Thanks for listening Interesting. I thought the recording space must have been different as the kit sound had changed quite a bit. If its a question of mike distance perhaps you could do two versions, one with close mike and dead space for people who want to do their own post-production reverb on etc and another 'authentic' version like v2 which has loads of character but is less flexible. I'm pretty sure that it would be hard to recreate the complex reverb of the space with computer reverbs. Two versions like this might be better than one halfway between the two? Anyway looking forward to future developments. Sion
thanks for the feedback. your songs sound great!
i agree with you about the bass drum and the hi-hat. i just put new heads on my bass drum. it has a bit more of that punch you mention.
the kit was recorded in the same space both times, but with very different miking techniques. the room itself is very "live" and reverberant. for version 1 i recorded with a couple sm-57s close-miked, about 6 inches away, from each instrument. this cut out a lot of the room's echo, but lacked a certain realism in the stereo recording i thought.
version 2 was recorded with a paired set of condenser mikes placed overhead (about 8 feet) and behind (about 2 feet) the kit. it captured a nice realism with the stereo but the terrible acoustics of the space became much more apparent.
it has been a great education in drum miking!
if i can find a more "dead" space to record in i think i'll stick with the stereo condenser mikes and try again. i really like the transparency of those mikes, but they sure pick up everything (the good and the bad).
the quest for the perfect drum sounds continues... ;-)
d.