Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- emerson:stone-soup:mic-party [2025/03/27 16:36] – created naptastic
+++ emerson:stone-soup:mic-party [2025/03/27 17:23] (current) – naptastic
@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 Harpsichords are **quiet**. They are so quiet that it's basically impossible to balance them against anything else. We should consider (and by that I mean "attempt") amplification.
-Running the harpsichord through the house system is fundamentally the wrong approach. We need to make the instrument itself louder. There are several sets of speakers in the A/V room that currently do not see use. We may be able to repurpose them into a stage amplifier for the harpsichord that keeps all the qualities of the sound the same but just makes it louder. I recommend a pair of microphones under the sound board, pointing up in an X/Y configuration. We will set up two special feeds from the mixer and play them back through stage monitors. We need to consider the physics involved; the sound board has a specific area, and speakers have much less; there's also baffle step to consider. Levels and equalizers need to be configured carefully.
+Running the harpsichord through the house system is fundamentally the wrong approach. We need to make the instrument itself louder. There are several sets of speakers in the A/V room that currently do not see use. We may be able to repurpose them into a stage amplifier for the harpsichord that keeps all the qualities of the sound the same but just makes it louder. If that's not desirable for whatever reason, maybe a dedicated keyboard amplifier.
+I recommend a pair of microphones under the sound board, pointing up in an X/Y configuration. We will set up two special feeds from the mixer and play them back through stage monitors. We need to consider the physics involved; the sound board has a specific area, and speakers have much less; there's also baffle step to consider. Levels and equalizers need to be configured carefully.
+**Resist the temptation to mic the top of the instrument.** Yes, the sound is more authentic; yes, listening from the bottom misses out on some of the plectrum sound. But if the microphone is **under** the harpsichord, there is zero chance of the microphone **falling** onto the strings. We'll make A/B recordings so everybody can hear how subtle the difference actually is.
+For recording sessions, we may decide the risk is worth the difference in sound, but in any live performance context, we can't risk having a mic fall on the strings.
 ==Digital Piano==
 The digital piano has a similar problem to the harpsichord. Because of complicated physics, a digital piano of that size can be loud enough for a small group of people in a medium sized room, but on a stage, for a congregation, it can't be adequate. There's no way for it to radiate bass energy and have it propagate far enough. To most of the congregation, if they can hear it at all, it will sound tinny.
-A stage amplifier that's appropriate for the harpsichord would no doubt be superior for the digital piano as well. This gives us a reasonably good version of all forms of chromatic percussion except steel drums, which is fine, because if we're going to have steel drums, I insist we find some real ones.
+A stage amplifier that's appropriate for the harpsichord would no doubt be superior for the digital piano as well. Practically speaking, I think we would be better served with a single amplifier designed for stereo content, shared between the keyboard and harpsichord, rather than two mono amplifiers. I'm getting out into the weeds now.
 ==Dream recording schedule==