• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Topic: Close, Medium, far mics

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Close, Medium, far mics

    Hi…

    I was wondering – why is it that many developers have close, medium and far versions of their samples? I mean, with so many great reverb and conv. plugins wont a close mic’ed version suffice? Then people can just add the reverb they want. For instance I used to always use the Project Sam Far mics, but then along came GigaPulse and that baby just rocks. So now I use Project Sam stuff with the close mic, and the results are great.

    I’m sure there are some upsides to sampling close, medium and far but I would say that from my point of view the downside outweighs the ups.

    The amount of samples (15gigabytes!) or whatever an add might say seems quite a bit larger than it is. Secondy it becomes an excuse to charge more. While I know developers don’t charge 3 times as much, I’m sure the prices are larger than what they would be with only one mic set.

    Many people like the EWQLSO orchestra hall – then why not just make some rooms for some of the exsisting reverb and conv. software?

    What do others feel?

  2. #2

    Re: Close, Medium, far mics

    I like them having 3 sets.

    I personally haven't used convolution, and don't have a single reverb at my disposal that sounds anything like as good as the EWQLSO hall for example.

    I doubt I could recreate the ambiance of True Strike artificially either, or the intimate hall used with SISS.

    Bottom line for me is that my mixes sound MUCH better since the release of these sorts of libraries, and that's all that matters to me at the end of the day. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

    Steve

  3. #3

    Re: Close, Medium, far mics

    Marcussen,

    These are the two schools of thoughts when it comes to sampling. Your close/studio recordings and your far/ambient recordings.

    Both have their advantages and disadvantages. You have to decide for yourself which way you feel more comfortable working.

    If you go to the Project SAM site and lsten to their old demos for their horns, trombones and trumpet libs they have demos that actually walk you through the diff mic positions using the same midi data for direct comparison.

    The far asmples do NOT sound the same as close sample with reverb impulses on them - you can test that yourself owning the lib with all the mic positions.

    It is a different sound that the "air" of the room creates as the sound travels and reverberates. It is this "sound", this "air" that they are trying to capture with these mics. Because the sound of the hall can play such an important role on the sound of the piece, the mood, the atmosphere.

    Sure it may be harder to work with wet samples when trying to glue the different articulations together, or even with mix-matching different libraries. This is where the studio/close mic'ed libs come into play - with a well done / well engineered impulse, you can get some great results.

    SO its more of the devs offering a choice for everyone - you can choose to only install the close mics if you prefer for most libs. Some poeple only keep the far mics, etc.

    I age need more impulses of some of the great and unique halls. I use the GOS Concert Hall 1 impulse more than any other because it was recorded and engineered so well. But when I have the choice to use far mics, alot of the time I will and leave the impulses off - frees up processing for other plugs.

    Also, certain halls have certain colors to them - so it would also depend on the material for me which impulse I use or if I use the hall that SAM recorded in.
    Alan Lastufka | www.BelaDMedia.com
    Producer/Artistic Design | Content Producer

    20 Things

  4. #4

    Re: Close, Medium, far mics

    While Far Horns and Close Horns with gigapule dont sound alike, they sound just as good im my opinion. Im not talking about just some standard reverb, but high quality IR stuff like GigaPulse.

    And the color in different halls would be capturable for stuff like gigapule.

    Also steve - you should try it - its quite amazing. I take it you dont have VSL? For VSL some IR is required, and I just love that I can control the amount myself with for instance GP... It would be great to be able to do the same with all my samples. Ofcourse its not really a problem if you for instance only use EWQL products - but one you start to mix its best to have the same kind of reverb system - or atleast have it be controlable

  5. #5

    Re: Close, Medium, far mics

    I know you are talking about Gigapulse and other IRs - that is what I use (SIR, Voxengo, Gigapulse). And as you said - the far and close sound different - I never said one was *better* than the other - only different. And then it becomes a matter of taste.
    Alan Lastufka | www.BelaDMedia.com
    Producer/Artistic Design | Content Producer

    20 Things

  6. #6

    Re: Close, Medium, far mics

    Right - im not IR expert I can tell you that. But would it not sound very close to identical if you had the Sam room for your IR?

    If so, then it seems to me that the point still stands. That the price and size of these things are out of proporsion compared to a relatively small difference in sound.

    Also the money saved could buy anyone who does not have a good IR, a good IR

    A good compromise would be to let the buyer decide which sets he want (and want to pay for)

  7. #7

    Re: Close, Medium, far mics

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcussen
    Right - im not IR expert I can tell you that. But would it not sound very close to identical if you had the Sam room for your IR?
    No, cause you are effectively doubling the sound of your instrument - you have the dry and the wet sound coming out - so you are still hearing the dry close miced sound - and the far impulsed sound. And turning the dry all the way down doesn't fix this as sound developes and changes over space. Convolution can't fake that yet.

    You could EQ your dry signal to get closer (listen to the SAM demos again - the close mic'ed and far mic'ed *sound* different - not just wetter or drier).

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcussen
    A good compromise would be to let the buyer decide which sets he want (and want to pay for)
    That would be even more expensive - Developers would have to have 3 times the discs pressed than before to make sure they had all three mics ready to ship for whichever you would prefer - that would never work without costing the end user.
    Alan Lastufka | www.BelaDMedia.com
    Producer/Artistic Design | Content Producer

    20 Things

  8. #8

    Re: Close, Medium, far mics

    unless they were offered as downloads

    not viable for the large products, yet

    Anyway, maybe i'm the only one who does not use all three mic sets an equal amount?

  9. #9

    Re: Close, Medium, far mics

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Lastufka
    No, cause you are effectively doubling the sound of your instrument - you have the dry and the wet sound coming out - so you are still hearing the dry close miced sound - and the far impulsed sound. And turning the dry all the way down doesn't fix this as sound developes and changes over space. Convolution can't fake that yet.
    Alan,

    Not sure I quite understand this statement. Convolution reverb should be used 100% wet. A properly constructed impulse includes both the direct sound and the room reflections in all their spacial glory...

    I'm working on my personal library of modeled impulses. If you have GigaPulse, try this demo I built especially for Diva Extended...

    http://www.pixlor.com/cjohnson/

    Regards,
    craig

  10. #10

    Re: Close, Medium, far mics

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Lastufka
    No, cause you are effectively doubling the sound of your instrument - you have the dry and the wet sound coming out - so you are still hearing the dry close miced sound - and the far impulsed sound. And turning the dry all the way down doesn't fix this as sound developes and changes over space. Convolution can't fake that yet.
    When you put an instrument to a space and record it with a distant mic and redo the same procedure with replacing the instrument with a speaker and a sweep, in theory you are getting the same distance, practically the same reflections and pretty much the same sound. The differences don't actually come from the convolution itself but the way the dry instrument is recorded in the studio. In theory you should aim for a sound where the close miked instrument played through the speaker used in recording the reverb impulse would sound like the real istrument, right? THAT might be somewhat hard to achieve.

    But still, convolution is close enough and in many cases as good choise as a far miked library.

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •