Should be interesting comparing your recordings made with these two similar setups using the same microphones- the first with an relatively-wide angled X/Y directional center pair and the second with a near-spaced PAS directional center pair. Are all other variables other than the band and date generally the same? (Venue, recording location, omnis used and their spacing, etc?)
..I wanted to configure the AE5100s in a way that would maximize sound from the stage hitting the mics on axis.
That is a very appropriate fundamental goal for the center pair IMO, and there are several ways of achieving it. Each presents different implications-
Your method of playing around with the Sengpiel visualizer variables to find a near-spaced combination of pattern/angle/spacing that points the microphones directly at the PA, is one of them. This is the essence behind the
Improved PAS technique of which you are aware, which consists of a table indicating the most appropriate spacing between microphones based on the Point-At-Stacks angle between them, such that the resulting SRA angle equals the PAS angle. The table simplifies the process by not requiring online access to the visualizer and not requiring playing with the variables to find the solution each time. The Improved PAS technique and Sengpiel visualizer data upon which it is based assumes we want an SRA which is equal to the orchestra angle / PAS angle. As I mentioned in my previous post above , that's almost always appropriate for a two channel stereo microphone arrangement, yet may or may not be optimal for a stereo main microphone arrangement built upon the combination of of more than two pairs..
Another is to run the center pair as a coincident X/Y arrangement, except using a narrower mic angle than you'd typically want if the X/Y stereo recording was intended to be used on its own. In that case the X/Y angle is equal to the PAS angle and the microphones are pointed directly at each PA. SRA will be much wider and discrete imaging across the center will be tight and more compact. I'd suggest trying this arrangement for your next recording at this same venue, keeping the other variables unchanged. You'll then have all three setups to compare against one another.
Wide-angled X/Y center pair (appropriate microphone angle and SRA for an X/Y pair alone)
with mics not pointed directly at the PA.Near-spaced PAS center pair (appropriate spacing/angle and SRA for a spaced-pair alone)
with the mic pointed directly at the PA.Narrow-angled X/Y center pair (less appropriate microphone angle and SRA for an X/Y pair alone, but likely good with the omnis)
with the mic pointed directly at the PA.At that point you can try something interesting while comparing the three recordings. Besides comparing each as mixed in a straightforward fashion, try inserting a stereo-width adjustment tool in the signal path of the center pair. You can then play with making the center pair contribution wider or narrower (all the way down to a monophonic center) while listening in combination with the wide omnis. Although this kind of stereo-width adjustment is intended for coincident-pair arrangements such as Mid/Side and X/Y, it can also be applied to your near-spaced pair. The range of adjustment before comb filtering problems become audible will be more limited with the near-spaced pair (listen for it by muting the omnis and dialing the width of the near-spaced pair all the way down to mono).
We've discussed in the past how to do this using two back-to-back Mid/Side matricies (L/R>M/S>[ratio adjustment]>L/R) and how its easier to use a single instance of a stereo width adjustment in the DAW software (most typically accessed through the panning control for a stereo channel) or a Mid/Side based stereo-width plugin, both of which do the same thing. I can explain that in more detail again if you like. Here's good free VST plugin with this capability -
https://www.voxengo.com/product/msed/A comparison made along with center width-adjustment will be illustrative in a couple ways- First, you are quite likely to find in an altered-width setting that works better than a straight mix of the two pairs, and this will be a good starting point setting for other recordings made using the same setup. Second, you can better compare the different center mic-pair arrangements against each other after each has been tweaked to achieve its own optimal center width and blend with the omnis. And third, you can mute the omnis to find how non-optimal that setting is for the center pair on its own without the omnis.
My thinking was that this would give me a pretty solid center "image" to compliment the wide split of the omnis, without making the center too smooshed like XY might. My goal was basically keeping a fairly wide soundstage once it's all mixed together.
How smooshed or stretched is best is a large part of what you will be determining with this. In my experience, it's much better to have the center pair contribution smooshed rather than stretched or even optimally-wide (for use on its own), since the omnis will be stretching out the center and usually don't need help in conveying additional width. Consider the simplified setup of a single forward-facing center microphone between the two wide omnis, in which there is no stereo width provided by the center microphone at all. It works, quite often far better than a pair of omnis alone, but can usually be improved by introducing some stereo width to the center. The question is how much center width is most appropriate? The answer IME is always "somewhere in between a single mono center microphone and an X/Y pair optimized for good stereo width on its own. Mono is too narrow, optimized X/Y on its own, too wide. The same applies to near-spaced center configs.
The bummer is not having either the omnis nor center pair fully optimized for use on their own, but that's the price to pay for achieving something superior than could be achieved without both pairs in combination. That said, there is nothing wrong with preferring to optimize each pair on its own, which provides better redundancy should one pair fail, rather than pursuing the most optimized combination which relies on both working.
One thing that's particularly gratifying is that both sources sound good on their own, but mixing them together is definitely an improvement.
That's a good indication of being on the right track. The trade-off I mention above is between how much of an improvement that represents, when weighed against further improvements that push each source towards not being as good on its own without the other.
My current thinking on this is to always have a the directional center microphone or pair pointed directly at the source, to use a coincident center arrangement for that pair to minimize phase interaction problems, and to adjust the stereo width of the center contribution afterwards as appropriate. It may seem contradictory that I'm using a near-spaced 3-microphone arrangement in the center of my 6-channel OMT setup, but the difference is that even though this 3-mic arrangement is near-spaced, it provides a direct source-pointed hard-center channel and is specifically designed to minimize phase interaction problems between the 3 channels.
Is there any interest in me posting a raw sample of each source so people can do their own mixing/EQ? I'm happy to do so if anyone wants.
I'd like to play with samples of these two recordings (or three if you decide to try the suggested PAS X/Y variation as well) to help check my thinking on all this using someone else's recordings other than my own. It makes for a nice opportunity when the there is only one significant variable which changes between recordings (other than the band).