Topic: School band recording help

[alienbobz]

One of my friends is a band teacher at one of the local schools. He wants me to record his band next month. They are a 44 piece setup. I am trying to decide what is the best thing for me to do. I already got the okay to be on-stage. My current gear is:

Main:
AKG C 414 XLS
Busman Hybrid (Warm/Transparent) Mod Edirol R-4

Misc:
Behringer C-2s, Marshall MXL 1006BPs

I pretty much think it would be best to run my AKG by themselves as I don't know the result for the other mics. I am thinking either Blumlein or split omnis. Any suggestions would be great. Thanks.

[page]

I'm making the assumption that the traditional layout of quietest instruments in front, loudest in back will be used. (this should be confirmed before the day of, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case) Second assumption with a band that big is that any solos will be taken in place with the rest of the band cognizant of that. If they will step out to a specific area, you may want to mic that area with an extra channel.

If that's the case, then the only other thing that I'd be unsure of is whether they are using straight lines (for a square sectional) or a curl (ala like an orchestra). The curl makes it easier to get away wtih just 2 mics. The straight rows would make me want to put a set of flanks as I'd be worried about losing the edges of the front row or two.

I'd run the AKG pair in a ratio of stand height above head height to rear distance of about 1:4 (so start the stand at just over head height and raise it by a foot for every 4 feet it takes you to reach the farthest point/corner of the band from where the stand is located at). I'd adjust that second number down if the overall "loudness" of the front few rows is vastly different than the back rows. If there isn't as much difference, then I might increase it some. The trick is to get an equal loudness from all of the instruments by using distance as you're moderator.

If you're unfamiliar with recording on stage without monitor/PA reinforcement, then I highly suggest seeing if you can attend a practice session of the full band or at least a soundcheck. You're interested in the overall loudest song/movement that they will perform and scale that back a touch for the actual performance. In terms of expected volume, it's a different beast compared to PA taping.

edit: oh, and run with a visible angle (of the widest parts of the stage to your mic stand) of about 160 degrees at most (140 might be optimum, totally depends on the layout). Your mic angle will be different.
edit2: and I'd run the AKGs in subcard configuration (ideally) and change configs depending on room and layout. ymmv.
edit3: maybe 1:3.5 is a better starting point for the ratio, I'd have to go back and check my notes of past gigs, I'm working off of memory at the moment.

[alienbobz]

Thanks for the help. I will talk to my friend more about the setup. Hopefully he can allow me to see a soundcheck.  I have done on-stage before but it was for smaller bands.

[Gutbucket]

There are numerous ways to go about it and no single correct answer which is partly what makes this kind of thing challenging, fun, and a reflection of your personal approach embodying what you value in a good recording.  We can discuss tradeoffs between possible setups, but to start I can offer suggestions on what I'd do, which would be to keep things relatively simple and probably do a variation on spaced omnis. 

The Behringers and Marshalls are cardioid only, right?

Can you put up more than one stand?

Consider three stands in a line across the front if you can manage it.   That classic setup allows for a lot of leeway for various arrangements of musicians and works well if you have a large ensemble and very little space between the font rows of players and the edge of the stage.  I'd put one of the cardioids in the center, angled down towards a point about 2/3rds of the way back in the middle of the group, and the 414's in omni mode placed ~4'-6' to either side, flanking the center mic.   That's probably all that’s necessary if you want to keep it simple.  Mix it to two-channel stereo by bringing up the Left/Right omnis first, pan the center card to middle and bring it up until you get an even balance across the entire playback image. You can EQ them separately if necessary and so inclined, but don’t worry if the cardioid bottom end response rolls off, the omnis will make up for it and trying to bring up the low end on the center mic may simply confuse things needlessly.

If you have the time and inclination to make use of your ‘extra’ 4th channel, you could use another cardioid as a spot mic for soloists up front (probably unnecessary), for a particularly weak instrument or section that is not well represented (more likely), or as a room ambience / audience reaction mic facing away from the stage and out into the room so as to pick up as little direct stage sound compared to ambient room sound as possible, while still being in relative close proximity to the other mics so there isn’t a delay problem (I like doing that to gain fine control over the direct/ambient balance, and if I have that ‘extra’ channel I almost always find my resulting mix is better with some degree of that added in there, but most people around here will probably think that a waste or somewhat strange).

Absorb the suggestions you get here, take from them whatever sounds reasonable and doable, then do your own thing to put your own mark on it.  Should be a fun one.

[alienbobz]

Both of the Behringers and Marshalls are fixed cards. I have use the Behringers once on my R4 and the result was alright. I haven't used the Marshalls in years.

I am pretty sure my friend would be ok with more than one stand. Luckily the band is playing at the high school performing art auditorium so I imagine the results should be better than a gym.

I am liking the split omnis the best because I have done that before with my MBHOs. Just have to figure out what to use in between.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I am very excited to do this as the result should be interesting.

[Gutbucket]

Page's advice on height is wise.   My way of thinking about it is sort of from the opposite approach, but we converge on similar answers.  I dig depth contrast for these kinds of things, so I'm thinking less in terms of getting the absolute level from all of the musicians equal, and more in terms of the difference in direct/reverberant ratio balance between the front verses back rows.  I like the good sense of depth which comes from a higher direct/reverberant ratio from those up front verses those in back, as long as everything is clear and discernable, yet I don't want the front row overly dry and direct sounding while the back is washed in room verb either.  Most typical musician placement arrangements which place in the back rows the louder, in some cases highly directional instruments like (non-French) horns, natrually helps with getting a decent overal level balance.  The room sound may or may not be good enough to make loud but transient rich stuff in back such as percussion sound good with a lower direct/reverb ratio, and that's one of the things I listen for.  When the room sound is good, that can make for getting a big, deep and rich listening perspective which doesn't sacrifice clarity and presence; if not so good then I'd sacrifice that 'lush sense of 3-d depth' for 'flater and more 2-dimensional yet clear', unswamped by mediocre room verb. 

The spaced three mic technique helps somewhat in getting a good level balance between sections as well, both front/back and left/right, but especially left/right.

[alienbobz]

The only thing I am trying to figure out with what Page said is the angles. For most of my concert taping setup I have run the same patterns and setup. There was a handful of times that I was able to try something else, which would be on stage or something else. I guess what I like about my current setup is that I do have a lot of different things I could try. I just have to figure out the best solution. I have only had my AKGs for a few months so I have a lot of experimenting to do with these.

[Gutbucket]

With on-stage taping in general and this situation in particular, the mics are positioned closer to widely distributed sound sources.  That makes the angle in which all the sound sources fit as seen from the microphone's perspective (the mic position being the apex of that angle) much larger than it would typically be when the mic pair is farther back in the room.  If the mic stand is directly in-line with the front row of musicians on stage, you'd have a 180 degree angle.  As the mics are moved back towards the audience that angle grows narrower.

If you were to use just a two mic stereo pair of directional mics, a super wide angle like that would be hard to accommodate with just that stereo pair alone.  You could help that by adding outboard flanking mics (typically omnis or wide cards) spaced to either side of the central pair.  Similarly by using three spaced mics, that's even less of a problem.

I suggest the three main mic setup for a few reasons:  It's relatively easy to setup without worry about appropriate stereo-pair setup angles; there are less complications with how close the mics are to the front row of musicians as described above (if you have no choice but to put the mics pretty much right on top of the front row because there is no room at the front of the stage, you can compensate by simply going higher); the third center mic makes the left/right A-B omni spacing far less critical than it would be if you were using only two omnis (greatly reduced potential 'hole-in-the-middle' problems); afterwards it gives you a nice degree of control over side/center image balance and center presence; and it's pretty easy to mix without advanced tricks (spots can be tricky to mix in, but getting a good 3-mic center balance is simple).

Congratulations on the new mics.  A great thing about the 414s for experimenting with various setups is the choice of 5 patterns.  Few switchable multi-pattern mics have wide-cardioid and supercardioid patterns.

[alienbobz]

Well with the 3 mics (I am guessing keep the AKGS on the ends and Marshall/Behringer in center), how would one mix this in post properly?

[capnhook]

Well with the 3 mics (I am guessing keep the AKGS on the ends and Marshall/Behringer in center), how would one mix this in post properly?

By ear.


 

[alienbobz]

Well with the 3 mics (I am guessing keep the AKGS on the ends and Marshall/Behringer in center), how would one mix this in post properly?

By ear.


 

Haha . But to be honest, I am used to mixing two or four in post. Three is a new one for me.

[Gutbucket]

By ear is exactly the right answer!

Mix it to two-channel stereo by bringing up the Left/Right omnis first, pan the center card to middle and bring it up until you get an even balance across the entire playback image. You can EQ them separately if necessary and so inclined, but don’t worry if the cardioid bottom end response rolls off, the omnis will make up for it and trying to bring up the low end on the center mic may simply confuse things needlessly.

In more detail-

Balance the left/right omni levels (if necessary) alone, then bring up the center mic panned to the center.  If your software doesn't use a mixer paradigm with pan controls, you may need to duplicate the center channel so that you have four channels total, then route one of those center channels to the left stereo bus and the other to the right stereo bus, adjusting their levels identically so the center mic stays panned center in the resulting stereo image. 

At that point, adjust the center-to-left/right balance by ear.  Play around with it and listen for a while at different balance settings.  I find that sometimes 'just enough center', 'about the same level of center as left/right', and 'more center than left/right' can all be viable choices, and it sometimes takes returning to each and listening for a while to decide which is optimal.  I do find that for each of those quite different gross-level difference center channel choices, I usually pretty quickly home in on the best fine-level adjustment.  A few dB makes the difference in things 'snapping into place'. [edit- It's partly this ability to tweak the center/sides balance after the recording is made which makes the spaced 3-mic setup more flexible and less dependant on getting mic spacings and angles just right at the recording gig]

If you want to go farther, you have the ability to EQ the center differently than the sides, the ability to make subtle adjustments there can be really useful, and larger ones may be more important in this case as you will be using a different mic in the center with somewhat different frequency response than the omnis.  Low cutting or rolling off the low bass in the center mic sometimes helps and is worth playing with.

If you ran the extra audience/room facing mic, pan that center as well, EQ as necessary and bring it up to taste.  Just enough to get a sense of nice depth, additional width and richness.  If you want to get fancy, you can volume envelope it or automate it’s level, changing it’s level between songs for crowd reaction, or perhaps during more sparse/quiet verses more sonically-dense/louder numbers.

Page is the man to ask about good techniques for mixing in spot mics.  That’s trickier and more complicated IMO.

[alienbobz]

I am trying out Audacity though I do have Adobe Audition 2.0 so I should be able to do the panning. Not sure which program is better.

I guess another question, what do you guys means by flanking the mics? I am guessing for the left mic I would go slightly to the right and vice versa for the other mic. Would the center just be straight on?

[RemotelyLocated]

... They are a 44 piece setup.  ...

Ask the band director how many rows and/or about the grouping. The players might not be splayed as widely across the stage as you think and that will impact mic placement, if not how many mics you use.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me if they used all of the space that's practical, so if you need to visit the auditorium ahead of time you can do a rough measurement of the width.

I've done a couple at the local high school's auditorium and the HVAC is so noisy much of the mic placement considerations are a waste of time. Be ready to accept weird conditions and EQ the snot out of it later if necessary. I know you want to do your best but he's gonna be thrilled with whatever you deliver.

[Gutbucket]

"Flanking" mics usually refer to a secondary omni pair A-B spaced at least 3' and up to many feet to either side of a center pair.  In the case of a 3-mic setup, all three mics are members of the primary array, so the term 'flanking mics' in the classical recording definition sense doesn't apply as directly, although in the general sense, the outside mics are positioned to be flanking the center mic.

As far as microphone orientation angles, point the center mic straight ahead and downward somewhat, somewhere towards the center of the mass of musicians. Direction of the omnis is less critical. But best to point them more or less towards the center of mass of the musicians on each side.

[page]

The only thing I am trying to figure out with what Page said is the angles. For most of my concert taping setup I have run the same patterns and setup.

Look at the Williams SRA curves and play around with that. You'd be surprised just how little spacing/angle is needed to achieve "stereo" when you're non-duplicated sound L/R is at an orchestral angle of around 150 degrees. Lee's taken care of the long form explanation on that as well as the little things you can do when mixing sources that are neither spots, nor contain the same information (e.g. mics along the front row but focused on different sections). As he notes, spot mic mixing is a different ball of wax but in this environment, it sounds like you'd only have to worry about your solo mic being an issue. The only thing I can add before the show on that topic is to keep in mind two things; what do you want to record (the stuff that is right next to the mic) and what do you not want to record (everything else). Now aim the mic in such a way that it's natural rear rejection works toward your advantage (sort of like a virtual audio gobo).

oh, and Lee's right, the two of us approach a problem in vastly different manners but try and shoot for the same goal. I prefer a semi-coincident base/main with flankers for the edges. He is more open to the flankers/spaced pair being the main sound with a center channel to help glue stuff together. Both will definitely accomplish the job, but they would sound different and it's a mixing preference at that point. There isn't a wrong technique per se in this, just some factors in setup requirements that would cause us to favor one over the other. Those are some of the things we've tried to point out (how they will be setup, what the room is like, any soloists who will come to the front of the stage, etc).

... They are a 44 piece setup.  ...

That said, it wouldn't surprise me if they used all of the space that's practical, so if you need to visit the auditorium ahead of time you can do a rough measurement of the width.

I've done a couple at the local high school's auditorium and the HVAC is so noisy much of the mic placement considerations are a waste of time. Be ready to accept weird conditions and EQ the snot out of it later if necessary. I know you want to do your best but he's gonna be thrilled with whatever you deliver.

Both are valid points. The first one is why I highly suggested seeing if you can see a soundcheck or practice session. At the very least go by and walk through the space with the director and take lots of notes.

The second I've been burned by before as well, and yes, he will likely be thrilled with whatever you send out as long as it's not a total loss. I've done big band engagements and people were tickled pink with a result that I thought was lack luster, and I suspect this sort of gig would be the same way. It's not an excuse to slack off or plan poorly, but don't panic over the mixing element. If nothing else, a sample track can allow us to offer advice later.

[alienbobz]

Just got an update on from my friend about the setup. It is a curl. As for checking the band before they play, the only option I have is to go to the school the day before and just listen. I don't think they will have much of a soundcheck if at all on the actual stage they are performing on. I am thinking of trying the AKGs with the split sub-cards and then the Marshall in the center. In the end it should be better than nothing. Basically all he ever gets to hear is crappy cell phone recordings from the parents so he rather here something better. Thanks everyone for the help and I look forward to the result.

[Tom McCreadie]

As for checking the band before they play, the only option I have is to go to the school the day before and just listen. I don't think they will have much of a soundcheck if at all on the actual stage they are performing on.

No opportunity to hoist a 2-mic AKG array on a stand at this rehearsal, as a quick 'n dirty reconnoitring test?  If not, at least walk around and try to settle on the ideal, future stand position for a pleasing direct/indirect balance (listen in "mono" with one ear finger-plugged) - and note, for your mic planning, the angle that the band edges then subtend to this position.

Keep it simple.  Why not confine it to a 2-mic stereo with the 414's , e.g. subcardioid at 25 cm. spacing, 115-120 deg. angling; omni / Jecklin Disk; or omni AB at 45-50 cm?  Any possible balance shortcomings in such arrays are imho more than compensated by the refreshing sense of integrity and seamlessness... that pea soup multimiking usually lacks.  :-)

Besides, there's the logistics: with the extra chores attending multimiking - gaffa taping more cables to floors etc. etc. - it's so easy to take your eyes off the ball and squander the scarce time that could have been better served by proper listening and tweaking.

[alienbobz]

I would have to check with my friend about taping the band during the rehearsal. Granted the room sound will be different (classroom vs auditorium), so I don't know how much I will gain from that.

[page]

I would have to check with my friend about taping the band during the rehearsal. Granted the room sound will be different (classroom vs auditorium), so I don't know how much I will gain from that.

totally worth it if you can swing it. If nothing else it's practice in understanding the pros/cons of each setup.

[alienbobz]

Good point. I will talk to him about it.

[bombdiggity]

I am trying out Audacity though I do have Adobe Audition 2.0 so I should be able to do the panning. Not sure which program is better.

Audition!  If you have that you don't need Audacity, which IMO is weaker in terms of it's processing algorithms (and results). 

You can mix any number of channels fairly easily in Audition by putting them into a multitrack session.  You get the faders, panning, individual channel eq's, mixing, etc. with controls similar to the layout of a mixing board.  You can adjust each channel and build your mix, then once the two-channel mixdown is done can also apply final adjustments to that.  Audition also lets you preview any stage real time.  I doubt Audacity has any of that (though could be wrong). 

[alienbobz]

I am trying out Audacity though I do have Adobe Audition 2.0 so I should be able to do the panning. Not sure which program is better.

Audition!  If you have that you don't need Audacity, which IMO is weaker in terms of it's processing algorithms (and results). 

You can mix any number of channels fairly easily in Audition by putting them into a multitrack session.  You get the faders, panning, individual channel eq's, mixing, etc. with controls similar to the layout of a mixing board.  You can adjust each channel and build your mix, then once the two-channel mixdown is done can also apply final adjustments to that.  Audition also lets you preview any stage real time.  I doubt Audacity has any of that (though could be wrong).

