Mic for trumpet and piano

[BuckTrump]

I've been looking around and there seems to be a ton of options out there for mics. Once I choose a mic I'll be gettin the Sony RH10 to use as a practice tool for trumpet rehearsals and also to make recordings for auditions. These auditions typically require trumpet with piano accomaniment. So with that in mind, I am not sure what to buy. A mic not suitable for this situation could leave out the inflections and musicality that can make or break an audition...(not to mention that for my personal practice - I need to hear every little detail). As always - money is a bit of a concern here, but I'd max out at $200 if I was confident in the product.

Ideally, something portable and requiring little/no power supply would be nice. I don't think I'll need to worry about a raucous crowd in a room with just me and the pianist; and I've been told to get a condensor mic by my professor. Beyond that he hasn't helped much, but it's getting to be crunch time and I'd like to mess with the equipment a little before I have to make the recording in a few weeks.

One additional note - I don't need the recording to imitate how it sounds in my head. Since I am a performer, I need to hear how it sounds from the audience.

Thanks in advance for suggestions on mics and such.

Ben

[greenmachine]

Place a dummy head a few feet away from the instruments and equip it with a pair of separable omnidirectional 'binaural' microphones for most realistic results. With this technique you'll record much like what the audience would perceive.

A recent trumpet / piano recording of mine, using this (HRTF) technique: (listen with hedphones)

http://forums.minidisc.org/gallery/1120229...42_10524364.mp3

[mgdimo]

I've been happy with my Auris stereo mics from Reactive sounds for (somewhat) similar recordings. I play drums and have recorded my various groups playing in small to large settings. This is also my point to you, for what it's worth. Even though you'll mainly record your duets, don't ignore the fact that some day (SOON once you hear how awesome your recordings sound) you'll want to catch a larger/louder act. Get mics that will handle a range of settings. Again, at least explore the Auris.

...I'll have recordings on the gallery at some point.

[BuckTrump]

http://forums.minidisc.org/gallery/1120229...42_10524364.mp3

For some reason I can't get this to play. Thanks for the help though - I'll keep messing with my player to see if I can get it working.

Also - are those Auris condensor mics? Or is that not something to worry about these days (my prof hasn't shopped for recording equip. for years). If so, then these might suit me well. I assume I could just clip them onto a stand right? Thanks again.

Ben

Edited November 3, 2005 by BuckTrump

[mgdimo]

Also - are those Auris condensor mics? Or is that not something to worry about these days (my prof hasn't shopped for recording equip. for years). If so, then these might suit me well. I assume I could just clip them onto a stand right? Thanks again.

Ben

The Auris are 'binaurals' as Greenie specifies; omnidirectionals. I clip mine to the straps of my little MD bag where I keep everything. I hang that on a cymbal stand or something. I get good stereo sound as far as I can tell.

Greenmachine:

Great recording there. You playin too or just 'listening?' Where is this HRTF recording technique discussed? Or what is it? What setup did you use and what was the room like? Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

[greenmachine]

The Auris are fixed-charge back plate permanently polarized condenser (=electret) microphones and propably using the same basic panasonic omni mic caps as other manufacturers use at a more reasonable price. That said, they should perform excellent as far as you pay attention to your recording technique, which is at least as important as the equipment itself.

HRTF is an acronym for Head-Related Transfer Function, which means that you use a head-like sphere between the mics to simiulate the way humans hear. Even if you don't use a baffle in between, you should always give your mics ~6-8 inches distance between each other (the average distance of human ears). I don't know about a particular site which discusses this technique in depth, but i know that 'sonic studios' is highly praising it. Googling for some significant keywords might help to get more insight.

In this example recording i've used my self-built microphone equipment (http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=11254), which should perform pretty similar to other 'binaural' mic setups, together with a NH700 HiMD. I've recorded about 10 feet away from the actors, the trumpet slightly to the left - the piano to the right in an old church.

I consider myself as an occasional musician (drums mostly), would like to do it more often, but you know how hard it is to find the right people. In this recording my role was of a totally passive nature.

Edited November 4, 2005 by greenmachine

[BuckTrump]

Would I be right to assume that the Auris are the general consenesus here? With what's been said, I might as well get an excellent set of mics. So unless there is another suggestion I think I'll go with the Auris...Thanks so far everyone.

Also - The website defines the Auris power source as

"Power requirements: 2-10v DC supplied by external power from recorder (Plug-in-power)"

Now I thought "plug-in-power" meant that the rh10 would provide all the power needed to record in a typical setting. So what does the website's definition mean then?

Ben

Edited November 6, 2005 by BuckTrump

[greenmachine]

You might as well give a less expensive model a try or build it yourself. The bias voltage is provided by the recorder from the mic-in. When recording directly to line-in, a battery box is needed for powering the mics. Line-in recording is suggested if you record at very high sound pressure levels.

[mgdimo]

All I can say is I've been thrilled w/ my Auris. I've heard many say, and I agree, the mic-in onboard preamp thing adds almost a "hiss" noise to the recording. If I'm going for as pristine a recording as I can get, I'm going line in through my Boost Box.

[Reactive]

Percussive, thanks for the great review!

Ben,

The Auris require 2-10 v forward bias voltage. Most minidisc recorders provide the bias voltage thru the mic jack, and commonly call this "Plug-in-power". The typical voltage provided by a minidisc recorder is 2.5v.

The type of recording environment that you have described is a loud recording environment. The microphones would perform far better if they were powered closer to the 10v range. You can do this by either adding on the Reactive Sounds Juice box (ie 9 volt power supply), or adding on the Reactive Sounds Boost box (9v power supply PLUS pre-amp). In both cases you would be feeding the output signal into the "Line-in" on your recorder.

Thanks and let us know what you decided, and why?

Gerry

www.reactivesounds.com

Would I be right to assume that the Auris are the general consenesus here? With what's been said, I might as well get an excellent set of mics. So unless there is another suggestion I think I'll go with the Auris...Thanks so far everyone.

Also - The website defines the Auris power source as

"Power requirements: 2-10v DC supplied by external power from recorder (Plug-in-power)"

Now I thought "plug-in-power" meant that the rh10 would provide all the power needed to record in a typical setting. So what does the website's definition mean then?

Ben

[BuckTrump]

Okay...well I'm beginning to see the value of adding a box to my setup, but I'm wondering why adding a pre-amp to the boost box constitutes $200, a whole $150 more than the juice box. Being a near-broke college kid, I guess I just don't understand I'd like to see what makes the pre-amp 4x's more valuable than a box alone.

Granted I know clean recording doesn't come cheap - I'd like to know that I'm really getting the equipment I need at the best possible price...in other words...if I just want to record a piano and trumpet (and possibly an orchestra or two) and get a clean recording, I get the Hi-MD, I get the Auris, and I get a box to better power the mics, why should I pay $200, when it seems I can get pretty close to the same product for $50?

I hope that didn't come across harshly, I'm just seeing how expensive everything can be; and I'd like to just get the best of everything (but can't)...so I'm expecting that if there is reason that the Juice Box will be a disservice to my needs, then I'll spend more than $50.

Again - Thanks for the help and I'll continue to accept additional suggestions (even via personal messages if someone would rather).

Ben

[mgdimo]

I know man, the thing is damn expensive in my opinion too. But I bought it anyway. All I know is my recordings, loud or soft, sound to me as if I'm still there hearing it. I'm sure there ARE less expensive options, but I'll still say the Boost Box works great for me. Your choice in the end.

[mgdimo]

My first upload to the gallery is now...well...UP! Best recording ever? No. Best performance ever? Hardly. But you can hear the Auris and Boost Box at work- and NO DISTORTION!! It's over here. Let me know what you think.

GREG

[A440]

A preamp does considerably more than a battery box, which will be useless for line-in recording unless you are recording loud sounds. The preamp will amplify quiet ones, presumably adding less noise than the preamp built into the minidisc unit. Preamps do generally seem more expensive than battery boxes by the same factor as the Juice/Boost box difference: look at www.soundprofessionals.com or www.microphonemadness.com . There must be more electronics inside the box.

But BuckTrump, if you're broke start small. Get mics. Set them up in your practice area and see if just recording straight into Mic-in works without overloading. Try the mics at various distances from the instruments.

Then if you have problems get a battery box and go through Line-In. A preamp may be overkill.

I have recorded orchestra straight into mic-in. It sounds quite good.

Microphone Madness has its preamp on sale for $140.

http://store.microphonemadness.com/mmsterpreamh.html

Look on Ebay for Church Audio if you want a cheaper preamp. Chris Church is a member on this forum (CHURCH-AUDIO) if you want to PM him some questions. His preamp is less flexible than the Boost Box but it might be suitable for your needs.

Edited November 13, 2005 by A440

[Reactive]

Okay...well I'm beginning to see the value of adding a box to my setup, but I'm wondering why adding a pre-amp to the boost box constitutes $200, a whole $150 more than the juice box.

The electronics and design of the Boost box compaired to the juice box are miles apart. The juice box circuitry is very very simple, and if your handy you can make one yourself. We provide them as an alternative to a pre-amp, a limited alternative.

Pre-amps can cost a great deal of money, you have to power the mics, boost the signal, put in an adjustable gain control, a seperate overload stage for powering the LED, and filtering so that the signal remains flat as it passes through all of the electronics. We contracted out the design to a very gifted individual and I personally inspected and tested each prototype. After about a year and several revisions we came up with the product that you now see on the market.

Yes it's a lot of money, however please keep in mind that you are supporting a North American Manufacturer. No mass production or Corporate Wall Marting here. We back the device with an awesome warranty, and after selling several hundred of these units i have yet to see a return. Quality demands higher pricing-always. The boost box Stereo pre-amp works.

Respect,

Gerry

www.reactivesounds.com

[BuckTrump]

Alright, I just ordered the Auris. I'll see if these alone will suffice for right now. Hopefully they'll be shipped in before Thanksgiving so I can start messing with them over break from class. Again, thanks everyone.

Ben