 |
Sonic Karma When I was a
young musician I was amazed how different my acoustic guitar sounded in
recordings made from studio to studio. I decided that if I ever had enough
disposable cash I would invest in a pair of high quality mics. This, I was
convinced, would guarantee the most consistent reproduction of my
instrument’s sound, no matter where it was tracked. As I got more interested
in the recording process I slowly assembled my own home studio: digital
audio workstation, preamps, monitors…the works.
I experimented with mic placement, stereo recording patterns and
pickup/microphone blending. Aside from my guitar, I’d record anything that
would sit still: drums, orchestras, voices, rainstorms…you name it. And
through this process I noticed something interesting: my expensive mics
sounded fantastic, but only if their signal was treated very carefully. When
I compared the final, processed sound against the original, unprocessed
sound I noticed that compression, reverb and equalization all had their
positive and negative effects. What was gained? What was lost? And was the
gain worth the loss? These questions became important to me for two reasons.
First, I didn’t want signal processing to give my expensive condenser mics
characteristics of cheap dynamic mics. Second, if I couldn’t get the sound I
wanted from my expensive mics alone, then there was little point using them.
I learned that I was using processing as a crutch for my – not the
microphone’s – audio deficits. If I didn’t get the sound I heard in my head,
I’d process it. Why not? That’s the way it works, right? Well, yes and no.
Signal processing is a treatment, not a cure. And like all treatments, there
are side effects. With a boomy-sounding acoustic guitar, the usual decision
is to equalize the signal. This can “fix” the sound, but it also gives
edginess to the original signal. Reverb adds a sense of depth, but also
graininess. Compression can make a signal smoother or punchier, but can take
air out of an open sound. It became easy for me to understand how a sound
degrades, even with good gear and the best intentions.
These experiences made me very aware of how I captured and processed sound,
and led me to realize what I call “sonic karma.” With sonic karma,
everything I do is weighed against its implications in the big audio
picture. And it begins from the ground up. Is a specific instrument best
suited for the application? Am I using the right microphone? Is the mic
placement correct? If the answer to any of the above questions is “no,” then
another step is needed in the signal chain to get the sound to where it
should be. What are the implications of that step? Will it have side effects
that require another step? What if I went back to the beginning and remedied
the problem at its source instead of adding another step to the equation?
Through this type of analysis, it becomes apparent that one of the keys to
making great sounding recordings is removing the barriers between the sound
and its destination, whether they are mechanical or personal.
© 2002
Paul Abbott. |
|