I will try out Audition then. Audition was my main program, I just felt like trying Audacity for my last recording. Granted all I did in that one was raise the levels.

[page]

Tom has some solid points as well, especially that there is a trade off; you can do a 2ch that has fantastic imaging, or gain flexibility and other benefits with the splits. I personally wouldn't use quite that large of an angle in a simple pair (even as subcards), but it's a taste preference.

Actually, this thread overall has been rather good.

[alienbobz]

Yeah this thread has been a learning experience. I am mostly trying the split sub cards as I never have had that option available to me. Just wish I had something better for the third mic. Should be a fun experiment either way.

[page]

Yeah this thread has been a learning experience. I am mostly trying the split sub cards as I never have had that option available to me. Just wish I had something better for the third mic. Should be a fun experiment either way.

Just keep in mind where people (and in turn, their instruments) are pointed when you setup, since they are evidently using a curl formation, you may end up with a tighter split than originally imagined.

[alienbobz]

Yeah this thread has been a learning experience. I am mostly trying the split sub cards as I never have had that option available to me. Just wish I had something better for the third mic. Should be a fun experiment either way.

Just keep in mind where people (and in turn, their instruments) are pointed when you setup, since they are evidently using a curl formation, you may end up with a tighter split than originally imagined.

Good point, I will keep that in mind.

[Gutbucket]

I wouldn't worry too much about the lower quality of the center cardioid.  Another benefit of the 3-main mic technique IMO is that it somewhat reduces the requirement for equivalent top quality mics all around to get the equivalent quality you would from only using two.  The AKGs will 'cover' somewhat for what might otherwise be a more noticeable quality difference in the center cardioid if the cardioid pair were used alone, disregarding the other more obvious differences due to the different configurations.

Related aside on that topic-
For that very reason I've decided to use some new-to-me miniature DPA supercardioids in a mobile 4-channel setup I'll be rigging up this weekend for an outdoor festival next week.  Although the application is different, the setup is actually quite similar to what I outlined here- 2meter A-B spaced omnis with center forward and rear facing directional mics.  I've run that same setup using quality full-body Microtech Gefell cards and supercards as the center front/rear facing mics and well as several different AT miniature cardioids in the past.  The difference between the miniature ATs and the Gefells is blatantly obvious when listening to those channels alone.  It is not anywhere near as significant once combined with the omnis.  I can hear the difference, but determined that the practical tradeoff for a very compact rig with light-weight portability and better weather-resilience that needn't rely on larger phantom powered mics and supporting equipment makes that trade-off more than worthwhile, especially since that will allow me to more easily get the rig to optimal locations I might not otherwise be able to accomplish with larger/heavier gear..  And mic location is the most important variable to my way of thinking.  In a few tests I prefer the sound of the miniature DPAs for this application to both models of the ATs I used for this previously, so I expect there will be even less trade-off in quality verses practicality.

[alienbobz]

Well I am leaning more towards the Marshall over the Behringer for this recording. Granted I haven't used my Marshalls in years and I have no clue how they are gonna sound. I am thinking of trying one or two of them before this show at a concert just to hear the result. On the note of getting something for a regular 4 mic setup, I still have to figure that out. Not sure what route to go this type but it will be awhile before I can afford to run 4 mics on a regular basis.

[Gutbucket]

Using the sub-cardioid mode on the AKGs will increase their direct sound to reverberant sound pickup compared to running them as omnis.  That might be a good thing if the room sound is less than ideal or if their location is slightly farther away than would be ideal for omnis.   

It will make that optional 4th channel room facing cardioid potentially more valuable at mix-down for optimizing the overall reverberant balance since the 3-mic main array will be drier.  But don’t worry too much about setting up that extra 4th mic if it’s a hassle or distraction for you at the recording gig.  Set it up last if you have the time and everything else is setup to your satisfaction. Then if you have the time you might as well do so, if only to play around with in mixing later on for your own enlightenment even if not using it at all on the recording for the band teacher.  It could be placed atop the center stand with the forward facing center mic, pointing the opposite direction up and back into the room directly away from the band, clamped lower on the same stand facing directly at the audience (even down at stage level), clamped under the stage-lip, or simply placed on stage facing out into the audience.  The key is to face it away from the band to minimize its direct sound pickup and maximize it’s reverberant room sound pickup.  One of the Behringers should work fine for that.

[Gutbucket]

For optimal imaging purposes (as opposed to trying to exclude a source of direct noise) if using the AKGs in sub-card mode in combination with a center cardioid, you will want to point them wider than you probably think you should, certainly much wider than you would want to if using them as a stereo pair of subcards alone without the center mic.  If you decide to use a somewhat narrower spacing on the AKGs because the band is arrayed in an arc, which I don’t really think maters that much if thinking in terms of the overall array using less directional mics like omnis or sub-cards, I’d point them directly left and right regardless of their relationship to the musicians on stage (again that’s with optimal imaging in mind rather than room noise avoidance). 

This starts getting into setup-theory stuff, so feel free to ignore this if it’s not interesting to you, but here’s why-

That 180 degree opposing mic angle with the sub-cards will be a much wider angle than what the Stereo Zoom 2-channel charts suggests but consistent with the William’s charts for 3-mic front segment arrays, as well as other 3-mic setups such as the Optimum Cardioid Triangle (OCT) setups.  If you want to explore the Williams 3 channel setups in detail you can click through various configurations and save or print specific setups with angles and dimensions from his website, but you needn’t get to worried about being that specific for this I think.  He doesn’t have three mic arrays listed specifically, but they are the same as his five mic arrays if you ignore the two in back.  Those charts all assume three identical polar patern mics, but again, the basic concept still holds if you simply browse the 5-channel sub-cardioid setups and ignore the rear facing pair.  As the spacing gets narrower, sometimes the left and right mics need to be angled so much as to be facing somewhat backwards!

The Image Assistant (description here; Java applet here) lets you explore the imaging aspects of 3-mic arrays in detail, even using different polar for each mic.  The data in the resulting graphs can be difficult to interpret without a good understanding of what’s going on, but it’s a great resource if you care to go deep in exploring the theory stuff.

If pointing the sub-cards 180 degrees apart directly to either side sounds radical, consider that OCT (which is a three mic setup using a center cardioid) specifies spaced supercardioids pointing directly to the sides!

OK, now forget all that and keep it simple!

[NorseHorse]

Glad to hear you are trying to record a wind ensemble.  Great scene with cool music and fun people.  You'll be able to get great results with your 414s and the R4.  Do not use three mics (LCR) across the front of an ensemble.  This is a wind band fetish rife with phase problems and poor imaging.  Get two omnis or cardioids (or something in between) and get them in a good position.  Here's some video inspiration...

HIGH SCHOOL BAND - Robert Sheldon's Sound Innovation Fanfare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qglzr6-OeNc

COLLEGIATE BAND - Frank Ticheli's Apollo Unleashed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzREvXfrkM0

Put on headphones and listen for clarity, blend, imaging, and of course, balance.  Good luck!

[bombdiggity]

Glad to hear you are trying to record a wind ensemble.  Great scene with cool music and fun people.  You'll be able to get great results with your 414s and the R4.  Do not use three mics (LCR) across the front of an ensemble.  This is a wind band fetish rife with phase problems and poor imaging.  Get two omnis or cardioids (or something in between) and get them in a good position.  Here's some video inspiration...

HIGH SCHOOL BAND - Robert Sheldon's Sound Innovation Fanfare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qglzr6-OeNc

COLLEGIATE BAND - Frank Ticheli's Apollo Unleashed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzREvXfrkM0

Put on headphones and listen for clarity, blend, imaging, and of course, balance.  Good luck!

So that first one was done with just what looks like the center pair flown high? 

The second appears to have quite a few more mics involved...  or did you ultimately only use the two in the center (it seems like more based on the depth)? 

Even via YT on the crappy computer speakers I have at hand at the moment these sound very full and nice.

[alienbobz]

Glad to hear you are trying to record a wind ensemble.  Great scene with cool music and fun people.  You'll be able to get great results with your 414s and the R4.  Do not use three mics (LCR) across the front of an ensemble.  This is a wind band fetish rife with phase problems and poor imaging.  Get two omnis or cardioids (or something in between) and get them in a good position.  Here's some video inspiration...

HIGH SCHOOL BAND - Robert Sheldon's Sound Innovation Fanfare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qglzr6-OeNc

COLLEGIATE BAND - Frank Ticheli's Apollo Unleashed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzREvXfrkM0

Put on headphones and listen for clarity, blend, imaging, and of course, balance.  Good luck!

After looking at both of those videos, it looks like the sound is coming more from the room/stage. I don't know how big the high school auditorium and I doubt I can have access before. Plus the setup that is in the video is completely different from what I thought everyone was explaining.

[Gutbucket]

Do not use three mics (LCR) across the front of an ensemble.  This is a wind band fetish rife with phase problems and poor imaging.

Works for me [shrug].  Have you tried it yourself and had problems?  Any possibility of posting samples of those problematic recordings.  It would be very helpful to hear them.

[bombdiggity]

Glad to hear you are trying to record a wind ensemble.  Great scene with cool music and fun people.  You'll be able to get great results with your 414s and the R4.  Do not use three mics (LCR) across the front of an ensemble.  This is a wind band fetish rife with phase problems and poor imaging.  Get two omnis or cardioids (or something in between) and get them in a good position.  Here's some video inspiration...

HIGH SCHOOL BAND - Robert Sheldon's Sound Innovation Fanfare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qglzr6-OeNc

COLLEGIATE BAND - Frank Ticheli's Apollo Unleashed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzREvXfrkM0

Put on headphones and listen for clarity, blend, imaging, and of course, balance.  Good luck!

After looking at both of those videos, it looks like the sound is coming more from the room/stage. I don't know how big the high school auditorium and I doubt I can have access before. Plus the setup that is in the video is completely different from what I thought everyone was explaining.

I think you sort of have examples of both setups in the videos... 

The pair of mics on a really high stand in the center (a la the first video) is a traditional tried and true approach.  Some commenters here have used something like that if I'm not mistaken (and that was an early suggestion here).  The second video appears to show that sort of center stand plus mics on the flanks at stage front.  That may be moving closer to the three mic approach discussed here but seems it is more a center stereo pair with fills (depending in what was actually used in the mix).  I suspect Norsehorse was advocating above for starting with a stereo pair rather than with three discrete channels. 

Regarding the room/stage thing that is part of what makes recording an art (open to interpretation and varying opinions).  I view the room and stage as opposite poles (though they seem paired as if synonyms in your observation). 

Direct sound comes from the stage (or the players on it to be specific).  Reverberant sound is what is in the room after that direct sound bounces around.  Some like a roomier sound.  Some like a direct sound.  In practice we always wind up with a blend (especially with a huge ensemble since none of us can spot mic every individual piece of something like that - and even spot mics will have bleed from the other instruments and from the room).  A stereo pair focused on optimizing the direct sound may be more forgiving and better suited to a room that is not very acoustically sound than an approach that uses less focused mics to pick up more of an omni room sound. 

Having the components to make the most appealing blend is the key to multisource recording.  Getting the best blend on the fly is the key to a stereo pair ambient recording. 

Of course every room is different, every band is different, and every ear is different, so there is no fixed set of rules that says A-B-C is always the "best".  Best is not really a useful construct in these discussions. 

There are thousands of approaches (within the limits of the gear available to applied to the task) and lots of opinions.  In the end if one gets something most people enjoy listening to then it's a task well done.  There are a lot of useful applications of theory in this thread (as well as useful theory).  In the end every outing is a crap shoot but experience and tools allow us to get better and better at it.  Ultimately I wouldn't overthink it.  Do as much as you can to get practice, background, soundchecks, etc. relevant to the specific task, then do what you're comfortable with.  Any reasonable recording can be refined in post.  Two solid channels is enough (though more can be nice) and as someone else observed probably far better documentation than has been made of this group in that setting. 

Since you don't know the room it's hard to know how to play it but when you do get there you have ideas and approaches that should let you determine pretty quickly what you would be comfortable with.  I tend to favor bringing whatever one has to a new setting so you don't rule out something you find you needed.  With 4 channels you have a fairly finite range of options (though 2 channels more than some have). 

[alienbobz]

Yeah I saw the mic setup in the second video and that seems more like everyone was talking about. My guess though is that the band will be set up closer to what was in the first video. If that is the case and I wanted to split, how would I do that? I might need to get some different stands. I have my bogen stand which goes up to 15' and several on-stage stands that go up to 4'.

[alienbobz]

Another idea. If I got this 24" bar with 4 knobs. I could put the AKGs on the ends and then put my Marshall towards the center. Would that work?

[bombdiggity]

Yeah I saw the mic setup in the second video and that seems more like everyone was talking about. My guess though is that the band will be set up closer to what was in the first video. If that is the case and I wanted to split, how would I do that? I might need to get some different stands. I have my bogen stand which goes up to 15' and several on-stage stands that go up to 4'.

Well there are a variety of options discussed in this thread, to wit:

Stereo pair

Stereo pair with side fills

Three channel (left-center-right)

(not sure if mentioned here but:) four channel (left, center-front/center-rear, right) 

{EDIT} perhaps more if four mics on a single bar... 

Any of those should work. 

The stands depend to a great degree on the type of mic and the strategy in placement. 

In general having the mics equidistant from the center of the source (or from the sources if directional mics are applied to PA's) is desirable.  So in a three channel set up I don't think you'd want to fly one at 15' and the other two at 4' unless there is some compensation in distance for the lower two.  The conductor usually poses an issue for the center so getting above that obstruction (and getting a good angle of view on the whole ensemble) may be why the high center stand is in vogue in this application.  I don't think omnis need to be flown as high as cards up close but I don't think one would want them at a different distance to the source than other mics either? 

[page]

HIGH SCHOOL BAND - Robert Sheldon's Sound Innovation Fanfare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qglzr6-OeNc

Plus the setup that is in the video is completely different from what I thought everyone was explaining.

For clarification; This is closer to what I was talking about (single stand, and what looks like a stereo pair); put a stand near the center there, fairly close to the conductor's back and run a stereo pair as subcards. That's a touch higher than I would have thought to go, but the theory is the same. The second one is closer to what Lee's doing.

[Gutbucket]

No sound on this computer so I've seen the vids but not heard them.

{EDIT} perhaps more if four mics on a single bar... 

All that sound right.. except I wouldn’t suggest putting all four mics on the same bar with the intent of mixing them.

For the three channel main mic thing, I’d want the side stands higher, like 8’ up or more rather than 4’.  And yes it would probably be best to have all three at the same height, although it’s more important that they are all approximately the same distance, which could be accommodated for by moving the center forward and the sides back.

Your 24” bar is not enough spacing for a 3 mic setup on one bar using omnis or sub-cards.  That width would be enough if using 3 supercardioids, as long as you could also get the center mic about a foot in front of the other two (like a small directional decca tree), and that is similar to an arrangement I use for on-stage recording of jazz combos with the 3-mic technique- left and right supercards pointed about 45 degrees away from center.  See the William charts for multi-mic setups using supercards for specifics on that if interested, but it's not what I would do for this.

If you are limited to having to use the two short stands and 24” bar, I’d probably forgo the 3 main mic suggestion (which I still think is a valid choice and am more than willing to defend) and do one of these things:

1) Revert to two channel with the AKGs in cardioid or subcardioid mode on the tall central stand, angled and spaced based on the Stereo Zoom two channel charts.   You could also run your extra pair of cardioids on the same stand as well, but not for making a 4 mic mix which is likely to have phase problems form the mics not being far enough apart or angled far enough away from each other, but rather as an interesting source for comparison which would be educational.

2) Instead of putting the extra cardioid pair on the same stand, I’d probably place them at the extreme edges of the stage on the short stands facing directly out into the audience as room mics which can be mixed with the main pair.  That’s a standard ‘room and audience mic’ing setup’ which works well, gives a nicely diffuse ambience and crowd reaction and will add a sense of width and depth the stereo pair alone may lack, especially if using the cardioid mode for the main mics.

[Gutbucket]

 

Direct sound comes from the stage (or the players on it to be specific).  Reverberant sound is what is in the room after that direct sound bounces around. [snip] In practice we always wind up with a blend [snip]. A stereo pair focused on optimizing the direct sound may be more forgiving and better suited to a room that is not very acoustically sound than an approach that uses less focused mics to pick up more of an omni room sound. 

More on that-
As long as there is a line of sight from source to microphone, the direct/reverberant balance is primarily determined by the size of the room and how close the mics are from the source, and secondarily by the polar pattern of the mics.  A more directional pattern can alter the recorded balance somewhat, but only by a limited amount.  The most directional pattern, a supercardioid, can be placed something like twice as far away as an omni for the same recorded direct/reverberant ratio, a cardioid about 1.5 times farther away.. BUT that is based on the omni being placed at the 'critical distance' from the source, where the direct and reverberant sound levels at that position in the room are equal (direct/reverberant ratio = 0).  That distance changes depending on the room, but even in huge halls it is quite close, and usually far closer than most people realize.  For Boston Symphony Hall it is about 7meters or ~20’ and nearly all of the audience is seated well into the reverberant field. For much smaller rooms the critical distance is usually only a few meters at most.  That means you can’t expect a supercardioid placed ½ back in the room to have the same direct/reverberant pickup as an omni ¼ of the way back even though it is twice as far away since they are both well back into the reverberant field and much farther away from the source than the critical distance.  The supercard will sound different than the omni in that case, but for reasons other than direct/reverberant pickup.

