Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?  (Read 25367 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chuck

  • Trade Count: (42)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10811
  • Gender: Male
  • time between the notes...
    • My recordings on the LMA
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #45 on: October 03, 2014, 01:43:51 PM »

The MD421 does have a stupid clip, but I love their sound.


Great sounding dynamic mics!
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Microphones: AKG C 480 B comb-ULS/ CK 61/ CK 63, Sennheiser MKE 2 elements,  Audix M1290-o, Micro capsule active cables w/ Naiant PFA's, Naiant MSH-1O, Naiant AKG Active cables, Church CA-11 (cardioid), (1) Nady SCM-1000 (mod)
Pre-amps: Naiant littlebox, Naiant littlekit v2.0, BM2p+ Edirol UA-5, Church STC-9000
Recorders: Sound Devices MixPre-6, iRiver iHP-120 (Rockboxed & RTC mod)

Recordings on the LMA: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/ChuckM
Recording website & blog: http://www.timebetweenthenotes.com

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15710
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #46 on: October 03, 2014, 02:01:00 PM »
MD421 is good, but the mic & clip always struck me as so old sci-fi phaser gun-like, "oops handle on the ray-gun prop broke again."

I'm moving more in the direction of close mic'ing.

Again, certainly not trying to sway you (really I'm not, although all this may sound like it), but I found this interesting and it sort of relates, probably more for some of what you record than others-

The on-stage small-ensemble jazz surround setup which has worked best for me (when the situation allows it) isn't close mic'd, but I found it effectively works something like an 'array of individual spot mics with some bleed' on a trio compared to a typical on-stage stereo-pair capturing the whole stage.  It allows for a degree of re-balancing as necessary and mixes down to stereo very nicely, with great imaging from the 'engineered bleed'.  You probably remember seeing the photos of the setups I posted a few years back in one of the on-stage recording threads.

Generally its 3 supercardioids (I usually use ADK TLs set to supercard pattern) arranged in sort of a miniature Decca tree-like triangular formation at floor level, centered on the group.  Usually if a drummer is in the middle, the center mic is only a few feet from his kit, just off axis to the kick, angled upward to point at the bottom snare.  Left and right mics set about 45-degrees away facing either side, more or less on-axis with the guitar amp on one side and the bass (or organ/keys) on the other.  Microphone spacing arrived at by the Michael Williams multi-microphone-array-design (MMAD) extension of the Stereo Zoom stuff, as determined by those microphone patterns and angles.  2 surround mics facing out into the room, best set as a further extension of that Williams array to 5 chs, but those are less critical than getting the arrangement of the front 3 main mics for LCR (wide spaced cards facing out into the room or boundary mounted ominis under the stage lip work well too). 

Recording into a DR680 without using an external digital-out preamp to get the extra two channels, I use the remaining 6th analog channel as a single close mic for whatever needs it: bass, 2nd leslie cab, sax, singer, etc.  The three main Left/Center/Right channels aren't totally isolated, and good multi-channel playback imaging depends on the arrangement managed bleed between them, but each ends up sort of effectively spot mic'ing the individual players of a trio.  In a 2-channel stereo mix, even larger level, eq and panning, changes to all channels can made which provides some nice flexibility.  The trade-off from individual close-mic'ing everything is the bleed and more limited channel isolation, the advantage in imaging, depth and feel is also the bleed and more limited channel isolation.  It's sort of half-way between an on-stage pair alone and close-mic'd instruments alone.  For surround playback to 3 or 5 channels, there is still a bit more balancing possible without screwing up the image than is possible with just a stereo-pair and stereo playback, but not as much as mixing this down to 2-channel stereo.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline ScoobieKW

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1664
    • ScoobieSnax Audio Archive
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #47 on: October 03, 2014, 02:24:45 PM »

Again, certainly not trying to sway you (really I'm not, although all this may sound like it), but I found this interesting and it sort of relates, probably more for some of what you record than others-

The on-stage small-ensemble jazz surround setup which has worked best for me (when the situation allows it) isn't close mic'd, but I found it effectively works something like an 'array of individual spot mics with some bleed' on a trio compared to a typical on-stage stereo-pair capturing the whole stage.  It allows for a degree of re-balancing as necessary and mixes down to stereo very nicely, with great imaging from the 'engineered bleed'.  You probably remember seeing the photos of the setups I posted a few years back in one of the on-stage recording threads.

Generally its 3 supercardioids (I usually use ADK TLs set to supercard pattern) arranged in sort of a miniature Decca tree-like triangular formation at floor level, centered on the group.  Usually if a drummer is in the middle, the center mic is only a few feet from his kit, just off axis to the kick, angled upward to point at the bottom snare.  Left and right mics set about 45-degrees away facing either side, more or less on-axis with the guitar amp on one side and the bass (or organ/keys) on the other.  Microphone spacing arrived at by the Michael Williams multi-microphone-array-design (MMAD) extension of the Stereo Zoom stuff, as determined by those microphone patterns and angles.  2 surround mics facing out into the room, best set as a further extension of that Williams array to 5 chs, but those are less critical than getting the arrangement of the front 3 main mics for LCR (wide spaced cards facing out into the room or boundary mounted ominis under the stage lip work well too). 

Recording into a DR680 without using an external digital-out preamp to get the extra two channels, I use the remaining 6th analog channel as a single close mic for whatever needs it: bass, 2nd leslie cab, sax, singer, etc.  The three main Left/Center/Right channels aren't totally isolated, and good multi-channel playback imaging depends on the arrangement managed bleed between them, but each ends up sort of effectively spot mic'ing the individual players of a trio.  In a 2-channel stereo mix, even larger level, eq and panning, changes to all channels can made which provides some nice flexibility.  The trade-off from individual close-mic'ing everything is the bleed and more limited channel isolation, the advantage in imaging, depth and feel is also the bleed and more limited channel isolation.  It's sort of half-way between an on-stage pair alone and close-mic'd instruments alone.  For surround playback to 3 or 5 channels, there is still a bit more balancing possible without screwing up the image than is possible with just a stereo-pair and stereo playback, but not as much as mixing this down to 2-channel stereo.

I've found that if I position a stereo pair above and behind the drummer to capture the full kit sound as he hears it there is often a good amount of bleed from the other instruments. I use this as my base in the mix, then add close mics and stagelip to balance.

Having 16 channels to play with pushes the decision making to post.
Busman BSC1, AT853 (O,C),KAM i2 Chuck Mod (C), Nak 300 (C),
M10, UA-5, US-1800, Presonus Firepod

http://kennedy-williams.net/scoobiesnax/

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15710
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #48 on: October 03, 2014, 03:49:04 PM »
Having 16 channels to play with pushes the decision making to post.

Heh, heh, now that's way more complications in setup and post work than I care to mess with.  Kudos to you and the others around here who do high channel count multi-mic'd, multi-tracked location recording. 

That stuff makes 4 to 6 mics in a surround array seem simple and minimalist in comparison!
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline fotoralf.be

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 173
  • Gender: Male
    • fotoralf.be
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #49 on: October 08, 2014, 06:31:34 AM »
One more aspect that I think hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that, despite all their flexibility in postproduction, those soundfield mics and their derivatives are coincident setups while the more popular schemes are  ORTF, AB or various kinds of baffled setups. Both have their advantages and drawbacks but it appears that people prefer the more open, spacious sound and the greater depth of an ORTF recording to the more precise localisation of e.g. a M/S setup.

Ralf
...who does the occasional soundscape in surround.
Photography and industrial audioscapes from Western Europe. - Sound examples: http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf - Blog (German): http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com

Offline Len Moskowitz (Core Sound)

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 381
    • Core Sound
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #50 on: October 08, 2014, 09:40:06 AM »
One more aspect that I think hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that, despite all their flexibility in postproduction, those soundfield mics and their derivatives are coincident setups while the more popular schemes are  ORTF, AB or various kinds of baffled setups. Both have their advantages and drawbacks but it appears that people prefer the more open, spacious sound and the greater depth of an ORTF recording to the more precise localisation of e.g. a M/S setup.

