Considerations of Recording the Tuba

By: Joseph A. Guimaraes

Published May 10th, 2018

This project was made possible by the support of such companies and institutions as Shure Incorporated and the Yale University School of Music (YSM). Additionally, I would like to thank YSM Professor of Trombone Scott Hartman for sharing his insight on room acoustics and performer placement, YSM Recording Engineer Benjamin Schwartz for his recording expertise, guidance, and involvement during all recording sessions related to this study, and Computer Scientist and Yale University Professor Holly Rushmeier for her project oversight.

Many of the microphones used for this recording project were loans from Shure Incorporated and the Yale School of Music microphone collection.

Early on in the planning stages of this project, we decided that our primary objective was to collect sound. In doing so, we would, in essence, be compiling a collection of music performed in similar conditions with various microphones.  My intent was never to record the perfect take, in-fact, some of the recordings are far from perfect.

The recorded materials linked to this project were all recorded in one take. These recordings were intended to allow the microphones to do their primary function of recording sound without the added benefit of retakes or any post-production editing.

While doing some preliminary research, I came across a section of the Grammy Awards of which I was bashfully unaware; The Technical Grammy Award. According to its website, “the first Technical Grammy was awarded in 1994. This Special Merit Award is presented by vote of the Recording Academy’s National Trustees to individuals and companies who have made contributions of outstanding technical significance to the recording field” (“Technical GRAMMY Award”, 2017).

These are companies, and frequently microphones that are awarded not for what they recorded, but instead, for the quality of the recordings. In the same vein, I challenge you to listen to our recordings. Listen past the chipped notes or the musical nuances that disagree with that of your own opinion, and instead, place particular focus on the subtleties that align with the things you find to be important in capturing your musical identity.

Subjectivity Of Artistic Sounds

Due to the subjectivity of recording processes and outcomes, the variability of room acoustics, equipment, microphone placements, and specific instrument resonance, the results of this research will be objectively laid out with no definitive mention of what works or sounds best. The data collected will be presented in such a way that readers will be able to discern what specific recording configuration(s) will best fulfill their immediate recording goal(s).

“Hearing is not a purely mechanical phenomenon of wave propagation, but is also a sensory and perceptual event; in other words, when a person hears something, that something arrives at the ear as a mechanical sound wave traveling through the air, but within the ear, it is transformed into neural action potentials. The outer hair cells (OHC) of a mammalian cochlea give rise to enhanced sensitivity and better frequency resolution of the mechanical response of the cochlear partition. These nerve pulses then travel to the brain where they are perceived. Hence, in many problems in acoustics, such as for audio processing, it is advantageous to take into account not just the mechanics of the environment, but also the fact that both the ear and the brain are involved in a person’s listening experience” (“Psychoacoustics”, 2018).

Although much of sound production and capture is subjective, by increasing our knowledge of acoustics or the physics of sound, we can therein gain some control over acoustical constants that may enhance the overall desired quality of the recording. It is perhaps worth to reiterate that the physics of sound and psychoacoustics, or the way we perceive sound, are two different phenomena, further increasing this topic’s subjectivity.

What Separates Your Musical Voice From That Of Another Performer Of Your Instrument?

Perhaps the obvious answer would be sound, and although a player’s sound can differentiate one performer from another, it is only a starting point.  It is only once such fundamentals as sound, tone, rhythmic accuracy, and intonation are achieved that the performer can begin to comfortably explore colors, note approach tactics, varied articulations, tapers, extreme dynamics, vibrato, and direction, among dozens of other musical qualifiers.  An advanced performer will spend a large part of their practice schedule working to facilitate their ability to call upon such defining characteristics at will.

With this knowledge at hand, one would think that a more significant number of musicians would take the outcome of self-recording more seriously.  Many musicians, even at the highest levels, often settle on recording strategies that are convenient, quick, or only capture a somewhat representative copy of their sound.

There are, of course, times and applications where convenience may be a high priority factor.

It would be naive to think that people are ubiquitously recording the majority of their practice sessions. To facilitate systematic recordings, the equipment must be practical to use, and equally as necessary, easy to import and listen back to the recorded files.

When viable, it would be pragmatic to have two sets of recordings devices. One that is easy enough to use so that the performer is inclined to use it often, and one that although less practical, will yield a more representative and complex recording.

