Topic: My DIY bar for an alternate Tony Faulker array

[dlh]

I became interested in this 4 mic array after watching a Faulkner interview: split omnis @ 67cm and ORTF cards in the middle.  He uses wide cardioids in the center.  He didn't mention what configuration the cards were in, so I've started with ORTF.  If anyone knows more specifics about it, I'd like to know.
Careful alignment is necessary to avoid phasing issues.  Then in post, the split omni signal can be combined with the more "up front" sound to tweak the soundstage and prescence.
I used it to record a symphonic band + pipe organ concert at a local refurbed theater.
I liked the results so much I decided to build a dedicated bar out of 1" aluminum bar stock from the local hardware store.  (For the concert I used a Sabra bar that I extended by using a long piece of aluminum hex bar.)  The Sabra bar was OK but the center "swivel" is not designed for the extra length; I was never confident in its strength.

This new bar is attached via a Manfrotto stub adapter and with a little extra hardware also supports my M/S combo.  The thumbscrews were assembled from SS hex head bolts pressed into "Screw-Loc" heads.  Haven't tried it all at once yet but should provide lots of combinations.  I do more taping of acoustic classical and jazz so this was not really built for clubs or festivals

Happy building
Dave

More pictures here:
http://s900.photobucket.com/albums/ac207/montybucket_2009/Faulker%20array%20bar/
(Just pretend the red shrink tube is on the other omni) 

[bryonsos]

Interesting. I didn't know this config had a name. I ran a similar setup the other night with omnis @ 3' and cards PAS in the middle. I came out with one of my better tapes in a difficult room (a smallish to medium sized club):

http://www.archive.org/details/af2012-01-07.bryonsos

My DIY omni bar is about to get a couple new holes to make setup easier! Before I start drilling, is the 67cm important or just a guideline? A quick interwebs search brought up configs with figure 8s, but nada for this one. It's easy enough to drill the extra holes for 67cm and for the cards, but since the results @ 3' were pretty good I'm wondering if I should bother.

[page]

I became interested in this 4 mic array after watching a Faulkner interview: split omnis @ 67cm and ORTF cards in the middle.  He uses wide cardioids in the center.  He didn't mention what configuration the cards were in, so I've started with ORTF.  If anyone knows more specifics about it, I'd like to know.
Careful alignment is necessary to avoid phasing issues.  Then in post, the split omni signal can be combined with the more "up front" sound to tweak the soundstage and prescence.

qft

Do you pop the center forward at all or no?

[dlh]

I became interested in this 4 mic array after watching a Faulkner interview: split omnis @ 67cm and ORTF cards in the middle.  He uses wide cardioids in the center.  He didn't mention what configuration the cards were in, so I've started with ORTF.  If anyone knows more specifics about it, I'd like to know.
Careful alignment is necessary to avoid phasing issues.  Then in post, the split omni signal can be combined with the more "up front" sound to tweak the soundstage and prescence.

qft

Do you pop the center forward at all or no?

No, should I?
Are you referring to the ORTF pair?
I stretched a tape across the front of the array to align it?
Is there more I should know?

Thanks
Dave

[hi and lo]

Adjusting the depth of the center channels can "spread or accentuate"* the resulting mix. It is often preferred to run the center channels slightly forward of the flanking pair. A good product example is the Grace Spacebar Overbridge attachment is designed to make such an adjustment.

*shameless stolen from the SB-CMB product literature

[page]

I became interested in this 4 mic array after watching a Faulkner interview: split omnis @ 67cm and ORTF cards in the middle.  He uses wide cardioids in the center.  He didn't mention what configuration the cards were in, so I've started with ORTF.  If anyone knows more specifics about it, I'd like to know.
Careful alignment is necessary to avoid phasing issues.  Then in post, the split omni signal can be combined with the more "up front" sound to tweak the soundstage and prescence.

qft

Do you pop the center forward at all or no?

No, should I?
Are you referring to the ORTF pair?
I stretched a tape across the front of the array to align it?
Is there more I should know?

Thanks
Dave

What I'm referencing is having the center pair's capsules and each side of the flanking pair's capsules so that the line between the center and flank is at a 90 degree angle to the intended prodominant sound source (in most of our cases, PA stacks). So that you get image smear for surrounding details (which can be good or bad), but the stacks should have less comb filtering on the final mix down. I drew a picture that I'll post this evening that illustrates it.

So is what you're doing wrong? I wouldn't say so, and whether to change largely depends on what you value. If it sounds good to you, I wouldn't sweat it, but it wouldn't hurt to try on an evening when you can play around.

right as I hit post: hi-lo beat me to it.

[dlh]

Adjusting the depth of the center channels can "spread or accentuate"* the resulting mix. It is often preferred to run the center channels slightly forward of the flanking pair. A good product example is the Grace Spacebar Overbridge attachment is designed to make such an adjustment.

*shameless stolen from the SB-CMB product literature

Yes, got it.  Would that also apply to the center ORTF pair if mixed in post with the omnis, both pair panned hard L and R?

[dlh]

[/quote]

What I'm referencing is having the center pair's capsules and each side of the flanking pair's capsules so that the line between the center and flank is at a 90 degree angle to the intended prodominant sound source (in most of our cases, PA stacks). So that you get image smear for surrounding details (which can be good or bad), but the stacks should have less comb filtering on the final mix down. I drew a picture that I'll post this evening that illustrates it.

So is what you're doing wrong? I wouldn't say so, and whether to change largely depends on what you value. If it sounds good to you, I wouldn't sweat it, but it wouldn't hurt to try on an evening when you can play around.

right as I hit post: hi-lo beat me to it.
[/quote]

OK, yes, I can visualize that.
How would it work with a large acoustic ensemble with spread sound sources?
In my most recent, the array was about 6 feet behind the conductor (symphonic band) and 6 feet over his head.
The organ pipes were split L/R outside the stage.

Thanks
Dave

[page]

What I'm referencing is having the center pair's capsules and each side of the flanking pair's capsules so that the line between the center and flank is at a 90 degree angle to the intended prodominant sound source (in most of our cases, PA stacks). So that you get image smear for surrounding details (which can be good or bad), but the stacks should have less comb filtering on the final mix down. I drew a picture that I'll post this evening that illustrates it.

So is what you're doing wrong? I wouldn't say so, and whether to change largely depends on what you value. If it sounds good to you, I wouldn't sweat it, but it wouldn't hurt to try on an evening when you can play around.

right as I hit post: hi-lo beat me to it.

OK, yes, I can visualize that.
How would it work with a large acoustic ensemble with spread sound sources?
In my most recent, the array was about 6 feet behind the conductor (symphonic band) and 6 feet over his head.
The organ pipes were split L/R outside the stage.

Thanks
Dave

If I were going to, I might target a little under an angle of 40 degrees off center axis as your perpendicular target assuming that the outer edge was around 80 degrees off axis. Effectively, I'd split the stereo field/instruments into quarters and use that devision. From a soundstage perspective if it worked, I'd imagine it would create an interesting focus effect for left/right but not in the hard/pan regions and not straight on.

Personally, I'd do a 3mic mix in that sort of environment instead of a 4 since it gives more of an anchor effect having the same center mic in both channels and using the flanking omnis as the differentiation, but I can understand the benefit of having a cardioid pointing toward the area you want "in focus" (for lack of a better term related to soundstage image).

neat project 

[dlh]

[/quote]

If I were going to, I might target a little under an angle of 40 degrees off center axis as your perpendicular target assuming that the outer edge was around 80 degrees off axis. Effectively, I'd split the stereo field/instruments into quarters and use that devision. From a soundstage perspective if it worked, I'd imagine it would create an interesting focus effect for left/right but not in the hard/pan regions and not straight on.

Personally, I'd do a 3mic mix in that sort of environment instead of a 4 since it gives more of an anchor effect having the same center mic in both channels and using the flanking omnis as the differentiation, but I can understand the benefit of having a cardioid pointing toward the area you want "in focus" (for lack of a better term related to soundstage image).

neat project 
[/quote]

Thanks, the 3 mic mix is worth a try.  So many options.

Dave

[newplanet7]

What's with the M/S? Not part of the config? nice tho.

[dlh]

What's with the M/S? Not part of the config? nice tho.

No, not part of the config.  Just thought I'd run it some time for a trial sound.  I guess I could use the card for a center mic.
Just a way to get more mics on a stand.

[Walstib62]

What I'm referencing is having the center pair's capsules and each side of the flanking pair's capsules so that the line between the center and flank is at a 90 degree angle to the intended prodominant sound source (in most of our cases, PA stacks). So that you get image smear for surrounding details (which can be good or bad), but the stacks should have less comb filtering on the final mix down. I drew a picture that I'll post this evening that illustrates it.

So is what you're doing wrong? I wouldn't say so, and whether to change largely depends on what you value. If it sounds good to you, I wouldn't sweat it, but it wouldn't hurt to try on an evening when you can play around.

right as I hit post: hi-lo beat me to it.

OK, yes, I can visualize that.
How would it work with a large acoustic ensemble with spread sound sources?
In my most recent, the array was about 6 feet behind the conductor (symphonic band) and 6 feet over his head.
The organ pipes were split L/R outside the stage.

Thanks
Dave

If I were going to, I might target a little under an angle of 40 degrees off center axis as your perpendicular target assuming that the outer edge was around 80 degrees off axis. Effectively, I'd split the stereo field/instruments into quarters and use that devision. From a soundstage perspective if it worked, I'd imagine it would create an interesting focus effect for left/right but not in the hard/pan regions and not straight on.

Personally, I'd do a 3mic mix in that sort of environment instead of a 4 since it gives more of an anchor effect having the same center mic in both channels and using the flanking omnis as the differentiation, but I can understand the benefit of having a cardioid pointing toward the area you want "in focus" (for lack of a better term related to soundstage image).

neat project 

See also "Decca Tree". Not sure if that was mentioned yet or not(?)

[SmokinJoe]

Interesting.  There is more than one "Faulkner Array" I guess.  I tried this one with parallel figure 8's one night.   I did it from a boomy balcony rail, and the results were disappointing, but I expect the location killed it more than the parallel figure 8's.
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TonyFaulknerPhasedArray01Engl.pdf

Ted runs something similar to what you have frequently (omnis and cards)... it must be an AKG thing.    From a frequency response standpoint, the omnis give fat bottom end, and the cards give detail, but the timing issues drive me crazy when I listen with headphones.

[phil_er_up]

Adjusting the depth of the center channels can "spread or accentuate"* the resulting mix. It is often preferred to run the center channels slightly forward of the flanking pair. A good product example is the Grace Spacebar Overbridge attachment is designed to make such an adjustment.

*shameless stolen from the SB-CMB product literature

I have the grace bar with the Spacebar overbridge.
How far forward do you run the center channels on the bar?