Magnetic fields-esque recordings. How?

[FelixVita]

Not exactly synth related, but couldn't think of anywhere else to post this...

Every time I listen to tracks like Jarre's Magnetic fields#3 I just want to grab a microphone, go outside and start finding interesting sounds to record. There is, however, something beautiful with the simplicity of the sounds he uses. They are so clear, crisp and vivid, and I'm not even sure what method he used to record them. What I do know, however, is that I'd really appreciate it if any one of you guys knew anything about how one goes about recording such sounds. Whether It'd be from nature, daily appliances or transportation.

Appreciate it!

[wiss]

Similar....... [bbvideo] [/bbvideo]

[Syn303]

Not exactly synth related, but couldn't think of anywhere else to post this...

Sampling thread

I'm not even sure what method he used to record them.

The Fairlight CMI was used for the sampled sounds you are talking about on Magnetic Fields. Other sounds and effects came from the EMS VCS3/Synthi-A(ks)

You could join this forum, over there they talk about Jarre until they are blue in the face. http://216.70.103.199/forum/index.php

[tallowwaters]

Any of the new portable recorders from zoom/yamaha/marantz would be fine for field recordings.

[Z]

Old the old-school method:

[Esus]

Old the old-school method:

Ben Burtt with a Nagra getting the Star Wars laser blast sfx by hammering on the guy wires, yes?
A tried-and-true technique, used AFAIK in George Pal's War of the Worlds (1953)--the good one, not the Tom Cruise POS.

[Mooger5]

Not exactly synth related, but couldn't think of anywhere else to post this...

Every time I listen to tracks like Jarre's Magnetic fields#3 I just want to grab a microphone, go outside and start finding interesting sounds to record. There is, however, something beautiful with the simplicity of the sounds he uses. They are so clear, crisp and vivid, and I'm not even sure what method he used to record them. What I do know, however, is that I'd really appreciate it if any one of you guys knew anything about how one goes about recording such sounds. Whether It'd be from nature, daily appliances or transportation.

Appreciate it!

I think that nice track ís another Jarre´s wink at Musique Concrete, blending real-life sounds with the electronics.
Besides making your own outdoor recordings as already advised, you could also search for the old BBC sound FX records and the like.

And you don´t need high end gear or accurate techniques to achieve immediate and interesting results. One cool thing I used to do in the early 90s was to place this cheap Akai mic by the window plugged into a Boss SE-50 FX to capture and process the noises from the neighbourhood, until the cassette tape would reach the end. Birds singing, people walking and talking, distant traffic, rain, thunder, whatever. All of it going through long reverb times makes for some very eery "music". It´s real-time Ambient

[FelixVita]

Similar....... [bbvideo] [/bbvideo]

Wow! Really interesting!
Definitely similar to what I'm aspiring to achieve. Thanks for sharing!

Sampling thread

Yeah, I thought about that, but considering the fact that I'm inquiring about the methods of recording the actual samples themselves, I reasoned that "Sound Production and recording" was a bit more fitting.

The Fairlight CMI was used for the sampled sounds you are talking about on Magnetic Fields. Other sounds and effects came from the EMS VCS3/Synthi-A(ks)

You could join this forum, over there they talk about Jarre until they are blue in the face. http://216.70.103.199/forum/index.php

I suspected a Fairlight being in the picture for some reason
Thanks for confirming
I'm definitely a fan of the early synthesizer era. The EMS synths must've been revolutionary, I wonder how much one would have to pay for something like that nowadays. They are probably stored at some kind of museum of musical history though.

Thanks for the link to the Jarre forum. Always wanted to learn a bit more about his stuff. It will come in handy, for sure

Any of the new portable recorders from zoom/yamaha/marantz would be fine for field recordings.

I see most recorders are around 300 - 600$, where you'd probably have to pay 500$ to get a good one... What is the reason they're so expensive? Aren't they just a tool for storing the sound that's recorded through an external mic?

Old the old-school method:

Ben Burtt with a Nagra getting the Star Wars laser blast sfx by hammering on the guy wires, yes?
A tried-and-true technique, used AFAIK in George Pal's War of the Worlds (1953)--the good one, not the Tom Cruise POS.

Haha - Nice! A genious indeed.
Well, yeah. I can sort of see myself doing something similar. I reckon the "old school" method of field recording is still the way the do it nowadays, except for newer technology, perhaps. Only problem is I don't really see myself investing in a nagra yet. Thanks for sharing, though, I've always wondered how those (type of) sounds were recorded/made.

I think that nice track ís another Jarre´s wink at Musique Concrete, blending real-life sounds with the electronics.
Besides making your own outdoor recordings as already advised, you could also search for the old BBC sound FX records and the like.

And you don´t need high end gear or accurate techniques to achieve immediate and interesting results. One cool thing I used to do in the early 90s was to place this cheap Akai mic by the window plugged into a Boss SE-50 FX to capture and process the noises from the neighbourhood, until the cassette tape would reach the end. Birds singing, people walking and talking, distant traffic, rain, thunder, whatever. All of it going through long reverb times makes for some very eery "music". It´s real-time Ambient

Ah, great! Now I know the term for the music I'm exploring
"Musique Concrete"... Certainly has a nice ring to it.

Where do I find BBC sound FX? What kinds of sounds are those?
(You have successfully piqued my interest)

Now we're talking... So I could use for instance this SM-58/57 mic to do the same thing, right?
And then you said you used the Boss SE-50 to both record and apply effects, which means that you used and effect processor as a substitute for what would in my case be one of those " new portable recorders from zoom/yamaha/marantz " , right?

Hmmm... My problem seems to be acquiring something to just record and store the sounds themselves. Nice tip, though! Thanks for sharing! I like eerie music...

[Esus]

Any of the new portable recorders from zoom/yamaha/marantz would be fine for field recordings.

I see most recorders are around 300 - 600$, where you'd probably have to pay 500$ to get a good one... What is the reason they're so expensive? Aren't they just a tool for storing the sound that's recorded through an external mic?

Zoom recently came out with the H1. $99 American. By comparison, a Nagra IV-S was about $5K-$7K (without mics). If you can't scrape up the hundred bucks, well.....

Where do I find BBC sound FX? What kinds of sounds are those?
(You have successfully piqued my interest)

Try the Sound Ideas libraries. They have the "official" BBC sfx library, as well as the Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, Turner, Hanna-Barbera, and others. I don't think you'll find any Dr. Who or similar on the BBC, IIRC it's pretty generic real-world stuff.

As far as going out with a field recorder being "old school", it's still by far the best means for acquisition. Then take your tracks into the studio and sound-design it to your heart's content.

[Mooger5]

Ah, great! Now I know the term for the music I'm exploring
"Musique Concrete"... Certainly has a nice ring to it.

Yes, look for the works of Pierre Schaeffer and Pierre Henri. Jarre studied at the Group de Recherches Musicales before releasing Oxygen, so Musique Concrète had a great influence on his work.

Where do I find BBC sound FX? What kinds of sounds are those?
(You have successfully piqued my interest)

To add to Esus´reply, look also for sound effects libraries used in the making of jingles and movies.

Now we're talking... So I could use for instance this SM-58/57 mic to do the same thing, right?
And then you said you used the Boss SE-50 to both record and apply effects, which means that you used and effect processor as a substitute for what would in my case be one of those " new portable recorders from zoom/yamaha/marantz " , right?

Hmmm... My problem seems to be acquiring something to just record and store the sounds themselves. Nice tip, though! Thanks for sharing! I like eerie music...

Oh yes, those Shures should be more than adequate. The SE-50 is just an old digital multi-FX processor for guitar and studio, like the Alesis Quadraverb and so many others. I´d record the processed sound straight to cassette tape, since I hadn´t a mixer or a multi-track back then. 10 second reverb times or so would make anything the mic captured to sound almost surreal, and begging for some haunting synth pads on top.

[FelixVita]

Zoom recently came out with the H1. $99 American. By comparison, a Nagra IV-S was about $5K-$7K (without mics). If you can't scrape up the hundred bucks, well.....

Nice, I can probably afford that. But will it be good enough quality-wise? I mean.. I've got this portable voice recorder (olympus vn 6500) which cost about the same as the H1 and I currently use it as a dream diary recorder, but I somehow highly doubt that I'll be able to use that device for anything else than that kind of stuff, even though it has a minijack input for an external mic.

Or am I wrong... does it solely depend on the quality of the mics? I mean, that would actually make more sense to me. Because - Isn't it the mic that does all the work anyway? The Recording unit itself just stores the information, it doesn't really process it in any way. At least not to a certain extent. If we're talking about nagra-quality recordings it's probably a whole 'nother story, but just for making some fun, experimental, lo-fi musique concrete synthcore mess it would have to make do, right?

For instance, what will I get in return for buying a 600$ field recorder versus that 89$ Zoom H1. It can't be all gimmicks.... can it?

Try the Sound Ideas libraries. They have the "official" BBC sfx library, as well as the Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, Turner, Hanna-Barbera, and others. I don't think you'll find any Dr. Who or similar on the BBC, IIRC it's pretty generic real-world stuff.

As far as going out with a field recorder being "old school", it's still by far the best means for acquisition. Then take your tracks into the studio and sound-design it to your heart's content.

Sounds like fun! I found this website called Sound Ideas, that sells CD collections of sound effects from those corporations you mentioned... Definitely gonna check those out.

Some of the fun in making music for me, though, is that everything is made by me... Including the field recordings
I know it almost sounds sort of selfish or arrogant to say that nowadays with all that sampling goin' on everywhere, but yeah... Sampling old tunes can be fun as well sometimes.

To add to Esus´reply, look also for sound effects libraries used in the making of jingles and movies.

Where would I go about finding those? (Not exactly sure what to google, heheh)
Any pointers? Links would be the best!

Oh yes, those Shures should be more than adequate. The SE-50 is just an old digital multi-FX processor for guitar and studio, like the Alesis Quadraverb and so many others. I´d record the processed sound straight to cassette tape, since I hadn´t a mixer or a multi-track back then. 10 second reverb times or so would make anything the mic captured to sound almost surreal, and begging for some haunting synth pads on top.

So you recorded them straight to a cassette tape... Hmmm... I guess It would be a bit hard for me to bring that into a digital sequencer like cubase... Afraid I'm gonna have to go digital on this one, heheh. Nostalgia is nice, though.

Just a question...
Wouldn't it be better for me to record a clean sound and then have the freedom to tweak it any way I want to inside the music software (adding reverb etc.), rather than being stuck with the effect you recorded it with...?
After all, if it's that nostalgic cassette tape-esque sound we're after, I could just run it through a space echo or something to get some really spacey ambi-core, heheh.
Yeah, but you see what I mean right?

[Mooger5]

Where would I go about finding those? (Not exactly sure what to google, heheh)
Any pointers? Links would be the best!

Well, to tell you the truth I came across those sound libraries at the studio where I worked during the early 90s. There was quite a collection of SFX from the BBC and from other sources on CD, so I expect they´re available online. Since most are now in the public domain, I think it´s safe to try p2p.
And the Freesound Project is always a good source. Try http://www.freesound.org/tagsViewSingle ... 6&start=15
Play multiple loops to make your own instant compositions.

So you recorded them straight to a cassette tape... Hmmm... I guess It would be a bit hard for me to bring that into a digital sequencer like cubase... Afraid I'm gonna have to go digital on this one, heheh. Nostalgia is nice, though.
Just a question...
Wouldn't it be better for me to record a clean sound and then have the freedom to tweak it any way I want to inside the music software (adding reverb etc.), rather than being stuck with the effect you recorded it with...?
After all, if it's that nostalgic cassette tape-esque sound we're after, I could just run it through a space echo or something to get some really spacey ambi-core, heheh.
Yeah, but you see what I mean right?

Yeah, sorry if I wasn´t so clear. The mention of cassette tape was just to point out that it´s possible to run good experiments with sound at home, on a tight budget. It was not to deliberately add "dirt". I already had an FX processor, the mic came with the "stereo", and one side of a C-90 pretty much defined the length of the "musical piece" There were none of the facilities of a digital audio workstation for the home enthusiast then.
So hook up the mic to the soundcard and record direct to disk. Then use your DAW to edit/process the sound.

Regarding the fidelity in outdoor recordings I wouldn´t worry too much for a start. A digital dictaphone or something might offer the same bandwidth of the gear that was available in the 60s, if not better anyway. Try with what you already got. Musique Concrète may be more about impressions of real-life sounds than clear pictures.

[tallowwaters]

The Zoom has great recording quality.

[pflosi]

Or am I wrong... does it solely depend on the quality of the mics? I mean, that would actually make more sense to me. Because - Isn't it the mic that does all the work anyway? The Recording unit itself just stores the information, it doesn't really process it in any way.

the recording device has to amplify the signal, not only store it. good vs bad preamps are black and white, regardless of the mic (good mic is always better though, obviously...). not much experience with field recorders here though...

[Esus]

Zoom recently came out with the H1. $99 American. By comparison, a Nagra IV-S was about $5K-$7K (without mics). If you can't scrape up the hundred bucks, well.....

Nice, I can probably afford that. But will it be good enough quality-wise? I mean.. I've got this portable voice recorder (olympus vn 6500) which cost about the same as the H1 and I currently use it as a dream diary recorder, but I somehow highly doubt that I'll be able to use that device for anything else than that kind of stuff, even though it has a minijack input for an external mic.

Or am I wrong... does it solely depend on the quality of the mics? I mean, that would actually make more sense to me. Because - Isn't it the mic that does all the work anyway? The Recording unit itself just stores the information, it doesn't really process it in any way. At least not to a certain extent. If we're talking about nagra-quality recordings it's probably a whole 'nother story, but just for making some fun, experimental, lo-fi musique concrete synthcore mess it would have to make do, right?

For instance, what will I get in return for buying a 600$ field recorder versus that 89$ Zoom H1. It can't be all gimmicks.... can it?

In addition to decent sounding mics, the preamps are a major issue. The H1 can record lo-res mp3 files to 24/96 wav files. It has 2 onboard condenser mics in an x/y stereo pattern that preserves a nice stereo image, and you won't get any phase problems if you combine to mono. My Zoom sounds better than any Nagra I've ever used (unless you listen to the guys who like to push the preamps to get that analog "warmth") and at a fractional fraction of the price. I don't think that it accepts external mics, but at $99, it's an insane deal-nothing gimmicky abut that.

Wouldn't it be better for me to record a clean sound and then have the freedom to tweak it any way I want to inside the music software (adding reverb etc.), rather than being stuck with the effect you recorded it with...?
After all, if it's that nostalgic cassette tape-esque sound we're after, I could just run it through a space echo or something to get some really spacey ambi-core, heheh.
Yeah, but you see what I mean right?

Starting with the highest quality sound will always give you more options in terms of tweakage. I used to have a Marantz portable stereo cassette deck back in the '80s:

http://www.ecrater.com/p/6821340/marant ... d-portable

It was great for field recording when the budget wouldn't allow a Nagra or DAT, and with chrome tape I could get decent sound quality, but it still listed at about $600. The big issue I have with tape anymore is not sound quality, but that it's linear. If you record an hour of cool ambience, it'll take you another hour to digitize it. I have better things to do than to watch reels turn.

I think that if this is something you're going to spend some time and effort in doing, get a Zoom H4n. The more involved you get, the more you'll be wishing you had this or that capability. With a little wheeling and dealing, you might get one for around $250. It's so worth it.