Surround Techniques in Studio Recording

Introduction

This essay aims to contextualize a recording and mix with surround techniques. Get in-depth with the different techniques and possibilities of the surround technology, surround sound up and running (Holmes, 2008). Thus this project was the recording of a band which was created in a recording studio, but the aim was to give a sense of a different location using this technology. Therefore to create an imaginary situation with the following concept: The band, thus, was hypothetically performing in a small jazz club, and the recording aims to put the listener in front of a stage in a 200 people venue. It represents a person listening to this live performance facing the stage in this 200 person venue. The mix was panned and automated in a way to simulate the dynamics in the hypothetical movements created by the musicians. The band such as in the recording is formed by five musicians, singer, two percussions, guitar, and keyboard. Moreover, I have applied panning in the mix to give a sense of movement and pinpoint a specific listener location in this environment concerning the singer.

Surround Microphone Techniques

Singer

I have used for the lead vocal a U87 spot mic for the singer → the reason is that I wanted to have flexibility during the mixing process. The lead vocal is indeed very important in my mix, so it made sense to be able to have a maximum of control. The reason why I used a condenser microphone comes from the fact that the recording took place in a studio environment without too many reflections. Therefore I did not have feedbacks problem like I would have had in a live setting but still have the precision and the natural sounds captured by condenser microphones.

Amp (Rhodes), acoustic guitar and percussions (two bongos) → SM57

The choice for the SM57 is to give a live aspect. Indeed this microphones is probably the most used spot microphone in live situations. Also, the fact that SM57 are dynamic microphones seems to be a good choice for percussions (reference) and the loudness of an amp.

ORTF → DPA 4011

I placed the ORTF, 1 meter in front of the singer (who was in the center of the ensemble). As I already got a good spot microphone for the singer (U87), my purpose was not to capture the vocal performance but rather to give a sense of cohesion to the band in the mix. I used an angle of 110 degrees because I wanted to get a comprehensive and clear stereo image (as suggested pp 131 MIC IT).

with near-coincident pair technique, “a slight decrease in mono compatibility because the small time arrival differences between each capsule can cause some phase cancellation” ( reference )

However, the mono compatibility was not necessary as my goal was to get a surround mix.

Spaced pair → C414

Concerning the surround technique, I placed the C414 microphones in the rear of the room. My purpose was to capture the ambiance of the recording, and this technique would be useful to get a surround sound during the mix down. I concluded that a spaced-pair was the most relevant after some experiments of other methods (Holmes, pp78, 2008)

Microphones techniques experimented.

I did some experiments in Vestry Hall with the OCT, IRT, Decca Tree, Hamazaki, and space pair techniques.

OCT:

Perfect frontal image because of the central microphone. However, my purpose was to get a good ambiance sound; therefore this technique was not the most appropriate. As suggested by Holman, this technique is generally used with other microphones who aim to capture the spaciousness of the environment (Holman, 2012).

IRT Cross:

IRT was an interesting technique, however as I was already using an ORTF technique (see above). Holman (2012), views IRT as a double ORTF and as such is not relevant

Decca Tree:

As suggested by MICI, p, 141: It is not necessarily the most precise regarding imaging accuracy; however, it is famed for its expansive and immersive sound. However, as my goal was to get an accurate and quite small venue reproduction, this technique was not my primary choice.

Hamazaki:

This technique was fascinating in Vestry Hall. Indeed the sound captured by this technique was very different from the spot microphones and the ORTF; however, it is a technique intended for high ceiling spaces. Therefore it was not applicable in Paragon Studio 3.

Microphone techniques used

Spaced-pair:

It is a technique that dates from 1930, I didn't use the full Decca tree technique as the room was tiny and dry and the third microphone wasn't needed as I was using spot microphones.

Spaced-pair seems, therefore, the most relevant technique in this situation. Indeed, it suited perfectly Paragon studio 3. The size of the room was a limitation I had to consider. Spaced-pair is more practical technically and still have a very attracting enveloping sound properties. It is not one of the most focused or precise; however, it was perfect to give the surround effect I was looking for (Corbett, pp134, 2014).

Spot or accent Microphones: The Spot microphones were used on the recording to emphasize the sound of the instruments recorded and to have more control in the multi-mono mix. It gave me excellent control over the recording as it is supplemented for the surround techniques applied that generally lacks in providing an adequate perspective of the instruments played. (Holman, pp 86, 2012).

ORFT:

This near- coincident that used two cardioid microphones at an angle of 110 degrees, provided me with an accurate image of the recording, thus, also giving me an extra channel for the surround mix, due to its phase characteristics.

The Mix down

I aimed to recreate an imaginary sound experience that recreates a gig in a small jazz venue. The listener would be facing the stage. I had to consider the different elements that would make my recording as realistic as possible. That is why, during the mixing process, I imagined that the singer was slightly moving from the center-left to the center-right in an entirely random way. Therefore I automated the planning to create this sense of movement. Concerning the placing of the other instruments, I planned them accordingly to their placing in the studio. I put the piano on the left side, the guitar in the center, and the percussions on the right side.

Interestingly, the fact that the singer was moving on my mix and was not fixed in the center gave some space to the guitar. I panned the ORTF in the left center and the right center to reinforce the sense of band in front of the audience. The only microphones panned in the rear were the spaced-pair to give a sense of space and immersion to the audience. This choice of using only the spaced-pair comes from the different experiment I did panning the other microphones in the rear. These experiments were not very convincing because of their lack of realism.

Concerning the compression, I only used a very subtle amount of gain reduction (not more than 2db) with a small ratio. My goal was to get a live jazz sound, as jazz sound doesn't usually get too much compression (Owsinsky, pp145, 2017). I did not equalize that much either. I just did some low cuts and high tops. Notably, the condenser spot microphone captured some unwanted low frequencies which had to be treated in the mix. The naturalness of the performance was my priority. It was therefore not necessary to process too much the different instruments.

I used a reverb with a relatively short decay (millisecond). This decision was made to give the illusion of a small jazz room. Paragon Studio 3 was too dry and sounded too small compared to a 200 people capacity venue. I panned the reverb to the rear speakers to get an enjoyable and enveloping recreation of the small jazz venue.

In jazz music, the musicians are supposed to play in a way the volume is already well balanced between the different instruments. That is why to get a practical aspect; I did not automate the volumes too much. Apparently, the musicians were not jazz players, so I had to automate the volumes in a subtle way to get a balanced and enjoyable listening experience while keeping the realistic aspect of the performance. I mainly used the volume automation on the lead vocal as this is an essential element in my mix and the song performed.

Conclusion

The experience obtained in this project helped me realize the steps needed to make such a recording and therefore sonic experience. However as technology advances and having the possibility to create ambisonics sound. I am sure that when the music catches up with this technology the “surround” system will be outdated regarding consumerism. Nevertheless, these are the foundations of the surround and the above techniques. My Idea was to re-create a hypothetical situation where the listener was in a small venue and the middle of the crowd listening and following the movements of the band especially the singer.

The possibilities that I can obtain using a surround technique are enormous and concerning music even more so.

The final mix is the result of a specific use of applied recording and mixing techniques. Having in mind the possibilities of the surround technology and used with individual creativity.

I have analyzed that it definitely can recreate and even create an infinity of sonic possibilities. The fact that so little is used of this technology in the musical realm concerning the advances of it applied in the sound design, audio/visual contemporary use such as movies or games suggests me that the closure on this sound manipulation is far from over, contradicting the standardization of the later. The surround technology has been around for a good while, and it has not been taken as an advantage. The reasons are apparent; it is a costly way of reproducing this medium and maybe not accessible until now. However, the advances in technology and the fall of prices in equipment able to reproduce the sound of surround is nowadays as ever reachable for the average or ephemeras consumer.

Session Diary and Production notes

Given the fact that my knowledge was new to the pro tools platform and therefore the surround recording techniques I first started to look out for tutorials and of course, comply from what I had learned on Greg Smith's lectures and lectures templates. I booked a fair amount of sessions in March at paragon studios to get used to the DAW and the C24 Mixing board with the models given (Mellor, 2008).

Following this first experience, I then organized a rehearsal recording, primarily to do some test recording sessions on different surround recording techniques.

Due to the difficulty in synergizing musicians and studio availability I had to manage well the time and possibilities for this rehearsals. The First recording rehearsal was done on the 12th of April at the vestry hall, and due to its reverberation, my thought was that it could be an interesting test.

Therefore I invited a colleague to sing and get the first recording on these various techniques to evaluate the pros and cons of each one of them to try a mix down with the mentioned techniques. In the first recording session the oct, decca tree, Hamasaki, Irt Cross and Space pair microphone techniques were used and there was only a singer/voice and a piano in the vestry hall. I placed all the microphones, routing and positioning of these particular techniques. (Owsinski, pp 205-211, 2014).

For the testing recording sessions, I placed the singer in the middle of the room and used the right measurements for each technique. In that technique, two factors usually are significant, thus choosing the place where the instruments sound best and the right types of microphones used (Owsinski, pp77, 2014). I then followed onto recording after having routed all the channels through the wall box.

The routing was done as follows,

2 DPA

3 U89 2 C414

Patched

1 - Dpa left

2 - Dpa right

3- u87

4- u87

5- u87

6- C414

7-C414

To preamps -

Double MS: 2 x Sonotronics + 1 x U87

• ORTF: 2 x DPA ok

• Spaced pair: 2 x C414

• Spot mics 1 U87, 3x dynamic SM57 types

Nine microphone stands

One stereo bar

11 cables

Upon this first recording session and the recording techniques applied, I got to get more comfortable with the surround techniques microphone placement and subsequently the results of the recording and routing in C24 and pro tools. (Huber, pp220-222, 2018). Following this recording, I booked a good few studio sessions in paragon around the month of March, and I was testing the record tapes on the pro tools DAW interface and checked which techniques which would suit me better for my re-creative concept.

I was then able to book the musicians for the final recording session. Due to the little time I had and the difficulties in booking studios and the musicians, all the recording was made on the same day and in a minimal amount of takes. The Final recording session was made in Paragon 3 as there weren't any other studios available For this final recording session, I placed the chosen microphone techniques, in this case, the ORTF, Spaced Pair and Spot Microphones, to be able to have more Control in the final mix. (Owsinski, pp133-153, 2014)

The band included a singer, a guitar player, a keyboard, and two percussionists. Concerning positioning, the singer was placed in the center of the ensemble and in front of the guitar and keyboard player which was positioned slightly on the left. The percussionists were also positioned somewhat on the right-hand side of the ensemble.

I wanted to salient that all the recording was made acoustically, aside from the keyboard player who had a small amp. Thus the chosen technique for my recording was the spaced pair or spaced Omnis, a method that can obtain a large stereo image providing a bright open sound. Therefore, this technique was adapted for this recording and using the rear microphones, in this case, the C414 to reflect the remaining rear sound that was coming of the band and placed at around 15 feet to give an extensive stereo image to use it for the rear speakers in the 5.1 setups.

I had a couple of takes as this recording was mostly improvised and none of the musicians knew each other. Thankfully we managed to have a good take and use this one for the mix down part of the task. The song chosen was a cover of the Norwegian band beady bell and the song called ‘'game.'' I then went to vestry hall to do the mix down and apply the automation, reverbs and compression. On a 5.1 surround setup. (Rumsey, pp86-94, 2012).

Setting up the input/output with a 5.1 multi-mono channels and a 5.1 master output. As explained in detail on the critical analysis below, reverb and compression were used in a subtle way. The percussions were also slightly compressed. The percussion sounded particularly well however the musicians were a little out of tempo and dynamics. The voice had to be treated with a De-Esser due to some undesired high frequencies.

I encountered the problem that the plugins I initially used in the project such as the Oxford Sonnox were no longer available. Thus I had to a new mix all together. In a few new sessions.

Bibliography

Bartlett. J, 1999, On location recording techniques, Burlington

Cook, F. and Cook, F.D., 2011. Pro Tools 101: An Introduction to Pro Tool 10. Nelson Education.

Corbett, I., 2014. Mic It!: Microphones, Microphone Techniques, and Their Impact on the Final Mix. Focal Press.

Holman, T., 2012. Surround sound: up and running. Routledge.

Huber, D.M. and Runstein, R.E., 2018. Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. In Modern Recording Techniques (pp. 1-41). Routledge.

Mellor, L., 2008. Creativity, originality, identity: Investigating computer-based composition in the secondary school. Music Education Research, 10(4), pp.451-472.

Owsinski, B., 2014. The Mastering Engineer's Handbook. Nelson Education.

Rumsey, F., 2012. Spatial audio. Focal Press.