As I've noted before, you can use two soundfield-type microphones to do the spaced array thing, like ORTF and AB.

Len Moskowitz
Core Sound
www.core-sound.com

Offline 2manyrocks

  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1664
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #51 on: October 08, 2014, 09:55:57 AM »
You first asked the question why tapers aren't recording for surround sound more or less without explaining why they should.  Although Gutbucket has posted his perspective in some detail, here's your opportunity to explain your thoughts on why more tapers should record for surround sound.  Why should we?

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15710
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #52 on: October 08, 2014, 10:05:55 AM »
Hi Ralf,

Actually that's one of the main points I was making in previous posts in the thread.

Len's counter argument to that is that you can simply use two ambisonic microphones, spaced apart as you like.


Here's a couple other thoughts on coincidence and spaciousness-
Although it's true that by their very nature, single ambisonic microphone techniques are always coincident and have no time-difference information, it doesn't necessarily follow that all coincident stereo techniques are incapable of sounding sound open and spacious.  Although that's generally true for coincident techniques using cardioids, it's less so for optimally angled stereo configurations using microphone patterns with reverse-polarity rear lobes.  Blumlein crossed figure-8 recordings can sound quite open and spacious, to my ear somewhat subjectively more like non-coincident techniques at least in that sense of openness and spaciousness if not in other ways.

Here's a TS thread from 2008 discussing it in detail- Why Blumlein sounds more spacious than other coincident or near-so arrays

The other thing that comes to mind is some modern ambisonic decoding software techniques (to 2-ch stereo, binaural, or horizontal multi-channel) which purport to simulate near-spaced or A-B microphone setups.  How they do that without any actual time-difference information in the original recording I have no idea.  Well I have some ideas, but I don't really know.  If interested in that check out Harpex.  I've not demo'ed it to play around with the non-coincident decodes it offers, but I've heard good words from those who have.  There is an free on-line conversion service for processing short B-format snippets (and M/S, Blumlein, and other native array input formats) which a user can upload and choose various decode outputs.  I've been meaning to give that a try with some of my TetraMic recordings.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2014, 10:08:32 AM by Gutbucket »
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline Len Moskowitz (Core Sound)

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 381
    • Core Sound
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #53 on: October 08, 2014, 10:13:09 AM »
You first asked the question why tapers aren't recording for surround sound more or less without explaining why they should.  Although Gutbucket has posted his perspective in some detail, here's your opportunity to explain your thoughts on why more tapers should record for surround sound.  Why should we?

There are two ways I answer that.

The first is: if you can record a single recording that can be used, with only very minimal extra effort, for both very high quality stereo and full surround playback, at no additional cost, why wouldn't you? And if it actually simplifies the recording process and gives you lots more flexibility in your (virtual) mic placement, aren't those also significant incentives?

The second is: if you haven't heard a full surround (including height) recording of a live concert, you're missing a very exciting and unusal listening experience.

Good mono recordings can be great to listen to. Good stereo recordings can be even better. Good surround recordings can be better still.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2014, 10:17:27 AM by Len Moskowitz (Core Sound) »
Len Moskowitz
Core Sound
www.core-sound.com

Offline 2manyrocks

  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1664
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #54 on: October 08, 2014, 11:44:36 AM »
My most portable, smallest, and least expensive open-recording surround setup works quite well, can be assembled on the cheap.  It fits easily in a backpack all pre-wired and ready to record in under a minute-

DR2d (4-ch recorder)
2 x CA-UGLY (4 ch of PIP low-voltage mic power/amplification, substitute PIPsqueeks or whatever)
2 miniature low-voltage omnis (or subcards), 2 miniature low-voltage directional microphones (cardioids or supercardioids)
Stand and custom mounting bars (telescopic TV antennas)

Primary cost driver is the choice of low-voltage microphones.  I currently use DPA miniature omnis and hypercards, but AT miniatures worked very well in my development prototypes. Naiant or Church Audio mics would be obvious alternate choices.  Doable for ~$800+ for everything.

As an experiment, how would you do this with a pair of AT853s and DPA4061s running into a DR680? 

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15710
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #55 on: October 08, 2014, 02:29:14 PM »
My most portable, smallest, and least expensive open-recording surround setup works quite well, can be assembled on the cheap.  It fits easily in a backpack all pre-wired and ready to record in under a minute-

DR2d (4-ch recorder)
2 x CA-UGLY (4 ch of PIP low-voltage mic power/amplification, substitute PIPsqueeks or whatever)
2 miniature low-voltage omnis (or subcards), 2 miniature low-voltage directional microphones (cardioids or supercardioids)
Stand and custom mounting bars (telescopic TV antennas)

Primary cost driver is the choice of low-voltage microphones.  I currently use DPA miniature omnis and hypercards, but AT miniatures worked very well in my development prototypes. Naiant or Church Audio mics would be obvious alternate choices.  Doable for ~$800+ for everything.

As an experiment, how would you do this with a pair of AT853s and DPA4061s running into a DR680? 

Okay, here’s a basic 4-channel 'from the audience' recording arrangement which works well using those microphones, especially outdoors in an amphitheater or festival situation, which can be used for surround playback over a standard 5 channel setup or for mixdown to regular 2-channel stereo-

1) Space the 4061s (or whatever omnis you have) at least 3’, up to 6’ apart total. Use those as the Left and Right channels.
2) Arrange one AT853 cardioid in the middle facing directly forward (subcard or supercard will also work, even omni, but directionals are better).  This is the center channel.  Space it about 10” forward of the omnis if possible.  Note- good clarity and a nice mid and high-frequency response are important qualities in the center channel microphone, strong bass response is not important.  The omnis take care of the bass.  A more directional pattern for the center mic helps exclude audience sound and reverberance from the rear, with a focus on good clarity for the music in front sort of like mixing in a dry SBD, and that's one of the primary goals of the center channel.  A secondary goal is providing accurate imaging across the Left/Center, and Center/Right segments of the array, which is arrived at by an appropriate combination of the 3 mics- their spacing, pattern, and the angles between them.
3) Arrange the other AT853 cardioid so it faces directly to the rear, positioned more or less as a mirror image to the front-center microphone.   A cardioid pattern works best for the rear facing microphone because it needs to maximally exclude sounds arriving from the front to do it's job.  It forms the surround channel and gets routed to all of the surround speakers.


Record those four channels to the DR-680 (or any 4 channel recorder).  I usually route the L/R omni pair to channels 1&2, the center to channel 3, and the single rear facing surround channel to channel 4.  Set record levels normally, but see the note I’ll put in a flowing post about recording levels, which can be a way of working around certain playback adjustment limitations.

The result is a 4 channel LRCB recording (Left, Right, Center, Back) which is similar to and could also be referred to as LRCS (S for surround), but LRCS is a convention specific to Dolby matrix encoding for 2-channel, so I prefer to label it LRCB since this format is intended to remain discrete.   

I’ll explain the playback part in a following post.  Playback has more potential complications than making the recording, which is actually pretty simple.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2014, 04:23:29 PM by Gutbucket »
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15710
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #56 on: October 08, 2014, 02:30:09 PM »
But before I get to playback-

If you have available two additional supercardioid microphones and are recording into a DR-680 where you can record 6 channels, you can improve on that simple 4-channel microphone setup by recording 5 or 6 microphone channels total, without really complicating the mic bar rigging at all.  To do that, add the pair of supercardioids spaced about 15” to either side of center (30” total) facing directly to either side (180 degrees apart, just like the front/back cardioids, but pointing directly at the omnis).  Leave the center and rear microphones the same, and space the omnis a full 5 to 6’ apart.   I attach the supercardioids to the same telescopic TV antenna mounting bar which holds the 4061s, so there are no extra mounting equipment required, just two more mics and cables into channels 5&6 of the DR-680.   

When you add the side facing supercardioids you can eliminate the rear facing cardioid if you like, but it’s still nice to have.  You then have a surround variant of the Optimum Stereo Cardioid microphone setup (OCT), which is a well established front channel surround recording configuration.

Alternately you could record the SBD to 5&6 if you like.   
« Last Edit: October 08, 2014, 03:54:19 PM by Gutbucket »
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15710
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #57 on: October 08, 2014, 05:52:05 PM »
Okay, now for getting that 4 channel recording into a 5 channel surround system-

If you have four or more channel output capability from of your DAW (analog out through a soundcard or interface box probably, maybe LPCM via HDMI), load the files in there.  That will give you the most control over properly balancing the channels with each other, and doing that is absolutely critical for good results.

If not you can play the files back directly off the recorder, but adjustment of individual channel level balance (and EQ if you want to get fancy and really dial things in) is not possible on the DR-680.  You have a few options in that case:

1)   You might run the 4 channel output from the 680 through the channels of an analog mixer to get independent level control (and optionally EQ) over each channel individually, as long as you can get the 4 channel output out of the mixer you are using without summing to 2-channel.  The direct channel outs might work, AUX or Effect sends, 4-ch tape outs, whatever.
2)   You might insert some other sort of analog volume control (like a cheapo in-line passive variable-level headphone attenuator pots) in each channel, or at least in the center and back channels so you have the ability to attenuate them separately from Left/Right.
3)   If you have an Edirol/Roland R44, you can just transfer the files to that and gain control over individual channel output level as well as the option for individual channel playback EQ (which is nice to have, but not nearly as critical as independent control over levels). 

If using either the DR-680 or R44 for playback, make sure the menu is set correctly so that the output from the recorder’s RCA jacks is each channel independent of the others and not a stereo mix appearing across pairs of RCAs.  On either recorder it is very easy to overlook that since all channels will have output from them either way.


Plug that 4ch output (over which you now have some kind of individual level control) into a home-theater amplifier, which will provide amplification and global control over volume and bass/treble tone adjustment.  Usually you will plug into the analog 5.1 or 7.1 RCA inputs used for a DVD player.  Route the 4 output channels to the 5 inputs channels as follows- Left>Left, Right>Right, Center>Center, and Surround to both surround channels via an RCA ‘Y’ splitter.  You can split the surround channel further to send it to more than two surround channels if you have those available.

The other connection possibility is HDMI sending multichannel LPCM from your DAW.  In that case you would ‘mult’ the back channel output within the DAW so it is feeding all the available surround channels in the LPCM stream (virtual ‘Y’ splitters).
« Last Edit: October 08, 2014, 06:27:39 PM by Gutbucket »
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15710
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #58 on: October 08, 2014, 06:26:41 PM »
Finally the fun part.  You now have signals reaching the 5 inputs of the receiver, and have independent level control over balancing them.  You can now actually hear something.

First run through the surround receiver setup and balance the system correctly as necessary.  Basic stuff, forgive me for even mentioning it, but most of them are not set up right, even when people think they are. Check the number of speakers, presence or absence of a subwoofer, double check and set the correct distance/delay settings for all speakers, and run the pink-noise function to get the output level from all speakers as close as possible to each other.

With all that out of the way-

Mute or unplug the center and back inputs and play your recording with just the Left and Right channels.  Adjust the channel level balance of just the spaced Left/Right omni pair alone.  EQ them if you like.  If it’s a recording made outdoors at a fest or amphitheater it probably sounds pretty good, just like a spaced omni recording should.  Without getting into stuff like dynamic compression or stereo width manipulation, that’s pretty much the full extent of the adjustment you have over a straight 2-ch stereo AUD recording. 

