Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 2  (Read 11801 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kuba e

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • *
  • Posts: 185
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 2
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2018, 09:35:54 AM »
Learning recordings reminds me yoga. Yoga says that with the rough mind we can only see rough things. With more subtle mind, we can see subtle things too. We have to know the rough mind to get to the subtle. The same thing applies to the recordings. Sometimes I wondered if the sound masters are able to listen to an amateur recordings. If they are not disturbed by all the rough things that I do not hear. It's probably the same answer as in yoga, it's not disturbing them. I am sorry for light turn.

Part of what makes this so interesting is that live-music taping, especially from the audience, is a unique form of recording which benefits from unique solutions which don't really apply to, or come directly from, more common forms of audio recording.
I totally agree. Audience recordings have special magic.

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4995
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 2
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2018, 09:54:31 AM »
I think the warm difference with Kindms recording is not because preamp. OMT contains omnis, it should be more warm than Kindms's cards. Maybe It would help to highlight in eq lower frequencies of the omnis. I do not know if the word "warm" is right. Do not take me as someone who can advise. Better to wait for others.

Also consider that while it's useful to compare the overall sound of both in deciding if this is worthwhile or not, its very difficult to make specific comparisons of tonality or whatever because as explained above, Rocksuitcase's mix is his subjective choice, not only because he's applying EQ, but because of his choices of level balance, and OMT is always going to be more subjective in this way because we have to make these decisions in creating any 2-channel stereo mix from it.

I also noted more low frequency energy "warmth" in kindms' ck1x cardioid pair recording.  I personally don't find it too much or boomy but like that tonal balance.  Tonally, I prefer it's low-frequency balance to the OMT mix, at least on the gear I'm listening through, even though it lacks other traits I like in the OMT recording such as the sense of openness and spatial dimension.  Rock, please don't take this the wrong way, but I generally find your mixes a bit light on the bottom up through the lower midrange to my ear.  I haven't mentioned that previously because its a subtle subjective thing, but it's been stirring around in my head for a while and I think this is a good comparison to explore that a bit more.
Gut- no offense taken; kuba- I took another listen in my preferred "ideal" listening environment-my car-lol and definitely hear what you are saying "warmth" wise; to my ears the cymbals and high end is EX, but the low end is a bit sterile. I do wish I had some better mixing tools/software.
To the major point- ever since deploying OMT and learning to do the mixes I have had an inferior DAW listening situation in that the bass is always too boomy in my set-up. Therefore, at the beginning of seriously mixing OMT (Greyfox 2016) Gutbucket had mentioned one mix being way light in bass freq's. That event had an issue with the bass being so loud in the PA that the artists onstage as well as audience members complained so much the artists' complaints are during their set on the recordings!
I have finally obtained a nice subwoofer and feel my monitor environment is "better" for me to make mixing decisions. I will add that I typically do not finalize my mix before I take the working file into my car and listen to it all the way through. That has influenced me to make changes. What I am hearing you guys say is I am reducing the bass a bit too much in these mixes. Once mixed to two channels, I have been typically EQ'ing under 400Hz ->20Hz using graphic EQ and taking it down 4-6dB. This is further emphasized by the fact that kindms does zero EQ'ing with his two channel mixes (and I typically do very little to no EQ'ing of two channel takes).
Sooooo, in conclusion of this aspect; I hear what exactly you say regarding the Kung Fu OMT vs ck1x. Again, not going to go back and re-do it timewise, howwever, I haven't released the 16 bit yet;' maybe I will go in and do a different 2 channel EQ on it and ask what you guys hear.
As a request to you both re this "to little bass-low mids" topic, would you mind listening to the Twiddle OMT and compare it to taperchris' card mix? The PA had HUGE amounts of bass, but it wa so clean, I didn't reduce as much 400 on down as I did with the Kung Fu.
https://archive.org/details/twiddle2017-12-30.24akgck22ck3
https://archive.org/details/Twiddle2017-12-30.tcca.flac16

Great discussion so far. I just had a thought that I save my EQ curves in Audacity and could possibly take screenshots and title them properly such that it may be a part of learning/teaching/discussing mixing the OMT.
 
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG460|CK61|CK1|CK3|CK8|Beyer M 201E
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI

Offline kuba e

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • *
  • Posts: 185
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 2
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2018, 12:44:14 PM »
Do not worry, it's a good recording for me and 90% of people. But I understand when something can be improved, I would have done it.

These are interesting things for me. The imperfections can be better heard when two records of the same music can be compared. But e.g. Gutbucket's sample - I can not distinguish it's imperfections, it is above my distinctive ability. So the recording is perfect from my point of view. On the other hand, Gutbucket can distinguish these details, so he has better experience of music than I do and he can enjoy it more than me. Recording is an art.

You mentioned that you were using Audacity. Can you change or turn on/off EQ during playback in Audacity? It was not possible a few years ago. If is it still then comparison and decision making is very difficult. In a lot of programs, the effects can be changed or turned on/off by one click during playback. You can hear (and repeatedly) the difference immediately, so you have easier decision making.

As a request to you both re this "to little bass-low mids" topic, would you mind listening to the Twiddle OMT and compare it to taperchris' card mix? The PA had HUGE amounts of bass, but it wa so clean, I didn't reduce as much 400 on down as I did with the Kung Fu.
https://archive.org/details/twiddle2017-12-30.24akgck22ck3
https://archive.org/details/Twiddle2017-12-30.tcca.flac16

OTM has warmth, it's enjoyable listening for me. Maybe Chris used too much bass reduction. Did Chris have a stand near you?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 12:57:31 PM by kuba e »

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4995
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 2
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2018, 12:57:14 PM »
As a request to you both re this "to little bass-low mids" topic, would you mind listening to the Twiddle OMT and compare it to taperchris' card mix? The PA had HUGE amounts of bass, but it wa so clean, I didn't reduce as much 400 on down as I did with the Kung Fu.
https://archive.org/details/twiddle2017-12-30.24akgck22ck3
https://archive.org/details/Twiddle2017-12-30.tcca.flac16

OTM has warmth, it's enjoyable listening for me. Maybe Chris used too much bass reduction. Did Chris have a stand near you?
Chris's stand was about 4 feet behind and 10 feet Left of mine (which was DFC front row balcony). I think the sound on this two channel master is about as excellent as I've ever heard from both my own gear/mixing AND the band's PA perspective. The bass player, Zdnek Gubb, was simply KILLING it LOUDLY; he must have gotten new gear for Christmas as he was grinning from ear to ear and kept pointing up with one finger toward his tech/monitor guy. Sooooo, the warmth is/was in the room and on the original recording. That said, I treated the original Omni vs center channels similarly as the Kung Fu EQ wise. As Gutbucket says and you confirmed, some of this is very subjective AND does point out what some tapers have told me is their reasons for wanting to stick with two channels- They can record it and process it with a lot less work than the OMT. I say OMT is worth a try in about 75% of all situations we find ourselves taping in.
Audacity still does not allow one to monitor in real time the EQ. What I do is load the working file into foobar, play with the EQ there, then emulate those settings with Audacity. As far as EQ and post processing goes, I REALLY need to invest in Izotope.
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG460|CK61|CK1|CK3|CK8|Beyer M 201E
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI

Offline kuba e

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • *
  • Posts: 185
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 2
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2018, 01:52:10 PM »
I understand very well the reasons for wanting to stick with two channels. Post processing is sometimes tedious for me.

I use Reaper as recommended in the forum. You can try it for free and full version is around 70 bucks. I think it is fully sufficient for OMT. The beginnings were difficult as I moved from Audacity. But now it's good. The huge advantage is that I can make any change during playback and hear it right away. The changes can be manual or preset. For example, I can set that I want to amplify the center microphone by 2db. And with one click I can turn this gain on/off during listening. I can chase any effects too, so mixing Mid / Side is then simple. If you decide to try it in the future, I like to help you with I will know.

Edit:
https://archive.org/details/twiddle2017-12-30.24akgck22ck3
https://archive.org/details/Twiddle2017-12-30.tcca.flac16
I listened to Chris's recording more. It is great recording, he captured space better than OMT. It is nice to see that you can make so good recording with Chris Church mics (ha ha I own them too).
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 03:45:10 PM by kuba e »

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 12548
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 2
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2018, 05:50:10 PM »
Gave a quick listen again to both Twiddle recordings and both sound very good and well-balanced EQ-wise to me.  The bottom sounds like it's in proper proportion to the top, at least on these AT in-ear phones I'm using from this computer.

I'm quite impressed by Chris's CA-14 Twiddle recording, especially its up-front sense of presence and directness.  The instrumentation and vocals sound not-overly-distant and big.  It's very interesting exploring what produces that listening sensation in a recording, and ways of working the balance between "solid up-front presence" and "open spatial dimensionality", but that's a discussion to explore more in-depth later.   In any case, Chris' recording made with Church-Audio cards through a Church-Audio battery box is a great example of how excellent recordings can be made using non-pedigree mics in simple setups given the right situation.  And that raises a couple important points-

Low-cost mics can make great recordings in the right situation.  Most tapers know this and many have experienced it themselves.  The flip side is consistency.  Higher quality mics are capable of making good recordings more consistently.  Similarly OMT as a technique is considerably more complex than running a straight pair of mics, but one thing which makes it valuable is that it can make good recordings more consistently.   Which is really an entirely separate argument than how good it is capable of sounding in an optimal situation.  It dramatically increases the odds of success in our favor, albeit at the cost of more complexity and post work.

The other thing is that it works nicely with lower-cost mics and actually makes pedigree mics less necessary to achieve that kind of improved consistency.  It's the "whole being greater than the sum of the parts" thing again, but on the microphone side instead of the mixing side of things this time.  Done correctly, OMT can cover some of the problems commonly heard with lower-cost mics in simple 2-mic setups in less than ideal situations.  It's one reason why I was okay with putting my Microtech Gefells away and using the miniature DPAs instead, at around half the cost or less, after testing and comparing identical OMT recordings made using both (those comparisons being vital in making such decision).  Years back in the previous thread I was using low-cost miniature AT directional mics to proof-test this.  It worked very well and is partly what convinced me to eventually settle on using the miniature DPAs exclusively even in situations in which I would ordinarily pull out the lovely MGs.  I contemplated building a "budget 6-channel OMT" setup as inexpensively as possible using all miniature Church-Audio, Naiant, AT, or other inexpensive mics at that point.  How inexpensively could I actually do it and how would the recordings compare?  It would be enlightening to compare the same recording made by such a rig and my current miniature DPA-based rig.  I may still might do that at some point, parlty to further explore the idea and partly to have a second rig.  I also think it would be a cool way to promote our TS member mic builders if it works well.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 12548
  • Gender: Male
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 2
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2018, 05:56:23 PM »
Quote from: kuba e
I understand very well the reasons for wanting to stick with two channels. Post processing is sometimes tedious for me.
Quote from: Rocksuitcase
[This points] out what some tapers have told me is their reasons for wanting to stick with two channels- They can record it and process it with a lot less work than the OMT.

Truth!  If a taper is averse to having to do much to a recording afterwards other than tracking and FLACing, this path will not be the most appropriate one to take!  OMT requires a post-processing commitment- a curse and a blessing.  To my way of thinking, the need to do the post-work is perhaps the main reason NOT to pursue this for most folks.   Also- I've worked my rig to make setup super easy, but that's not going to be the case for most tapers.  Everything in my rig is already attached, plugged in and wired so I just extend the arms, point the mics, power-up and roll - and can do all that considerably faster than the time it takes most tapers to set-up a typical 2-mic rig.  But that's obviously not how most will do it.  For most tapers, a perhaps equal yet different burden will be dealing with the complexities of hauling the mics and gear, setting up prior to making the recording and breaking everything down afterwards.  Rocksuitcase, your OMT setups with kindms amaze me in that way.  I have to imagine it's a lot of work to setup and break them down.  Kudos to you guys for doing that, and also to you for bearing the mix-down burden afterwards!

Quote from: Rocksuitcase
Audacity still does not allow one to monitor in real time the EQ. What I do is load the working file into foobar, play with the EQ there, then emulate those settings with Audacity. As far as EQ and post processing goes, I REALLY need to invest in Izotope.
Quote from: kuba e
The huge advantage is that I can make any change during playback and hear it right away. The changes can be manual or preset. For example, I can set that I want to amplify the center microphone by 2db. And with one click I can turn this gain on/off during listening. I can chase any effects too, so mixing Mid / Side is then simple.

I have a hard time imagining trying to do this without being able to immediately hear the influence of whatever change I'm making while making it, and the ability to easily go back and forth to determine if what I'm doing is moving things in the right direction or not.  That feed-back loop is so vitally important to me.  Especially when fine-tuning things.  Also, I tend to work iteratively, going back and forth constantly between listening to specific things I'm adjusting verses listening to the whole in an more overall gestalt way, then back again.  That back and forth mental-flow would be highly compromised without immediate feedback.  Big respect for successfully working that way.  I don't own Izotope but admire it, great tools.  But far more important I think is the simple ability to have that immediate listening feedback loop in play.  My humble advice is to first change your editing software K!  I suspect you'll never look back once you do and wonder why you hadn't done so earlier.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<<

Offline heathen

  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1518
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 2
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2018, 05:59:27 PM »
Audacity still does not allow one to monitor in real time the EQ.

Try the TDR Nova plugin.
Mics: Core Sound TetraMic | AT4031s | AT AE5100s | AT853s (C/SC) | Line Audio CM3s | DPA 4061s | CA-14 omnis | Studio Projects CS5
Pre: CA9200
Decks: Zoom F8 | Roland R-05 | Tascam DR-2d

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4995
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 2
« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2018, 07:04:04 PM »
Quote from: Rocksuitcase
Audacity still does not allow one to monitor in real time the EQ. What I do is load the working file into foobar, play with the EQ there, then emulate those settings with Audacity. As far as EQ and post processing goes, I REALLY need to invest in Izotope.
  Big respect for successfully working that way.  I don't own Izotope but admire it, great tools.  But far more important I think is the simple ability to have that immediate listening feedback loop in play.  My humble advice is to first change your editing software K!  I suspect you'll never look back once you do and wonder why you hadn't done so earlier.
No humbly about it. I have known I should switch ever since I started working with the DR680. I think the Izotope I need is their mastering focused one. Someone offered me a cracked version, but I feel I should pay them for their work as well as any support they offer. This gets OT for this thread, but I will bring it up and ask what folks think in the appropriate thread. Thanks to you and kuba for critically listening and offering food for my thought!
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 03:02:15 PM by rocksuitcase »
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG460|CK61|CK1|CK3|CK8|Beyer M 201E
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4995
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 2
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2018, 12:05:21 PM »
The Pink Talking Fish set before Kung Fu OMT style: same rig as in the Kung Fu rig pics
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=184981.msg2252069#msg2252069
https://archive.org/details/ptf2017-12-16.24akgck22ck61

I did mix this one less and reduced a bit less under 400Hz than the Kung Fu- however, being the opening set, less audience in the room, not exact comparison.
These guys are fun!
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG460|CK61|CK1|CK3|CK8|Beyer M 201E
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI

Offline Moke

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3652
  • m0k3 - √!n¥¬ 633|<
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 2
« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2018, 07:27:38 PM »
OK,... I hope I'm not trolling in the wrong waters here,....
This morning,... Gude Head basked in the shade of the DeccaShrub.

DeccaShrub:
DPA4060 baffled omni pair, with single CM3 @ 0º apprx. *18+inches forward of vertical mic stand stanchion
*= clamp body depth, + 1ft extension rod, + 90ºangle adaptor, + mic body length,... or perhaps as much as 18" forward of mic stand. -2ft? I didn't meaure it.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 10:19:00 PM by Moke »
Sent From My Craftsman Garage Door Opener

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4995
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 2
« Reply #26 on: January 13, 2018, 09:19:25 PM »
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My out loud response was: "That is fucking sweet!"
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG460|CK61|CK1|CK3|CK8|Beyer M 201E
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI

Offline Moke

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3652
  • m0k3 - √!n¥¬ 633|<
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 2
« Reply #27 on: January 13, 2018, 09:44:21 PM »
I ran a DeccaShrub like that as an experiment a long time ago; 2009?. I was just recently listening to the result, and, I was quite surprised.  The performance had a contrabass duet at the center of the stage, surrounded by the balance of the Octet players.  Even with two big basses passing solos back, and forth, at the center of the stage, the separation and isolation was quite apparent and shocking. You'd think that those two big boys playing hard at under 100hz would want to mono-blob to center, right?,.. especially with a center mic.  Nope, great imaging, and even cutting into the rear of the "U" between them.
So, I decided today was the day to break it out again, an try it.
I just tossed it into the digishizzer blender thingy, and, it came out sounding quite nice (except the constant SoCal friggin air condtioning systems,..AHHHHHHH!!! Fuck, I want to kill something). I ran the baffled omni pair at 3.5dB over the CM3-0º, until I found enough of the center player.
Now, for the next rounds, which will be next weekend.

Gude wore his new power cyborg eyes in front of the Consort of the first time. The tenor violinist, center most player, was cracking up the whole time; loved it!
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 09:46:21 PM by Moke »
Sent From My Craftsman Garage Door Opener

Offline 108Ω

  • + pace, amore e felicita +
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 9850
  • Gender: Male
  • Waiting on the next cladogenetic event...
    • Oceana North America
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 2
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2018, 09:14:55 PM »
Best way to mic a goat with the winds?


"Peace is for everyone"
        - Norah Jones
"We tape to taste life twice, in the moment and in retrospect"
                      (with apologies to Anais Nin)

Offline heathen

  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1518
Re: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 2
« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2018, 02:20:45 PM »
I stumbled across this on LMA and thought it qualified as an oddball setup:
Quote
2 DAK 5245 Microphones and 2 Realistic PZM Mics(Mounted on 1'x 1'x 3/8" plexiglass)... Note: This was recorded with 2 sets of mics, 4 channels, mixed down to 2 channels. The mics were mounted on a stand 8' in height.
Source: https://archive.org/details/gd1993-06-13.111953.aud.dak5245-pzm.orchardpark-ny.flac16
Mics: Core Sound TetraMic | AT4031s | AT AE5100s | AT853s (C/SC) | Line Audio CM3s | DPA 4061s | CA-14 omnis | Studio Projects CS5
Pre: CA9200
Decks: Zoom F8 | Roland R-05 | Tascam DR-2d

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.218 seconds with 37 queries.
© 2002-2018 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF