clang of the tank.
i still cant believe you watch MAD TV.
Kurt, you probably hate editing so much because you are using Cu
Kurt, you probably hate editing so much because you are using Cubase 5.0! :)
Man, I just LOVE editing, but I can only use Vegas for it, because every other program I feel just as you described. It's a great feeling when nothing at all needs to be done as well, no doubt about that, but even the greatest musicians might miss a note here and there.
Oh, and I think Bono from U2 does his vocals like that, on a couch, with a sm58, drunk as hell... that's what I read anyways. Ya just gotta get in that comfort zone, right? Same goes for engineers. If you aren't comfortable editing and tweaking then it's best to just not do it, cause it's not worth your frustration. Just tell the band to play better :)
frob wrote: you watch mad TV? .....i still cant believe you watc
frob wrote: you watch mad TV? .....i still cant believe you watch MAD TV.
Why is that? Some of that stuff cracks me up. I love The Dailey Show, (Lewis Black is a fave) Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, some of SNLs stuff as well. Comedy is a big hit in the "Foster home".
jamiey wrote: Kurt, you probably hate editing so much because you are using Cubase 5.0! :)
It's the overall concept, not the task I hate. Actually, I find editing in Cubase a breeze and very simple. Just like editing in Word. All the concepts are the same as most other Widows software. It has been a great program to poke and hope around in to fugure it out. Very user friendly, if you already have a grounding in audio. BTW, I'm using VST 5.1!
:D
jamiey wrote: Oh, and I think Bono from U2 does his vocals like that, on a couch, with a sm58, drunk as hell... that's what I read anyways. Ya just gotta get in that comfort zone, right? Same goes for engineers. If you aren't comfortable editing and tweaking then it's best to just not do it, cause it's not worth your frustration. Just tell the band to play better :)
I can believe that ... it's what he sounds like on the CDs ... in fact, I can picture it in my mind ... him sitting on a couch, sloppy drunk and drooling on himself, hollering "MOMMMMIEEEEEEEE .... OHHHHHHHH WAHHHHHHHH !" hee hee. :D
frob wrote: you watch mad TV? .....i still cant believe you watc
frob wrote: you watch mad TV? .....i still cant believe you watch MAD TV.
Mad TV is funny as Hell
I can't believe the crap on the local networks that people watch.
And the ONLY news program I watch is the Daily show.
Lewis Black makes me laugh too hard.
jamiey wrote: Bono from U2 does his vocals drunk as hell.
Kurt wrote: I can believe that ... it's what he sounds like on the CDs
Hehe :lol:
Hello, hello
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. yeah, yeah
shut the fuck up Bozo, I mean Bono
Thanks for the tip. The more mics you end up using, the more ph
Thanks for the tip.
The more mics you end up using, the more phasing problems you get. The Earthworks concept (3 mic kit) sounds cool and obviously, some people can get more out of the 2 high end Schoepps than a whole array of mics of lesser quality. I prefer mostly dynamics on the kit with a good condensor on Hi Hat and a pair of tube mics on Overheads. Phasing is always an issue. I'll check it out.