In the summer, I met with several other engineers to test a slew of microphones and stereo techniques on the Wren organ.  At the most basic level, the goal of the test was to determine which microphone(s) and which position(s) would be used for the project.  The shootout carried the added benefit though of offering the opportunity to compare and contrast stereophonic techniques in a controlled setting.

Today, I present you with two samples from our session.  I’ve chosen these samples because they tie in with a cerebral discussion over on the recording-enthusiast website GearSlutz.com concerning the difference in polar pattern between XY and MS.  For those who aren’t familiar with the terms, XY is a stereo technique using two cardioid (directional) microphones placed at a right angle (90 degrees) to each other and panned Left and Right.

XY MS

MS stands for mid-side, a technique in which a cardioid microphone and a figure-8 microphone (bi-directional) are placed perpendicular to another.  The Mid is panned Center and the figure-8 is panned both Left and Right, but the phase is inverted on one side.  The   Both techniques are coincident – that is, the capsules of the microphones are in the same place.  *It should be noted however, that both mic techniques can utilize other polar patterns, but those listed above are the most conventional.

The discussion on this page revolves around the whether the polar patterns of XY and MS are the same with regards to amplitude.  I will defer to studies by Wes Dooley and Ronald Streicher that demonstrate how MS technique with a cardioid and figure-8 can become nearly the same as XY with two cardioids.  See the second paragraph on page 9 here: M-S Stereo, A Powerful Technique for Working in Stereo

What I will demonstrate today is that MS is not the same XY with regards to imaging, and that XY is a poor choice for distant recording applications in comparison with MS.

To this effect, I have posted two samples recorded with a Schoeps CMTS 501 multi-pattern stereo microphone.  The microphone was in the same place for both takes, running through Grace preamps into an Edirol R-44.  Gain structure was the same.  The samples have been approximately level matched in post, as well as having the takes aligned for more convenient comparison.  The organist is Rebecca Davy (see The Cast), who was kind enough to come play the same short phrases for us over and over and over…

The clips:

Schoeps CMTS 501 in XY

Schoeps CMTS 501 in MS

In listening to the two samples, I think you’ll notice:

A. The imaging in XY is narrower than MS.  The instrument sounds much smaller and distant.

B. The experience is less immersive in XY than MS.  Even the ambiance when the organ isn’t playing seems to have collapsed.

The lesson here: ambiance, reverb, and room noise are important.  Capturing them accurately is important.   Our minds and ears are used to sorting out information amidst a busy sonic atmosphere (ever heard of the Cocktail Party Effect?).  A stereo technique like XY that has a tendancy to move ambience to the center works against this by attenuating the spatial cues which our brains rely on, which is why I would never recommend XY for recording at a distance.

But if the polar pattern of XY and MS are so similar, can’t you just widen XY with an m/s plug-in?

Nope, the imaging still won’t be the same.  An XY pair has so much infomation in common with the two capsules that attempted to widen or shuffle can actually make things worse.   I’ve included a sample of this as well.

Schoeps CMTS 501 in XY (widened)

**TomMcC over on GearSlutz asked a great question about what ratio the two channels were in the mid:side.  As Dooley and Streicher’s paper points on out page 9, if the mid:side ratio is 1:1, the array more equivalent to an XY pair of hyper-cardioids than a cardioids.  I’d guess the ratio is somewhere in between, and I probably could have made the MS sound more like XY cardioids by reducing the side.  However, I’m not trying to demonstrate that MS can sound like XY.  I’m trying to demonstrate that XY can’t sound like MS, even after extra processing.  MS offers a greater range of possibilities, and after listening to the clips, I doubt anyone would want to make their MS array sound like XY for distant miking.  Want to test your ears?  See if you can spots the XY among four full organ samples here.

Happy New Years!

Time to get back into the swing of things.  For those of you that weren’t sure – the project is still ON.  We had one tracking session in the fall (pictures forthcoming), and we had another scheduled for Monday, Janyuary, 4th.  However, we have just decided to reschedule.  The heating system in the Wren Building cannot be turned off, even temporarily.  The trickle of the HVAC is quiet enough for some other recordings, but it would mask detail in the organ for sure.  (Remember the noise floor?)  I’ll be working on mixing down takes from our previous sessions, and by the time we sort them all out, it’ll be spring for sure!

I need to apologize to number of people who left comments on this blog.  I accidentally deleted several comments while going through the exentsive number of spam posts.  Also, the blog system has undergone some updates and I’ll to repost some podcasts.  C’est la vie.  Hopefully there will be plenty more for you to comment on.

Things to look forward to:

- Video of two other recordings done in Wren.

- Samples of the organ.

- Comparison of stereophonic microphone techniques.

On Sunday evening, Beckie Davy (organ) and Wendell Banyay (trumpet) recorded several pieces together.  We knew our biggest challenge of the night was going to be establishing a decent balance.  The trumpet is thunderous compared to the organ, even with all stops in gear.  Luckily, I’d run into Wendell the week before at the final concert of yearly Sacred Music Summer Conference (hosted by the Center for Sacred Music at Virginia Wesleyan College in Norfolk) and was able to give him a heads up that I’d probably have him playing backwards – away from the microphones.  Thankfully, he’s made some recordings before and knows what it’s like to have the trumpet stick out of a mix; he was fully prepared to try whatever it would take to get the balance.

After testing the balance with Wendell playing backwards, we still weren’t quite satisfied.  In order to further tame the trumpet, we borrowed some of the long, soft cushions from the front of the church and layed them over a music stand and pew.  Wendell played into the cushions, which helped to tame the immediate reflections and make the trumpet sound just a little smaller and more controlled.  I guess you could say our problem was answered by prayer!

Wendell Banyay playing into cushions.

Think about your music collection.  Provided you’ve lived a few decades, you probably have a mix of cassettes, CDs, and mp3s – perhaps some vinyl records or an old 8-track.  Go grab a few cassettes, a few CDs, and a few LPs if you have them.  Pop them in and play about a minute of each.  Listen to the background noise and you’ll quickly notice a difference: the cassettes are lacking the pops and crackles of the LPs, and the CDs are lacking ”tape hiss”.

Constant noise that is unrelated to the music is the noise floor, and we most commonly hear it as HISS.  Each element of the recording contributes its own little bit of noise – and it can all add up pretty quickly if you’re not careful!

Did you know the Chapel has its own noise floor (even when you’re not recording!)?  There are two main sources of noise inside the Chapel.  The first is the HVAC system.  The HVAC blower contributes as much as 10db of constant noise and masks over some of the fine detail of the organ.  When you turn the HVAC system off, you might notice a second noise – the blower of the organ.  The Wren Organ has both the original handpump and a motor.  As with all organs, you have to have something pumping air in order to produce sound.  We considered using the handpump but that idea was quickly nixed because of the laborious nature of pumping and unwelcome squeels of the old wood and metal.  (And I doubt John Watson would appreciate us spraying WD-40 all over this historic instrument!)

Another source of ambient noise comes from outside the chapel.  The crickets mentioned in a previous post contribute to the noise floor, and passing cars on Jamestown Road can momentarily contribute their own noise.

Electronics contribute noise to the signal.  Different microphones have different levels of self-noise, and the microphones I tested for this project had advertised self-noise levels ranging from 12db to 22db.  Preamps contribute noise, and when I first began expirementing with recordings I thought that hiss was just a constant part of recording classical.  However, after using my first “high-end” preamp, I learned that well-designed preamps can amplify a signal without perceptably imparting their own hiss.  Preamps like the Grace are called “transparent”, which may help give you a visual analogy to aural noise.  The “noise floor” is like the layer of dirt and grime on a window — you can see things through a dirty window, but you can see things much clearer through a clean window.  And when you have a really clean window, it’s almost like there is nothing between you and the world.

Other real-life examples of noise floors:

- If you’re in a cafe trying to listen to the open mic performer but everyone around you is chatting – that’s the noise floor preventing you from enjoying the music
- If you’re on a train or a plane and the hum of the engine puts you to sleep – that’s the noise floor helping you sleep.
- If you’re having a hard time studying because your room is too quiet – that’s the lack of noise floor allowing you to hear the voices in your head!
- If your house is quiet and you can finally rest because the kids are gone – that’s because the noise floor is at summer camp!
- If you’re at a rock concert and can’t hear the person next to your – that’s because the noise floor is dangerously high.

I know some of you have just been dying to hear about how we’re recording the organ (or maybe it’s the humidity?).  Today, I’ll be discussing preamp choice.

(WARNING: Technocratic language and imprecise audio gibberish ahead!  Don’t be suprised if I’m too detailed at some points and too vague at others.)

The microphone preamp is arguably the second most important part of the signal chain after the microphone.  The microphone preamp takes the miniscule signal output by a microphone and amplifies it into something useable.  Because it increases the signal so much, it can contribute to the quality and tone of the sound, which can either flatter the music or cause it to falter.

For last year’s recordings with the William & Mary Early Music Ensemble – done on-the-fly with little to no soundchecks over several sessions and concerts - I used two different preamps for the main pair on the sessions in the Wren Chapel – a PreSonus ADL 600 stereo tube preamp and an ART DPS II stereo tube preamp.  (These retail at $2,199 and $229, respectively.)  I found there to be distinct differences between the two preamps.  The ADL was extremely thick with a smooth high-end that I would describe as “buttery”.  The ART on the other hand was thinner in the low-mids and had a higher noise floor.  Overall, I found the ART to be tighter and more defined, and the ADL a bit “uncontrolled”.  The rich reverb and resonance of the Chapel was extremely lush, and a preamp that accentuated the mids and low-mids (as high-quality traditional tube-flavored amps like the ADL sometimes do) “muddied the water”.  The ART wasn’t necessarliy what I was looking for either; its scooped low-mids and higher noise floor kept me looking for another option to handle the Wren Chapel.  The solution:

Grace Design preamps.

