|
|
Post by tuantranaudio on Oct 9, 2017 6:54:55 GMT
I have a question for treating vocal booth. People say that it better had a big space or big vocal booth, same like control room. But why do we want to get a pure signal/direct signal while also big space for that? I think that pure signal will not carry echo at all; hence, no need a big space. What's wrong here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2017 7:50:38 GMT
When you have a real big space maybe rt60 about 0.6sec - 0.8sec (good live room). Lets say you put the microphone and the singer in middle of the room, all walls are so far away so no comb filtering(ceiling, right,left, rear and front). Singer sings pretty close to that microphone so all you basically get is direct signal from vocals, not that much ambience, if singers backs off from the microphone you start hear more and more ambience. Also you can put gobos around microphone and singer if you really want to go for drier than life sound. If i would have big room enough i'd probably just record vocals in there without any gobos.
|
|
|
|
Post by tuantranaudio on Oct 9, 2017 8:10:18 GMT
When you have a real big space maybe rt60 about 0.6sec - 0.8sec (good live room). Lets say you put the microphone and the singer in middle of the room, all walls are so far away so no comb filtering(ceiling, right,left, rear and front). Singer sings pretty close to that microphone so all you basically get is direct signal from vocals, not that much ambience, if singers backs off from the microphone you start hear more and more ambience. Also you can put gobos around microphone and singer if you really want to go for drier than life sound. If i would have big room enough i'd probably just record vocals in there without any gobos. So the main benefit of big room is no comb filtering, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Oct 10, 2017 5:09:48 GMT
When you have a real big space maybe rt60 about 0.6sec - 0.8sec (good live room). Lets say you put the microphone and the singer in middle of the room, all walls are so far away so no comb filtering(ceiling, right,left, rear and front). Singer sings pretty close to that microphone so all you basically get is direct signal from vocals, not that much ambience, if singers backs off from the microphone you start hear more and more ambience. Also you can put gobos around microphone and singer if you really want to go for drier than life sound. If i would have big room enough i'd probably just record vocals in there without any gobos. So the main benefit of big room is no comb filtering, isn't it? I surmise it's part of it. I have no experience recording anyone in a big room. It will depend on how you divide up acoustic problems. Such problems always come as a result of boundaries, if I'm not mistaken. Therefore a "small" vocal booth will have modal problems (related to frequencies below the space's Schroeder frequency), comb filtering (related to reflections of frequecies above the Schroeder frequency) and will not have any late reflections nor "true reverb" (as Ethan calls it) and the inherent spaciousness those provide. The main benefit of a big room, I'll hypothesize, is the sound of it. Small rooms do not give a sound worth capturing. Big rooms give a sound worth capturing - even if tangentially. Here I will link to a video segment where a vocal is captured in an ostensibly large room (if the technique (and equipment) are any indication): youtu.be/BFfHhwiZn4A?t=2m1sThanks. |
|
