The use of Watt and DB-meters in cycling and professional audio

I like watching Tour De France in the summer. Last year was dominated by the diesel-train of Team Sky leading the peleton, with guys like Edvald Boasson Hagen and Michael Rogers keeping a steady, high pace up the mountains. With Bradley Wiggins already in the yellow jersey, all they needed to do was to take charge of the peleton and make it difficult for the competing teams to attack. Day after day the same sight: our national hero calmly leading the cyclists up the beautiful alpine landscapes. A little boring perphaps, but for me the suspence was always there: I knew that the attack would come. And then suddenly in the middle of stage 11 in the climb of Glandon, Cadel Evans jumped up from his seat and said goodbye to the race leader, However, he would not be on the offensive for very long: the patient Sky-train used their high ”default” pace to slowly reel him in. In the end, Evans was so tired from his attack that he lost ground to the leaders.

After the stage, Michael Rogers was interviewed about the attack of Cadel Evans, and he said something interesting that changed the way I look at cycling, sport, and even sound-engineering. (Unfortunately I cant find the interview online, so this is from memory only) Basically, he said that Evans attack was doomed to fail.

Most professional cyclists have a watt-meter attached to their bicycle that tells them how much power they are putting into their pedals. In cycling this can be a very reliable tool, because almost all their power is transferred into moving forward, whereas in other sports like running or cross-country skiing, the relationship between the human
effort and the movement of the skiier/runner is much more difficult to calculate. To pedal the bike, especially uphill, is really easy, (even I can do it well) and even though Lance Armstrong often has spoken about the importance of cadence, its not the cycling-technique that separates the competitors cycling up the mountains, what matters is the watt-power they can produce. And with the progress of science in the sports, this (watt) number has become more and more predictable: When Michael Rogers saw that Cadel Evans was attacking, he was already pedaling with a high watt-output, and he knew that if he just maintained his high power, it would be physically impossible for Cadel Evans to win the stage. You just cant beat the numbers.

I have a friend who participates in amateur cycling-races, and he gave me some insights to the mind of the cyclist: When he goes uphill, its very difficult for him to use his intuition to find the right steady pace: if he feels good and goes a little too fast for a prolonged period, he will suddenly bonk. His senses deceive him, he is better off trusting his watt-meter.

The latest doping-revelations have revealed that professional cycling is more about numbers and less about “coming back from cancer” physiological factors. With EPO you can calculate your increase in watt-power and adjust your pace accordingly. Depending on the level of doping, and your natural hemoglobin-values, a normal boost is a predictable 10% in watt-output. Clean cyclists could not possibly compete with these numbers.

In the 2000s, EPO was replaced with a less tracable doping-method: Blood-transfusion. The physichal effects were similar: increased oxygen-level in the blood gives better endurance. But in the biography of Tyler Hamilton, he describes some differences between EPO and blood-doping that I find highly interesting: Users of EPO have reported that using the drug has a psychological effect: you dont feel that you exhaust yourself so much. In the ninetees you see people crossing the finish-line with no sign of fatiguee.. the winner can go straight to the podium, have a drink, and live a sociable life. (well, almost) Perphaps this is one of the reason why the drug was so popular: it took away some of the suffering from the sport and made it more human.
But blood-transfusion doesnt give you the same “psychological boost” as EPO. This is what Hamilton writes about his first race with blood-transfusion in(i-phone book “The Secret Race page 404:)
“It would take me a couple of years to figure this out, but I hadnt yet learned how my body reacted to a transfusion, When you have more red blood-cells, your body doesnt obey the same rules: you can go harder than you think you can. Your body might be screaming the same old way, but you can push through if you ignore all those signals and just ride. Later I would learn how to do that ”

Because Hamilton was a rider who had always been able to push his body beyond suffering, he could take fully advantage of blood doping, and he would beat riders who could not adapt to this new way of bodily punishment. It is not a coincidence that his career peaked in the zenith of the blood-doping era: in 2004 he won olympic gold in Athens, his biggest sporting achievment.

Why am I writing all this? Isnt this a blog specifically about sound-engineering? Yes, lets not digress too much. Perphaps you think that I just want to show that I have more interests besides my job.. But still, I feel that there is a connection between cycling and my work as a sound engineer.

Most importantly, watching cycling reminds me that my work is highly physical:  my ears are not a perfect tool, they are a vulnerable part of the body. If you compare the ears to a high-quality electronic instrument analyzing sound, its almost like comparing the cyclist to the motorbike: the instrument can pick up a lot more information than the human, and with much bigger precision. Nowadays, a lot of sound-engineers relies heavily on these instruments to assist the ears, most notably in live-sound, where people use the program Smaart to optimize the sound-system. Still, there is a lot of debate about using such instruments: the critics argue that the machines cannot know how to adjust sound for the human ear, the same way as robots cannot create music. They say that the only to judge what is pleasing sound for the human is to judge with your own ears.

You cannot disagree with the latter, sound-engineering is not a sport or science, to keep the human and artistic side is very important. (Although, sometimes you wonder if its just a loundess-competition) But still, I think it is very important to keep in mind that our hearing does not excel in all sound-analyzing tasks. Most importantly: How can we judge how loud we can play the sound before our hearing gets damaged? Is it enough make sure that the sound is pleasant for your own ears, and that you get positive reactions from the audience? After all, a professional sound-engineer should have a highly developed sense of hearing to judge these matters..

I fear that using your ears is not enough, and that our hearing can easily deceive us. And I came to this conclusion after watching too much cycling:

A professional cyclist cannot only trust his senses when he decides how fast he will bike up the mountain: His instruments can tell him that he needs to go slower than what he feels is right. And other times, like with Tyler Hamilton and blood-doping, you can ignore the warning-signs from the body and push yourself harder than you thought possible. The relationship between perceived suffering and actual bodily damage is not linear: Sometimes, the pain you feel is not so bad for your body. And other times you dont notice when your body actually gets damaged

Research has proved that loud sounds can damage the hearing, and its often impossible to repair this. If I am responsible for the sound for an audience, I need to make sure that the sound-level is not so high that it is damaging. Probably its not enough for me to just go with the flow and mix as loud as I feel appropriate. Its much safer to rely on an instrument like the db-meter and follow the rules for maximum loudness.

Butwhere are those rules? That topic deserves another blogtext..

Posted in Uncategorized

Will Pro Tools strike back at NAMM?

When I went to NISS to learn the secrets of audio-production, learning the software Pro Tools was one of the major subjects, along with electronics, acoustics etc. Almost before we knew what a decibel was, we were sitting in front of a Mac repeating specific shortcuts for the software. Having recently attended the university where independence of education is very important, I was critical of the fact that one software-company had such strong connections to the school. This would give Pro Tools and it`s owner Avid a big advantage against its competitors (cubase, nuendeo etc.)  It would almost force the students to choose Pro Tools as their platform in their future career, to choose another software would mean that the student has wasted a lot of time during the studies: The skills in Pro Tools does not give much “synergy” in other parts of audio production, it`s a complete system for audio studios that has been industry-standard for the past 15 years. Walk into a recording-studio in Nashville, or an audio-editing studio in Hollywood, and you will most likely see a Pro Tools rig. So why worry? Choosing Pro Tools seemed a safe choice, the software is too big and important to ever become irrelevant.. At this time in 2007, Pro Tools was just as reliable as the international banking system.

And so far Pro Tools has held it`s position. The basics of the program hasn`t changed much,  once you learn the workflow, you easily adapt to new versions of the software. Their loyal customers, for example those who come from the Pro-Tools certified audio schools, will not change their software unless they have no other choice. This secures a stable situation for Pro Tools and its owner Avid.

However, there are some skies in the horizon. Looking at the financial situation of Avid, things are not looking promising. Since the release of the latest version of Pro Tools, Pro Tools 10, the stocks at Nasdaq have almost halved in value. Their third quarter results of 2012 reveals that they lost 16-18 million dollars during that time.

This situation can`t continue, and Avid has to find ways to make more money on Pro Tools. Let`s hope they dont do the same with Pro Tools as they did with when they bought the music-compsoing software Sibelius: they sacked the original development-team and replaced them with someone cheaper, resulting in an inferior product.