Having two recording set-ups is a strategy that I more recently adopted. Until just a few months ago, all of my recordings were done on a Sony HDR-MV1, including several successful auditions to festivals all around the world. As evident here, one can be successful without spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on recording equipment.  This research is not exclaiming the opposite, instead, we are looking for ways to best capture the subtleties of the tuba that are often left unseized by many microphones and recording equipment.

While participating in the 2017 Pacific Music Festival (PMF); a festival in which auditions are exclusively sent in by recordings, I had several opportunities to engage in conversations with our coaches.  In one said discussion, we began talking through the process of selecting the fellows amongst so many talented musicians.  I recall remarking how difficult and time consuming the entire process must be.  The response I received from the coaches, although logical, caught me slightly by surprise, “most people cut themselves,” “poor recordings are the number one cause of people getting cut.”

Excluding the times when a quick and convenient recording strategy is the goal, performers should, as a default, pursue recording equipment and tactics that will capture not only a “close to the real sound” recording, but also one that will allow for the representation of the most delicate of subtleties.

Understandably, cost of equipment can, and often is the limiting factor to many musician’s recording set-ups. You will see that the microphones used for this recording project varied drastically in price. What you may also observe is that the market prices were not always indicative of how well a microphone recorded the tuba.

As I will mention later on, the microphone is only one portion of the recording set-up. Quality recordings may still be achieved through careful room selection and microphone placement, even when using a less expensive recording device.

You can utilize a recording device’s frequency response charts to see what the microphone’s lab tested recording tendencies look like and compare that to your sound preferences. Microphones are not designed with the single purpose of recording tubas, but instead, with the intent to capture instruments and voice types that sound at a higher frequency than that of the tuba – around 40Hz to 400Hz.

What this means is that many of the microphones will have a spike in the mid and higher range of their frequency response to favor those particular functions. Although a tuba’s range is around 40-400Hz, the overtones that are comprised within each fundamental pitch extend beyond that range.

A spike in the mids and highs will bring out the higher overtones of the sounding note hence brightening up the sound, perhaps to a place that is misrepresentative of “the real sound.” Inversely, a microphone with a spike in the lower frequencies will bump up the fundamental sound being played by the performer.  Under these conditions, the recording may sound warmer and more grounded, but equally misrepresentative.  Aside from additional warmth provided by the increased lower frequencies, articulations may lose diction and immediacy.  Because of this, a microphone with a close to flat frequency response, or one with a minimal bump of the lower frequencies is likely an appropriate choice to best represent the tuba.

You Decide

With the presumption that “the perfect recording” is one that captures unaltered reality, one can unequivocally expect the philosophical question of “what is the reality?” to arise.

Much like the artistic choices a performer must make in both the preparation and performance of a piece, a performer must too make crucial decisions when discerning preferential nuances in recordings. The difficult decision of selecting one recording product over another ultimately falls on the performer, hence becoming, at the very least, your chosen reality.

Unlike many scientific experiments where the processes and outcomes guide experimental procedures, in recording, the performer must have a clear sound concept in their mind’s ear for which to aim. Throughout this project, I have come to realize that the difference between a representative recording and a non-representative one may lie within just a one-foot adjustment of the microphone’s placement.

Without an idea, a performer may settle on an outcome a foot too soon.

Room vs. Artificial Modifiers

There is a time and a place for nearly everything. Too frequently, however, musicians rely on the ability to digitally-enhance recordings as a means to achieve a desirable acoustical outcome. Post-production-editing is a valuable skill set to have, but should above all else be done with pure intentions.

Unless proficient, avoid any post-recording-editing as this is, in most cases easy to spot.

If such preferential categories existed, I would be categorized as a recording purist. If the stars align, or perhaps just the quality of the equipment, natural acoustic response of the recording space and the preparation of the performer fell into synchrony; one would then be at a place of completion, or a place where post-editing alterations would be most appropriate.  Don’t rely on editing to correct deficiencies related to performance.

Aim to have the acoustical space aid in embellishing your musical fingerprint and not artificial modifiers.

Whenever recording, I first and foremost seek out an acoustical space where the lower frequencies of my instrument will have ample space to develop fully before interacting with the surrounding surfaces.

The way a room reacts to a sound stimulus although constant to a degree will invariably shift to accommodate the acoustical space’s inherent frequency response. What I mean by this, is that a room that favors a particular frequency, be that a higher or lower one, will accentuate that equivalent frequency regardless of the sound source.

A room’s overall interaction with sound will vary significantly per the sound type – high, low, winds, voice, percussion, etc., being produced. To best work within the room, one should try to find a place that is easily activated by the frequency response of your instrument, and not one that will bring out frequencies too far away from your concept of color.

What Is Sound?

Sound is the transfer of energy created by vibrations that travel through space.

Although seemingly trivial, it is the understanding of this concept, and furthermore how sound waves interact with the space that will allow performers to choose a recording venue and best position themselves within it. Through all of my years of school and research, I have yet to attend a class or read an article that comprehensively speaks to the pragmatic reality of what it is to be a performing musician.

Musicians are not only sound producers but rather acoustical interactors. We must be as acutely aware of how our produced sounds interact with the room as we are with the immediately generated sounds of our instruments.  Room acoustics should have a preemptive effect on such musical choices as tempi, articulation, gravitas, releases, and dynamics.

Although the tuba is directional to an extent, meaning that a significant amount of the sound energy comes out from the bell, there is still enough energy released omnidirectionally. This form of wave distribution is referred to as spherical spreading. The energy intensity in spherical spreading decreases at a much quicker rate than direct, or cylindrical spreading. Even with this rapid loss of energy and decreased wave amplitude (volume), lower frequency waves propagate incredibly well through many surfaces that would otherwise reflect higher frequencies with greater facility.

Have You Ever Practiced Extreme Low Range In A Small Space?

What you may have observed is that the sounds being picked up by your ears and ultimately perceived – Psychoacoustics – may sound exceedingly bright. In a situation such as this, many of the higher frequencies which are found in the overtone series of the single pitch are reflecting back, while the lower frequencies continually travel away from the sound source. This phenomenon is called frequency-based attenuation, or the loss of energy based on the frequency of the pitch.

Ideally, the recording space should be large enough to allow for the waves to travel outwardly to the microphone before interacting too heavily with any reflecting waves.

In a highly reflective room where frequencies are unable to escape, you will hear that the higher frequencies, which are easier to attenuate, will dissipate far quicker than the lower waves which will continually bounce around until inevitable future attenuation occurs.

A dead room is a space with ample absorbent materials with little to no reverberation and substantial attenuation of higher frequencies. These types of spaces, although a good way to expose and work on clarity issues, are almost never ideal for recordings as it will significantly alter the tuba’s natural reverberance.

If recording in a very live space, one can mitigate this by placing particular focus on the proximity of the microphone to the sound source. Observe the inverse correlation between proximity to the clarity of articulation, and the clarity of articulation to the core of the sound, the latter is linked to the proximity effect – bass build-up.

Several microphones may be called upon to increase the complexity of a recording. Having a spot microphone placed near the sound source will ensure clarity of articulation and core of sound, while microphones set further out in the acoustical space – room mics – can add warmth and acoustical dimension to the recording. Blending, although done post-recording is essential in creating a close to “the real sound” product. Because this is not changing the recording, but instead bringing it closer to how the sound would have naturally acted in the space, and subsequently how an audience member would have perceived it, I do not see this as a technique to be avoided, but rather one that should be explored to allow your voice to be more realistically represented in a recording format.

What Are Standing Waves?

To put it simply, standing waves are sound waves that appear to be standing still. Even an actively sounding standing wave will look as depicted in the picture. (With varied frequency and amplitude)

“Standing waves (also called room modes when dealing with acoustics) occur anytime the distance between two opposite surfaces is equal to a full cycle of a given frequency” (Hagelskjaer).

There are two types of sound waves, traveling and standing waves. As the name implies, traveling waves move from one place onward whereas standing waves appear to stand still. This appearance is but an optical illusion; standing waves are nothing more than a traveling wave that has been reflected back to match the wave cycle to create interference. The summation of the original sound wave and the reflected sound wave is what leads to standing waves.

Why Is This Important?

Within standing waves, there are areas void of movement; these areas, called nodes, are caused by destructive interference, meaning that the waves are canceling each other out. The peaks, called anti-nodes, are where total constructive interference occurs, meaning that the waves have combined, hence increasing their total energy.

Not only can standing waves occur at the primary frequency, but they can also be present in any of the sub-frequencies within a single pitch – overtones.

Applicability

Attention should be given to avoid the placement of the performer – sound source – in an area of the room that will lead to audible constructive or destructive interference. Instead, an audibly neutral position should be selected for both the performer and the sound input source.

This can be corrected by shifting the performer so that the distance between the sound source and the reflecting surface is no longer equal to that of a single wave cycle.

If the recording device is positioned in a node, an area of low energy, the recording may lack the sound of the primary tone or the richness created by any number of the overtones. This outcome would directly correlate to the frequency that is in the form of a standing wave.

Constructive interference would occur in the anti-nodes, or areas of high energy. This type of interference can have an equally adverse effect by enhancing one frequency over another changing the overall color of the recorded sound. This outcome would directly correlate to the frequency that is in the form of a standing wave.

Before recording, play several short and held notes at different positions within the acoustical space. Analyze the feedback and use that to discern a placement that lies within your acoustical preference.

“In a typical listening environment, we are hearing sounds that have reflected off numerous objects and surfaces, with the reflections themselves interfering with other reflections. Just as color is determined by which frequencies of light are reflected or not, the “color,” or acoustic characteristics of a particular listening environment is determined by the angles and materials the sound may reflect off. Different materials reflect some frequencies more efficiently than others, due to their roughness or absorbance characteristics” (Hass).

Sound waves are constantly interacting with their surroundings. These interactions occur when waves reflect, transition or pass from one medium to another. There are three types of interactions – reflection, refraction, and diffraction.

Reflection is perhaps the single most understood type of wave interaction by musicians. This occurs when a wave comes in contact with a surface that it cannot pass through and is therefore pushed back.

“Reflected waves have the same speed and frequency as the original waves before they were reflected. However, the direction of the reflected waves is different. When waves strike an obstacle head-on, the reflected waves bounce straight back in the direction they came from. When waves strike an obstacle at any other angle, they bounce back at the same angle but in a different direction” (Brainard, 2016).

Refraction occurs when waves bend as they enter a new medium. The bending happens as a result of a change in the speed of the wave as it transitions from one medium into another.

A sound wave travels much quicker through a liquid medium than it does through a gaseous one due to how tightly arranged the molecules are in comparison. The concept of refractivity may seem somewhat irrelevant to music making, but it goes well beyond the propagation of waves through such mediums as air and water. Other variables such as humidity, density, and air temperature contribute towards the arrangement of molecules to affect wave propagation.

Sound waves travel quicker as air temperature increases due to the increased movement, or agitation of the molecules. The agitated molecules become more apt at transferring sound than their slower moving, cooler opposites. Although nearly imperceptible, sound also travels faster in more humid conditions than it does in dryer conditions.

The ability of waves to travel around corners and smaller openings is called diffraction. Although most waves diffract, some do so to a higher degree than others, this is why you can hear someone around a corner, but not see them.

While recording, it would benefit the performer to realize that waves will continually interact with their environment until fully attenuated. Another consideration to bear in mind is that even small openings or apertures in the reflecting surface will allow for a portion of the wave to diffract through, lessening the reflecting potential of said surface.

Sound Waves

“Sound travels fastest through solids; this is because molecules in a solid medium are much closer together than those in a liquid or gas, allowing sound waves to travel more quickly through it. In fact, sound waves travel over 17 times faster through steel than through air” (“The Speed of Sound”).

On the contrary, less dense substances such as cloths and foams are appropriate choices for sound absorption and wave attenuation.

Higher frequency waves are easier to attenuate than lower frequency waves and therefore require less, or less specific room acoustical treatment.

Choosing a microphone is analogous to selecting a bottle of wine.

One must first consider the composition of a dish before choosing “the perfect” glass of wine to accompany it. Besides the more obvious considerations, such as what protein is being featured in the dish, elements such as acidity, fat content, salty notes, sweetness, and textural components should play a major contributing role in your decision-making process.

Even after all of these components have been carefully dissected to come to a decision, you may find that others will have contradictory input to add.

The microphone selection process should above all else match your acoustical preferences and budget. Similarly to how one can unequivocally find a more expensive bottle of wine, one too can find a more expensive microphone. Look for a microphone that captures your sound in as much detail and complexity as you can discern.

Although not much of a drinker, I have had opportunities to taste expensive wines. Embarrassingly enough, I nearly always find myself unable to distinguish the subtleties and sometimes seemingly fictitious adjectives associated with the wine’s flavor profile.

The same can be true for many people when listening back to a recording of themselves – purchase a microphone that will fulfill your recording needs.

Many microphones will do an excellent job capturing a “close to the real sound” without breaking the bank. If your budget allows for “top-shelf” purchases, consider having a secondary, more practical set-up to aid in practice recordings in-between recording sessions. A full-on recording studio, even when portable, will require some additional time for set-up and break down.  This extra effort is often enough to prevent the performer from ever recording in the first place.

The following descriptions are generalities that much like the “earthiness” in a glass of wine, can be highly personal to the listener.

Condenser Microphones

Descriptions Were Kept To Only Those Microphone Types Used In This Project

“Historically, large diaphragm condensers came first. Early condenser microphones of the 1930s and 40s had to use large diaphragm capsules to overcome the noise of the tube electronics. A large membrane captures more acoustic energy, thus generating a higher signal voltage. Small diaphragm condenser microphones with a decent signal-to-noise ratio only became feasible when dedicated microphone tubes and low noise transistors became available in the 1950s and 60s” (“What is the difference between large and small diaphragm microphones”).

Large Diaphragm Condenser Microphones (LDC) are good options when either recording soft acoustical

instruments, or an ensemble from a distance without adding too much additional noise, sometimes referred to as artifacts, from either the microphone or the pre-amp.

LDC microphones are typically less consistent than Small Diaphragm Condenser Microphones (SDC) across different frequencies, notably higher one.

“All else being equal, most LDC directional mics have a deeper low-frequency response than SDC directional mics. That’s because the resonance frequency of the diaphragm is lower in the LDC due to the diaphragm’s higher mass” (Bartlett, 2017).

Many engineers will gravitate towards a LDC microphone when recording vocals and instruments that would benefit from the added richness in the lower frequencies. A SDC microphone can be a better choice when trying to capture a pure and natural sound without the added embellishments in the low end.

Ribbon Microphones

Ribbon microphones are prized for their warm and natural sound and are often described as being able to capture sound much like we hear them.

If you remove the capsule from the microphone, you will find a thin strip of conductive material suspended between two powerful magnets. The suspended ribbon responds to minute changes in surrounding air pressure – this disturbance within the magnetic field is what is subsequently picked up and converted into electrical signals.

Due to the sensitivity of the ribbon, it does not require much air displacement for it to engage. This sensitivity is what allows a ribbon microphone to pick up even the most subtle acoustical details.

“Polar response is the measurement of a microphone’s sensitivity to a given frequency relative to the angle of incidence. Ribbons

naturally exhibit a bidirectional, or figure-8 polar response because both sides of the transducer are equally exposed to incoming sound pressure waves. This means the microphone exhibits equal sensitivity to sounds arriving at the front as it does to those at the rear” (“Ribbon Basic”).

Although not exclusive to ribbon microphones or comparable to being recorded with a spot and a room mic combination, the ribbon microphones response pattern contributes to its ability to pick-up a fuller acoustical impression than those of non-omnidirectional or non-figure-8 microphone.

The attached audio files were all recorded in one take at the Wilson Band Room at Yale University’s Hendrie Hall with the assistance of Yale School of Music recording engineer Benjamin Schwartz.

As previously mentioned, these 195 recordings were not recorded with the intent of achieving perfection, on the contrary, these recordings were meant to allow the microphones to pick up whatever occurred in its acoustical vicinity. The primary goal of this project was to create a collection of data for facile comparisons. It is entirely up to the performer to ultimately decide what equipment to use. The set-ups chosen for this project were combinations of conventions and personal curiosity. These eight choices were designed to give ample feedback to serve as a starting guide to your recording project. Use these recordings to envision what subsequent outcomes can be achieved by further manipulating microphone angles, distances, height, gain, panning, as well as a myriad of other factors.

We conducted all of our sessions by recording each microphone individually in mono imaging. A single line, mono recording is the basis, the cell for further recording embellishments.

Mono source recordings can sound empty and void of color and subtlety. Although we could have opted to record with a pair of the same microphones to get a stereo image of the sound, we felt as if this recording choice would allow for the most fundamental showing of the pick-up potential of the individual microphones.

With this said, it is essential to be aware that some of the microphones used were by design stereo pairs.

Is It Worth It For Your Application?

