Don Camillo Choir: 'Trude The Bumblebee'

[thedon]

I love this song ,Fantastic vocals and percussion.
Here is Version 1 ,Way out of my comfort zone, I haven't got a clue what I'm doing ,tried to tame some resonances.

Cheers

[Olli H]

Sounds great to me.

I only find one problem: bass voices sound maybe too processed. Also maybe for that reason they steal the show. I forget to listen other voices. Well, the focus was nicely in the solo lady, but otherwise the bass voice are alone near, and others just surround it far away. So it feels to me that others are supporting bass solo, but it probably should be other way.

REmember that this is comment from a guy that has never been in choir concert

About resonances. Listen for the first ”Dunka” in the loop
”DUNKA dunka doo, ka dun doo doo, DUNKA dunka doo, ka dun doo doo.” There something to tame a bit.

[thedon]

Sounds great to me.

I only find one problem: bass voices sound maybe too processed. Also maybe for that reason they steal the show. I forget to listen other voices. Well, the focus was nicely in the solo lady, but otherwise the bass voice are alone near, and others just surround it far away. So it feels to me that others are supporting bass solo, but it probably should be other way.

REmember that this is comment from a guy that has never been in choir concert

About resonances. Listen for the first ”Dunka” in the loop
”DUNKA dunka doo, ka dun doo doo, DUNKA dunka doo, ka dun doo doo.” There something to tame a bit.

Thanks for the feedback olli, I agree had another play around using C4 multiband compression but now the bottom end sounds weak .
I might have another shot of this down the track with a complete different approach .
Cheers

[The_Metallurgist]

hi Don,
the timbre between the lead vox and the choir sound the wrong way round? i'd expect the lead to be marginally brighter and a touch louder in contrast with the intro voices because of proximity to the listener - assuming she's stood more forward to the rest of the gang, that is, but it's vision dependant. and to be mindful that doubling a vocal contributes more SPL in relative terms too....so this loudness thing needs to be taken in perspective. as it is, the choir sounds overly quite bright and somewhat harsh. this tends to give a subjective impression that the room is hard and highly reflective (which in reality it is), but i think we need to try and tame this otherwise it ends up giving a cold, stark delivery while exaggerating the reflections. the reflections can be tamed by balancing the spot/close mics in with the main mic (try warming the main mic up). i found it advantageous to ditch a few tracks which tended to be superfluous to the image yet added even more ambiance in the wrong ratio while contributing yet more boom in the low end. maybe you can find some mileage in that...if it helps.

i found the bass was highly variable between each track pretty much (i.e. the frequency of the boom wasn't consistent...mic placements, room modes etc etc), and benefited from selective processing but keeping mindful of the overall impact is crucial, especially in the stereo domain...if this helps! :/

i keep going back to the lead vox....i found the frequency response of the tracking to be, ummm.... 'weird'? there's a massive bump at about 250Hz, IIRC, and then it drops off a cliff. i think you did a good job recovering from the drama though.




i gave up on the c4 many years ago because i found it wasn't transparent (it added colouration just sitting there). is it better in this respect these days?

can i recommend you don't limit to 0dB....the encoder needs headroom otherwise things don't turn out so well. -3dB max into the encoder, then after you can turn it up to -1dB. if you go hotter than this after the encoding process, it will distort on most consumer DAC's. it's great researching, especially for insomniacs!

0dB came about because of the loudness war, where every ounce of loudness was required.....and benefited from intentional distortion because of it's subjective effect on perceived loudness. this loudness and distortion business is one of THE main reasons vinyl is gaining in popularity, if you didn't already know. it's got nothing to do with holding the sleeve in some perverse nostalgic manner, as some empty headed journalists have suggested! though that's not to say some don't derive pleasure from caressing the sleeve! lol. it's just a shame that vinyl is scrap after 30 plays - the stylus erodes the groove with each play. but i digress!!

[Dangerous]

I much prefer mix#1 Don. As you said, you lose too much bottom end in mix #2. I found the bass group worked best with the #4 mic inverted. Seemed to stabilize things a bit. I also used a gentle transient controller on the bass group to tame some of that roomy glowing sustain that's present. Whether is was a right move or not it did seem to make the bass vocals more defined. I am pleased that you are outside of your comfort zone and the reality is, we probably all are. This is a good thing. Well worth the excise to dig in.

[thedon]

hi Don,
the timbre between the lead vox and the choir sound the wrong way round? i'd expect the lead to be marginally brighter and a touch louder in contrast with the intro voices because of proximity to the listener - assuming she's stood more forward to the rest of the gang, that is, but it's vision dependant. and to be mindful that doubling a vocal contributes more SPL in relative terms too....so this loudness thing needs to be taken in perspective. as it is, the choir sounds overly quite bright and somewhat harsh. this tends to give a subjective impression that the room is hard and highly reflective (which in reality it is), but i think we need to try and tame this otherwise it ends up giving a cold, stark delivery while exaggerating the reflections. the reflections can be tamed by balancing the spot/close mics in with the main mic (try warming the main mic up). i found it advantageous to ditch a few tracks which tended to be superfluous to the image yet added even more ambiance in the wrong ratio while contributing yet more boom in the low end. maybe you can find some mileage in that...if it helps.

i found the bass was highly variable between each track pretty much (i.e. the frequency of the boom wasn't consistent...mic placements, room modes etc etc), and benefited from selective processing but keeping mindful of the overall impact is crucial, especially in the stereo domain...if this helps! :/

i keep going back to the lead vox....i found the frequency response of the tracking to be, ummm.... 'weird'? there's a massive bump at about 250Hz, IIRC, and then it drops off a cliff. i think you did a good job recovering from the drama though.




i gave up on the c4 many years ago because i found it wasn't transparent (it added colouration just sitting there). is it better in this respect these days?

can i recommend you don't limit to 0dB....the encoder needs headroom otherwise things don't turn out so well. -3dB max into the encoder, then after you can turn it up to -1dB. if you go hotter than this after the encoding process, it will distort on most consumer DAC's. it's great researching, especially for insomniacs!

0dB came about because of the loudness war, where every ounce of loudness was required.....and benefited from intentional distortion because of it's subjective effect on perceived loudness. this loudness and distortion business is one of THE main reasons vinyl is gaining in popularity, if you didn't already know. it's got nothing to do with holding the sleeve in some perverse nostalgic manner, as some empty headed journalists have suggested! though that's not to say some don't derive pleasure from caressing the sleeve! lol. it's just a shame that vinyl is scrap after 30 plays - the stylus erodes the groove with each play. but i digress!!

Hi Dave Thanks for taking the time to have a listen and great advice I agree 100% .
The bass is a real challenge to be honest this is the first time I used the C4 and didn't notice if it colours the sound but will do some tests .
I will have another shot soon and go easy on the limiting

Thanks Again

Don

[thedon]

I much prefer mix#1 Don. As you said, you lose too much bottom end in mix #2. I found the bass group worked best with the #4 mic inverted. Seemed to stabilize things a bit. I also used a gentle transient controller on the bass group to tame some of that roomy glowing sustain that's present. Whether is was a right move or not it did seem to make the bass vocals more defined. I am pleased that you are outside of your comfort zone and the reality is, we probably all are. This is a good thing. Well worth the excise to dig in.

Thanks for Having a listen Dave ,will try that .
This one is a great test.

Cheers

[The_Metallurgist]

I much prefer mix#1 Don. As you said, you lose too much bottom end in mix #2. I found the bass group worked best with the #4 mic inverted. Seemed to stabilize things a bit. I also used a gentle transient controller on the bass group to tame some of that roomy glowing sustain that's present. Whether is was a right move or not it did seem to make the bass vocals more defined. I am pleased that you are outside of your comfort zone and the reality is, we probably all are. This is a good thing. Well worth the excise to dig in.

Thanks for Having a listen Dave ,will try that .
This one is a great test.

Cheers

the problem with inverting is that it's either everything or nothing....and this material, owing to it's infusion of microphones creating, as well as sitting amidst the myriad of time delays, is that much of the phase will lie somewhere in between 0 and 180. relying on the switch will not achieve the best outcome because of the complexity here. it's one of the reasons we are hearing a hollowness in the various posts - nasty combfiltering. working the phase will affect both treble and bass....just to complicate things, but not equally of course. and don't forget that EQ (and compression) will add it's own phase gremlins.

the more microphones we involve ourselves with here....the greater the phase interactions and the more exponential the issues on audio quality that can potentially arise. the moral could be to select the keepers from the dumpers wisely in order to reduce or minimise the complexities in their interactions and the subsequent issues regarding combfiltering.

i'd like to know the room size and approx dimensions. in a decent mixing situation, we'd have the mic layout too.

for reference, i strongly recommend not using the preview track, at least for the bass. the BBC has a lot of choir progs from competitions and so forth that can offer a guide regarding general frequency response - youtube.

super multi...shame about the room though. given that a choir doesn't perform to an audience in small spaces (small village halls may rank as the exception...but i wouldn't expect a 35 member choir and accumulative SPL to be typical), and we as an audience are accustomed to generally hearing performances in larger spaces, i think the room's recorded signature would be a problem for an informed listener. we can't make the space feel subjectively larger because we'll be putting the acoustics of a small room inside that of a larger one - impossible in nature and a contradiction that will lead to discomfort and distraction.

there's actually a recording technique which can make a small room appear 4x larger than it really is........but you'll need to subscribe to my blog for that

all good fun, eh?

[Dangerous]

Interesting, I found most of the recordings that I referenced, distance the choir with a large ambient room sound which made up for the majority of what I was hearing, almost a back row seat situation. Where as this recording is more intimate and detailed. Making the room sound bigger and full is very challenging especially with all the close mic's involved. Hopefully Dave you will find time to assemble something for us to listen to. I would love to hear your work around with this particular multi. Complete with your written thesis it would make for an educational thread for sure. No pressure of course

[The_Metallurgist]

Interesting, I found most of the recordings that I referenced, distance the choir with a large ambient room sound which made up for the majority of what I was hearing, almost a back row seat situation. Where as this recording is more intimate and detailed. Making the room sound bigger and full is very challenging especially with all the close mic's involved. Hopefully Dave you will find time to assemble something for us to listen to. I would love to hear your work around with this particular multi. Complete with your written thesis it would make for an educational thread for sure. No pressure of course

the sweat is already running!

ordinarily, i think we are accustomed to hearing choirs in larger spaces. much of the BBC stuff i've referenced for other things, is performed this way too. the trouble with the recordings, however, is that darn small room signature that's firmly etched into each microphone. this signature cannot be removed. so planting a small room ambiance inside a larger one (the larger one we are accustomed to hearing in performances) doesn't work, won't work because this never happens in nature and as humans, we are programmed to understand acoustics....what we see supports what we hear. in audio, we only have our ears to make judgements, but the brain still understands those spatial cues thereby preventing us from creating an illusion of a larger room here, sadly.

i don't know if this will help, but i made the executive decision to DELETE the room mics (and some others...), main1 and 2. i considered neither of them were beneficial to the task at hand, rightly or wrongly. the fact we cannot control the bass decay nor the likely combfiltering effects from the early reflections of the room, make these worthy contenders for the sin-bin. it also helps reduce the conflicts in the time domain as well (phase with the other mics). it then leaves us free to make our own room mics up by utilizing a stereo reverb (with small room attributes, of course!). we can then shape the thing exactly how we want, and balance the wet and dry to taste as well. you can compress, EQ, pan, choose delay, dial decay, low pass, high pass, distort(!), wide width, narrow width, explore different mixes of early and late reflections, try mono, plate, spring, synthetic, convolution, cheap, expensive, or woteva ya fancy......think of it, FREEDOM of choice!

where we put it in the signal chain is optional of course. it might be valid setting it up as an aux and feeding the group busses into this accordingly and to taste (even individual tracks....if you felt like it). it also lets us choose where the signal of the feed appears which can be helpful in how the bass elements are distributed (i.e. their balance in the stereo domain) within it. but whatever, it gives us more options over the project.

it might even be possible to cheat the room size somewhat by taking out the main mic culprits and selectively shaping each of the remaining close mics....but i wouldn't bet my pension on the relative success of that outcome, however it's perhaps worth exploring if only for the hell of it.

i don't want to be taking over the thread, but i think this is important and i've nowhere else to say it: the very thing i thought wouldn't be a problem is actually my major headache....no, it's not the whistler lol. i can't get this lead vocal to work no matter what i do to it. it sounds to me like it's been EQ'd to take out the low-end congestion from a confined, inadequately treated space. however, the upper harmonics from this space (the signature) still exist. it sounds terrible. my dreams of turning this into a U87 tracked in a professional studio don't quite seem to be panning out. we can smack a snare's EQ around with abundant frivolity and the mother-in-law won't bat an eyelid, but get the voice wrong and she will know instinctively. then it distracts. if anyone has an idea, i'm all ears! yeah, i thought about muting it

Don, save us!