Week 7 - AA

This weeks lesson was about vocal micing techniques*(1) It's obviously an interesting one to do, because it's such a major topic. It really gets me excited about the course, and just shows me how much I really want to do it. I partnered up with Doug for this one.

This was the Avalon setting for all the recordings:



Our first recording was done on the Neumann condenser mic. It sounded a little bland to start with. Clear but bland. Sung close to mic

So to try and fix that, we used the compressor. Altered 1st recording

And a picture of the settings on the computer and the position of the mic and pop filter:





The last one we did on the condenser was without the pop filter and was sung off-axis. See the picture. (I look stunning as always... hmm...)



This one has no effects. I don't like it as much as the first recording, but I'd feel pressed to say why. It just doesn't feel totally right.

Condenser sung off axis

The final two recordings we did were on a Shure SM58. We wanted to compare the dynamic mic to the condenser. Personally, I thought there was too much boom, and it was too bassy for my liking. Also the plosives and sibilance was more obvious, but that could be because of the pop filter.

Singing into the dynamic

We then recorded Doug speaking into the dynamic mic, making the pops even more apparent, but then went overboard on the EQ, making a radio, almost static sound. I really like this sound as an effect in music, and now can re-create that when I'm recording my major piece.

Spoken into dynamic, EQ to the max

And a screen shot of the EQ plug in:



I really enjoyed this exercise. It's good to see how these things work, and to work it out myself. Of course, the chance to be recorded was pretty awesome too!

Over and out.







*(1) Steve Fieldhouse, Monday, 22nd April, 2007. Audio Arts Lecture

Wk 7 - Forum

This weeks forum was a controversial one. "Gender in Music Technology" when there are only 3 girls doing the course is kind of difficult. As one of the only girls, I felt awkward, especially as the two first male presenters focused on why women don't want to do music technology or why they are disadvantaged in the area. Until this forum, it didn't feel like an issue. I hadn't thought about the fact that I'm majorly out-numbered, and if I had, it wasn't because it was a bad thing, it was just a thing. It's also now thrown light on the fact that I am a female, and because of some of the opinions thrown around, (though I know it's not what they intended),I felt like I had to justify why I was in the course. Which wasn't a pleasant feeling. But anyway, on to what I thought of the presentations...

Well the first 2 presentations were interesting. Mostly for the fact that a lot of the things said we either didn't agree with, or thought were mis-informed. Which I realise is much the same thing, but with a subtle yet important difference. When I disagreed it was entirely opinion based, but mis-informed I knew certain things better. I am a girl, so I know that some things said were so generalised as to be wrong. That said, they were still interesting to hear and everything, if sometimes awkward.

My presentation was also interesting. For me. I went up there with a few facts and a lot of opinions. I was so nervous. My hands were shaking so much I couldn't turn up the volume on the CD. However, I think I did ok. I like to think I made the point that feminism has no place in the music technology industry, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to do it. I found it hard to fnid the right words to say what I meant without ust repeating myself and contradicting myself.

Hopefully my presentation was successful. I enjoyed doing it once I got over my nerves. I still think it was a bad topic though.

test eg

WHATEVER RICKI (LABEL)

Week 6 - AA - Acoustic Guitar

This week would have to have been my favourite exercise so far! Doing this one as a group helped us I think, and we managed to get through it relatively quickly and easily.

So the idea was to record 5 different acoustic guitar samples using different positioning techniques.

1:

For this one the mic was angled up near the frets. I didn't think this one had a very professional sound, it sounded tinny and you could hear Ben's fingers.

2:

This one was ok as well, with the mic pointing up near the body of the guitar. You can kind of hear breathing though and the sound has a fair bit of boom.


3:
This one was almost straight at the sound hole so there was a lot of boom and it wasn't a very good recording.

4:
This was away from the guitar pointing up at the ceiling. You can hear the reverberations of the walls, and despite it sounding less clear than some of the other recordings, I actually like the natural sound. It sounds more live, and that could work with some recordings and bands.

5:
This was my favourite for professional quality and clarity. I think if I was recording a classical musician on acoustic guitar I'd go for the XY technique.

Week 5 - Forum

This weeks forum was again on collaborations. And again, this week most of the presenters were exploring where collaborations have been applied and have worked.

Although, like last week, one person made a presentation that caught my attention and I'm going to base my blog around that as I have limited word count. Darren's presentation was exploring whether collaborations is always the appropriate term.*(1) For example, if two people are collaborating together to try and make a mix of two different ideas or styles then it would be justified in being called a collaboration. However, if the collaboration is based on one persons independant idea that is only able to come into existence because of another persons involvement, is it really collaboration? When people are collaborating through necessity rather than through choice.

According to Darren, this is fairly common and is still a useful tool. For example, when a classical composer wants to take his arrangements to a new level, and introduce drum beats but can't play that, then he has to get in another musician to 'collaborate'. However, this musician has no real input into the final product except to play what the original composer wants.

Darren gave many examples of what he believed wer real collaborations and collaboration through necessity. It was an interesting way of looking at it, and I hadn't thought about it that way before.

Of course, there is then a line that needs to be drawn: How much joint collaboration IS through necessity? Whether the necessity to improve the sound of the music, or the necessity to gain a bigger audience.

As usual, forum has proven to show more questions than answers.

*(1) Darren, Music Technology Forum, 29/3/2007

CC - Week 5 - Sequencing (2)

This week we did much the same as last week except it was more based on the plug-ins in ProTools*(1). I used Lauras noises this week because I've been having so much trouble with mine, and the result was pretty interesting. The way that paper can be distorted is really amazing and by the end is hardly recognisable.

This week I used a variety of things, like the reverse, the volume control, lots of different parts of AudioSuite (like the moogerfooger and delay) and duplictaed parts to make it sound more interesting and full. I didn't use any time dilation effects, but I wanted to. I just didn't really have the time to fit it into the soundscape.

Here is the finished product:

This is the screenshot of the ProTools window:

Unfortunately, I can't get hold of a camera, so the picture won't be available. I was going to rip it in an order... it's actually too hard to describe. Hopefully the rest of this will work though.

Week 5 - AA

This week was about learning the different types of microphones and what they can do. We learnt abut the many different types of microphone and the different patterns that they can record. For example, some mics can pick up sound from any direction, known as omni-directional, but some lose the power to pick up sound as you turn the face away.

The exercise was to record different patterns and mics to see the difference and work it out. Laura and I did it together, so rather than record two different sets of 5 sounds that would be almost exactly the same, and that we both would've done, we used the same sounds. We also roped Nathan in to m ake sure we were doing the right thing and had it all covered.

We used a Shure SM58 dynamic microphone, and an AKG condenser, changing the settings. I personally don't really notice much difference, except that when we recorded the 4th recording Laura rotated the mic and you can hear it fade in and out.

THE FIRST RECORDING:

This one is the condenser mic using the first setting. It is recorded with a cartoid pattern. You can't hear much of a difference, except that the mic is being pulled away and toward the sound source.

THE SECOND RECORDING:

This one is using the 2nd setting on the mic, the hyper cartoid pattern

THE THIRD RECORDING:
This is the omni directional setting on the AKG, so it makes no difference where it's pointing, the mic will still pick it up.

THE FOURTH RECORDING:
The final recording we made using the condenser used the figure eight pattern. As Laura turns the mic around, you can hear the change.

THE FIFTH RECORDING:
This recording was done using a shure SM58 dynamic mic and is a pretty simple and easy recording. We just pointed the mic straight at the radio.

Sorry there are no pictures, but I couldn't find any relevant ones, and this page is already a fair bit to download.