I was originally turned on to Grace solid-state preamps by Brandie Lane from Dorian Recordings in Northern Virginia.  Dorian has been a hot-bed for high-fidelity classical music recording for quite some time, and up until just recently, all of their recordings for national release were run through Grace preamps, so I knew the quality of Grace preamps would be what I was looking for.

The whole Wren Organ project is running through Grace 801 preamps.  They contribute virtually zero noise of their own, and harmonic distortion is imperceptible.  They keep the frequency response tight and smooth and let me focus on the microphones.  You can check out the stats here.

Christian on Preamps

Thanks to Robin Desantis for the photo.  Who knew preamps could be so sexy? The Grace is the sparkling silver one.

Last night we had a pleasant surprise.  After finishing early recording with Tom Marshall, cellist Hannah Griffioen swung by the Wren Chapel to play three movements of Bach’s Cello Suite #1.  The cello sounded gorgeous, and I was reminded of how important the Chapel itself is to the overall sound of the instrument and the recording.  Yesterday was our last night of tracking until August 9th when Beckie Davy returns to Williamsburg.  So tonight we’ll be celebrating a little with some fresh vegetables and a pool party.

I’ll be using the interlude to work on some recordings for the Williamsburg celtic-folk duo So Lach and catch up on research regarding the influence of liberal theory on pro-slavery and anti-slavery arguments.  I’ll also get a chance to mix down some previews and write about the technical aspects of the recording.

 Wren Steps

Photo by Robin Desantis.

Seal the Deal

Today will hopefully be our last day of tracking until August 9th.  I say hopefully because we’ve been having scattered thunderstorms.  Too much rain and racket may make it impossible to record.  And wet roads can amplify the tires of passing cars, making some location difficult to record at even after when the rain is done.  The Wren building isn’t next to any roads (though loud engines can sometimes be heard), so hopefully we won’t have that problem.

I received an email from Louise Kale, director of William and Mary’s Historic Campus, regarding the royal seal mounted on the balcony in the Wren Chapel:

“The royal arms of Kings George I and II (reigned from 1714 to 1760) is an antique purchased in New York and believed to be from a church in Suffolk, England. The placement of these arms on the gallery railing in front of the organ reflects a characteristic use of the royal arms in later Renaissance English churches by Wren and his associates. The coat of arms is made of an unidentified hardwood, painted and gilded. The chain around the unicorn´s neck is formed of lead.

When the chapel was reopened in 1931 after being restored, there was a large clock where the arms are now placed. I don’t know when the substitution was made, but I suspect it was soon after the restoration.”

“Performers who regard musical instruments as fundamentally, even exclusively, useful for facilitating performances—and come by their ideas regarding the repair and restoration of them accordingly—are apt to be surprised to see what shapes these issues take from other perspectives. The museum conservator, for example, may well regard an instrument more as a repository of information about the past—materials used and technologies employed—than a vehicle for present-day gratification. The scholars represented in Organ Restoration Reconsidered repeatedly examine the tensions between these positions, carefully turning them around like diamond cutters looking for every possible angle. Though no gem emerges, this book will nonetheless sharpen the perception of anyone for whom the ‘restoration’ of a musical instrument is an unambiguous undertaking with obvious methods and goals.” – Lawrence Archbold on Organ Restoration Reconsidered; Proceedings of a Colloquium

The entire review can be read here.  The book can be purchased on Amazon.

ORR Book Cover

Sometimes a session is wraught with technical difficulties; sometimes with performance difficulties;  sometimes with interpersonal conflict.  And sometimes… it’s cicadas.

Last week the bugs were relatively quiet – just a general buzz coming from the east side of the Wren.  Tonight though, right about 8:40/8:45, the crickets and cicadas chimed in at full force from the west side.  We finished out at 9:30, and I’m in the process of uploading the audio to review how offensive the steady drone is.  Might be tolerable, might not be.

This isn’t the first recording I’ve seen ambushed by insects.  In July 2007, I was in Italy visiting soundSCAPE – then  known as the Cortona Contemporary Music Festival.  (This year’s festival is happening RIGHT NOW in Pavia.  Check out the concert schedule.)   The final concert of new compositions was held in a small hall seating about 40 and went for about two hours.  The windows were all wide open to allow air to circulate and mostly performance and recording conditions were pretty good.  But… for about 15-20 minutes right at sundown, the insects were roaring.  Anything below mezzo-forte was practically drowned out by the noise.  At the end of the concert, the musicians decided to rerecord the piece that was most adversely affected – undoubtedly appeciated by the composer.

I’ve gone ahead and bumped tomorrow’s session up a half-hour, and we might have to adjust next week’s sessions as well.  Hopefully this will help.

Chandelier

John Watson, historical instrument curator for the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, is the man working behind the scenes to maintain the Wren Organ.  He is responsible for keeping the organ in performance-ready shape, as well as making sure the historical value of the instrument is respected.  This is what he calls restorative conservation - the balance between preserving an instrument as a historical artifact and preserving the organ as a performance piece.  The podcast below comes from Colonial Williamsburg’s podcast series, posted March 03, 2008.

“Good as new isn’t always as good as old.” – To view a transcript of the interview, click here.  For audio, see below.

« Older entries