Topic: 4 mic mixes from the AUD

[Nick's Picks]

ok..i've been there / done that w/my various gear over the years.  Several times w/the R4.

now...matrixes aside. 
and, getting to mic a band like a pro aside (like setting up mics around a group of musicians..etc)

why in the world do you folks use 4 mic mixes from the audience?
I see this a lot in the Panic tapers crowd.  I've listened to them.
not impressed, at all. 

someone point me to a 4 mic AUD recording that is hands down, superior to any of the HQ 2chan versions of the same show?

[grider]

someone point me to a 4 mic AUD recording that is hands down, superior to any of the HQ 2chan versions of the same show?

STS9 12-31-04, 4 X 483, hung from the balcony, it on archive.org, I'd be surprised if you did not agree it sounds better than a single pair of 483's placed anywhere in the room would sound

[Shawn]

this was easily the oddest 4 mic config I ever did, but for some reason it worked out amazingly well IMO. I'd put it up against ANY source from that show. I was one of about 6-7 other rigs on the same stand. I can also assure you that the individual sources were both inferior in every way to the final mix.

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=502479

[Nick's Picks]

1. was there another pair of 481s near yours?
2. i'm downloading the MMW show, but was there any 481 source or 51 source near your MMW recording for me to compare to ?

coming up w/a good recording from 4 mics does not make the technique superior (to me), but thank you ...none the less.

I've got some MK4 (ORTF) c422 (XY or Blumlein) 4chan stuff I'll see if I can't dig up.

[Shawn]

there was another taper running AKGs on the same stand I believe the were 480s (but may have been 460s). I don't know if he was doing cards or hypers.

I wouldn't argue the technique is some how inherently superior. I do think that in some situations it can yield superior results, and given the opportunity to choose in post whether the results are superior I see reason not to try if you have the ability and don't mind lugging the extra gear.

[Craig T]

having listened to most (if not all) of the recent WSP tour, I'd say CFox's mixes have sounded consistently great.  I can't say they've been the best recordings of any given night, because I rarely d/l more than 2 sources.  There should be a ton of comps from the WSP tour - I've seen photos of all those trees.

I also record a lot with SonicSound since he's in my area and what I've heard has been great - sometimes better than what I do with my 2-ch setup.  I think what the 4 mic mixes can give you is flexibility to shape the overall pickup pattern.  It looks like CFox and SS both tend to use one pair of directional and one pair of omnis or subcards (which are damn close to omnis).  In post, you can adjust how directional you want to go, plus the low end response of the omnis and subcards tend to be better than the directional mics, so you can also use the mix to add weight.  It's similar to running m/s, except you always have the option of trashing one set of mics if a straight 2-ch sounds best (I know SS's done this on a few occations).   Although I'm sure it's of secondary importance, by running 2 stereo pairs, you also have a better chance of getting 2 good channels if you have gear issues.

[KLowe]

Disco Biscuits from Langerado this year.  It's on the archive.  Check the Neumann 4 mic mix source. 
Umphreys 2007-06-30 also

and FWIW.  I've had the best results running M/S as the "center" channels w/ the 43's running NOS on the sides.

Sounds sweet to my ears.  Better???..... well those are opinions.  I just like having the ability to run 4 channels to end up with two completely different sounding sources.

[stirinthesauce]

I no longer fool around with 4 mic mixes for amplified music, as multitracking fills my needs of gear sluttery, but when I do, it is with a directional center pair with omni outriggers.  This is especially true for anytime I'm doing orchestral or chamber concerts.

I don't see why folks do four mic mixes of 4 cards (different mic brands) or shotties and cards, or hypers and cards.  Doesn't make sense and I don't see where any sonic improvement could be had.  However, in a good acoustic enviroment with proper placement, and proper mix down after the fact, the 4 mics of directional main pair and outlying omni outriggers is going to excel.  Problem is, I don't think it gets done correctly, as you really can't feasibly run split omnis FOB.  However, healy method would work in a pinch (which is technically considered and A-B pair since it is at 180* and spaced 17cm).  And if properly mixed (which is another thing I don't think is getting done correctly) can yield superb results.  

[easy jim]

It is not on LMA, and I did not circulate the individual sources, but I think a 4 mic mix I circulated from Los Lobos 2/8/07 fits this category.

I was at the SBD, and ran 414s (mid-side)/SD MP2 + 451s (DIN)/MOTU Ultralite.  The 414s source sounded better on its own than the 451s, but did not have the crispness/clarity in the high end.  The 451s alone, however, lacked the punch, full low end, and warmth of the 414s.  Together, the mix was a lot better than either individual pair.

Where I believe a lot of 4 mic AUD sources are lacking is a poor combination of sources/gear.  If on the same stand, I believe the center pair should be coincident - either M/S or XY - and the flanking pair should have sufficiently different and complimentary sonic characteristics that it is worthwhile to put in the extra effort.  

I have not liked the sound of many 4 mic near-coincident x2 sources (ORTF/DIN/NOS), which seemed 'muddy' or 'soupy' sounding to me and often seemed out of phase.  The jury is still out for me on split omni + near coincident, though I like split omni + coincident.

[Nick's Picks]

"muddy and soupy" is my complaint.
outrigger omnis'...I can see how that works out.

[Shawn]

outrigger omnis'...I can see how that works out.

isn't this the majority of what people are doing with 4 mic mixes? I know it was almost all I ever did.

[easy jim]

"muddy and soupy" is my complaint.

...in a good acoustic enviroment with proper placement, and proper mix down after the fact, the 4 mics of directional main pair and outlying omni outriggers is going to excel....if properly mixed (which is another thing I don't think is getting done correctly) can yield superb results.  

QFT.  I've found a coincident center pair and near-coincident outrigger pair may also yield excellent results.  But, a lot of that is also due to proper mixing, which may often include flipping the phase/polarity on one mic pair and/or adjusting the feeds relative to each other on your DAW's timeline before bouncing a mix.

Aside from phase issues/comb filtering, I think the muddy or soupy effect is often due to slight delay variations between sources, which may become multiple with 4 mics if not configured well/symetrically (for instance one outrigger is 3' from the center pair and 18' from the stage/PA, while the other outrigger is 2.5' from the center pair and 20' from the stage/PA).  Without paying attention to and, if necessary, fine-tuning delay issues, phase, etc., the end result often is lacking.

[muj]

ok..i've been there / done that w/my various gear over the years.  Several times w/the R4.

now...matrixes aside. 
and, getting to mic a band like a pro aside (like setting up mics around a group of musicians..etc)

why in the world do you folks use 4 mic mixes from the audience?
I see this a lot in the Panic tapers crowd.  I've listened to them.
not impressed, at all. 

someone point me to a 4 mic AUD recording that is hands down, superior to any of the HQ 2chan versions of the same show?

when you go 4 channels it takes skills and experience to mix the tracks recorded. There are several problems involved like  if the tracks "colors" don't blend. A properly mixed 4 channel or more recording will sound more balanced than the 2 track, add some compression and the 4 track version will be (just as good ) superior .

as lazy as i am ...i would run just record 4 seperate tracks ala quad recording, and run them through 4 channel playback at home. Now that's synergy.

[Nick's Picks]

now you're talking.


I've often thought of going B format and putting together an ambesonic playback room.  Tetrahydral speaker array...B format decoder..the works.
I hear it is quite surreal from those who have done it.  Jeff Silberman comes to mind.  I believe he either used to, or did have an ambesonic playback system for listening to his soundfiled masters.
I'll post that question to the ambesonic yahoo group.  see what comes of it.

thanks for all your input fellas.
I'll stick w/2 chan.  i'm cheap.

[boyacrobat]

matrixing does not work for you, cool
i love exploring the multiple sonic textures, its fun
not knowing what it sounds like is the start of it.
i rec 3 feeds at shows for exploration in this field.
love it.

g