Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Schoeps "v" user... ->  (Read 10047 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wboswell

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3411
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't call what you're wearing an outfit
    • Trey Woodruff on guitar
Re: Schoeps "v" user... ->
« Reply #30 on: January 23, 2006, 01:23:24 PM »
they dont have to be on top of each other ...one can be across the other and acheive the same result.



Teddy -  if you don't mind, what is your source for this recommendation?
Multiple Sources. Jerry Bruck being the first, and confirmed by a friend at schoeps, and also by Mr. Rich Mays, an engineer /location recording engineer, David Satz is another..... Sometimes There "can" be phasing issues, milliseconds of delay with side by side placement, and isnt like Mr Blumlein intended it, but in the absence of a mounting option to run head to head, it can be done that way(most people may say it isnt ideal, but necessity is the mother of invention). I asked twice, once back when I had u89s and didnt have a vert bar to accomodate the two LD mics, and the other day , when Nick bumped this....directional patterns are three-dimensional .




but if you put fig 8's side by side, one of the capsules is going to be directly infront of one of the lobes, which is going to have some influence on the sound, no?

RebelRebel

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Schoeps "v" user... ->
« Reply #31 on: January 23, 2006, 01:40:11 PM »
you are right William, but youd get some interference in a in a head to head positioning, wouldnt you?

arent the bodies in the way there too?I mean if we think in terms of a 3 dimensional pickup area, wouldnt the head to head option present the same sort of issue???
im just asking ,I dont know the answer....

Mr Satz told me that the best way to do it(if you arent a purist, that is) would be side to side vertically,with the bodies completely out of the way of the direct sound.

I think I will try a comp.


Offline todd e

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • Posts: 3549
  • Gender: Male
  • ***Team Schoeps***
Re: Schoeps "v" user... ->
« Reply #32 on: January 23, 2006, 01:40:38 PM »
that's what i was thinking.

Offline wboswell

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3411
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't call what you're wearing an outfit
    • Trey Woodruff on guitar
Re: Schoeps "v" user... ->
« Reply #33 on: January 23, 2006, 02:21:51 PM »
I suppose head to head does have an interference issue as well, but its with stand, mount, and cabling and on the rear facing lobes at the maximum point of rejection.  I'm thinking a side by side would have more in the way, but probably not by much.  The caps would interfere at different quadrants and sensitivity.  In theory, I'd think you'd want both forward facing lobes to have unobstructed "views" of the sound, but in reality, it may not make much difference at all.

RebelRebel

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Schoeps "v" user... ->
« Reply #34 on: January 23, 2006, 02:36:25 PM »
I think I am going to try a comp next week. I have acess to 4 fig 8s and 2 more bodies, so I think its a good idea to try to see if we can see which sounds better. Interesting stuff for sure. in the meantime, I will see what my friend at schoeps has to say.



uote author=wboswell link=topic=19866.msg765042#msg765042 date=1138044111]
I suppose head to head does have an interference issue as well, but its with stand, mount, and cabling and on the rear facing lobes at the maximum point of rejection.  I'm thinking a side by side would have more in the way, but probably not by much.  The caps would interfere at different quadrants and sensitivity.  In theory, I'd think you'd want both forward facing lobes to have unobstructed "views" of the sound, but in reality, it may not make much difference at all.
[/quote]

Offline BWolf

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5965
  • Gender: Male
  • Always on the prowl...
    • Etree Trading List
Re: Schoeps "v" user... -> (MIDSIDE QUESTION)
« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2006, 09:39:48 AM »
bump for any new info. 

after reading, I would imagine that side by side would be ok as long as the mics as on the same plane and distance from the stage (next to each other, that is, instead of one in front of the other). 
« Last Edit: April 24, 2006, 12:26:33 PM by BWolf »
"The best jazz is funky, and the best funk is jazzy" -SMOOTH
------------------------------------------------------
Neumann AK20/AK40s > LC3 > KM100 > Lunatec V3 (MS mod) > SD 722 or Microtrack 24/96  (Hi-Ho Silver Custom Interconnects)
------------------------------------------------------

Offline BWolf

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5965
  • Gender: Male
  • Always on the prowl...
    • Etree Trading List
Blumlien Info (was: Re: Schoeps "v" user... ->)
« Reply #36 on: December 12, 2006, 10:42:43 PM »
bump....

anyone? 

can i just use an XY mount for blumlien?
"The best jazz is funky, and the best funk is jazzy" -SMOOTH
------------------------------------------------------
Neumann AK20/AK40s > LC3 > KM100 > Lunatec V3 (MS mod) > SD 722 or Microtrack 24/96  (Hi-Ho Silver Custom Interconnects)
------------------------------------------------------

RebelRebel

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Schoeps "v" user... ->
« Reply #37 on: January 01, 2007, 10:23:41 PM »
yes......it should work just fine.

teddy ray

Offline Nick Graham

  • Amorican
  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • Posts: 4068
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps "v" user... ->
« Reply #38 on: January 01, 2007, 10:53:39 PM »
FWIW, I ran blumlein with the mics on top of each other, as well as side by side. Same show, same mic placement, just switched at setbreak. I noticed ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever.
Right now nothing...in the past: Schoeps CMC6, AKG 480, AKG 460, AKG 414, MBHO 603a, Neumann KM100, ADK TL>Schoeps MK4, Schoeps MK2, Schoeps MK41, AKG ck61, AKG ck62, AKG ck63, Neumann AK40, Neumann AK50, MBHO ka200>Lunatec V2, Lunatec V3, Apogee Mini-Me, Oade M148, Oade M248, Sound Devices MP2, Sonosax SXM2>Sony (mod)SBM1, Apogee AD500>D7, D8, D100, M1, R1, R4, R09, iRiver HP120, Microtrack

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3349
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps "v" user... ->
« Reply #39 on: January 19, 2007, 07:52:44 PM »
I felt a stirring in the Force from being referred to earlier in this thread. Hi, people.

Yes, I've made live stereo recordings with two Schoeps CMC 58 (i.e. figure-8) microphones placed side by side, with an angle of somewhat less than 90 degrees between their main axes. I always left an inch or two of space between mikes when using this approach, since a figure-8 pattern can easily be spoiled if obstructions near the capsule prevent the diaphragm's exposure to the sound field from being symmetrical. Sonically, the results were fairly nice, considering the room--mostly I use this approach as a defense against rooms with low, flat ceilings. The nulls of the figure-8s reject sound reflected from the ceiling and floor, which makes the room seem a little less confining. As a bonus, figure-8s don't pick up diffuse room rumble, which cancels out on opposite sides of the diaphragm.

But (a) that's merely a practical adaptation to get listenable results in horrid little rooms where no music recording should ever be done at all, and (b) I believe the question was whether a Blumlein stereo recording can be made that way. The answer to that is no. Blumlein (a/k/a "Stereosonic") is a very specific technique; either your figure-8s are coincident in the horizontal plane with their main axes angled apart at 90 degrees (and the center line between the main axes is aimed at the center of what you're trying to record), or your setup isn't Blumlein.

Just as important: With Blumlein, the total horizontal arc occupied by the sound source(s) must be 90 degrees or less as "seen" by the microphone pair--a narrower pickup angle than with most other two-microphone arrangements. If you don't respect that limitation, you'll get what's technically known as "funny things" in the stereo image. Some of the same sound will be picked up in normal polarity through the front lobe of one microphone and in inverse polarity through the rear lobe of the other one at the same time.

Unfortunately, this means that for recordings of wide sound sources, Blumlein often can't be used effectively. Figure-8s are as sensitive behind as in front, so if you place them far enough away to "fit" a very wide sound source into the available 90 degrees of arc, you may well pick up too much hall sound. In some large concert halls that are relatively dry, this works out well. But in more conventional performance spaces such as typical "multi-purpose" auditoriums, Blumlein is practical only for recording chamber music, solo piano or other sound sources that don't occupy much physical stage width. The quality of the "natural" reverberation in a typical auditorium is quite unappealing musically, unfortunately.

When the technique can be used as intended, the Blumlein purists definitely have their point: This approach has the smoothest possible distribution of apparent sound sources within the stereo image of any possible two-microphone recording method, plus it's mono-compatible. My funny little side-by-side figure-8 approach has neither of those virtues. But as I said, it was just a way to get usable recordings rather than not get usable recordings.

--best regards
« Last Edit: January 19, 2007, 08:31:19 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline PH

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 673
  • Gender: Male
  • can you fix it in the mix?
Re: Schoeps "v" user... ->
« Reply #40 on: January 19, 2007, 08:14:57 PM »
Great thread, it even attracted the infamous David Satz......
 well said David. I'd give you a +T but I can't yet.


Offline muj

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1544
  • Gender: Male
  • Certifiable Nevaton Fluffer
Re: Schoeps "v" user... ->
« Reply #41 on: January 20, 2007, 05:47:55 PM »
looks like mr.schoeps arrived ..nice :D

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.069 seconds with 40 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF