Topic: Loud / Amplified shows: diminishing returns?

[opsopcopolis]

Definitely a possibility of tighter pickup, but I think in general for loud shows with loud talkative crowds that would be my general feeling. 

I'm also often surprised at how good a recording can sound of something that I didn't think sounded very good in the moment.  There's something to be said for capturing a directional sound source (i.e. PA) with direction pickups.  Sometimes the way our ears perceive sound and our HRTF are not quite optimal for the way the sound is presented to us, and the directional mics will pick up a better defined signal

[Gutbucket]

I don't think there is necessarily any direct correlation between using directional microphones for recording a directional PA, except both are used as ways to manage direct/reverberant ratio (music/blather ratio, signal/noise, whatever you want to call it).  They go about doing so from "opposite ends of the problem", even if the basics of directionality and acoustics apply similarly.

But you've hit on something I've been long curious about, a question I've never gotten a good answers for, and a discussion I've raised a few times here without it going anywhere.  What is the most appropriate overall integrated response in comparison to on-axis response for a microphone? Does that change with pickup pattern, by application, and with differences in on-axis verses off-axis signal level?  A polar response that exhibits perfect symmetry across all frequencies and only produces changes in level with changes in angle is one appropriate goal.  It is an easily defined engineering goal, and in general an excellent measure of quality, at least for a small diaphragm directional microphone.  But is that always the most appropriate goal?  It would appear not, given the existence of microphones which at least in some cases have intentionally different on and off-axis frequency responses, the usefulness of various acoustic attachments to vary the polar response of omnis, and the like.

In making surround recordings using microphone arrays which include cardioids and supercardioids with very good symmetrical pattern behavior pointed in the four cardinal directions (front, left, right, back), and adjusting the level and EQ of each to best effect later, it's always interesting to me how and when the most appropriate EQ and level of the stuff in back (or to the sides), differs from the front, from one recording to the next.  In effect, by those EQ and level adjustments made to each cardinal direction independently, I'm changing the global polar response of the array with regards to pickup of sound in the room in a way analogous to changing the polar behaviour a single microphone used for a mono recording in the same position in the same room.

[edit- the Schoeps PolarFlex system has some capability to vary pattern by frequency, and ambisonic microphones have even greater potential to do so.  However I've seen no easily used ambisonic manipulation tools which would allow one to change pattern by frequency, or frequency response by angle of arrival.  I have asked about this on the Sursound mailing list to confirm it can be done]

[2manyrocks]

My nonsophisticated take on this is you're describing a microphone or array that captures what's there, but allows you to selectively  filter out the unwanted. 

[Gutbucket]

Yep.. and your take is also a good description of how and why using more highly directional microphones can be useful for recording in a crappy bar.

But it's more than that too, since I do want the contributions from all directions, only managed appropriately for best result.  It that sense it's not so much selectively filtering out what is unwanted, at least not completely as that's usually not possible, but rather making the best of it- minimizing the worst and making the contribution fo the rest less more desirable or at least less offensive.

[opsopcopolis]

It sounds sort of like you're talking about the effect of EQ on the whole summed signal. I'm I reading that correctly?

I think the degree response absolutely changes on application, not necessarily pickup pattern as much.  If I'm recording an acoustic guitar in isolation I want way more off axis response than if I'm recording the same instrument with the same mic in a live environment. 

[ellaguru]

i love making high quality recordings of shitty p.a. mixes

[bombdiggity]

ways to manage direct/reverberant ratio

^ It's all about that.  Directional microphones always give me as much of the reverberant ratio (and crowd) as I want. 

But you've hit on something I've been long curious about, a question I've never gotten a good answers for, and a discussion I've raised a few times here without it going anywhere.  What is the most appropriate overall integrated response in comparison to on-axis response for a microphone? Does that change with pickup pattern, by application, and with differences in on-axis verses off-axis signal level? 

I think you sort of answered that question (and the directional one) in a different way when you considered that in different settings you want more or less of the directional feel or more or less from different frequencies off-axis. 

My taste is highly directional.  Omnis may give a sense of room when used in isolation (when there is little to no "room" involved and added warmth is desired) but for general use in a crowd at just about any distance omnis open the recorded result up to everything I don't want to hear.   I want to record the music, not the room and certainly not the crowd.  Of course I'm also using two mics and playing things back in two channels. 

Properly placed directional microphones can recreate a very strong and compelling soundstage that is very much how I heard the show (assuming I'm at the mic position). 

Surround is something else with different goals to my mind aiming for a more diffuse result, which probably isn't going to be well represented (if at all) by recording with two mics. 

[Gutbucket]

It sounds sort of like you're talking about the effect of EQ on the whole summed signal. I'm I reading that correctly?

Well, that's what happens when you EQ the resulting stereo recording.   You adjust everything together, all by the same amount.  In a polar sense, the difference in frequency and level differences with direction remain unchanged.

What I'm talking about is EQing the direct on-axis response differently from the collective off-axis response.  In the case of a directional microphone, the difference in on-axis response and the overall integrated response from all directions is 'baked-in" by the manufacturer, often dictated by engineering and manufacturing cost issues..  In the case of my surround recordings, I can tweak the the forward, left, right, and backwards responses differently if necessary.  The analogy breaks down in the sense that a single microphone response is mono, and what I'm doing is multichannel, but the overall effect of recording a sound in a room is the same.  The Schoeps PolarFlex system mentioned previously is a more direct analogy.  It allows one to modify the polar response of a single virtual microphone, and do so by frequency (across three different ranges if I recall correctly), although it does not allow for changing EQ by direction.. at least not directly.

I think the degree response absolutely changes on application, not necessarily pickup pattern as much.  If I'm recording an acoustic guitar in isolation I want way more off axis response than if I'm recording the same instrument with the same mic in a live environment. 

Not sure what you mean by "degree response" there. Sounds like you may be mixing up the reverberant sound of a room, with the off-axis behavior of a microphone.  They are related, but not the same thing.  You can most easily adjust the direct/reverberant pickup ratio (in other words "how much room you hear along with the direct sound from the guitar") by changing the distance of the microphone from the source, or by moving to a room with different reverberant qualities, or both.  You can also adjust the direct/reverberant ratio by changing the polar pattern of the microphone, but to a much less greater extent, and within a far smaller possible range of adjustment.

When you say "If I'm recording an acoustic guitar in isolation I want way more off axis response than if I'm recording the same instrument with the same mic in a live environment." that over simplifies things too much, in several ways.  If you are recording a guitar in isolation, you might be "isolating" it partly by using a tighter polar pattern, and/or by moving it away or blocking it from other sound sources, and/or by placing it in a room by itself.  Either way, that says nothing about the direct/reverberant balance or how "live" or reverberant the sound is from the isolated guitar.  Could be super dry, or super reverberant, but still isolated.  The appropriate microphone polar response and mic'ing distance is going to depend on the sound you're after.

Likewise, recording an ensemble in a live environment, it all depends on multiple things: the sound of the room, the distance of the ensemble from the microphones, the type of music, the presence of a PA or not, the intended use of that particular microphone channel or pair, and what type of sound you are trying to achieve in the recording.  Since all polar patterns can be and are used for recording in "live environments", there is no hard fast rule as to which will alway be most appropriate.

[Gutbucket]

But you've hit on something I've been long curious about, a question I've never gotten a good answers for, and a discussion I've raised a few times here without it going anywhere.  What is the most appropriate overall integrated response in comparison to on-axis response for a microphone? Does that change with pickup pattern, by application, and with differences in on-axis verses off-axis signal level? 

I think you sort of answered that question (and the directional one) in a different way when you considered that in different settings you want more or less of the directional feel or more or less from different frequencies off-axis. 

No, I'm talking above about making things sound good and natural in a timbral sense, completely separate from stereo imaging or envelopment or "directional feel".  Just frequency balance and level varying with direction, and none of the other things which are also co-dependant on those aspects.

My taste is highly directional.  Omnis may give a sense of room when used in isolation (when there is little to no "room" involved and added warmth is desired) but for general use in a crowd at just about any distance omnis open the recorded result up to everything I don't want to hear.   I want to record the music, not the room and certainly not the crowd.  Of course I'm also using two mics and playing things back in two channels.

Do you find that you always prefer a good straight-soundboard recording over a well done matrix?

Properly placed directional microphones can recreate a very strong and compelling soundstage that is very much how I heard the show (assuming I'm at the mic position). 

Surround is something else with different goals to my mind aiming for a more diffuse result, which probably isn't going to be well represented (if at all) by recording with two mics.

Soundstage issues are really an entirely different discussion.  I'll only add two comments- 1) I can create a compelling soundstage with omnis- but it's harder to do, partly because it requires more freedom for mic placement.  2) The basic goal for me with surround recording is identical to stereo recording.  I'm certainly not aiming for a diffuse result, but better imaging than I can usually achieve with just two mics and two playback channels.  In addition there are other more specific things I can achieve through surround recording which are more difficult or impossible to achieve with only two microphones.  But partly it makes producing good two channel stereo easier and more consistent, if more complicated during the recording part of things.

[voltronic]

Thanks for all of the great responses here - I'm certainly learning a lot about the amplified side of things.

[bombdiggity]

Do you find that you always prefer a good straight-soundboard recording over a well done matrix?

Not sure I can answer that.  Generally I prefer an audience to a soundboard.  The exceptions being if there are ambient factors that essentially ruin the audience (obnoxious crowd, horrid mix, distortion in the PA speakers).  Relative to SBD I would probably prefer a well done mix-down from a multi-track, which likely would include some ambient mics in it.  I don't have the equipment to record a true multitrack (and most of what I see there's no board or PA involved to start with) but nearly all the SBD's I've tried to run at larger events (which essentially come down to a PA feed or an on the fly mix) I've tossed as inferior to my audience pair.  Most soundboards I've heard (other than multi-tracks mixed in post) are not to my ear a good representation of the music. 

Soundstage issues are really an entirely different discussion.  I'll only add two comments- 1) I can create a compelling soundstage with omnis- but it's harder to do, partly because it requires more freedom for mic placement.  2) The basic goal for me with surround recording is identical to stereo recording.  I'm certainly not aiming for a diffuse result, but better imaging than I can usually achieve with just two mics and two playback channels.  In addition there are other more specific things I can achieve through surround recording which are more difficult or impossible to achieve with only two microphones.  But partly it makes producing good two channel stereo easier and more consistent, if more complicated during the recording part of things.

Thanks for the clarification.  I'd probably know what you're aiming for if I heard them (on the optimal playback system for them).  Despite your many helpful descriptions I sort of think words won't really do it all justice. 

[opsopcopolis]

It sounds sort of like you're talking about the effect of EQ on the whole summed signal. I'm I reading that correctly?

Well, that's what happens when you EQ the resulting stereo recording.   You adjust everything together, all by the same amount.  In a polar sense, the difference in frequency and level differences with direction remain unchanged.

What I'm talking about is EQing the direct on-axis response differently from the collective off-axis response.  In the case of a directional microphone, the difference in on-axis response and the overall integrated response from all directions is 'baked-in" by the manufacturer, often dictated by engineering and manufacturing cost issues..  In the case of my surround recordings, I can tweak the the forward, left, right, and backwards responses differently if necessary.  The analogy breaks down in the sense that a single microphone response is mono, and what I'm doing is multichannel, but the overall effect of recording a sound in a room is the same.  The Schoeps PolarFlex system mentioned previously is a more direct analogy.  It allows one to modify the polar response of a single virtual microphone, and do so by frequency (across three different ranges if I recall correctly), although it does not allow for changing EQ by direction.. at least not directly.

I think the degree response absolutely changes on application, not necessarily pickup pattern as much.  If I'm recording an acoustic guitar in isolation I want way more off axis response than if I'm recording the same instrument with the same mic in a live environment. 

Not sure what you mean by "degree response" there. Sounds like you may be mixing up the reverberant sound of a room, with the off-axis behavior of a microphone.  They are related, but not the same thing.  You can most easily adjust the direct/reverberant pickup ratio (in other words "how much room you hear along with the direct sound from the guitar") by changing the distance of the microphone from the source, or by moving to a room with different reverberant qualities, or both.  You can also adjust the direct/reverberant ratio by changing the polar pattern of the microphone, but to a much less greater extent, and within a far smaller possible range of adjustment.

When you say "If I'm recording an acoustic guitar in isolation I want way more off axis response than if I'm recording the same instrument with the same mic in a live environment." that over simplifies things too much, in several ways.  If you are recording a guitar in isolation, you might be "isolating" it partly by using a tighter polar pattern, and/or by moving it away or blocking it from other sound sources, and/or by placing it in a room by itself.  Either way, that says nothing about the direct/reverberant balance or how "live" or reverberant the sound is from the isolated guitar.  Could be super dry, or super reverberant, but still isolated.  The appropriate microphone polar response and mic'ing distance is going to depend on the sound you're after.

Likewise, recording an ensemble in a live environment, it all depends on multiple things: the sound of the room, the distance of the ensemble from the microphones, the type of music, the presence of a PA or not, the intended use of that particular microphone channel or pair, and what type of sound you are trying to achieve in the recording.  Since all polar patterns can be and are used for recording in "live environments", there is no hard fast rule as to which will alway be most appropriate.

Yeah, I understand that. The way I wrote that portrayed it in an over simplified way. Obviously the majority of reverberant response is based on the polar pattern. What I meant to say was essentially that the setting/environment of the recording determines how acceptable/desired good off axis response is. In the case of live recording, I personally want a less defined off axis respons. If I want a wider imagine I will use a mic with a wider polar pattern

[Gutbucket]

Boltman said (where'd his post go?)  "The biggest difference is that I could get lost in the music rather than being distracted by the flaws of the recording."

Which basically sums up my recording goals quite concisely.


bomdiggitty- your response to my question about your preference of straight SBD or good matrix, tells me that you do prefer some degree of ambience in a live recording.  In other words, it establishes that your preference is not for a recording with a direct/reverberant ratio of 100:0.  The next question then becomes what is the preferred ratio?  ..and that answer is going to be different depending on a number of things.  What I'm taking about above is partly making that ambient/reverberant stuff sound as good and natural as possible, regardless of it's most appropriate level.  By making that stuff sound as natural as possible the undesirable stuff actually becomes slightly less offensive to my ear, at least in the sense of getting lost in the recording rather than hearing it's flaws.  A natural sounding recording of crap (idiots talking) is at least natural sounding and the recording itself doesn't also distract me.  If it's unnatural and muffled I still hear the idiots talking AND the recording of it sounds like crap, and destroys the illusion for me.  Since I can't totally eliminate the crap I don't want, I can at least make it natural and that actually allows me to tolerate a somewhat higher ratio of it.  I know the pain, I know it all too well, believe that.

[Gutbucket]

Yeah, I understand that. The way I wrote that portrayed it in an over simplified way. Obviously the majority of reverberant response is based on the polar pattern. What I meant to say was essentially that the setting/environment of the recording determines how acceptable/desired good off axis response is. In the case of live recording, I personally want a less defined off axis respons. If I want a wider imagine I will use a mic with a wider polar pattern

Don't mean to pound this too hard into the ground.  But..

What you state as "obvious" ("Obviously the majority of reverberant response is based on the polar pattern") is not the case.  The ratio of direct sound to reverberant sound in a recording is not primarily due to the polar pattern of the microphone used. It is predominantly a factor of the distance of the microphone(s) from the sound source, regardless of polar pattern.  Polar pattern is only a secondary factor.   

"In the case of live recording, I personally want a less defined off axis respons. If I want a wider imagine I will use a mic with a wider polar pattern" 

I'm not sure what you mean by "less defined off axis response".  Less defined would seem to mean not well controlled, or erratic, which I can't see as ever being advantageous.  I can understand wanting different polar responses for different situations, and even non-uniform but well controlled responses, like that of large diaphragm mics or omnis with sphere attachments, or using the PolarFlex to achieve, say, one polar response at low frequencies and another at higher frequencies, things like that.

The final part about using a mic with a wider polar pattern to achieve a wider-image is simply incorrect and makes no sense.  At least if by "image" you are referring to stereo imaging, or the apparent placement of the sound sources on playback.  That's completely determined by the interplay of two or more microphones and how they interact with each other.  The polar response of the microphones used play a critical roll in stereo imaging, but only in combination with other aspects such as angle and spacing between microphones.  One can produce a recording with 'wide imaging' using microphones that have a 'narrow' supercardioid polar response, or a recording with 'narrow imaging' using omnidirectional microphones quite easily.

[opsopcopolis]

Yeah, I understand that. The way I wrote that portrayed it in an over simplified way. Obviously the majority of reverberant response is based on the polar pattern. What I meant to say was essentially that the setting/environment of the recording determines how acceptable/desired good off axis response is. In the case of live recording, I personally want a less defined off axis respons. If I want a wider imagine I will use a mic with a wider polar pattern

Don't mean to pound this too hard into the ground.  But..

What you state as "obvious" ("Obviously the majority of reverberant response is based on the polar pattern") is not the case.  The ratio of direct sound to reverberant sound in a recording is not primarily due to the polar pattern of the microphone used. It is predominantly a factor of the distance of the microphone(s) from the sound source, regardless of polar pattern.  Polar pattern is only a secondary factor.   

"In the case of live recording, I personally want a less defined off axis respons. If I want a wider imagine I will use a mic with a wider polar pattern" 

I'm not sure what you mean by "less defined off axis response".  Less defined would seem to mean not well controlled, or erratic, which I can't see as ever being advantageous.  I can understand wanting different polar responses for different situations, and even non-uniform but well controlled responses, like that of large diaphragm mics or omnis with sphere attachments, or using the PolarFlex to achieve, say, one polar response at low frequencies and another at higher frequencies, things like that.

The final part about using a mic with a wider polar pattern to achieve a wider-image is simply incorrect and makes no sense.  At least if by "image" you are referring to stereo imaging, or the apparent placement of the sound sources on playback.  That's completely determined by the interplay of two or more microphones and how they interact with each other.  The polar response of the microphones used play a critical roll in stereo imaging, but only in combination with other aspects such as angle and spacing between microphones.  One can produce a recording with 'wide imaging' using microphones that have a 'narrow' supercardioid polar response, or a recording with 'narrow imaging' using omnidirectional microphones quite easily.

I'm clearly poorly wording all of this and not giving enough info because you're just saying what I meant to say.  I'm speaking of with an assumed given of a similar stereo micing configuration in a concert/PA recording scenario, we're talking with too many variables and that's where the disagreements are coming from. My use of acoustic guitar as an example set everything off track, so I apologize for that.

First point and last point are stemming from the same misunderstanding. Taping a PA from front of house in an ORTF style or similar config, with mics spaced and angled reasonably and consistently (or the same) in all situations, sub cards or omnis will give you more reverberant response than supercards will. That was my point. Bringing close micing into the discussion sent everything spiraling into a different realm.  It's definitely possible to get a wide imagine with a pair of narrow polar microphones, but wouldn't you start to lose your center at a point?  The point I was trying to get across was that cards or sub cards at a 90 degree angle from each other will have a wider perceived image than super cards at 90 degrees. There's not much of a point in recording a PA with supers or hypers facing 180 degrees away from each other.

As for the "less defined" question, that was again poor wording on my part. What I meant to say was just less off axis response, (per the discussion earlier in the thread) not less controlled or uneven. When I think of response like that the word defined pops into my head because while there may be less overall off axis response, I was thinking of it as less perceived definition in the off axis sounds rather than them just not be picked up at all.

I hope that better conveys what I was thinking and I apologize for coming off like an idiot 
I thought we were discussing live PA recording and took that as an apparently un agreed upon given