Individual sources (musicians with instruments) illuminating a room with sound behave very differently from PA amplified stack sources, partly because PA’s are designed to be highly directional above the bass range and project deeply into the room.  Critical distance can be very different with PAs.

[NorseHorse]

HIGH SCHOOL BAND - Robert Sheldon's Sound Innovation Fanfare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qglzr6-OeNc

Plus the setup that is in the video is completely different from what I thought everyone was explaining.

For clarification; This is closer to what I was talking about (single stand, and what looks like a stereo pair); put a stand near the center there, fairly close to the conductor's back and run a stereo pair as subcards. That's a touch higher than I would have thought to go, but the theory is the same. The second one is closer to what Lee's doing.

To rephrase:

Your main sound must come from a pair of mics.

Do not record with three mics as discussed.  This is known as LCR, short for Left-Center-Right.

The first video I posted is a stereo pair only.  The second video is a stereo pair, plus outriggers.  The outriggers are mixed at a much lower level and are non-essential.  They can be used to add spaciousness.  Your 24" bar is sufficient.  Put your mics up and find a good spot for the stand.

Here is more inspiration from a high school band.  Two mics only:  John Mackey's ZERXES http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0sCqHrXbZw  Notice how you can hear exactly where each instrument comes from.  Good luck!

[Gutbucket]

To rephrase:

Your main sound must come from a pair of mics.

Do not record with three mics as discussed.  This is known as LCR, short for Left-Center-Right.

That's a strong statement, repeated bolded. 
It would be far more helpful to explain why rather than simply making authoritative statements.

Differences of opinion discussed and explained here are more useful than unsupported dogmatic statments.

[Tom McCreadie]

......where the direct and reverberant sound levels at that position in the room are equal (direct/reverberant ratio = 0).

caution from typo police; it's illegal to park your mics in negative hyperspace

[Gutbucket]

Ha! right 1 / 1 = 1

I looked up a David Gresinger paper to find the critical distance for Boston Symphony Hall and took the D/R = 0 from there.  I'll take the blame but pass the buck to one of the top living acoustics engineers.

Nice catch.

In a poetic sense, I imagine negative hyperspace sounds verby, at least as depicted in movie soundtracks.

[page]

Differences of opinion discussed and explained here are more useful than unsupported dogmatic statments.

Goes to show, I should have posted when I saw it and not later; specifically you're original remark on values.

I've heard some of your stuff, and you can pull off an excellent recording with the LCR for lots of it, I only noticed a couple of instances where the phase cancelation bothered me, but it's hear and there, and certainly not a majority of tracks, let alone constantly within a track.

I blew a crap ton of money on a set of DPA mics, because I think they give me the best chance at creating a razor sharp image and soundstage. They ain't euphoric by any standards, but they are excellent at creating an undistorted image. That's my value. I suspect NorseHorse has an even more strident value on soundstage than I. Yeah, it could have been articulated better (as my own argument probably could have been earlier), but I suspect that's where he's coming from.

//my armchair analysis of the situation.

[alienbobz]

I talked with my friend yesterday about the setup. It sounds like there will be ~5' between him and the band and ~5' between him and stage lip. I am thinking of running my stand behind him like it is in the videos and going about 10' or so. I am going to get the 24" bar but I am not sure I will split the mics at 24" yet. I am planning to do Sub-Cards just to see what they sound like and I will have a Marshall in the center just to get as much as I can. Luckily it sounds like I will get more changes to do this so if this one doesn't go as well as I hoped, I have the chance to do something different next time. Plus my friend is fine with the result either way. Thanks again for all the input. I really appreciate it.

[ScoobieKW]

Which schools' band?

[alienbobz]

Which schools' band?

Cedarcrest Middle School in Marysville.

[Gutbucket]

Best of luck!

Probably best to just use two and not try to do the three channel technique by simply adding a third mic to a good 2-channel stereo config.  That may sound like a safe bet, but doesn't really move you forward past the good 2-channel setup.  It will be more useful to run two different stereo setups and pick the better sounding one. With multiple recording opportunities and 4 channels, you have the capability of doing whatever 2-channel configuration worked well the last time and also as trying an alternate 2-channel different each time.  That way you can both hedge your bet and experiment simultaneously.  That's the only way to really find your own path and do so without too much risk.  For the 3 channel techniques to work really well, you sort of need to throw out the 2-channel starting point for it to payoff, except maybe the 2-channel special cases of relatively widely spaced omnis.

[Gutbucket]

Following up on the earlier thing..

It's great to have examples of what worked well for others, but I bristle a bit when I've made not only something of an effort to explain why something can work, as well as pitch a tent big enough to accommodate different view points, then someone comes in and repeatedly says, "no, don't do that!" without making any effort to discuss it.  This is a discussion forum not a textbook.

TS is great partly because we all for the most part respect each other and are willing to talk about why things work rather than simply saying 'this is the only way it should be done' without any follow up.  There is more than enough of that on other forums.  I respect most everyone's opinion here at TS and look forward to hearing of their experiences.  If I disagree about something I'll try my best to explain why, and hopefully a productive conversation grows out of it.

Page you've long earned my respect as one of the most helpful members here to myself and others, and that certainly is not directed at you.  Although I love clear pinpoint imaging, it is not the most important thing for me in my recordings.  I rank emotive content and a sense of 'you are there' highest, and the things that support those aspects such as clarity, timbre, ambient balance, and envelopment higher than razor-sharp imaging- which as much as I really enjoy it, seems to me to be something of an artifact of stereo playback, more than something vital to the music listening experience (I won't use the term accurate, as I feel no recording is that), though I'd always prefer to have it all including great imaging.

Viva la difference.

BTW the samples of mine I think you were referring to earlier certainly did had some slight phasing going on, but that wasn't because of the 3-mic technique used.  It was the interaction of the 3 mic array with an ORTF pair a few feet farther back in the room, added as a conscious choice for the cymbal sheen, guitar depth, and sweeter room ambience it provided which I felt was worth the slight phasing that probably only people like us who seriously listen for those type of things would notice.  That tradeoff was the top one in my mind when mixing that.  Thanks for being an astute and valued mirror.

[bombdiggity]

^ I don't think there are many absolutes in an endeavor that is this subjective.  The discussions here (when they are discussions along the lines you suggest above) are a rich resource. 

Relative to the topic of this thread my thought was that the three discrete channel approach may not be the best place for someone to start.  I don't doubt it can yield nice results with some practical experience behind it, but it's got to be hard to get right the first time out. 

If one has four mics and four channels I'd take the approach immediately above the first time out (essentially running a backup or an experiment, which builds a personal knowledge base more quickly).  I'd run a center pair high and the other pair spread further for a different perspective. 

[Gutbucket]

Plenty of absolutes, mostly obvious things like equipment working or not.  Within a handful of reasonable alternate possibilites there are most definitely specific points of optimization and opportunities for screwing it up, and some of those more exacting than others- Actually the reason I suggested that particular three mic technique is that it is pretty easy to get right in a new situation without having done it before, and I think it's setup is less exacting than optimizing the angle and spacing of a near-spaced pair to get optimal imaging in a specific situation.  But it would need three stands of similar height to get into the 'close enough' to optimal zone, which is the deal killer here IMO rather than setup complexity.  That looser setup constaint wouldn't be the case if using three directional mics either, which would demand the same attention to configuration spacing and angle as a pair of directional mics.  The more directional, the more the details matter.  The more important sharp imaging is, the more nailing specific angle and spacing matters.  Sure there is plenty of room for subjectivity, but also plenty of room for going astray and not getting things optimal within quite different good alternate choices. 

Here's a direct link to the PDF on Michael William's site of the Stereo Zoom graph suggesting configurations for a pair of sub cardioids, all easily doable on a 24" (or shorter) mic bar - http://www.mmad.info/MAD/2%20Ch/SRA%20Hypo10.pdf   The primary focus of all William's charts is on optimizing imaging.

Introducing a center mic with Left and Right subcards, and assuming a stereo recording angle of +/- 60 degrees or 120 degrees total (in which the musicians fit) you'd need at least 39" between the Left and Right mics, and that's with them pointed 180 degrees apart or directly to either side.  If you wanted to use less angle between mics, you'd want them further apart than that.  It would be something like 52" with them angled 60 degrees apart.  It might work and sound fine with other spacing/angle combinations, but those solutions optimise the imaging characteristics for that particular 3-mic approach using sub cardioids.

[alienbobz]

Going back to the bar, would I be able to use the 12" one or should I get the 24"? Just trying to decide what is the best option.

[bombdiggity]

Going back to the bar, would I be able to use the 12" one or should I get the 24"? Just trying to decide what is the best option.

I don't think that question is answerable without knowing which mics you plan to run in which configuration.  Either bar may need to be adjustable to optimize your placement. 

I'm not a devotee of the charts and graphs and frankly get slightly baffled by all that.  I run cards at an ear to ear distance.  The ones I usually run on the stand are vertically addressed so they're always in the same place on the same short bar (only the directional angle changes based on what field I feel I need to cover/pattern I want to use). 

A 24" bar seems a bit like no mans land unless maybe for subcards.  It's not the usual spacing for omnis (36" or more) and is pretty far apart for cards. 
 

[alienbobz]

Going back to the bar, would I be able to use the 12" one or should I get the 24"? Just trying to decide what is the best option.

I don't think that question is answerable without knowing which mics you plan to run in which configuration.  Either bar may need to be adjustable to optimize your placement. 

I'm not a devotee of the charts and graphs and frankly get slightly baffled by all that.  I run cards at an ear to ear distance.  The ones I usually run on the stand are vertically addressed so they're always in the same place on the same short bar (only the directional angle changes based on what field I feel I need to cover/pattern I want to use). 

A 24" bar seems a bit like no mans land unless maybe for subcards.  It's not the usual spacing for omnis (36" or more) and is pretty far apart for cards. 
 

I am thinking of doing split sub-cards.

[thunderbolt]

I just recorded two jazz big bands.  On one session, I ran M/S with omni flankers.  I also ran a separate recorder patched into a simple, unmanned SBD for a lecturer's mic as well as a solo mic, both for the PA.  I time aligned and it worked out really well.

On the other, I ran M/S on stage and got  third channel of piano (closed lid to avoid recording mic bleed so it would have otherwise been inaudible) and a fourth channel for ganged solo mics.  It turned out quite well, too.  Not perfect by any means, but both methods were vastly superior to what I would have captured with a single stereo pair, under the circumstances I found myself in.

[alienbobz]

M-S is certainly an option, but I want to try that later. I think I am going to get the 12" bar for now and do the sub-cards. I also found out that I am actually taping my friend's high school band, not middle school. Also, the jazz band is playing before his set.

[Gutbucket]

I think I am going to get the 12" bar for now and do the sub-cards.

That will probably work nicely. Subcards spaced 12" apart with a 90 degree angle between them (easy to eyeball on setup) will produce an imaging window about 120 degree wide as seen from the microphone position.  Sound sources within that 120 degree wide window will be heard on playback as coming from somewhere between the two speakers, while sounds coming from outside the edges of that window will be heard primarily as coming from the location of the speakers themselves.