AA2 - Week 2 - Vocal Recording

After I 'performed' for John's vocal recording, I figured while the microphone stands and patchbay were all set up I may as well do my own. The script was written on the spot, and is no longer as funny as it was when I first recorded it. A slight logistical problem was recording in the Space or Deadroom when I have to press the record button, so I threw a baffle into Studio 1 and created a mini deadroom- unsuccessfully. When listening back to the recordings in the studio I could not tell how much the liveness of the room was making it onto the tracks, that is until I mixed them down and listened to them on headphones. Despite the roomverb, I managed to keep most of the sound pretty clean. And I didn't do any pitch shifting or anything to my voice, it really is that manly.

Script:
Are you having trouble with masculinity? Then join the army! You get a gun. You get bullets. You get sent somewhere... and then you go back home. Maybe alive. What are you, chicken? Buk buk buk.

1st Recording MP3 290KB
Microphone: Neumann U87
Mic Position: 25cm from source
Vocal Style: Plain, spoken word
Comment: The first recording was simple enough. Some compression was needed, but due to the lack of animation in my voice it was not very heavy.

2nd Recording MP3 422KB
Microphone: AKG C414-BULS, Neumann U87
Mic Position: 15cm for both
Vocal Style: Deep, masculine, spoken
Comment: My voice can only go so loud when it is this deep, so a close mic position was needed. The recording was originally bass-heavy, which somewhat suited the vocal style, but I still cut off some of the low end for a more natural sound. Both mic recordings were panned slightly to the left and right respectively, but only by about 15 degrees. Before compression, the end was louder than the beginning, but a moderately heavy threshold evened it out.

2rd Recording (Take2) MP3 483KB
Microphone: Neumann KM85 x2
Mic Position: 15cm, perpendicular to source (see pic)
Vocal Style: Deep, masculine, spoken
Comment: This is part two of the deep voice recording, in which I experimented with setting up the KM85s in atypical positions until I found a nice sound. The final position was not what I expected to work, but it had a nice presence when panned. Both mics needed identical compression and gain, as customising the settings individually created weird stereo phasing. I did not EQ this recording, as it achieved the sound I was aiming for originally with the AKG and U87.


3rd Recording MP3 374KB
Microphone: AKG C414-BULS
Mic Position: 25cm from source
Vocal Style: Loud, yokel, spoken
Comment: After some serious clipping and gain fixing, I found the levels which allowed almost any vocal volume to be recorded without distortion. The extreme variation in amplitude required heavy compression, and I also used a light Gate to lessen the presence of the roomverb.

4th Recording MP3 459KB
Microphone: Neumann U87
Mic Position: 5cm from source
Vocal Style: Very quiet, spoken
Comment: For this recording I wanted the opposite of the yokel. The gain needed to be increased considerably, thanks to the last recording being so loud and this being so soft. I had to make a conscious effort to minimise unintentional mouth noise, however some has still slipped through, mainly due to mouth movement imperative in forming sounds. While the compression was kept light, quite a bit of low frequency EQing was needed to minimise the proximity effect of the mic.

5th Recording MP3 365KB
Microphone: AKG C414-BULS
Mic Position: 25cm from source
Vocal Style: Loud singing, some spoken
Comment: While I was 'singing' for John's recording, I did my own recording of sung voice. Unfortunately, by this point in time I couldn't get out a whole line of Ubi Caritas without laughing. Fortunately, this resulted in a nice array of dynamics with both sung and spoken voice, much like an opera. Uhh, a bad opera. Quite severe compression was needed to bring out the quieter spoken parts, as I wasn't even facing the microphone properly.

Forum - Week 2 - The Stimuli Simulacrum

While the forum was primarily about originality(1), we touched on a topic which I wish to pursue further. This is regarding, as I put it, the intellectual integrity of a computer.

Intellectual Property
In our highly developed society it is a criminal offence to steal or replicate another person's intellectual property and masquerade it as your own. While ownership of a physical object has always been a possibility, the prospect of owning the nonphysical has only transpired in recent times. As our species emerged from a faceless fog of anonymity into the populism of the Enlightenment, we fashioned a mentality of self-commercialisation. It was only a matter of time before this egotistical attitude conceived the monetary value that could be attributed to ownership of intellect, and in turn the legal system had to ensure the money went to the rightful owner. Today, a computer is not legally capable of owning anything physical or nonphysical, however it is in our perceived ownership of the nonphysical that a dilemma emerges...

Intellectual Integrity
The physical existence of a manufactured item certifies its creation and implies the prospect of ownership. When there is no physical manifestation of an item, its existence, creation and possibility of ownership is questionable, as it can never be proven. When an idea becomes property, the line between the physical and the intellect is blurred. If we can own a complex amalgamation of electrical stimuli in the human brain, why is it impossible for a computer to possess its own 'intellectual' creation? It could be argued that the creator of the computer owns anything that computer produces, yet our society does not pass ownership of intellectual property over to our parents, our 'creators' if you will. Where is the line that separates intelligence and artificial intelligence? The obvious difference is as simple as the boundaries of organic and mechanical. This however, reignites the initial conundrum of physical and nonphysical possession. If we suggest the nonphysical to be existent such that it can be possessed, why is there such a restrictive physical limitation of 'organic only' to the concept of ownership? We draw the line of ownership at organic, yet blur the line of physicality altogether with ownership of the nonphysical.

Intellectual Evolution
If a computer composes a piece of music based on our rules of harmony and melody, why does it not belong to the computer? When does a computer cease to be following orders, and actually resemble our creative processes? When does a byte, become an idea?

I have asked more questions than I have answered, however it is the existence of the questions that is important.



1. Stephen Whittington, "I Want To Be Original Like Everyone Else." Lecture presented in the Recording Space, Electronic Music Unit, Adelaide University, 8/3/07.

Nerd: But electrical stimuli in the brain can be considered physical!
Me: So can the electrical current in a computer. Thank you for strengthening my argument.

Forum - Week 1 - Introductions and... Uhh....

Did you know Thursdays really suck for me? I have classes 9am till 4pm without a break, meaning I have to eat in the theory lecture. Anyway, the first forum of the year started out the same as first and second semester last year, with no real plan of what to do or how to mark us. All we know is we present anything on a given topic for an unspecified amount of time, and it will somehow be worth 25% of our music tech grade. I don't know why it is necessary have 8 people on each topic, I would think 1 or 2 people could cover a topic quite sufficiently. Perhaps we could present a topic based around Music Technology that we feel needs discussion. I am to discuss the lack of women in our discipline, which to me is inconsequential to the future of Music Technology. If women were not allowed to join, then that would be a topic worth discussing. Are we supposed to force people into a study area, because their 'type' are a minority? If the heads of Music Tech feel that the lack of females is an issue serious enough that it needs investigation, I might wonder whether a woman may be accepted into the course for that reason alone. I would assume the lack of women is due to the lack of female interest in any technology based course. Who knows why? Who cares? Aren't they allowed to do whatever they want? What do they hope to achieve out of this topic? I suppose I could make my presentation on how irrelevant the topic is, but that sort of thing only floats with Mark "MC" Carroll. Maybe I'll invite him along...

Something I always enjoyed was David Harris' mind-expanding electronic music appreciation class in Sem 1 last year. I would prefer to have that class again, and perhaps be graded on an essay about Music Technology in Contemporary Society, or our interpretation of it.

In any case, this Forum ended 50 minutes early as we ran out of things to do/teach. Would I be right to assume that a lecturer teaching a 70 minute class gets paid for 70 minutes? Surely not 2 hours pay. You wouldn't think so.

AA2 - Week 1 - Session Planning and Management

For our first week in Audio Arts we created a basic checklist of the steps required for a recording. Through mostly extracurricular means, I have done about 5 recordings, plus 8 or so of a pianist who has just finished her doctorate in music. My first couple recordings were very disorganised, one of which took 2 hours to set up, but eventually I figured out that there is no such thing as too much preparation. Our exercise for this week is to create a mock session plan for a recording of an artist of notoriety(1). Despite this, I have decided to 'record' the fictional Scottish hard-rock band Love Fist, from Grand Theft Auto: Vice City fame. For those who haven't been *cough* Love Fisted, here is the official advert taken from the game.

MP3 767KB


Pre-Production

Band Name: Love Fist
Style: Hard Rock
Members/Instrumentation: Jezz Torrent (Vocals, Guitar), Willy (Bass), Dick (Guitar), Percy (Percussion)
Equipment: Vocalist, electric guitar (1&2), electric bass, 8-piece drumkit.
Influences: Any dodgy 80s hard rock.
Song(s) to be recorded: Fist Fury
Duration: 3 minutes
Recording Studio: Studio 1, EMU Space and Dead Room; EMU, Adelaide University

Microphonage
Vocals: U87 Neumann
Guitar 1: Shure 57 (x2)
Guitar 2: Shure Beta 58 (x2)
Bass: AKG-BULS
Drums: Drumkit Mic Set


ProTools
Quality: 96kHz, 24bit
Tracks
1:Kick drum
2:Snare
3:HiHat
4:HiTom
5:Mid Tom
6:Floor Tom
7:Overhead Left
8:Overhead Right
9:Bass
10:Guitar 1a
11:Guitar 1b
12:Guitar 2a
13:Guitar 2b
14:Vocals

Microphone Placement:
The lead guitar will have two Shure Beta 58s, one facing square into the centre of the cone and the other at a 45 degree angle, but still aiming to the middle. Each mic will be roughly 20cms away from the speaker face. Back up guitar will use both Shure 57s, one aimed directly into the centre of the cone and the other aimed at the outer edge of the cone. Bass will have the AKG placed in the middle of the 4 speakers in the quad amplifier, around 30cms away. The drums will have each designated drum mic for its respective drum. The overheads will be place in an xy position, to collect a close stereo field. While this sounds good in theory, all mic positions may need to be changed if the desired sound is not achieved.

Tracking

I will first record the drums by themselves, as the overheads are susceptible to bleed from other instruments in the room, and the kit itself can bleed onto the guitar mics. I will have the bassist playing quietly in the room at the same time so that the drummer does not lose his position in the song. Baffles will only be used in certain parts of the space, such at bass traps and sheer surfaces like glass. This will (hopefully) minimise early reflections and booming, but maintain the 'live' sound of the space. I will then record the guitars one at a time, with only lead guitar having any baffling, as 'fake' verb sounds more in the style of 80's dodge rock. Once the best takes have been selected, the vocalist will be recorded in the dead room.

Post Production

The band will be heavily involved in the post production phase, as their tastes on the sound may be different to mine. I have found post-production to be very much trial and error, as no techniques are universally applicable. Any dynamic effects such as compression will be added in post prod rather than during the recording process, so I have a 'blank canvas' of sound on which to weave my magic.

Result

MP3 2.15MB


1. David Grice. "Audio Arts: Semester 1, Week 1. Session Planning & Management." Lecture presented at the Electronic Music Unit, University of Adelaide, South Australia, 27th February 2007.

CC2 - Week 1 - Pseudocode

This week of CC introduced us to Pseudocode, otherwise known as 'English'. Our task description did not specify whether a note will be played by a person on an instrument or by the program itself, so I will not specify either.



If the program itself was generating the initial note, I would surmise some sort of NoteGenerator would be needed. Although if you have a NoteGenerator, why are you getting it to play in D Major only to transpose it into B Minor? One would think choosing B Minor to begin with would suffice. If a human was needed to enter the note values manually, then some additional 'code' would be needed, probably along the lines of 'IF note is played THEN' just after the REPEAT command.



1. Christian Haines. "Creative Computing: Semester 1, Week 1. Programming & Pseudocode." Lecture presented at the Electronic Music Unit, University of Adelaide, South Australia, 1st March 2007.

07

New year, new template and a new photoshoppery. No, YOU'VE got too much time on your hands! You're reading this aren't you? Don't you have something better to do?