My cousin is a computer-expert, and he gave me some ideas as to why Pro Tools might be struggling. In general, when software develops over a long period of time and becomes very big, it becomes more difficult to develop: you have so much old code and hardware that needs to be taken into consideration. At one point, a new competitor X can start from scratch and easily make a superior product with the most recent technology. Sometimes X takes over the market, until he also becomes too big and a new brand emerges.. This is a cyclus that is well known in the world of computer-buisness.
And I think it applies to Pro Tools: today they are not always in the cutting edge of technology. For example, they are the only software of its kind who still runs in 32-bit, whereas the competition has moved into 64-bit a long time ago. (The reason for this is that Pro Tools still need to support loyal customers who use old hardware (tdm) that can only use 32-bit.) Meanwhile, small companies like Cockos make software that run much more efficient on modern computers..

In october 2011, Avid launced a new series of hardware, HDX, that would replace the old HD-cards with TDM-plugins. They had to do this because the old cards slowed them down compared to the competition.. But this was a controversial move among their customers, because it forces them to replace all their pro-tools cards within a couple of years. The question is, will all the customers transfer to the new hardware? Although no sales numbers are official, the bad financial situation of Avid suggests that the new HDX-cards have so far not been a success.
The problem with HDX has been that third-party developers have been very slow to make software for the new hardware. Perhaps they don`t have the incentive to help Pro Tools retain its dominating position in the market? New powers are emerging: Apple owns the video software Final Cut and audio-software Logic that both are in direct competition with Avid. Apple are probably not very happy about software-companies making products exclusively for Avid, and who knows what they can do to prevent this..
One company that has publicly proclaimed that they will not support the new hdx-standard (aax-DSP), is the important plugin-manufacturer Waves. They say that supporting AAX-DSP takes 72 man-years, and it`s too much work for them. Instead they prefer to use the VST-standard that can be used in most other Daws.  My guess is that Waves also want to make products that competes with Pro Tools HDX, by developing Sound Grid into a product that uses servers to give extra DSP to DAWS for plugins. (in theory, servers can be much more powerful than HDX-cards.)

Pro Tools can still turn the tide, but they have to act quickly: the upcoming NAMM is the perfect opportunity to strike back. Rumors says that Waves have changed their mind, if they announce aax-plugins for Pro Tools, I am sure that the loyal HD-customers will upgrade to HDX in large numbers. And if Pro Tools announce 64-bit compability they will attract many new customers as well..

But if nothing happens at Namm, I fear that the Avid-stocks will continue to fall. And then who knows what this big commercial company will do with Pro Tools..

So if Pro Tools gets squeezed by its competitors, what happens to audio-schools like NISS that have invested heavily in Pro Tools gear and knowledge? Looking at their website, it seems that they might have plan B ready: Niss is an authorized Apple-school.. Now, if that company fails, that`s another story..

Posted in Uncategorized

Will multi-touch in Windows 8 have a big impact on audio-software?

Audio-engineers love the look of big analog recording-consoles. The idea of having all the buttons and faders within arms reach is very appealing, there are no abstract menus and layers to worry about, the engineer has no obstacles between his ideas and the sound. But some times when I walk into a recording studio, the big mixer in the middle of the room looks almost untouched, instead the engineer seems very busy with the mouse and the keyboard. The problem is that the traditional recording-console is not very good at dealing with modern computerized audio-production; its options are too limited, it cant keep up with the pace of the always evolving digital software and hardware.

Hovewer, there have been many attempts to bridge the gap between the computer and the “hands-on” mixer. The “daw-controller” will act as a large remote-controller for the software, with dedicated buttons for important functions. But for me they often lack good interaction with the computer-screen; when I push a button on the controller, I dont know where it will end up on the screen, and vice-versa. This looking around can easily destroy the organic workflow, so I end up either a) just using the controller like a traditional mixer without looking at the screen or b) going back to the mouse and the keyboard (this is just my personal experience, many might disagree) Besides, the daw-controller can easily become obsolete when the software evolves, and I dont want to spend my money that easily (for example: Command8 and C24 will not be supported after Pro Tools 10)

This christmas I have had time to look around for new gadgets, and I found a new favorite:
Steven Slate Raven MTX
With this touchscreen-controlled daw-remote, you get a much better visual overview of what you are controlling. No translation is necessary between the controller and the software being controlled. Tweaking a plugin-emulator of old gear, its almost like touching the real box.  And because you have no physical knobs and faders, you can customize the interface for every task. (for example: when you are editing, you often dont need any faders at all, instead you need full control over the timeline.) The pure screen also means that upgrading is much easier: you just need to change the software.

Maybe its not surprising that the price for this original daw-controller will be high: it is not on the market yet but rumors on forums says it will cost between 16 and 20 thousand dollars. That is less than some of the high-end digital mixers/controllers on the market, but still a lot more than I would like to pay for such functionality. A cheaper alternative is to buy an Ipad with a great app called neyrinck v-control that can remote-control audio software. I wish only that the I-pad screen was a little bit bigger so that it could replace a fullsize mixer, the Ipad can only act as an extension of a different workspace.

While I was dreaming about ways to dig up $20000, like winning in the lottery, or selling my soul to the devil, I noticed a commercial on the television: Windows 8 introduces multi-touchscreen to the mainstream computer: For the first time it is possible to make programs for Windows that support multi-touch on the computer-screen. (so far it has only been possible to touch one spot at a time on computer touchscreens, the same way as you work with the mouse) With a little software-upgrade on the existing DAWS,  it would be possible to control them directly from the touchscreen, without running a seperate program/hardware-package like the expensive Raven MTX. In fact, the Windows 8 solution could be even better than the Raven, because with the native solution you are working directly on the daw-software without some external program interpreting it. This is truly a analog relationship between the software and the controller, just as in the classic old days when you were almost touching the audio flowing through the equipment.

For some reasons the software-companies have not taken advantage of the multitouch-possibilities in Windows 8. Only Sonar have released an update with touchscreen support. The big guns like Pro Tools and Nuendo seem to have other priorities (Pro Tools are probably too stressed by the lack of aax-plugin support.. And still they are only 32-bit; ) But perhaps they are just preparing for a big release on the next NAMM-show that will take place in a couple of weeks? Anyway, my bet is that Multitouch will be the biggest change in Daws since the golden era of large consoles. But it might take some years to realize its potential.

Posted in Uncategorized

Mikrofontest vol.2: Gitar

Vi har vært i studio og testa forskjellige mikrofoner til akustisk gitar.

Signalkjede: Yamaha CPX900 gitar – mikrofon – Api c512 preamp – Apogee AD8000SE mkII converter – Pro Tools 24/44.1, senere dithret ned til 16 bit.

Her er resultatet:
sennheiser mkh40dpa 4011akg 451ebaudio technica 4050neumann u 87avantone cv12avantone cv28shure sm7shure sm57

Kudos til deg som hører igjennom alle lydfilene.. Fortvil ikke hvis du synes at alt nesten høres likt ut, for forskjellene er ofte mindre enn man tror..

Kanskje er det enkleste å dele inn i kategorier og sammenligne 2-3 mikrofoner om gangen. For det er 4 mikrofontyper med i testen:
1) småmembran kondensator: akg 451eb, 4011 og mkh40
2) stormembran kondensator: u87, at4050
3) rør-kondensator: cv12, cv28
4) dynamisk: sm57, sm7

Den første oppgaven blir å kåre den beste mikrofonen innenfor hver kategori..

1) Finale småmembran.
sennheiser mkh40dpa 4011akg 451eb
Vår vurdering: Sennheiser MKH40 er mørkere enn de 2 andre og taper. Gitaren blir flat og kjedelig.. 4011 og 451 har bra attack i tonen, noe man kan forvente fra denne mikrofonklassen.. Etter ekstraomganger synes vi at Akg 451 blir for tynn i lyden sammenlignet med 4011 , og at 4011 har en litt rundere tone.
DPA 4011 vinner.

2) Finale stormembran
audio technica 4050neumann u 87
4050 har mer diskant enn u87. Etter vår mening blir at4050 for spiss, mye strenge-attack men lite “kropp”. Resultatet blir at det hele låter litt “demo”. U87 har en mer avbalansert lydsignatur med fyldigere mellomtone, det låter mer behagelig i våre ører.
U87 vinner 

3) Finale rør
avantone cv12avantone cv28
Igjen er det lett å skille mikrofonene ved at cv12 er lysere enn cv28. Vi blir ikke helt klok på c12, det låter lyst og litt.. kunstig!? CV 28 derimot.. “Det låter 3d”, sier Audun og himler med øynene. Kroppen i instrumentet kommer godt fram uten at det blir ullent.
CV28 vinner 

4) Finale dynamisk mikrofon
shure sm7
shure sm57
sm57 blir skarp og skjærende i lyden, sm7 er overraskende detaljert og behagelig å lytte til.
SM7 vinner