AEA R-88MKII

Some of the microphones used, such as the AEA R-88MKII are, by design, a stereo pair, meaning that two microphones are enclosed within a single capsule. You will hopefully hear that the recordings obtained by the use of this model are more complex than those of other single-channel microphones. The convenience of having a microphone such as this with “elements angled at 90 degrees, allows for a true stereo sound from a single microphone” (V, & Smith, 2018). This microphone is ideal for recording with such polar patterns as a Blumlein array, and a mid-side configuration.

As mentioned before, practicality of any recording set-up is a critical component in determining how often the microphone(s) will be used.

Although the recording quality of the AEA R-88MKII was warm and sophisticated, I found this microphone to be challenging to work with due to its sheer size and weight. Getting the microphone to properly sit on the stand, even when placed in an upside down hanging position was time-consuming, cumbersome, and perhaps slightly dangerous – especially in set-up # 3A when the center of the capsule was suspended 84″ above the ground.

As mentioned prior, the tuba is a combination of a directional and omnidirectional sound source. This factor, although great for filling out large spaces becomes challenging to manage when trying to equalize the stereo

imaging of a fixed frame figure-8 microphone such as this. We spend a great deal of time making micro-adjustments to the microphone’s left-right axis to get equal input from both channels without manipulating the pre-amp gain.

This is a good microphone with an enormous amount of potential in this application. The recordings obtained by its use sound full, and to my ears, although slightly void of subtlety, representative of the tuba.

The reason for sharing so much about a single microphone is because, again, I would like to emphasize the importance of the experience. If a microphone sounds to your liking but is not practical, it will more than likely sit in its case.

If the recordings obtained through the use of such polar patterns as aforementioned (figure-8, omnidirectional, mid-side array) is something that caters to your preferences, then one should know that the same outcome can be achieved through the use of two or more independent microphones. Two figure-eight microphones in the case of the Blumlein array, or traditionally a cardioid or hyper-cardioid pattern microphone in conjunction with a single figure-eight microphone for a mid-side recording configuration.

These are just a few configurations in an arguably infinite world of possibilities. You can even find variations in such pre-sets as a mid-side recording configuration where the cardioid or hyper-cardioid microphone is replaced by an omnidirectional or another figure-eight pattern microphone. The reason for mentioning this is to dig into the notion that no single method will ubiquitously yield masterful results across all acoustical situations. Similarly to how a musician will perform a solo differently each time in pursuit of that ever-illusive perfect performance, so will a recording engineer, in this case, you.

The engineer will use his experience as a starting point off of which to experiment.

Recording Complexity

The complexity of a recording is deepened by the addition of layers. An essential layer that is often overlooked is the room in which the recording takes place. The financial costs of hiring a recording engineer or that of purchasing several microphones are often the leading factor in the overall quality of a project. Another factor that is easy to overcome with proper planning are issues related to poor time management – rushing.

If properly managed, recording sessions should allow time for experimentation to best favor a quality product. Interestingly enough, changing the distance of the microphone to your bell by a foot can be the difference between a recording littered with mechanical noise caused by your valves and rotors or one that features the music free from auditory distractions.

“Reality vs. Perceived Reality”

As someone who has seen dozens of colleagues record for festivals, competitions, University auditions, and professional pre-screenings, I can attest to the reality that an overwhelming majority of musicians are focused entirely on the immediate sounds produced by their instruments. Remember that this is only a starting point, be more than a producer of sound, be an acoustical interactor.

To further elaborate on this point, one must be critically aware of the notion that what is ultimately heard is the recording. It doesn’t matter how perfect you sounded in person if the recording does not adequately represent your reality.

As with all forms of sound, the waves that radiate outwards from the sound source not only spread to react to the acoustical properties of the space but also develop. Having a single microphone near the sound source will pick up a sound that is underdeveloped, void of body and tone, heavy with articulation and artifacts, and depending on the

proximity, overwhelmed with lower frequencies – proximity effect.

Emphasized lower frequencies may sound like something a tuba player would gravitate towards. The fact of the matter is that these modified frequency responses don’t only affect the lower register of the instrument, but rather the full range. These bass-heavy recordings will leave you with ill-defined articulations and severely underdeveloped notes; notes that contain a lot of the fundamental pitch but lacks the colors of the mids and higher overtones – and in large part due to the proximity effect, will lack the personality that makes your music yours.

In addition to the above mentioned, microphones or recording devices that are placed too near a sound source can become less

efficient in their ability to portray wide variances in dynamic shifts, leading to a recording that is also very mono-dynamic. The combination of these qualities as a result of a nearly placed recording devices can render you with a recording that sounds generic and bland.

Procedures

We took great care to ensure that, when possible, all recordings were done under similar conditions – pre-amp, pre-amp gain, cables, stands, computer, software, measurements, and room were all consistent throughout the recording period.

There were, however, two exceptions that caused us to vary our project constants. The first was with the DPA MMC 4006 omnidirectional microphone. This highly sensitive SDC microphone began to peek out with the pre-amp gain set to the pre-determined project gain of 30dB. Instead of omitting this microphone from the project, we instead decided to drop the pre-amp gain to 25dB. Although still sensitive, this gain attenuation allowed us to continue to use this microphone with no further issues.

The second deviation from project standards occurred with those recording devices under the portable and handheld category. Being that each of these devices had highly varying and nebulous gain settings, we were unable to either set all of their gains to 30dB or to set a gain that was constant throughout the different brands and models.

What we did instead, was have me perform one of the louder parts of the phrase and see that the levels stayed just below peeking. This approach was not ideal, but it appeared as though this was the most viable appropriation considering the various – non-standard – forms of gain settings.

Device Gain

Zoom, Q8

-4 dB

Device Gain

Zoom, H4N

45

Device Gain

Zoom, H2

95

Device Gain

Tascam, DR-44WL

32, -2 dB

Device Gain

Sony, HDR-MV1

5.0/16

The human element, in this case, my playing, was in-fact the variable that was most out of our control.

Because of this, I ask that you use your most critical ears to compare the subtle nuances of the actual recording and not the playing.

Recording Signal Chain

2013 MacBook Pro
(ProTools 12)
RME Fireface UFX
Snake – Hosa Little Bro 50ft
CloudLifter
Cable brand – 10ft Monster XLR
K&M Microphone Stand

Musical Equipment

W. Nirschl 6/4 York Copy CC Tuba
Momo 330SV Mouthpiece

What Was The Best Recording?

The subjectivity of this experiment will likely yield different preferred outcomes. Due to this, I have decided not to conclude the superiority of one recording set-up over another. Some microphones are brighter while others accentuate the darker and smoother qualities of the tuba. Some are very immediate, adding a slight bump in the starts of articulations while others do an outstanding job at picking up a “close to real sound,” warts and all.

None of these qualities present enough delineation to set one brand, model, or set-up above another. When preparing to record, the hall’s acoustics should inform your decision of what equipment to ultimately use. A very lively venue that favors lower frequencies may be the perfect venue to enlist the aid of a “brighter microphone.” In this situation, a “bright microphone” can work to even out the hall’s acoustics by bringing out the higher overtones within the sound, adding clarity to such aspects as an individual’s articulations and the clarity of the voices within an ensemble.

As The Adage Goes, Use Whatever Microphone Sounds Best

The acquisition of knowledge isn’t so we can always have a definitive answer, but instead, so we can make more informed decisions based on our learned experiences.

You may view a specific microphone’s frequency response and polar pattern by clicking on the microphone name below.

Please be advised that microphone specifications can, and are often changed without notice.  These charts are current as of 2018.

All passive ribbon microphones were recorded in conjunctions with a cloudlifter inline microphone activator.

KSM 313 (MSRP $1,295) PR

Beta 27 (MSRP $399) LDC

SM 81 – LC (MSRP $349) SDC

SM 27 (MSRP $299) LDC

KSM 137 (MSRP $299) SDC

PGA 81 (MSRP $124) SDC

R – 122 MKII (MSRP $1,850) AR

R – 101 (MSRP $699) PR

R – 88 MKII (MSRP $1,795) PSR

Stereo Pair of Passive N8s in One Capsule

R – 84A (MSRP $1,299) AR

N8 (MSRP $1,098) AR

U87 (MSRP $3,200) LDC

Tested in All Available Polar Patterns – Cardioid, Figure-8, Omnidirectional

TLM-193 (MSRP $1600.00) LDC

KM 184 (MSRP $849.00) SDC

KM 120 (MSRP $849.00) SDC

C-414 B-ULS (MSRP $1,000) LDC

Tested in All Available Polar Patterns – Cardioid, Hypercardioid, Figure-8, Omnidirectional

 DISCONTINUED

Comparable Models (Not Tested)

AKG C-414 XLS or AKG C-414 XLII LDC

MMP-C 4006 (Omnidirectional)
(Long-Body Model MSRP $2,000) SDC

Pre-amp gain attenuated by 5dB (25dB)

MMP-C 4011
(Long-Body Model MSRP $1,800) SDC

Zoom

Q8 (MSRP $350.00) P

H4N (MSRP $216.00) P

H2 (MSRP $115.00) P

Tascam

DR-44WL (MSRP $216.00) P

Sony

HDR-MV1 (MSRP $300.00) P

Headphones Recommended

All recordings were conducted under strict configuration guidelines.  You may view the specific set-up for each recording by clicking on Guidelines of Configuration 12.x or 12.x.x.

Microphones Tested Under Guidelines of Configuration 12.1

Pic. 1

–

Microphones Tested Under Guidelines of Configuration 12.2

Pic. 1

Reference Pic. 1 (R-1)

Microphones Tested Under Guidelines of Configuration 12.3

Pic. 1

–

Microphones Tested Under Guidelines of Configuration 12.3.A

Pic. 1

–

Microphones Tested Under Guidelines of Configuration 12.3.B

Pic. 1

Pic. 2

Microphones Tested Under Guidelines of Configuration 12.4

Pic. 1

–

Microphones Tested Under Guidelines of Configuration 12.4.A

Pic. 1

Reference Pic. 1 (R-2)

Microphones Tested Under Guidelines of Configuration 12.5

Pic. 1

Reference Pic. 1 (R-3)

No further testings were done in this set-up (12.5) beyond the above listed. We feel as if sufficient data was collected to allow transfers to be derived from current recordings.

Sources

Allan, Stephen. (2018, January 30). Which Materials Carry Sound Waves Best? Sciencing. Retrieved from http://sciencing.com/materials-carry-sound-waves-8342053.html

Bartlett, B. (2017, April 06). Size Matters: The Differences in Large- And Small-Diaphragm Condenser Microphones. Retrieved April 22, 2018, from https://www.prosoundweb.com/channels/recording/size_matters_the_differences_in_large-_and_small-diaphragm_microphones/

Brainard, J. (2016, September 13). Wave Interactions. Retrieved from https://www.ck12.org/physics/wave-interactions/lesson/Wave-Interactions-MS-PS/

Brennan, John. (2018, March 09). How Does Humidity Affect Speed of Sound? Sciencing. Retrieved from http://sciencing.com/humidity-affect-speed-sound-22777.html

Fun Facts for Kids on Animals, Earth, History and more! (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.dkfindout.com/us/science/sound/echoes/

Hagelskjaer, C. (n.d.). Hzandbits.com. Retrieved from https://www.hzandbits.com/articles/recording-studio-project-index/recording-studio-design-theory/standing-waves/

Hass, J. (n.d.). Introduction to Computer Music: Volume One. Retrieved March 02, 2018, from http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/etext/acoustics/chapter1_reflection.shtml

Johnson, Steve. (2018, January 30). How Does Water Affect Sound? Sciencing. Retrieved from http://sciencing.com/water-affect-sound-8510076.htm

N., V, R., & Smith, R. L. (2018, January 16). AEA R88. Retrieved April 03, 2018, from https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/R88–aea-r88

Psychoacoustics. (2018, April 17). Retrieved April 19, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics#cite_note-2

Ribbon Basic. (n.d.). Retrieved April 22, 2018, from http://royerlabs.com/ribbon-basic/

Technical GRAMMY Award. (2017, November 07). Retrieved April 16, 2018, from https://www.grammy.com/recording-academy/producers-and-engineers/awards

The Speed of Sound. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2018, from http://www.schoolnet.org.za/PILAfrica/en/webs/19537/physics4.html

“What is the difference between large and small diaphragm microphones” (n.d.). Retrieved April 16, 2018, from http://www.neumann.com/homestudio/en/difference-between-large-and-small-diaphragm-microphones

(n.d.). Mid-Side Mic Recording Basics. Retrieved April 03, 2018, from https://www.uaudio.com/blog/mid-side-mic-recording/

(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/character.htm

(2015, June 02). Retrieved April 20, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz8IIk_bps0&t=335s