Dominik Johnson
Oud Admirer
Posts: 7
Registered: 2-24-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
Recording the Oud ? ?
Hi all.............
In the next month I'm recording a player of the Oud in my home studio.
Can anybody recommend any particular microphone for the Oud?
Ribbon, condenser .......................?
I hear the Royer121 is a good choice for the 'dark / warm' sound..........
|
|
|
Aymara
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1162
Registered: 10-14-2009
Location: Germany / Ruhr Region
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I would expect microphones, that are good for guitar to be also good for the oud. The wider the frequency range, the better.
But I'm curious of the opinions of others, because I also plan to buy a good mic.
Greetings from Germany
Chris
|
|
|
spyblaster
Oud Junkie
Posts: 285
Registered: 2-17-2010
Location: Iran - Karaj
Member Is Offline
|
|
u can also use an electric oud. its really great for recording.
The Oud is my life, n my life is the Oud
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
My favorite mics for oud are the Beyer 740 MC and the Oktava MKL 2500. A dynamic mic like a Sennheiser MD 421 can come in handy too, as a secondary.
Specific brands/models depend on your budget. But there are some general points I can suggest. If these issues are all familiar to you, forgive me,
they might help someone else.
First of all, use two microphones and record on two separate tracks or one real stereo track. You can experiment with all sorts of physical
arrangements between the two mics, but what really matters is having two independent tracks you can play with later. It allows you to create "depth".
It's also a form of redundant backup.
I disagree about using guitar-optimal mics. The oud is to my mind more like voice than like a guitar, and I like using a large diaphragm solid state
condenser mic along with a large diaphragm valve/tube unit so I can mix and shape the sound.
There is no such thing as a perfectly faithful microphone, and the ones that come close (to being "transparent') are not all that desirable. You WANT
personality. There is even DSP software that will make one mic sound like another in the recording or the mixdown stage.
If you can you should borrow or buy several inexpensive (large diaphragm?) condenser mics and do a careful listening session, keeping what you like
best. I think that you CAN get two decent mics for about $200. If that's high for your budget, get one better mic and a clearly cheaper one rather
than spreading your cash evenly. There's a huge difference between what you can get for $100 and what costs $50. Shop where they sell pro equipment,
not consumer audio.
Condenser mics contain active electronics. A dynamic mic is just a loudspeaker turned around. Large diaphragm mics have a smoother sound and capture
bass much better. The small diaphragm units can be electronically compensated but never quite sound as "fat". On the other hand they respond better to
high frequencies and transients, and work very well on bright guitar.
Mics have "directionality" ranging from none (omnidirectional) to more directional: cardioid, hypercardioid and figure 8. Most mics are designed with
one pattern. Switchable multi-pattern mics exist but use two diaphragms internally and are more expensive.
The greater the directionality of the "pattern", the more "proximity effect", which boosts the bass as the mic nears the source. That's used to fatten
up voice and can serve well on the oud.
Forget "natural", go for "beautiful". It's like film. Who would want Titanic to be shot on video and look as realistic as your family outings? We live
in times of exaggeration. Nobody cares about ordinary. Reverb, chorus and echo are just some of the sound processing tricks on modern computer-based
recording. You can make the oud sound like it's played in a 1000 foot tall cathedral on Jupiter. Why not make it sound strong and more real than
real?
One trick is to use one mic in omni mode and the other in cardioid, hypercardioid or figure 8 mode. You can then adjust and spread the "soundstage".
Or just use a second much cheaper mic to add fatness.
For your main solid state large diaphragm mic you can use any of the modern Japanese/Chinese $100 units all the way to famous $1000+ mics like a
AKG414 or a Neumann TLM 103. I once spent two days comparing these two and a couple of Beyers, and chose the Beyer 740, which also happens to be
multi-pattern. At the time Beyer was an off-brand, unknown outside Germany. Today it's worth 10 times what I paid for it. You too might find a gem
that's undervalued. The better known the brand, the more chance that the mic is selling exactly for what it's worth. So try to test some unknowns.
It used to be that self-noise was very important and you paid through the nose to get low noise mics. Now with good software you can strip out noise
quite well, which opens up the use of cheaper condenser mics that make a bit of hiss. At the same time electronics are better now, so many $100 mics
these days are pretty quiet and pretty good.
Solid state mics use tiny transistors to amplify the minuscule signal from the vibrating diaphragm. Tube mics use the old-style bulky vacuum tubes to
do the same. It turns out that Valve/Tube circuits introduce a specific distortion that sounds attractive on voice and many instruments, if not
overdone. It's like a touch of velvety honey. This can be simulated somewhat in software but a real tube circuit is better. If you regularly record
voice or live instruments on digital equipment, having one large diaphragm tube mic in your closet is a goal worth chasing. The richness of a solo
instrument recording using a tube microphone is noticeably sweet. It's reminiscent of a recording on wide track analog tape. Using one solid state and
one tube mic is a good combination.
So can you get a tube mic? Among inexpensive valve (tube) mics the choices are more limited than for solid state, but there are still some values. I
see some more obscure tube mics under $300, and who knows what you might find second hand. My Oktava MKL 2500 large diaphragm tube mic is a gem. It
did require some resoldering of the flimsy connector, nobody wanted old Russian designs, but I knew it sounded fantastic and it now sells for 12 times
what I paid.
At the input to the computer, some sort of preamp is generally needed, both to provide the 48 volts "phantom power" to run solid state mics, and also
to boost the low voltage microphone signal signal prior to the soundcard's input A/D. There are preamps ranging from $30 to $30,000. They generally
include limiters or compressors to keep the signal even to prevent accidental overload distortion. The oud (+ player) can really kick out some loud
transients, so using a limiter is a good idea.
Some of the best preamps use tubes. Some of the very inexpensive preamps like the ARTs use a tube circuit, have a limiter, work well with either a
piezo pickup or a mic, and sound amazingly decent at barely over $50:
http://www.acousticfingerstyle.com/tubemic.htm
I got one to try for bass, liked it, then discovered it works much better with a stronger power supply, and got a second ART though I already had some
expensive ones.
With a tube circuit in the preamp, you can get by with a transistor microphone. You can get an acceptable large diaphragm transistor mic for around
$100:
http://emusician.com/hardware/emusic_budget_mics_big/
That puts us at a very reasonable $150 total. Double it or add a secondary "whatever you can afford" microphone for the other track, and if you work
at it you can make it sound like a million bucks. It's no fun working with perfect equipment that demands no skill anyway!
|
|
|
Dominik Johnson
Oud Admirer
Posts: 7
Registered: 2-24-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
Thanks for all that info, but I'm far from beginner level in recording anyway...
I wanted more specific techniques really........
Has anyone tried Middle and Side, XY or Mono?
How do the Ribbon mics compare to Condenser on the Oud?
How do pencil mics compare to the large diaphragm on the Oud?
If it helps - I'm recording straight into Focusrite Liquid Saffire 56 PreAmps,
I'm thinking of renting some top-end microphones, but If anyone can recommend any particular microphone that would be great......
Any samples from would also be appreciated!
|
|
|
littleseb
Oud Junkie
Posts: 224
Registered: 10-14-2008
Location: london - uk
Member Is Offline
Mood: high
|
|
if you have a bit of a budget and looking to rent - I had some fantstic results with a neumann u67. it caotures the range of the oud very well. not
cheap but worth it!
|
|
|
Dominik Johnson
Oud Admirer
Posts: 7
Registered: 2-24-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
large diaphragm..........?
Thanks
|
|
|
littleseb
Oud Junkie
Posts: 224
Registered: 10-14-2008
Location: london - uk
Member Is Offline
Mood: high
|
|
huge
|
|
|
Dominik Johnson
Oud Admirer
Posts: 7
Registered: 2-24-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
any chance i could hear the recording you did?
|
|
|
corridoio
Oud Junkie
Posts: 184
Registered: 3-11-2007
Location: Italy
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I think the choice of microphones and miking techniques depend for the most on the oud, the style of the player, and obviously on your room.
The best solution is to have some different miks to have the possibility to try different solutions when you can hear the oud in your room.
About mic techniques:
how do you have to mix it? in solo or mix it with other instruments?
wich is the sound you want to achive?
there're two extremes, a modern super dry near miking sound (wich personally I don't like at all) and a roomy old style, with a large range of
possibility in the middle.
The neumann u-67 is a fantastic microphone but think also that at the same price you can get more microphones so more colors to choose from. The royer
is also a great ribbon mic but you can try also the cheaper good ones, like the cascade fathead, you can get two and try also blumlein pattern (two
coincident bidirectional, you can get this also with multipattern condenser like the 414 or others) and mix the direct sound from the oud with the
room-sound simply moving the mics closer or farther away from the oud.
If your room is a good live sounding one you can try with omnis so you can go also near the instrument without the orrible boomy effect of proximity
and also get better lowend.
Sometimes going away by the conventional stereo mics techniques gives better results, as well explained by fernandraynaoud,
simply making some test and mixing two really different mics is the better way to have a beautiful sound as a result.
here is a good small article by oudplayer on this:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/tips-techniques/167959-miking-comple...
Alessandro
|
|
|
mavrothis
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1674
Registered: 6-5-2003
Location: NJ/NYC
Member Is Offline
Mood: big band envy
|
|
I recommend Royer ribbon mics - one in front and one behind. I used this set up in the studio and got incredibly warm, rich sound. Surprisingly, the
mic behind the bowl had a more treble sound than the front mic.
If you don't want to affect the true sound of the oud, then I recommend a small DPA brand contact condenser mic (4061) on the bridge of the oud. Very
true sound.
Take care,
mavrothi
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
For all the expertise we can claim, I believe the exceptional results happen by chance mostly. This is for two reasons: one is the fact that any given
oud has unique dips and peaks in its resonance and any given mic/preamp also has random characteristics no matter how much B.S. they put into the
alleged frequency response charts. The other reason is because of the random or "I-Ching" aspect of creative work, given the enormous and marvelous
unpredictability of the natural world, as Brian Eno correctly observed.
I can't think of a more dramatic microphone example than the following: There are two exceptional sampled pianos sold by Sampletekk, the Seven Seas
and I forget the name of the other one, both are huge sample sets, in the 4 Gig range. They have a very different sound although both were sampled on
a Yamaha C7s. The point is that I was intrigued and looked into how they were created and here is the amazing thing: they were both sampled on the
same piano, in the same room ... and with the EXACT same microphone pair. The only difference it turns out is a minute difference in the position of
the mics. Yet they sound and feel very different. We don't even have to use different mics to get a very different sound, just a slight change in
position, like moving an old "rabbit ears" antenna.
So no matter what mics you have, as long as they are not grossly distorting, you can get a great sound if you work at it. And the advantage of cheaper
mics, namely being able to buy more of them, and hence have a bigger palette, is unmistakable.
|
|
|
corridoio
Oud Junkie
Posts: 184
Registered: 3-11-2007
Location: Italy
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
yes Fernand
in my opinion what you said is absolutely true,
indeed changing position of a microphone only few cm change drastically the frequency response, and if you have more then one microphone to mix after
it will change also the phase between the mics, so another change, simply too much variables to consider in an analitical way.
On the other part, I think you can agree that having different possible combinations and some experience from the past experiments, especially the
wrong ones, is a good way to push you to try more different things.
Obviously if you have a great player with a good dynamic playing, with a oud that he likes in a room that works for the matter you can also use just a
57 and you're ok
but usually this is an exception..
Alessandro
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
Ok, here is an example. There are two instruments on this clip: a Sukar oud on the right of the soundstage and a large Zuckermann unfretted clavichord
center-left.
-- The Sukar is mic'ed about 12 inches from the soundhole with a Beyer 740 in omni mode and a tube Oktava MKL 2500 cardioid.
-- The clavichord has the Beyer 740 in cardioid mode on the treble strings and the Oktava on the bass strings, both about 3 inches from the bridge.
-- FET Preamps from a small Behringer mixer. The DAW is Steinberg, Record-time limiter is Steinberg magneto. Mixdown EQ is native Steinberg. Reverb
is Oxford Sonnox.
Soundfile 192k MP3 Attachment: U5_009nfxnx.mp3 (933kB)
This file has been downloaded 234 times
Zuckermann full-sized unfretted clavichord.
Similar to Bach's and Mozart's Silbermanns.
59 keys. A double brass course is used per key.
Smaller Zuckermann travel fretted clavichord.
A double brass course is shared between
2 adjacent notes.
My pampered Model 1 Sukar with
Belgian Polished Soundboard and
Tung Oil coating on fingerboard
A fretted Clavichord from a time when
ouds and clavichords might have met.
On the kitchen floor?
|
|
|
Luttgutt
Oud Junkie
Posts: 578
Registered: 1-10-2009
Location: Norway
Member Is Offline
Mood: Curious
|
|
That was a beautiful track! I loved it! Can you please post the rest of it?!
May I ask if you played in the clavichord firt? (I am assuming ou played both!?)
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
I'm glad you liked it, Luttgutt, thanks. Can't attach more than 1 Mb. I 'm pretty sure I recorded the Oud first, but I'd have to check, they are
interchangeable in my head. This was a piece exploring Osheiran maqamat, dancing around A minor with the clavichord pulling towards C major. I'm
still working on it, I'll post something later.
|
|
|
Luttgutt
Oud Junkie
Posts: 578
Registered: 1-10-2009
Location: Norway
Member Is Offline
Mood: Curious
|
|
I would appriciate it, if you send it to me at gk.lutt@gmail.com
Lovelig music, and well playd!
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