Den store finalen
dpa 4011neumann u 87 shure sm7avantone cv28
Vi må nå spørre oss selv: Hva slags gitarlyd er vi ute etter? Alle mikrofonene i finalen er brukbare, og det blir mer en smakssak hva man foretrekker. Noen ganger, til f.eks jazz og klassisk, ønsker man en så realistisk lyd som mulig, og da vinner kanskje DPA 4011: den kjappe transient-responsen i mikrofonen gjør at attacket i plekteret stikker fram, nesten som om lyden kommer fra et sted foran høyttalerne. Men denne realismen har sin pris: lyden kan oppleves som litt hard.
U87 er mindre framtredende samtidig som den har mye av den samme klarheten, den  har en balansert lyd og lever opp til sitt rykte som en mikrofon som funker til omtrent alt i studio.
Den dynamiske mikrofonen SM7 er litt mindre detaljert enn de 2 førstnevnte, men den kan passe bra til rock og innspillinger hvor man ønsker litt røffere lyd.
Men rør-mikrofonen CV-28 har en helt egen lyd-karakteristikk som trumfer over alt annet. Lyden oppleves som større og varmere, uten at man mister snerten i anslaget. “Det låter mer skive”, sier Audun.
Avantone CV-28 vinner.

Om testvinneren
Avantone CV-28 er et forsøk på å kopiere den legendariske rør-mikrofonen Neumann km 54. Vi har 2 stk. i studio.


Posted in Uncategorized

Nattkonserter i Hausmania bekrefter at oljealderen i norsk jazz forlenges med minst en generasjon

I helgen ble det arrangert en 24 timers musikkfestival i Hausmania, med studenter fra Kunst og Musikkhøyskolen. 1 konsert i timen.

Jeg hadde tekniker-vakt om natta og fikk oppleve mange spennende band og prosjekter. Sangerinnen Ina Sagstuen var representert i tre besetninger. Den første, Karokh, er et 7-mannsband med elektriske instrumenter, trompet og stemme, og de har et lydbilde som gir assosiasjoner til Miles Davis sin elektriske besetning på slutten av 60-tallet, eller mer presist: hvordan et slikt band kan låte i 2012. Med vokalisten i spissen så kan låtene begynne som rocke-melodier med tekst og stabil rytme, så går det over i mer improviserte partier hvor vokalen blir et instrument likestilt med de andre, før de spiller en stram melodi med en rar, samtidsmusikkaktig tonalitet, snål og catchy på samme tid, alt sammen spilt med ungdommelig intensitet og stram disiplin.
De bruker kjente elementer, men de setter det sammen på en måte som jeg ikke kjenner igjen og som oppleves som forfriskende.. Når de improviserer kan det virke som om de tar av for mye og går seg vill, men så kommer et intrikat komponert parti som viser at det hele bare var en oppbygning til noe annet. Og overgangene er naturlige, som om jazz, rock og samtidsmusikk er tre sider av samme sak.

Min positive opplevelse av konserten skyldtes også at jeg frykta det verste da jeg først møtte de 7 musikantene som skulle stables opp på en liten scene uten tid til lyprøver. Dette blir tinnitus-høyt, tenkte jeg, og musikerne kommer til å være sure fordi de ikke hører seg selv på scenen.
Heldigvis tok jeg feil. Bandet var ikke særlig kravstore med scenelyden. Mesteparten av lyden mikset seg selv ved at de stilte sine egne instrumenter. Lyden var kanskje ikke perfekt for dem, men det trengte de heller ikke for å spille bra.
Denne robustheten kommer til å hjelpe dem videre i karrieren, tenkte jeg. Musikkbransjen er tøff. Budsjettene er minimale og konkurransen er hard. Ingen kommer til dekket bord. Disse unge musikerne viser at de har talentet og mentaliteten som skal til for å overleve.

Karokh planlegger en studioinnspilling i nærmeste framtid. Jeg har store forventninger til CDen som skal komme i 2013.

Ina Sagstuen var forøvrig involvert i 2 andre prosjekter den natta: bandet “sagstuen” og vokalduoen “propan”. Jeg får skrive om det neste gang jeg møter på dem..

Posted in Uncategorized


Jeg har brukt timesvis på å lese om lydutstyr på nettet, utstyr som jeg kanskje ikke har råd til og som jeg bare kan drømme om. Søker du på nettet finnes det egne forum for slike diskusjoner, og hver eneste lille lyd-dings er gjenstand for sterke meninger. Som forum-snoker danner man seg snart et indre bilde av forskjellige typer lydutstur, og man tilegner seg sjargongen som bli brukt: dårlig utstyr er “kaldt”, “sterilt”, “hardt”, “digitalt”og “smalt”, mens det gode utstyret kan være “varmt”, “stort”, “3d” og “analogt”.

Første gangen jeg var med på en lyttetest av forskjellige preamper fikk jeg meg et lite sjokk: jeg forstod at forskjellen på utstyr var langt mindre enn det jeg hadd lest meg til. På første lytting klarte jeg faktisk ikke å høre forskjell, noe jeg så klart ikke turte å si til de andre. Jeg måtte stille inn ørene på nytt, tune de til å høre de små forskjellene, nesten slik øynene må venne seg til å se i mørket når noen slår av lyset i rommet. Først på tredje-fjerde forsøk begynte jeg å kjenne igjen signaturen til de forskjellige boksene, men disse forskjellene var langt mer subtile enn hva jeg hadde sett for meg på forhånd.

Denne testen lærte meg at adjektivene som brukes for å beskrive lydutstyr, spesielt i forum-diskusjoner, er altfor sterke. Vi snakker om forskjellen mellom 0,005% og o,002% THD, eller 2 DB forskjell i signal/støyforhold. (Og så finnes det parametre som man ennå ikke har klart å måle, som “dybde” og “bredde” i lyden) Hvis vi sammenligner to enheter som har de samme arbeidsoppgavene, f.eks preamper, så vil likheten være 99%, og det er den siste lille prosenten vi krangler om. Så istedenfor å si at den ene boksen låter “varmt” og den andre låter “kaldt”, burde man ha sagt: den ene boksen låter bittebittebittebitte litt varmere enn den andre..

For å unngå å bli hjernevaska av forumprat på nettet så synes jeg det er viktig å noen ganger gjennomføre mine egne tester på lydutstyr. Og det har jeg gjort nå:  Jeg har sammenligna alle mine småmembran-kondensatormikrofoner. I samme slengen fikk jeg også testa ut min nye opptaker: Tascam hs-p82

Siden jeg ikke spiller noe instrument så ble det til at jeg brukte min egen stemme som lydkilde. Her er mikrofonene i testen:

Clip-on instrument-mikrofoner, supercardoid:
Audio Technica ATM-350
DPA 4099

Småmembran-instrument mikrofoner, cardoid:
DPA 4011
Sennheiser MKH40
Audio Technica 3031

Jeg ville også bruke testen til noe konkret: jeg har skaffet meg stativ-adaptere som gjør at jeg kan feste clip-on mikrofonene på et vanlig mikrofonstativ. Derfor ville jeg gjerne sjekke hvordan clip-on mikker låter sammenlignet med vanlige stativ-mikker. Og jeg ville sjekke hva som var min beste kondensatormikrofon.

I testen satte jeg opp 2 mikrofoner ved siden av hverandre.

Trykk på linken for å laste ned lydfilene. Filer som begynner med samme tall gjør opptak av den samme stemmen

Semifinale 1. Finale i klassen clip-on mikrofon
1 dpa 4099
1 atm350

Min vurdering: Låter ganske likt, men 4099 har en tydeligere  diskant som gjør at taletydeligheten er bedre. En slags “sheen” i lyden. ATM 350 låter noe flatt i sammenligning. DPA 4099 vinner og går videre til finalen.

Semifinale 2. Finale i klasse stativ-mikrofon
2 dpa 4011
2 sennheiser mkh40
Vurderiing: mkh40 har noe mindre støygulv enn 4011. mkh40 har en fyldigere bass som gjør at stemmen min høres varmere ut. 4011 har kanskje enda større tydelighet i diskanten, men dette fører til at konsonantene kan bli for “smattende”. Spesielt er dette hørbart på k-ene i ordene “dansk klinisk”. Mkh40 låter rundere og mer naturlig. Kanskje er problemet til DPA at mikrofonen er for nøyaktig? MKH40 vinner og går videre til finalen.

Semifinale omkamp: MKH40 mot AT3031. Jeg hadde egentlig tenkt å spare AT3031 for ydmykelsen i å bli knust i en test mot de langt dyrere mikrofonene 4011 og mkkh40. (4011 og mkh40 koster 10-12 tusen, mens 3031 koster kanskje 1500 kr)  Men den klare seieren i den forrige runden fikk meg til å revurdere. Kanskje er ikke prisen så viktig?
3 at3031
3 mkh40

Vurdering: lav støy på begge mikrofoner. Den fyldigere bassresponsen til mkh40 kler stemmen og gjør den varmere sammenlignet med at3031. Utover dette er forskjellene små, men ved nær-lytting opplever jeg en slags skarp “glasur” på toppen av lyden til AT3031 der mkh40 låter mer naturlig. MKH40 vinner og er fortsatt i finalen.

Finale. DPA4099 vs. MKH40
4 4099
4 mkh40

Vurdering: Overlegen seier til MKH40. Det jeg tidligere omtalte som “sheen” i diskanten til 4099 blir nå unaturlig og enerverende. Manglende bassrespons i 4099 gjør stemmen tynn. Forskjellene var enda tydeligere i en annen test hvor jeg hadde enda større avstand til mikrofonen: mkh40 beholdt sin fyldighet mens 4099 låt enda tynnere.

Her er noen konklusjoner fra disse testene:

1. Clip-on mikkene kan ikke erstatte stativ-mikker
2. Det er ikke sikkert at den mest nøyaktige mikrofonen er best til enhver situasjon
3. Sennheiser MKH40 er konge og bør brukes oftere på instrumenter som trenger litt fylde. Hva med å f.eks teste den ut på skarptromme og tammer?
4. Når jeg skriver om lydutstyr bruker jeg akkurat de samme adjektivene som alle andre, men hvordan skal jeg ellers kunne forklare disse små lydforskjellene?

Posted in Uncategorized

To episoder av “Hjem” med låt spilt inn i studio

I fjor sommer var bandet Varige Mén på besøk i studio for å spille inn et par låter, blant annet denne:


Låten er spilt inn og mikset av Audun Rødsten. Ansvarlig for mastring er Brad Blackwood.

På NRK sin populære dramaserie “Hjem” blir låten brukt i både episode 3 og 4. Se episodene her:

Hjem episode 3

Hjem episode 4

Posted in Uncategorized

nytt utstyr kjøpt inn: 8 spors opptaker til geriljaopptak

Tascam hs-p82

Med denne lille boksen kan vi gjøre opptak hvor som helst. Under årets Ultimafestival var det et par konserter hvor musikerne gikk rundt fra rom til rom og spilte, og publikum marsjerte etter dem. Med en slik opptaker over skulderen så kan vi lett dokumentere slike begivenheter. (I år var vi heldige å få låne en Sounddevices-opptaker fra Notam, men neste år så trenger vi ikke å spørre!) Eller hva hvis noen ønsker å spille inn en gitar midt i skogen?

Det er ikke bare størrelsen som teller. Lydkvaliteten i denne boksen er også topp klasse, med transparente og støyfrie preamper/convertere. Den kommer derfor til å bli brukt mye til akustisk musikk som kor og strykekvartetter, særlig når logistikk, plass og tid er en utfordring.

På større produksjoner som krever flere spor vil vi imidlertid fortsatt bruke vår større rack-baserte rigg. Men begge riggene kan synkes sammen slik at vi nå kan gjøre opptak av 56 analoge spor samtidig..

Opptakeren er laget for film og TV-bransjen, og ved hjelp av tidskode kan lyden lett synkes opp mot kameraer. Vi er derfor godt forberedt på å servere lyd til fim og tv-produksjoner.

Opptakeren heter Tascam HS-p82 og du kan lese mer om den her:
Tascam hs-p82

Posted in Uncategorized

Gunslingers ute med konsert-dvd

I sommer gjorde vi opptak av countrybandet Gunslingers sin konsert i Seljord. Nå er DVDen “Live In Seljord” lagt ut for salg, og den kan kjøpes her:
Gunslingers DVD

Posted in Uncategorized

Bjørn Johan Muri ute med ny singel

I sommer spilte vi inn trommer for Bjørn Johan Muri og hans nye singel “Even a fool.” Nå er videoen ute på Youtube!

Her kan du lese mer om selve trommeinnspillingen:
Trommeinnspilling med Bjørn Johan Muri

Posted in Uncategorized