Are there any advantages, or added complications, by recording a low whistle using two condenser mics some distance apart? In an old interview with Davy Spillane he talks about creating a flange-y type of effect by playing vibrato on a long note and moving towards one of the mics. I think this subtle effect can be heard in Callow Lake https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epiak7D4jOM around 50-55 seconds. I wonder whether using two mics opens up any other such possibilities that using a single mic perhaps doesn’t.
At 50-55 seconds into the recording I believe he is moving in closer to the mic as well as narrowing or focusing the embouchure (not sure how he’s does that on his whistle though). You can hear the change in volume and timbre obviously. He’s mostly just working the mic, meaning that he changes the distance from the whistle to the mic element. Depending on the specific mic design, the tonal profile of the sound will change the closer you get to the microphone element. Effects wise, the reverb depth with the long tails is the most obvious. There is a bit of delay added to the tails, in spots, I think.
Using two or more mics is a way to add depth and fullness to a recording. The subtlety of the effect can vary depending on distance between mics and the space where the recording is being done. It is not a matter of creating two of the same signal displaced by time as much as it is a matter of picking up two of the same signal with different spatial and tonal profiles from each mic. The speed of sound is too fast to create enough of a time difference by displacing the mics. The closer mic picks up the instrument more directly while the mic farther away picks up more of the sound of the instrument bouncing around the room or recording space. There are tales told about artists recording tracks out in the long hallways of certain studios so that the engineers could get as much distance between mics as possible. Acoustic guitars are mic’d with multiple microphones regularly. And the depth or spatial effect is part of why that is done. It does not give you that famous Beatles’ “finger on the tape reel flange” effects though. Nowadays you have a host of digital methods to get a better result but based on the same ideas.
The physical act of placing the thumb on the flange of the tape reel, flanging, was used to create a time delay. But it also seemed to have the additive/subtractive effect (due to tape machine mechanisms) when played against the original signal of raising and lowering the signal volume, cancelling some frequencies and accentuating others. That’s certainly not evident in the Spillane recording. I think that is also called a combing effect. The formalization of the doubling effect (done specifically for the Beatles at Abbey Road) essentially put an end to flanging vocals. Some guitarists still use effects pedals for flanging along with things like phase shifting to sound oh so cool and retro.
A “doubler” essentially makes two copies of the same audio signal displaced by a very small amount of time. The effect is to fatten the sound of the signal. While George Martin and his henchmen did flange some of the Beatles’ vocals, he also doubled them most frequently. For some reason Paul’s doubled vocals are very noticeable. The old way of doing that was to copy the original track to another tape deck and then when played back combined with the original there would be a bit of a delay or offset. But many artists would simply record two separate tracks of the same material counting on natural differences in the performances to create the fattening effect, still done to this day. But for the most part, these days you use a preset on a digital delay to do the same thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCpVwpK0IcE
Typically stereo recording uses two mics placed at the same distance from the sound source but set directionally at 90-110 degrees from each other to evenly cover the performance plane. As the performer moves from side to side the soundscape will pan from side to side a bit as well in the recording.
But there are many other techniques that can be employed depending on what you are going for. Here’s a bit of an overview. https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/feb97/stereomiking.html Most major microphone manufacturers will have primers on their websites for mic use, placement and recording techniques. They are worth reading.
But, once again , it is the man who made those sounds and not the machinery.
Feadoggie
Thanks Dennis. A thorough and interesting reply as always. It sounds as though recording with two mics wouldn’t be a bad idea to try at least, given a musician friend has offered to loan me two condenser mics he no longer uses. I’ll certainly follow up on the links you’ve given me. So much to learn . . . so little time! Thanks again.
Sure, if you have two mics use them. Experiment with different placements if you have the time.
The more I listen to the Spillane recording the more I think he is just bearing down/playing harder at those points in the tune, generating a stronger tone. Whether he is moving in to the mic or not likely does not matter. The strength of the signal increases and the tone becomes brighter. He’s got great control of his sound. The best mics, and the best recordings, are the ones that merely capture what has been played. Spillane does like that reverb though.
Just have fun with it, Mike. Enjoy your music.
Feadoggie
Thankfully, I do have fun with it. There is need for discipline in order to progress but if I didn’t enjoy it and look for new sounds and challenges each day, I would give up, I know. Thanks Dennis. If you’re interested in Davy’s interview on his recording techniques and set-up (most of which is beyond me) it’s at http://www.mixonline.com/news/profiles/davy-spillane-high-above-sea-dreams/372749. Thanks Dennis.
Thanks for the link, Mike. That’s an old-ish interview. Recording technology has changed a great deal in the last 17 years. Certainly the stuff Spillane describes is useful as background. Much of the equipment he describes, both the outgoing and incoming equipment, is no longer considered current. I do agree with his comments about recording as directly to the hard disk as possible. Hard disk recording was fairly new then.
The flange-y thing I get now, as he describes it. He was using two AKG C24 mics each three feet from his pipes or whistle, so maybe four to six feet apart from each other. The bit that you’d have to figure out is that each C24 is a stereo mic with two capsules set in an X-Y configuration. So that’s really four mics. There would be phase differences from side to side then. I still don’t hear that in the Callow Lough track. But it sounds like he was moving away from the C24’a and towards using a Sony 800G as a center mic and two Neumann KM140’s spread out to the sides. That’s an expensive set of mics, for sure. The 800G picks up the bulk of the instrument and the Neumanns create the space. And he describes moving in and out of the mics. He’s working the mics - like a singer. It’s the man, not the mics. I’d wager he’s found new mics since then. If not they are still good kit.
He describes his reverbs as “specially crafted” for him. That’s hard to conceive of actually. I can see designing reverb variables within a commercial package/plug-in/rack-module/etc. specifically for that recording but no one is going to make a reverb from scratch these days (or fifteen years ago). He does mention Eventide and Lexicon who both make reverbs. But i thought they were what he used for guitars on “Sea of Dreams”. At any rate Spillane gets the sound he wants and he knows what he is trying to do with it. He talks about playing the reverb as an instrument, which makes some sense. So, good on him.
Interesting reading at any rate. Thanks.
Feadoggie
Interesting reading at any rate.
As are your comments. Thanks for reviewing the article.