Aristotle is out, it's either Gestalt or Bucky!
Ahhh sounds very nice, indeed. similar to the nakamichi 3 mic blend, in the 550 or the 350 decks...
I have always thought ( in my mind) that 4 mics in stereo are better than 3, but I may try that set up, since I am trying to get stereo why have one mono and 2 syereo. Why not 2 pairs.
or 3 for that matter...
Ideally I'd mix the omnis and a pair of cards in post.
I do like the way MS can acheive a wide or narrow stereo image, So I liken the one center mic and 2 omnis in a similar fashion.
Yes I have a DR-680
It took me a few years to fully realize this and work up the guts to really commit to it, but I think one of the most important things I’ve come to understand about multi-mic stereo recording (and by that I don’t mean close-mic’d, mixer panned recording like a typical studio setup or FOH stage-PA, but rather recording using a stereo array of more than 2 microphones) is that there tends to be less value in doing the multiple mic thing if simply adding additional pairs to known good 2-channel stereo configurations.
The problem is that aside from mixing highly separated pairs, such as stage-lip mics + room mics, which is more like mixing AUD + SBD and often works well if done right, most tapers go about experimenting with more than 2 channels by tying to combine stereo pairs which are placed too close together. In short, problems can arise when two pairs of mics optimized for stereo on their own are placed too close to each other and mixed.
Doing it that way is common because it is safe, practical, seems obvious, and others do it- people know their usual 2 channel stereo configurations (ORTF, DIN, Spaced omnis, or whatever) work well and their hope is to improve things by simply adding another pair and mixing them. Unfortunately that doesn’t work well consistently. For it to be more fruitful, one ideally needs to throw out the safety net of the original two channel setups and re-think things as a 3 (or 4 or more) channel setup from the start. Otherwise, with some exceptions, it may be a better bet to simply run the two stereo pairs placed on the same mic-bar or mic-stand as two separate stereo rigs with the idea of simply comparing them against each other. If it works out that mixing those pairs together is an improvement that’s great, but if it doesn’t there is no letdown from unfulfilled expectations.
Good exceptions are the ones I’ve mentioned previously, namely using a single center mic or a coincident X/Y or M/S pair between omnis spaced at least 3’- which works for both the omni pair alone, the coincident pair alone, or both mixed together even though that would probably be better if the omnis could be placed wider. I think that’s because in those cases you have 4 mics but only 3 different mic locations (the coincident center pair counts as a single location) and end up with three different phase relationships between those three points instead of the far more complex phase relationship situation of four different locations with a total of six different phase relationship combinations.
Having 6+ channels available on the 680 opens up lots of options. Sometimes I’ll run a standard stereo pair in addition to a dedicated 3 or 4 channel setup to compare them, just because it makes it easy to do so and keeps me on track with a good reference. And sometimes those intentionally separate recordings made simultaneously into the same recorder mix together nicely, even though that wasn’t really the idea.
Topic: DIY Spaced Omni Bar - active capsules [BSC2s] (Read 14153 times)