Topic: School band recording help

[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.