Once happy with that, un-mute the center channel and bring it up in level until it blends seamlessly into the Left and Right channels.  It should make the entire stage across the front more solid like at the live event, improve the clarity and mid/treble range over the spaced omnis alone, improve the imaging all across the front, and make the recording sound more present and less reverberant, less distant.  If you want to EQ the center to blend even better, mute the Left/Right and get the center sounding good on its own first, keeping in mind that that the bass in the center channel doesn’t matter and might even be better EQ’d down.  Once you get the center sounding good, take it’s level back down, unmute the L/R channels, then readjust the center level balance as appropriate to blend with the L/R channels.  Play around with the center level.  You'll find there is a range of acceptable levels, within which you gain some nice control over the reverberant balance, the overall tone, the width of the front stage, and the solidity and dominance of the center which isn't available to you in 2-channel stereo.  You can also globally change the overall tone with the bass/treble controls (like you can with stereo) across all three channels together, but unlike stereo, you also have control over frequency equalization of elements within the front stage by tweaking the center differently from the Left and Right sides.  It's all inter-related.  That's why I suggest its best to start by getting each part sounding as good as possible on it's own before combining them.  That makes it's easier to find the magical optimal blend.

If all that EQ talk is too much, forget all that and just get the levels right.  That's the most important part.

Once the three front channels are well balanced things should sound really good.  Clear, big, wide, stable, a lot like it does live.  At that point you can bring up the back channel routed to the surround speakers.  The appropriate level (and EQ) will vary a lot more than the center, depending on the material, the recording environment, the audience and other stuff.  The optimal level will also vary significantly during a recording.  You’ll most likely want more at the start and end and between songs when it’s mostly audience reaction all around, more for quieter or simpler songs, less when things get loud an complex, less if the audience in back is obnoxious, or if the environment is overly reverberant.  You can ride the level of it for your own listening enjoyment, or just leave it at the lowest acceptable level.  A bit to little is better than a bit too much, but you will probably always want some level from that back channel. Even at low levels where you otherwise don’t notice the contribution from the surrounds, a front/back sonic dimension and depth will manifest within in the room, the whole environment will sound more natural and less 2-dimensional, the bass will sound more live and substantial, the music less anchored unnaturally to the front of the room as if listening through the window of a press-box.  You may notice that you can listen with enjoyment facing sideways, and not just straight ahead, and that the image doesn't collapse to the nearest speaker as easily if you get up an move around.  The best level for the back channel is one where you don’t consciously take notice of the sound from the back and sides during the music until it is muted, or until the audience reaction between songs comes in and totally envelops the room.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2014, 06:28:54 PM by Gutbucket »
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15710
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Why Aren't Tapers Recording for Surround Sound?
« Reply #59 on: October 08, 2014, 07:18:19 PM »
If you recorded 6 channels by including the supercardioids to form an OCT + spaced omnis setup (or maybe just record 5 by eliminating the back facing channel), the routing is a bit different.

For 5 channel playback-
The center mic still goes to the Center channel.
The Left and Right supercardioids go to the Left and Right channels.
The Left and Right omnis go to the Surround Left (side) and Surround Right (side) channels.
The optional Back facing cardioid is ignored (saved for later projects).

For 6 or 7 channel playback-
If the receiver has 7.1 channel DVD inputs, the Back cardioid channel is split with a 'Y' like before, and routed to both the Surround Back Left and Back Right channels.

Trick for 6 or 7 channel playback using a 5.1 receiver (this is what I do)-
If the receiver only has 5.1 ch DVD inputs you can still playback full 6 channel surround on most receivers, because the DVD inputs typically bypass the bass management system in the receiver in multichannel DVD input mode.  As far as the receiver is concerned, in that mode the .1 DVD input is just another channel, with an RCA output instead of an internal amplifier following it.   So the Back facing cardioid is run through the .1 channel of the DVD input on the receiver which provides level control for it along with the other 5.  The subwoofer RCA output from the receiver then feeds an external amplifier with it's output level set to match the other 5 channels of the receiver, and that amplifier drives one or more speakers in the very back of the room.  All  channels are then controlled using the one master volume control of the 5.1 receiver, it's master mute (and at least on my Panasonic receiver, 6 ch global bass/treble tone control).
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.079 seconds with 39 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF