Disparity Between Sound Under the Bell and in Recordings

[bergland]

I appreciate the great aesthetic and technical suggestions provided by so many folks. I'm anxious to put many of these into practise. I journeyed over to our Faculty Resource room earlier this afternoon and discovered that we have 15 Zoom H2 recorders in stock. I signed one out and will give it a try during my early morning practise session tomorrow.

Thanks
Don

[Phil Dawson]

I just checked the specs and pictures for the Zoom H2. You want to record at the highest resolution possible (24/96 I believe). The zoom also has an aux mic in. (I know that the Zoom has 4 built in mics but their quality can't be that great at the price of the unit (+- $175 at Sweetwater) You want to use the best mic possible. The problem is that the Zoom doesn't provide phantom power that you would need for MOST high quality large diaphragm condenser mics. If the school has 15 of these they may be using them for a basic recording class and have already dealt with this issue. There are devises that provide phantom power and also provide a conversion from an XLR (standard mic) connection to a mini plug which I believe the Z uses.
Good Luck, Phil

[Rick Denney]

Folk, listen to Klaus.

Any crappy road mike and a minidisc recorder across the room, with the playback through regular full-size headphones, will tell you whether you are making decent sounds. Neither will hide any mistakes we might make (though a lot of room acoustics might). If we sound good with that, we probably sound good.

It isn't about "good" recordings, it's about calibrating our ears for what we sound like out front.

Rick "who hears all the truth he can stand with a Audio-Technika AT-822, a tiny portable (and now old) Sony Minidisc recorder (with adjustable record volume), and a cheapie pair of Sennheiser headphones" Denney

[Wyvern]

I know that the Zoom has 4 built in mics but their quality can't be that great at the price of the unit

The quality of is actually surprisingly good - certainly quite good enough to assess ones playing and tone.

Jonathan "who finds people often can hardly believe how good are the recordings of his H2"

[ginnboonmiller]

For all the discussion of good vs. cheap gear, microphone frequency responses, etc. in this thread... None of it matters at all without good recording technique. Put a $3,000 microphone directly over the bell, and a $35 PZM taped to the far wall, and the built-in mics on a Zoom recorder up on a mic stand, 15 feet out, 10 feet up, and centered on the edge of your bell, and record all three, and see which recording you end up finding most useful.

Unless you want to spend months through research and trial and error figuring out how to place mics to best capture your sound, you're probably at your most efficient for your purposes sticking whatever mic you can get across the room and working with that.

[bergland]

The advice provided by everybody here has been very useful. I've stored it all away in a resource file and will probably be reviewing it as my recording needs change and evolve. My need for different recording methods will ultimately change in accordance with the objective of the recording session itself. As I explained at the start of this topic, my immediate objective was simply to be able to hear an accurate replication of my sound so I could begin the arduous process of trying to analyze and remediate that sound (I'm not sure whether there is an established taxonomy of tuba sound, but for me in this situation, "sound" means tonal quality, color, ariculation, steadiness, etc.). What I was getting from the primitive recording setups I was using, wasn't providing me with something useful. i.e., there was a huge disparity between what I heard when playing and what I heard in the recording, and the recordings themselves weren't precise enough for me to actually hear minute sonic details. Many of you suggested using the Zoom H2. I tried this and so far, it has proven to be a quick and effective tool for collecting the kind of audio I seek at the moment. The audio files I've collected are good enough for me to be able to dissect them with a sense of precision. Of course, it is rather humbling to be accurately hearing what it is I am producing. The list of bad habits learned over 40 years ago is growing larger, but that is definitely another story! Stay tuned!

Thanks
Don

[ginnboonmiller]

For what it's worth, Don - reading your first post again, my more practical advice is this:

1. Regardless of the equipment you used, you'll get a more accurate recording if you move the microphone further away from the instrument, in terms of hearing the timbre you're producing. I also really like the Zoom recorders, and if you get the box as far away from you as possible, you'll get the most benefit for your purposes.

2. The tuba DOES sound very different to our audience. What we hear under the bell is pretty distorted.

I'm still working on this myself -- I've spent the last couple years practicing after a five year layoff from playing, and just gave my first public performance about a month ago. And, being a weirdo jazz guy, I'm doing it in relative isolation from ears that can help me judge my sound. In my own personal example, I'm finding that I do best by trusting myself, knowing that I spent the time developing my sound younger, and as long as I keep trying to get my chops where I want them, I'll have the sound right. You might need to enlist older memories for that, but your access to Eugene Dowling is a massive benefit to say the least - I love his playing.

Mostly, keep having fun!

[bergland]

For what it's worth, Don - reading your first post again, my more practical advice is this:

1. Regardless of the equipment you used, you'll get a more accurate recording if you move the microphone further away from the instrument, in terms of hearing the timbre you're producing. I also really like the Zoom recorders, and if you get the box as far away from you as possible, you'll get the most benefit for your purposes.

2. The tuba DOES sound very different to our audience. What we hear under the bell is pretty distorted.

I'm still working on this myself -- I've spent the last couple years practicing after a five year layoff from playing, and just gave my first public performance about a month ago. And, being a weirdo jazz guy, I'm doing it in relative isolation from ears that can help me judge my sound. In my own personal example, I'm finding that I do best by trusting myself, knowing that I spent the time developing my sound younger, and as long as I keep trying to get my chops where I want them, I'll have the sound right. You might need to enlist older memories for that, but your access to Eugene Dowling is a massive benefit to say the least - I love his playing.

Mostly, keep having fun!

I appreciate your insights and the description of your current experiences. Through trial-and-error, I've discovered that the Zoom does work best when placed a fair distance from the instrument. I too generally like to work in isolation. I know that I have some very talented folks occupying the building next to mine (i.e., Eugene Dowling) who could offer fantastic mentorship. But, I don't know. I kind of want to get myself in fairly good shape before approaching them. It's not a logical decision and I'm not helping myself by making it. I guess it's sort of like cleaning up the house before the cleaning lady comes over.

Thanks
Don

[tubaforce]

Hello!
The sound you hear "under the bell" is NEVER what your audience hears, and even high quality suspended condenser mics will yield subtle to wide variances in timbre and tone! Tubas behave like a horn loaded sub woofer in a PA system! You can strand 3' in front of them, and not hear a fraction of what you will by backing up 30'! The length of sound waves in the lower frequencies is exponentially that of higher pitches! a room with a low ceiling can distort your sound quite easily! Outdoors is even worse, as our sound waves don't stack up as quickly due to their length, effectively eliminating the "bottom" the further you are from the source(starting at a distance of around 30')! I suggest finding a player you trust to listen to your sound under various conditions, and you should listen to them on your axe too! Use your recording for improving pitch accuracy and intonation, and not so much for tone evaluation! Oh, to the earlier poster, 30HZ should be close to BBb...remember A-440 is our standard today, and octaves are multiples of 2 440/220/110/55/27.5 etc...

[MaryAnn]

Apologies for resurrecting an old post, but my infrequent Tubenet visits sometimes result in this.

What I didn't see discussed was one of the major advantages to securing a teacher with a spectacular sound: Sitting next to that person, you can hear what HE sounds like up close, and you also will be able to hear what he sounds like out in the hall.

As an ex-hornist, I was told early on that my up-close sound must of necessity be harsher and brighter than what I wanted to project, because the highs are lost in the trip out into the hall. I learned that first hand when listening to a teacher who, I thought, had a really awful sound, not one I would want to emulate. Yet....when I heard him perform, a gorgeous horn tone was what I heard out in the hall. Pudding proof!

I think this advice applies as well to tuba.

MA