TubeNet

After a 41 year hiatus, I have resumed my interaction with the BBb tuba. During the 1960s, I played the instrument competently in performance groups both in high school and in university. So far, it is a wonderful reunion!

One of the things I am initially focusing on is the development of my "ideal" sound. On this forum and others, folks have suggested that one should find a professional tone, listen to it, and try to emulate it. This appears to be good advice, but I am certainly enough of a media realist to understand that what I am hearing as a performer may not represent the "true" sound (or what others may be hearing). Perhaps the only true assessment of the sound I am making on the tuba can come about by listening to "accurate" recordings of that sound.

In order to explore this idea, I set up a variety of different devices to record my performances (note - I am not a recording engineer):
- Computer Microphone - (setup - 5 feet from instrument, recorded to computer/Audacity)
- Silent Brass (Microphone) - (microphone in mute - in bell, recorded to computer/Audacity)
- Dynamic Microphone - (setup - 6 feet from instrument, recorded to computer/Audacity)
- Video Camera - (setup 6 feet from instrument, recorded to digital tape)

I tried each of these devices in 3 different places:
1. My home studio
2. My office studio (at the university)
3. A large university recital hall available for my use

I played back these recordings through a Behringer mixer to a Fishman 100 watt amplifier.

I conducted a number of benchmarks where I would play a passage, listen to it live (while recording) then listen to the recorded version. I was astounded at the difference between what was recorded and what I heard while playing. Although each of the devices (and places) offered sonic variations, every single one of these recordings generated a product whose sound was absolutely alien to what I was hearing in the "driver's seat (under the bell)." The deep and steady sound that I hear when playing, was nowhere to be heard in the actual recordings. I realize that this may be the result of several things:
1. Reality - I think my tone is better than it really is (the recording is the reality)
2. Recording - My methods of recording are too primitive and not accurate enough
3. Playback - The recording may be good, but the system through which the sound is played back is inefficient.

I tend to think that the first option may represent the truth, i.e., what I am hearing while playing, sounds better than the reality. So, I have a few questions:

1. Do others experience a disparity between their "live (under the bell)" and their "recorded" sound?
2. What techniques and devices do others use to generate quick, easy, and accurate recordings of their playing?

Thanks
Don

I like your approach to getting back after a long hiatus. By recording yourself you want to obtain some of the effects from studying with a teacher.

Since 35 years I have lived away from metropolitan areas where it was easy to find a teacher. I have studied with teachers in between, but it took a lot of traveling.

As I taught music myself, I soon became aware that many students listen to their efforts and intentions, not really to the sonic result. The feedback control wasn’t very effective.

Brass playing consists of endless numbers of parameters, but two are really import at all levels of playing:

quality of articulation

steadiness of sound and pitch.

Both are controllable via recordings of oneself. I must say that I rather like hearing the miked results in real time. With the trombone I played most at that point of time I pointed a directional microphone (Shure SM58) towards the bell and plugged it to a Cube Keyboard amplifier, which I placed in front of me like a stage monitor. Very revealing about articulation whether it was too explosive or just plain sloppy like in un-tight legato.

Steadiness of sound and pitch is usually trained by means of long notes. Extremely boring. You may spice it with dynamic inflections and/or with rhythmic subdivisions, soon gets boring also.

The big revelation for me, practicewise, was that the effect of training long notes mostly is gained in the last end of the note, where the lesser air residues are much harder to control than the full lungs are. So I used the full lungs for doing other things like flexibility, trills, scales, whatever. Especially during warm-up flexibility routines I let every element end on a pedal note at the given fingering held beyond its actual sounding.

Sounds odd, but that continuing blowing after the note stopped sounding was inspired by the great British trumpeter and brass band instructor Mr. Geoffrey Brand. At one rehearsal I attended he asked the tubas to continue blowing after the lips stopped buzzing due to lack of air. This is not voodoo, as the continued blowing trains the lungs working beyond their limits. The more control and strength one gets over these extreme low-in-air situations, the better control one gets over the lungs when they are more filled with air.

It maybe should be noted that uneven sounds come from uneven air supply. Less pressure will, at a given embouchure formation, cause drop in overtone intensity and most often also drop in pitch. Both factors contributing to a sense of the sound getting dull. And where one might assume that a steady sound of a long note would require an even amount of workload over the duration of the note, the workload actually increases as the air reserves are used. Mentally a long even note demands the perception of playing a crescendo (yet not a violent one).

To control these elements (and all the others) one should mentally move ones ears out in front of the bell. The deviations in note quality also are audible from the playing position, the player only has to make him/herself aware of the less audible signs of deviations coming around the edge of the bell (the higher overtones are more directional than the lower ones so the equalization is different in the player’s ears).

Miking oneself as described above here or listening trough earphones is very helpful in developing a better awareness of ones playing. Again I prefer real time listening over recording.

Actually I have started using this practice method again very recently when playing my plucked strings, where I am at a beginner’s level. On the bass guitar it helps telling whether the fingers are well placed behind the frets. On the chord instruments it helps telling whether all notes are audible.

So I now do follow the advise I many years ago gave the bass guitarist in a school ensemble: Please move your ears from your fingers to the membrane of your amplifier.

Klaus

While the sm58 is legendary for vocals, producing a nice sound, i would venture it, and the other mics listed by the OP (though i have no experience with the silent mute) are totally inadequate for recording a tuba, especially as we head down the scale. The response curve on shure's site shows the sm58 down a couple db at about 350Hz and it's down at least 5db at 100Hz. The graph shows it stopping around 60Hz. There is also an emphasis starting at about 900Hz. All this non-flat response is nice for vocals, but not necessarily for tubas, though can be eq'ed out if necessary.

I can pretty much guarantee the mics mentioned (again, no exp with silente mute) are worse then the sm58, perhaps far worse, in the "typical" tuba range. You might beg, borrow, steal, or otherwise appropriate a decent large diaphragm condenser mic with good base response (i don't remember the number exactly but the pedal c is somewhere around 30Hz) and try that way. Since the condenser mike will need power and your computer setup most likely will not be able to supply it, you will have to find one with its own battery supply or find someone with a portable deck that can supply phantom power and use that to record and/or direct monitor your sound.

Jamming the mic in the bell will not show you how everyone else hears your sound as the room will have an effect too. However, the mic-in-the-bell trick will remove most of the room making a more-consistent sound for you to listen to no matter where you're playing.

Once you hear how your sound really is in a nice venue, you can compare that to what you are hearing from your other mic setups and go from there.

The computer/audigy combo is quite adequate for your recording purposes.

The old SM58 (mine is 30+ years old) is no way near the state of the art, microphonewise. But it isn’t the worst either. Its bass roll-off is intended to compensate for the bass range becoming to prominent as it otherwise would in a directional microphone.

And as long as we are not talking hifi, but rather a support of the aural feed-back process, then the microphones don’t need to be very prestigious. The OP already with his present equipment registered unevenness in his sound on longer notes. And that is what is important in his process of improving his awareness of his playing.

Klaus

(continued) Also, the amp will color your sound. Assuming the amp you mentioned is the fishman loudbox 100w amp, a quick search didn't turn up a response curve, however i did find this: "Frequency Response 80Hz — 20kHz ± 4dB." That will color your sound, not necessarily badly.

The same amp also shows "Ch.2, XLR Input: 2.4k Ohm Balanced" so perhaps this can supply the phantom power for the mike and feed your computer input.

I have never used noise-suppression headphones to listen to tuba, but since your head is so close to the sound source, maybe they can remove (or at least reduce) the sound you're hearing directly allowing the mic sound to get through more clearly. Don't know, as i said, i haven't tried it.

imperialbari wrote:I like your approach to getting back after a long hiatus. By recording yourself you want to obtain some of the effects from studying with a teacher.

Klaus

Klaus:

I always appreciate your fine wisdom. You've provided a lot of very interesting instructional information that will certainly occupy my morning practise sessions for the next few weeks. You are quite right in stating that "quality of articulation" and "steadiness of sound and pitch" are two important parameters. After I realized that the recording environment I had designed was not effective in providing me with an accurate replication of the "color" of my sound, I went back and reviewed the recordings to see what could be learned. These (articulation & steadiness) were the exact components that I isolated as worthy of analysis. I am anxious to study your suggestions in more detail to see if I can begin improving these.

I certainly have no excuse for not seeking out a competent teacher. I work in Visual & Performing Arts in a university Faculty of Education. Connected to our building is the university Faculty of Music, where we have a host of very talented teachers and musicians. I am completely surrounded by musical brilliance. I think it may be time to humble myself and seek out assistance.

Thanks
Don

toobaa wrote:I can pretty much guarantee the mics mentioned (again, no exp with silente mute) are worse then the sm58, perhaps far worse, in the "typical" tuba range. You might beg, borrow, steal, or otherwise appropriate a decent large diaphragm condenser mic with good base response (i don't remember the number exactly but the pedal c is somewhere around 30Hz) and try that way. Since the condenser mike will need power and your computer setup most likely will not be able to supply it, you will have to find one with its own battery supply or find someone with a portable deck that can supply phantom power and use that to record and/or direct monitor your sound.

Once you hear how your sound really is in a nice venue, you can compare that to what you are hearing from your other mic setups and go from there.

I appreciate the information. The technical details you've provided are helpful. I've already realized that the different setups I am using are inadequate. I suppose I initially set these up in a rather quick manner (taking advantage of the equipment I had at hand) to see if I could get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems I can't. I do have access to a large supply of recording equipment (including condenser microphones), so I guess I'll have to roll up my sleeves and actually do some real work here.

Thanks
Don

There are several links in your recording chain that need examination. First the quality of the microphone and its frequency response are very important. Specs for the SM58 are readily available on line. Generally a large diaphragm condenser mic is the best choice for recording the tuba. You can also use a clip on mic such as the AKG 419 on the bell for the close sound and use a LDCM further out to get the room sound. This will pick up the sound as it is reflected off of the walls, floor and ceiling. You can then mix the two together and make the sound as dry or wet as you wish. Condenser mics generally require phantom power to operate. Microphone placement is also very important. This will be determined by placing the mic in different spots and listening to the results. You then need to have a descent mic pre-amp to get the level up to a point where the signal can be worked with. You will also need to have analog to digital converters. Audacity should be fine in your computer. Fortunately you can buy small I/O (in out) interfaces from Ederal (sp?) and others for a reasonable price that will do all of the above things and give you a firewire or USB connection to your computer. Both Sweetwater and Musicians Friend have a good selection of I?O interfaces in many price ranges. Good mics can often be borrowed or rented if you look around. Your playback system is also important - you need speakers that sound good with no distortion in the lower frequencies. You amplifier also needs to have sufficient power to reproduce lower frequencies at reasonable volumes. This is a lot to go through to hear what you sound like. I personally prefer to just use my ears and listen to myself on the occasional recordings that I do with small ensembles.
Good Luck, Phil

bergland wrote:I certainly have no excuse for not seeking out a competent teacher. I work in Visual & Performing Arts in a university Faculty of Education. Connected to our building is the university Faculty of Music, where we have a host of very talented teachers and musicians. I am completely surrounded by musical brilliance. I think it may be time to humble myself and seek out assistance.

Assuming you are at the University of Victoria, you have one of the finest tuba players in the world, Gene Dowling, on faculty.

Dynamic microphones (Shure SM58, etc) are intended to reject ambient sound. If you use one you will get a dry recording that is useful for examining details of articulation, etc. This recording will not sound like a tuba in a room with walls that reflect sound. To get such a recording, you can use a less directional microphone (commonly a condensor) placed at a distance that a listener might be, and you will hear the horn as others do.

My advice would be, don't use a home recording to check your sound unless you have a lot of experience with recording, a very good microphone, clean signal path, and good A/D converters. Also microphone placement is really important. If you ever see an experienced engineer mic up a guitar amplifier, you will see him/her wander around with the mic, wearing headphones, trying out many different positions.
There are just so many variables and so many things that can colour, or worse, ruin the sound. And if you did manage to get a good recording you then need a neutral playback system, although good headphones may well be fine for that. Not only is this true for all instruments it is exceptionally true for low instruments such as a tuba.

My guess would be that your sound is considerably better than your recording suggests. It is not for nothing that professional studios have $3000 microphones, expensive A/D converters and monitors, plus someone who knows how to use them. The microphones you have mentioned are not designed for low instruments.

You could always try a specialist recording magazine such as Sound on Sound - maybe post a question on their web forum. There are some very experienced engineers on there (and a few silly people unfortunately):

http://www.soundonsound.com" target="_blank

Of course I am impressed by the knowledgeable sound tech freaks. Especially about how profoundly they miss the very point of the OP.

Do we need high tech to determine the quality of the attack and the evenness of sound? No way!

The OP did not ask for support for issuing a commercial recording, rather for an analysis of the disparity between two experiences of perception, which he had expected being closer. One can invest endless sums in equipment and will still experience a mysterious difference if one does not understand the elementary acoustical and mental mechanisms at play.

Klaus, who was the one telling about using an SM58 thirty years ago.

Mark wrote: Assuming you are at the University of Victoria, you have one of the finest tuba players in the world, Gene Dowling, on faculty.

I am indeed at the University of Victoria. Not more than 20 minutes ago, I contacted one of my colleagues (the Director of the School of Music) and he has put me in touch with Eugene Dowling.

Thanks
Don

The OP was seeking information/advice about developing his "ideal sound" I quote "One of the things I am initially focusing on is the development of my "ideal" sound" You can make very adequate recordings for the purpose of articulation, dynamics, musical interpretation, breathing, and numerous other things in your playing. I would suggest though that if you are trying to develop your "ideal sound" and you are going to use recordings of yourself as a tool then you need to try to produce a recording that is as representative of what you are actually playing as possible. As for "sound tech freaks" the art and science of music recording is a well established field. The best recording engineers are also almost always fine musicians. That cheap shot is on the level of a coment that the only thing a tuba player can do is go ohm-pah. Of course in some cases that may be true.
Phil

Phil/Klaus:

Both of you are providing me with wonderful information and I appreciate the different aspects each of you is addressing. If I can get a great recording that replicates the real sound (Phil) and apply appropriate remediation to the resulting analysis (Klaus), then I may be able to thank both of you for helping me improve my current sound.

Thanks
Don

The only way you can really evaluate the sound is by recording with a good digital recorder (I use the Zoom H2) placed near back of hall in real concert situation.

The sound, particularly from larger tuba can be very different in concert hall, from practice room

Jonathan "who records most of his concerts to evaluate his playing and sound"

Great recordings can also be done in the analog world. There are quite a few people going back to tracking on tape (often 2-inch) and then mixing down in the digital domain. The quality of microphones and pre-amps is probably much more important than what kind of medium you are capturing to. The digital resolution (sampling rate and bit depth) is also very important. MP3 (being a compressed format) will never sound as good as an analog recording. When you record at the back of the hall you are only getting reflected sound as you have gone past critical distance (the distance where the level of direct sound is equal to the reflected sound). Ideally for the best sound you want to record at around 2/3 of critical distance. You want to have a mix of direct sound and reflected (natural re-verb) sound so that the recording is neither too dry (no warmth) or too wet (sounds like you are in a stairwell or echo chamber). You still want warmth but also good definition on the articulations.
Phil

I enjoy good sound systems. Even own at least one of them.

Yet it has been experienced since the dawn of recording that good music has been enjoyed through sound systems lesser that current standards. The best equalizer ever been invented is the human brain, which hears notes only outlined by their overtone patterns.

Professional studio musicians maybe only hear themselves through headphones (I even tend to doubt that). Everybody else has to learn to evaluate his/hers own sound on the fly in what ever context he/she plays. If one plays instruments intended for amplification, one shall listen to the oscillating speaker cone. Otherwise one shall train listening to oneself. Electronics can be an initial tool, but most of the stuff suggested by the equipment nerds in my opinion is blatant overkill for the actual purpose.

If one has an unwanted piercing sound, one shall learn to hear the too prominent overtones. If one has a hollow sound, one shall get aware of the lacking overtones. Just to mention a very few samples.

Klaus

Recording tuba to get the "real" sound is difficult or at least an expensive adventure. Because you would need really good microphones to reach that. If you hear "Travelin' light" with Sam Pilafians fantastic tuba sound, this is recorded with Sennheiser MKH-40 according to the booklet. One of those will cost you 1,500 $
What I do: I like to practice in a dry sounding room with a low ceiling, this makes me hear what comes out of the bell.
When recording my attempts, I use a minidisc with an external stereo mic, but a Zoom H2 or similar device would do the same.
If you place the mic very close to or inside the bell, this can sound good on recordings and for amplification use, but is very far away from the natural sound of the unamplified tuba in a normal concert setting. As others already pointed out, you don't need the ultimate sophisticated sound to judge your own phrasing, articulation and steadiness of air flow.
I suggest you to get a flash recorder like Zoom or other brands (Olympus, Tascam).

Gerd

One of my biggest problems is that I hear what I wanted to play, not what I really played. I use a ZoomH2 to record myself both practicing at home and at ensemble rehearsals.

I practice in a small dead room and put the Zoom off to one side to capture the sound of the whole room. I don't try to mic up the tuba.

At home I will play half a page and then listen back straight away through headphones while I can still remember what it felt like. I find this very valuable for building a correlation in my mind between what I'm doing and the real world result.

I have been meaning to take lessons but I've put it off since getting the Zoom as I realise that almost all of what a teacher would be telling me would be pointing out things that I can hear myself on the playback. I don't want to waste someone's time pointing out stuff I should be able to hear myself.

The whole exercise has brought back memories from my college days of my principal study teacher obviously thinking "how could he do that, where do I even start to fix this mess up?", while I honestly thought that I sounded alright. I used to wonder what extraordinary plane of existence my teacher was on.

Since getting the Zoom I've been bombarded by noises that would have caused me great despair if I heard them coming from a student. I'm finding it to be a very powerful self teaching tool.

Regards

Gerard