Topic: Which mics for 4CH Stereo Mix

[ricola]

Hi Folks,

I often realized that many tapers use two different stereo pairs on one stereo bar for making a good 4CH mix (with a bigger sound in result).
So, what are your expiriences or suggestions for combine different kind of mics for a 4ch Matrix (for example on the same stereo-bar)??
I first tried to combine my two MBHO 603 / KA200N (ORTF) with two Neumann TLM 102 for a Mix with some very nice results. However a friend of mine told me, it is not the best way to tape with large membran mics (like TLM 102) together with pencil mics in the same way. A large membrane mic ist especially for vocals with less self noise and a bigger warm sound...but the problem is: this kind of mics have a slow impulsive behavior. Thats the reason that tapers prefer small condenser mics for taping Bands and music.
He suggested to try cards with hypercards to get a good mix. I especially tape Jazz and Jazz Fusion Music.
I always tape in the middle and very closed to stage (but not onstage).

My Mics are:
AKG 460/CK61
Octava MK-012 (Joly Mods)
MBHO Haun MBP 603 /KA 200N + KA 300N (wide open Cards) + hypercards
Neumann KM140
Neumann KM184
Shure KSM 141 and KSM137
Superlux S501
Line Audio CM3 (Cards), OM1 (Omni)
AKG 300 / CK91
Rode NT5 (with Joly Mod Capsules)
Beyerdynamic 930
AKG-C451 EB / CK1
Audio Technica AT4051a
dpa 4060, dpa4061
Neumann TLM 102
Oktava with Joly Mod MJE-K47H Capsule Heads
Gefell MV692 / M70 / M94 / M71 / UM70

So what do you think?? Thanks for help!

[2manyrocks]

That's quite a list of mics you have to choose from. 

What I have seen recommended numerous times is to use a mix of cardoid mics to capture the focal points of the music, but to also include omnis to record a fuller range of sound with the ratio of one to the other adjusted by ear to your taste.  In concept, it would be like using zoom lens to see up close and wide angle lens to get the entire picture.  CM3 plus 4061 or OM1; if CM3 pattern too wide, try NT5 or KSM 137 with your OM1 or 4061s. 

Some rooms have horrid reflections.  In those rooms, you might not want to use omnis and might want to be more focused (cards plus hypercards) out of the mics you have. (zoom and superzoom)

In that regard, I remember someone suggesting that the KSM141 tends to be a more dry sounding mic and useful in rooms that have reflection problems. 

Then you have distance from the stage and whether the crowd noise is a factor to consider in which of your mics you use in a particular situation. 

What you might do is search each of the mics you have and compile a list of what others have said are their advantages and disadvantages.  Then try to only use them to their known advantage. 





 

[acidjack]

The four mics from the same spot hing was popular here a few years ago, and honestly I always thought it was more about showing how many mics you have than anything to do with sound. Why muddy the image by doubling it up? You get the "flavor" of two different mics but no difference in what they are picking up; the hyper is redundant to the cardioid.

With that many nice microphones to choose from, if you have an option, try putting some split omnis or wide cards at the corners of the stage, or spot mic a couple of performers if you can.  Four microphones in the same spot will just imho make a muddy mess.

I'd go 140s or TLM102s ORTF FOB/DFC (center close to stage) or onstage and then split out the mbho wide cards or another wide card or omni, personally. That'd make an awesome recording and give it more "perspective" than everything in the same place.

[carlbeck]

The four mics from the same spot hing was popular here a few years ago, and honestly I always thought it was more about showing how many mics you have than anything to do with sound. Why muddy the image by doubling it up? You get the "flavor" of two different mics but no difference in what they are picking up; the hyper is redundant to the cardioid.

With that many nice microphones to choose from, if you have an option, try putting some split omnis or wide cards at the corners of the stage, or spot mic a couple of performers if you can.  Four microphones in the same spot will just imho make a muddy mess.

I'd go 140s or TLM102s ORTF FOB/DFC (center close to stage) or onstage and then split out the mbho wide cards or another wide card or omni, personally. That'd make an awesome recording and give it more "perspective" than everything in the same place.

Agreed, I made plenty of four channel matrices before my last retirement in 2009, mixed on the fly which was even worse. In retrospect most of those recordings would have been better off as two separate sources later mixed in at home with good monitoring if they had to be mixed at all. I'd focus on two separate stereo pairs in either different locations to be mixed if at all later or like I do now, two separate sources using different mics AND configurations which I then choose the more pleasing to my tastes later.

[ricola]

The four mics from the same spot hing was popular here a few years ago, and honestly I always thought it was more about showing how many mics you have than anything to do with sound. Why muddy the image by doubling it up? You get the "flavor" of two different mics but no difference in what they are picking up; the hyper is redundant to the cardioid.

With that many nice microphones to choose from, if you have an option, try putting some split omnis or wide cards at the corners of the stage, or spot mic a couple of performers if you can.  Four microphones in the same spot will just imho make a muddy mess.

I'd go 140s or TLM102s ORTF FOB/DFC (center close to stage) or onstage and then split out the mbho wide cards or another wide card or omni, personally. That'd make an awesome recording and give it more "perspective" than everything in the same place.

Agreed, I made plenty of four channel matrices before my last retirement in 2009, mixed on the fly which was even worse. In retrospect most of those recordings would have been better off as two separate sources later mixed in at home with good monitoring if they had to be mixed at all. I'd focus on two separate stereo pairs in either different locations to be mixed if at all later or like I do now, two separate sources using different mics AND configurations which I then choose the more pleasing to my tastes later.

I understand this and agree with that. I never mix "on fly", I always make two different stereo recordings and mix them at home with audacity.
But my problem is often that I have to stay at a single point with my whole equipment because I arrived the place too late because of traffic or other things. So I haven't the time to "install" my mics in different places (center or corner of the stage). I have to tape from there I get my ticket or seat.  Next week I like to tape a friends Big Band in Berlin, but I know I will arrive the show 5-10min before the show starts, so I need a "quick setup" on my table in front of stage.

The location is a kind of boomy hall...so I think a combination of cards and omni mics would be not the perfect way to tape a 22 people Big Band?? I think the Omnis will add the room effect and the audience behind me...not good. Maybe two hypercards for catch the sax section in front and two normal cards (wide ORTF) for the rest of the Band??

[Ultfris101]

You might consider using a wide ortf config and then put a single very directional mic in the middle. Andif you really want a fourth channel point a card opposite of the center mic pointing straight back and give yourself some room ambiance to mix in.

Outdoors the split omni with center hyper config can work well. I'm planning to experiment with that during festival season this year.

Gutbucket will be here shortly with an essay i expect. He loves this stuff. Look up his "oddball mic techniques" here on the board. I got the idea and inspiration from him to try these things.

[2manyrocks]

Don't think you want omnis in a boomy room, either. 

Speaking of Gutbucket, take a look at this post for how he recorded a small jazz group.  http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=1625.msg2035154#msg2035154

In your situation, it seems like you want to be close enough to record the music without getting so much room and crowd in the mics, but have enough mic coverage to record the entire 22 member group. 

[stevetoney]

So, maybe you'd put multiple mics in a single location to have an option of which sounds better...perhaps you're not sure of the configuration to use or which mic might sound better.  Also, have two rigs flying can provide some redundancy in case something happens to one of your mics.

But in terms of mixing them together in post, as acidjack states, my experience of doing 4 mic matrix recordings in post rarely turned out well for my ears because I'm into definition and if the result is muddier, that's not what I'm after.  The mixture was typically less defined and more muddy than if I'd left the pairs separated.  Sometimes the overall sound might be pleasing to some people because omni's would make the recording sound fuller and sometimes warmer, but definition was sacrificed.  So, in that case, the conclusion of whether it sounded better depends on whether you are a bass freak or a detail freak.

In the end, I stopped bothering because it was just too much of a hassle and I wasn't getting anything back out of it to justify taking the extra gear.

[carlbeck]

Also if you decide to run two separate sources for comparison purposes I'd make sure that they aren't voiced the same. I've found when running my AKG's with my Telefunken's they are kind of similar sounding so I picked up a pair of Berliner's for a totally different sound. It's more fun for me that way & considering you have a full mic locker it shouldn't be too hard to accomplish.

[nulldogmas]

But in terms of mixing them together in post, as acidjack states, my experience of doing 4 mic matrix recordings in post rarely turned out well for my ears because I'm into definition and if the result is muddier, that's not what I'm after.  The mixture was typically less defined and more muddy than if I'd left the pairs separated.  Sometimes the overall sound might be pleasing to some people because omni's would make the recording sound fuller and sometimes warmer, but definition was sacrificed.

I think this is the key: It's a matter of taste. Straight cards are more defined, absolutely, but depending on the room, they can sound thin and harsh to my ears. After much experimenting, my preference these days is usually to record with both cards and omnis from the same location, then mix to taste once I get home; sometimes I'll jettison the omni source entirely once I listen back, other times I'm hugely glad to have the omni source to add in, even it's just a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio.

[acidjack]

I agree with Steve that trying four mics together would at least be useful to see which you'd prefer. In that case, try one set of hypers and one set of ORTF cardiods. I suspect if the room sounds bad, you'll like the hypers more, but it being a big band, maybe not.

[daspyknows]

Based on what I have seen on Dime your best bet would be to purchase a Zoom and mix the 2 channel internals from your shirt pocket with any pair of the listed mics.  You will be able to produce a kickass 4channel mix as long as you dance wildly with the internals.   .  Also, don't do the mix yourself but let one of the jokers on the IORR site to do it for you.  They are the "experts".