I figured I'd need to do stereo, but would shifting a single mic and then recording a second take per track also do the trick? Seems like it would, even if it's a bit more troublesome.
Offline
Brunswick, GA USA
Actually, you'd get something else that can be useful for a different reason- you'd get a doubled track with different phase characteristics from being slightly out of sync.
Offline
Gosford, Australia
yeah binaural recordings are tricky like that. it should be theoretically possible to do two separate monaural recordings of the exact same source with the microphone placed appropriately each time, realign the phase and pan appropriately in post and end up with what is essentially a binaural recording. not really a practical method, especially re: the first part, and the results aren't nearly as good as if you had just used two mics.
Offline
buffalo, NY
My 2 cents.
It's usually way more worth the effort to spend the time writing a better song, rather than doing over the top complicated production techniques for some kind of aesthetic. However if you do spend the time, you might learn a few production related things along the way.
Offline
Sydney Australia
Myself not so much natural reverb, I don't have a nice sounding room. However I have re-amped my GB-Boy a few times, Nothing to serious, Just because I am an audio-nerd. I just took the output of my GB-Boy, Into a "Air-Guitar Rocker" toy amps and then close miced the amp.
I have also built a small "plate" reverb unit. Haven't used it with anything chip related yet.
Offline
Chicago, IL
SketchMan3 wrote:
danimal cannon wrote:a lot of convolution reverbs take advantage of stereoness, you know like how it sounds when you hear it naturally.
Meanwhile, unless you were recording it with a nice stereo mic setup, you'd lose that in the process.
Like... two microphones with a block of wood the size of your head between them?
Not so much unfortunately. You can buy mics that are placed in a mannequin head that are supposed to give you Binaural Sound, however its all just different EQ tricks and algorithms. The shape of our ears and other factors (glasses, long hair, body type, etc.) changes a lot in regards to how we hear things. I wish it was that easy:/
But going with this sort of approach you can follow these stereo mic techniques
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORTF_stereo_technique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOS_stereo_technique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blumlein_Pair
Offline
Los Angeles, CA
danimal cannon wrote:
My 2 cents.
It's usually way more worth the effort to spend the time writing a better song, rather than doing over the top complicated production techniques for some kind of aesthetic. However if you do spend the time, you might learn a few production related things along the way.
Production aesthetic and composition are inexorably tied. Composing without a mind toward an aesthetic is a quick way to get Yngwie Malmsteen-level blandness
Also, I like reverb a lot. This thread gives me some awesome ideas!
Last edited by Mrwimmer (Aug 29, 2013 2:34 am)
Offline
Youngstown, OH
danimal cannon wrote:
My 2 cents.
It's usually way more worth the effort to spend the time writing a better song, rather than doing over the top complicated production techniques for some kind of aesthetic. However if you do spend the time, you might learn a few production related things along the way.
No I totally agree. I've just got the tunes already written and have been sitting on them a while, thinking of maybe some new angle to take them through in the mixing/mastering stage when the time is right.
(read: I have no idea what I'm going to do with such pure waveforms.)
Last edited by sleepytimejesse (Aug 29, 2013 2:15 pm)
Offline
Chicago, IL
danimal cannon wrote:
My 2 cents.
It's usually way more worth the effort to spend the time writing a better song, rather than doing over the top complicated production techniques for some kind of aesthetic. However if you do spend the time, you might learn a few production related things along the way.
I agree, however, over the top complicated techniques are a great way to build a sound in a way it might have been previously lacking. For example, my lsdj tracks for up to a year were very bland and discouraging until i found your tutorials on youtube. Spending a lot of time on my synths have turned bland tracks into bangers. But the same goes for everything. I intern with a grammy award winning producer and some of the stuff he does to his tracks is absolutely-mind-blowingly-incredible as far as processing goes. It's nuckin futs. I'm not saying composition isn't important. I wouldn't record something I didn't think was a masterpiece. I just think these extra tricks are gonna make it jump out from all the other amazing compositions. it really wraps it up all nice in a tight gift to the world of iphone earbuds and laptop speakers.
Offline
Brunswick, GA USA
squidula wrote:
...it really wraps it up all nice in a tight gift to the world of iphone earbuds and laptop speakers.
Herein lies the rub. There are no right or wrong answers.
Offline
Toronto, Canada
Live reverb is okay, but you tend to have to deal with the other noise present in the space (or cars going by outside, etc.).
If you take an impulse recording of the space, the noise isn't an issue (it's sort of orthogonal to the impulse), and you can apply it freely and more easily.
You can place your stereo pair of mics close or wide, also you can angle them narrow or widely. These both have different effects. You don't have to stop at two microphones either, unless you're out of microphones. Phase issues are usually easy to sort out in an editor later, though if you're unlucky you'll get some unfortunate phase in the echo. Theoretically you should not place your source in the very middle of a symmetrical room, but this is not a problem I've seen practical outside of artificial reverb simulation. You also don't want to place a microphone at a resonant node, but you'll hear that right away if you listen to the recording. You can walk around clapping in a room and eventually you'll find a place where the clap "rings" with a tone. Don't put the mic there (this is usually easy to avoid, these nodes tend to be few).
I put some mild reverb on some chiptunes once, but they were of classical music so I thought it was appropriate to do so.
Offline
montreal, qc
It can be amazing, but it all depends on your material and the space you're using.
The source material for this was all recorded in abandoned buildings in Montreal:
http://ilkae.bandcamp.com/track/spring- … om-pebbles
Not a chiptune. I would imagine that some awesome phase modulation could be attained using wet+dry chip sources though.
Offline
Youngstown, OH
ilkae wrote:
The source material for this was all recorded in abandoned buildings in Montreal:
Uh, so this is pretty amazing.
Reminds me of those spatial soundscapes in games like Portal. Very cool, gonna listen to this whole thing (for the music as well as recording process)
Offline
montreal, qc
Thanks!
I used these microphones (which for the price are unbeatable) as well as a standard 1990s minidisc recorder.
http://www.core-sound.com/lcmics/1.php
Playback on site was a cheap portable cd boombox.
Offline
Youngstown, OH
ilkae wrote:
Thanks!
I used these microphones (which for the price are unbeatable) as well as a standard 1990s minidisc recorder.
http://www.core-sound.com/lcmics/1.phpPlayback on site was a cheap portable cd boombox.
So at what point was the natural room used, and when did you use the binaural mics? It seems like you recorded sounds in the room and used single hits in a tracker/DAW to create this sort of minimalist droning. Did you then go back and record everything using the rooms again? Whole mix or did you bother with separating tracks?