Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards  (Read 2433 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SquirrelMurphy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Gender: Male
Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« on: November 27, 2016, 10:23:18 AM »
Hi guys. Been recording with CA-14s for a few years now and have gotten the general swing of it, but still learning of course. I usually record in clubs with cards in an AB configuration on a 6-in T-bar. Parallel and pointed at the stacks which I try to get close to to reduce room ambiance / reverb. Usually clamped or mounted to something high and close. I rarely use the omnis.

I often record a high school band in this same configuration a lot (see pic). I normally use cards in an AB config for this too and for the same reason (reduce room ambiance). There's a little wall in the soundboard area that is in a balcony... so I don't set up a stand and T-bar. I just clip the mics onto binder clips acting like mini-stands and point them. I'm happy with the recordings but seeking to improve and try different things.

I'm starting to think that maybe DIN or ORTF might be more appropriate? I've never tried a config like that but I see that many of you do. Given how far back I am, I'm worried that I'll get even more room ambiance and I'll lose bass. What do you think? I'm also thinking about trying my omnis on a 3-foot bar suspended in front of the balcony and pointed to the stage (I have access, and there's a mount-point there). For a high-school band, people are generally respectful and very quiet so omnis could work.

For this "venue", I have full run of the place so I could also set up in front of the stage, but the mics would have to be just above stage height (no obstructing views), my access for making adjustments evaporates because I'm so visible, and I risk someone bumping the stand because it's in a traffic area.  It's nice to sit in the back with no worries... plus I have access to the PA system and board if I'd like. But I'm far enough away that the room is present in the recordings.

Thanks for any suggestions...


Offline boltman

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (37)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 922
  • Gender: Male
  • Music est vita!
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2016, 01:24:55 PM »
You're going to get a lot of room sound that far away.  A rough starting point for ORTF is 2-3 feet behind the conductor and 7-10 feet above, often with the mics pointed slightly down.  This site

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fragen08.htm

can help you visualize various mic techniques.

Offline SquirrelMurphy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2016, 02:29:18 PM »
A rough starting point for ORTF is 2-3 feet behind the conductor

Yowza... ain't going to happen. OK... so I stick with AB if I remain at that distance. I looked at that visualization site, and also did some other reading. This Shure publication was helpful too.

I'm starting to think Omni's will accentuate the room reverberation more than the cards given the distance and the fact that they will pick up reflected sounds from the sides.

Suggestion for distance between AB cards? In the pic, I'm pretty close, but maybe a 30-40cm separation will yield a better stereo image?

Offline boltman

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (37)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 922
  • Gender: Male
  • Music est vita!
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2016, 05:51:56 PM »
There's a ton of info on TS about what you're wanting to record.  There's many ways to do it.  Here's one of many threads I think might help:

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=165248.0;all


Offline admkrk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • I'm an idiot
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #4 on: November 28, 2016, 12:45:50 AM »
A rough starting point for ORTF is 2-3 feet behind the conductor and 7-10 feet above
While that might be ideal, and it looks like it would in that room, I would not write ORTF off based on that alone. I use it, mostly out of habit, but it works well for me in most situations, unless something else goes wrong. Here is a recording I did in a room about 3 X the size, and under the balcony, along with being stuck on the right side. I am pretty sure the biggest problem with this tape is being under the balcony, and otherwise it would have sounded much better, even being off center.

The bottom line is do not overthink it. What do you have to loose by trying ORTF the next time? 
"the faster you go ahead, the behinder you get"

"If you can drink ram's piss, fuck, you can drink anything"

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1893
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #5 on: November 28, 2016, 01:22:51 AM »
At that distance I'd point cards straight ahead and hope for the best. 

Were I there I'd commandeer one of those seats in the front row center to set up a small stand and aim cards straight ahead.  That will be a lot better than anything from the distance shown.  You could do omnis up front similarly and compare one vs. the other over a two shows. 
Gear:
Audio:
Schoeps MK4V
Nak CM-100/CM-300 w/ CP-1's or CP-4's
SP-CMC-25
>
Oade C mod R-44  OR
Tinybox > Sony PCM-M10 (formerly Roland R-05) 
Video: Varied, with various outboard mics depending on the situation

Offline Limit35

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #6 on: November 28, 2016, 02:06:05 AM »
I agree with bomb and setup a small stand up front of those center seats. A near-coincident card pair up close would be good based on that photo. Do you have omnis? If so, you could AB spread as far as you can across the stage, and go as high as they will allow you, if you could get a couple meters across great. Again, based on the photo. They don't need to be too high off the stage to be effective. It would be better than the pair I see at the back.

Offline SquirrelMurphy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #7 on: November 28, 2016, 10:30:06 AM »
Thanks guys. Very helpful.

Here is a recording I did in a room about 3 X the size, and under the balcony, along with being stuck on the right side. I am pretty sure the biggest problem with this tape is being under the balcony, and otherwise it would have sounded much better, even being off center.

Sounds great. Bass is a little boomy, but I think it sounds nice.

Quote
The bottom line is do not overthink it. What do you have to loose by trying ORTF the next time?

This was my thought too. I've recorded several times from the same location in that hall, and I was thinking to try something new (and perhaps more proper) and see how it goes. Even if it's worse, it's OK for me to learn from. I'm trying to learn the general rules first rather than guess and try repeatedly. But trust me, am good with experimentation and failure.

At that distance I'd point cards straight ahead and hope for the best. 

That's my MO.

Quote
Were I there I'd commandeer one of those seats in the front row center to set up a small stand and aim cards straight ahead.  That will be a lot better than anything from the distance shown.  You could do omnis up front similarly and compare one vs. the other over a two shows. 

I can get that seat. I show up early to set up anyway. But I can't go higher than head-height and I can't run an omni-bar wider than the seat. The main issue is that I'll have to leave the board area and I sometimes help with house sound. You know, I can probably set up ON STAGE too if it makes sense. Except that I'd have to set levels and run away and hope things work out. There's no opportunity for a level test.

But still, AB? Why not DIN or ORTF from so close? Especially given that from the front seat the musicians are spread across maybe 120-degrees FOV from the mics.

The ace in my pocket is that we have 5 omnis that dangle over the stage + PA feed.... we use it though a mixer to feed video taping which is used for local community cable TV. I have recorded from the board and I can even control the mix. But when I do I feel like I'm missing out on learning about mic placement / technique. And I think my AB cardiods from the back sound perhaps 85% as good as the house mics anyway. The main difference to me is ambiance and reverberation which I pick up more because I'm so far away.

I uploaded a sample from the show pictured above (AB cards with a 18"-ish spread)... to give you a sense of how my recordings there typically come out.

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1893
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #8 on: November 28, 2016, 10:33:23 PM »
That actually sounds a lot better than I'd have thought though part of that may be the type of music involved.  Tiny mics and the height they're at will help in not necessarily reproducing all of the lower end reverb and reflections that tend to multiply with distance.  I'm sure this result is a bit brighter sounding than different gear or location might produce. 

I'd not worry much about the height up front.  You should gain quite a bit more by being close.  As far as configuration it's a matter of deciding what you like.  I basically point cards straight ahead regardless of distance and location.  I don't think you can go wrong with that.  Others may have other preferences. 

Trial and error seems the best approach in my experience.  If you have the opportunity to experiment I'd do so. 
Gear:
Audio:
Schoeps MK4V
Nak CM-100/CM-300 w/ CP-1's or CP-4's
SP-CMC-25
>
Oade C mod R-44  OR
Tinybox > Sony PCM-M10 (formerly Roland R-05) 
Video: Varied, with various outboard mics depending on the situation

Online phil_er_up

  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1075
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2016, 02:10:24 PM »
...
« Last Edit: December 01, 2016, 07:36:25 AM by phil_er_up »
Everyday is a gift. Enjoy each one!
Forward motion bring positive results.

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #10 on: November 29, 2016, 04:34:15 PM »
Excluding a PA, you can't go too far wrong with ORTF up front at the stage-lip or in the front rows. Same goes for DIN or NOS, all of which are minor variations on popular near-spaced microphone configurations. Try one or more of those configurations from those locations, which should then serve as a good recording reference point to which you can compare the recordings you've made already and any new options you try.   

You needn't fly very high from those locations.  Barely peaking over the edge of the stage can work very well.  Recording very low in the first row with the back of the seat acting to attenuate the close audience applause from the row immediately behind can be very effective and is essentially invisible to the audience.

If it sounds good up there at the stage-lip or in the front row, then that's the place to record from.  If lots of stuff is going through the PA and that stuff sounds dull and boomy from that location, then that's a good motivation to move further back, or to also record a soundboard feed to mix with your stage-lipe/front-row microphone recording.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline Moke

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2839
  • m0k3 - √!n¥¬ 633|<
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2016, 05:17:21 PM »
ORTF requires a microphone from a category referred to as first order.  First order cardioid mics can be turned outward to 55º each side, for a combined off-axis response of 110º. Not all cardioid mics are capable of first order response. In order to fit the first order response category, they need to be able to be turned to that extreme off-axis response (55º x2) with the only effect being an attenuation of signal strength, without any frequency altering, or distortion of the presented signal.  Its safer to stay with a combined off-axis response of 90º (45º each mic).
Sent From My Craftsman Garage Door Opener

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #12 on: November 29, 2016, 06:10:16 PM »
As for trying stereo microphone configurations other than ORTF, DIN, NOS and the like with your cardioids, start from consideration of the basic relationship governing angle and spacing between any pair of microphones used for stereo recording-  1) The less angle you use between the microphones, the more spacing you should use between them, and vice-a-versa.  A coincident X/Y microphone arrangement requires a very wide angle between microphones to produce a good sounding stereo recording (but don't over do it), whereas a spaced A-B recording with parallel arranged mics requires significantly more space between the microphones (but don't over do it), regardless of the microphone's pickup pattern. 

Using a single pair of cardioids, I'd skip trying a coincident configuration for this.  In general, the cardioid pattern just isn't directional enough to work very well in a coincident X/Y arrangement for a good-quality stereo recording of an ensemble in a live space.  If you consider the 110 degree angle between microphones specified by ORTF to be somewhat on the wide side (which is specified due to the microphone spacing of just 17cm or a bit under 7"), then consider that if those cardioids were placed in X/Y with no spacing between them, even 180 degrees between microphones isn't really enough.   Sure, 90 degree X/Y cards will work, but most listeners will prefer DIN, which also uses the same 90 degree angle between mics except with a spacing of 12", producing a much more appropriate pattern/angle/spacing combination for this type of recording.  Coincident cardioids have their place, and could work well if you were also recording your omnis, widely spaced to either side of the X/Y cardioids with the intent of mixing the coincident cards and wide-spaced omnis together, but that's getting well ahead of ourselves and complicating things.  Let's keep it at 2 channels for now.

If you want to use a angle of less than 90 degrees between cardioids, space them more than 12" apart, possibly a lot more.  And increase that spacing the further your recording position is from the source as you move back into the room..

Which leads to the next basic relationship which helps determine what pattern/angle/spacing relationship to choose- 2)  As the recording position is moved further away from the source, compensate by using less angle between the microphones and more spacing between them.  So if ORTF works great from the stage-lip, try the same cardioids in a wider spaced but more narrowly angled configuration if you are recording from further back in the room.  The logical extreme to that is A-B spaced cardioids with the mics parallel to each other, as if you were using a pair of omnis.  That would be appropriate if you had to record from the back of the room, wanted to maximize pickup of the direct sound as much as possible with regards to room reverb, and still wanted to preserve as much "stereoness" as possible given those constraints.

How much space between narrowly angled microphones?  Below is a chart which recommends spacings between cardioids based on whatever angle between microphones a taper ends up with after pointing the mics directly at the PA speakers.  It takes the point-at-stacks (PAS) taper technique and suggests an appropriate spacing between mics.

Notice that it gets wide quickly as the angle diminishes.  As a rough starting point I'd suggest spacing omnis, or in your case parallel angled cardioids, 3 feet apart.  More can work, less can work, but 3' is often about right.  Consider 3' A-B as a good starting point, sort of like ORTF/DIN/NOS or there about is a good starting point for near-spaced cardioids.  Also consider 3' A-B to be something of an extension of the chart above, out to a Mic angle of 0 degrees and a suggested spacing of 100 cm.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #13 on: November 29, 2016, 06:11:11 PM »
As for trying the omnis, I have two suggestions-

1) Space them 3' apart or so along the front stage lip edge.  Most patrons won't even notice them.  Excellent natural sounding recordings can be made this way and good proximity to the performers will limit overbearing room reverberance even though they are omnidirectional.  I'd still suggest pointing them at the performers, since omnis are slightly directional and you'll get better detail and transients by pointing them directly at the main sources of interest.

2) Space them 3' apart or so back at the soundboard, but tape them directly onto the front face of that wall which faces the stage on which the mics are sitting in the photo you posted above. This is called boundary-mounting and works best if the wall is hard rather than soft.  It's a somewhat unusual technique that in the right situation can seemingly work magic, providing astounding clarity and a dramatic reduction in reverberation.  Boundary mounting works best with the mics as close to the wall surface as possible, so taping your small lightweight omnis directly to that wall can be a good option.  I'd point the omnis directly to either side, facing 180 degrees apart instead of trying to point them directly at the stage.  With boundary mounting, the direction the wall is facing will do most of the "pointing", and that gets the diaphragms closer to the wall surface while providing a small about of directional difference at the highest frequencies.  Ideally the omnis would be mounted so that their capsule surfaces were flush with the wall surface itself, but taping them to the wall works fine as long as they don't vibrate.   This technique makes the omnis behave more like cardioids, they become "hemispherically directional" instead of omnidirectional, and increases the direct-sound to reverberant-sound pickup ratio in a way no other technique can.  It's an odd-ball technique which can be a real problem solver and I think is worth a try in this situation, especially when you need to record from the back of the room instead of from up front.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #14 on: November 29, 2016, 08:02:28 PM »
ORTF requires a microphone from a category referred to as first order.  First order cardioid mics can be turned outward to 55º each side, for a combined off-axis response of 110º. Not all cardioid mics are capable of first order response. In order to fit the first order response category, they need to be able to be turned to that extreme off-axis response (55º x2) with the only effect being an attenuation of signal strength, without any frequency altering, or distortion of the presented signal.  Its safer to stay with a combined off-axis response of 90º (45º each mic).

Moke is correct in that ORTF works best using cardioids which have "well behaved polar patterns" in which the frequency response does not change significantly even for sounds arriving from far off the main axis of the mic.  That's due to the rather large ORTF 110 degree angle between microphones, which points each more off-axis to sources in the center of the stage than other configurations which use less angle between mics.  But I wouldn't let that stop you from trying it, along with DIN and NOS, both of which use a narrower 90 degree angle between mics but slightly different amounts of spacing.  We do all sorts of things as tapers that are not the prefered way of recording, and ORTF using inexpensive mics is a relatively minor infraction!

Actually all microphone configurations will perform better using microphones which have good polar response behavior, as the microphones off-axis behavior colors the pickup of all sound that arrives from everywhere else in the room except directly in front- most of the applause, room reverberation and recording ambience.

I hesitate to contradict him, since he has been doing this much longer than I have and has taught me much over the years with regards to taping, basically welcoming me to TS over a decade ago.  However, I will make a correction here- the term "first order microphone" does not refer to an achieved build quality of a particular microphone.  It instead refers to a mathematical description describing directivity behavior.  Mathematically, all "first order microphones" can be modeled and thought of as the combination of a pressure component (the omnidirectional component) and a pressure-gradient component (the bidirectional or figure-8 component) mixed together in various combinations.  A true omni is 100% omnidirectional component and 0% bidirectional component.  A bidirectional figure-8 is 0% omnidirectional component and 100% bidirectional.  A true cardioid consists of exactly 50% of each.  A subcard or wide-cardioid has more omni component than bi, and a supercard or hypercardioid has more bidirectional component than omni.  We can even mix a real-world omni with a real-world figure 8 in equal proportions and create a virtual cardioid pattern.

Here's a drawing illustrating the mathmatical addition of the pressure and pressure-gradient components to form a first-order cardioid pattern as mentioned above-



That's pretty much all you need to know, or perhaps more than you need to know, but for anyone interested and in support of my contradiction in my next post I'll dish some dirt on higher microphone pattern "orders".   Feel free to ignore all this, it's something of a thread-jack!
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 08:04:23 PM by Gutbucket »
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2016, 08:05:24 PM »
Okay this gets more technical.  Apologies in advance for the thread-jack. Feel free to ignore, but at least checkout the photos of the cool high-tech mics at the bottom!

Almost all the microphones we use are first order microphones in the technical, mathematically described sense as mentioned above. First order describes the set of all pickup patterns ranging from omnidirectional to figure-8 along a continuum, generated by combination of the basic omni and bi-directional first order components. Various combination ratios produce pattern shapes we refer to as subcardioid, wide-card, cardioid, supercardioid and hypercardioid, all of which are within the set. Microphones with these patterns are available with various degrees of quality of course, roughly corresponding to price.  Besides other engineering/cost choices made by the manufacturer, those quality issues concern in part how closely the achieved pickup pattern matches the mathematical ideal, as well as how closely that pattern is maintained across the entire frequency range.  These are attributes important for microphones used in stereo pairs for high-quality stereo recording, both for good imaging and for natural  sounding ambient reverberant sound. Better behaved mics in those areas are of a top order in the sense that they are higher-quality than mics which don't work as well for stereo recording, but because of this important meaning of first order acoustic mathematical confusing and  The mistake is to misconstrue the term "first order" as a synonym for "top quality"

What microphones aren't first-order?  All basic microphones capsules are first order. But we can use them in ways in which their pickup pattern is modified to intentionally no longer approximate a mathematical first order ideal shape.  Any boundary mounted microphone is no longer behaving strictly as a basic first order pattern, typically that's done with omnis mounted to a wall or the floor, but other patterns can be boundary mounted too. 

Two mics on either side of a jecklin-disk or similar baffle no longer behave in a simple first order fashion.  And a binaural recording made with omni capsules placed in one's ears or in that of a dummy head has a complex response which is no longer well approximated and cannot be synthesized using "first order" mathematics. An interference tube microphone (shotgun mic) doesn't exhibit a first-order pickup pattern since the increased directivity imparted by the interference tube is greater than a supercard can achieve alone (supercard being the most unidirectional first-order pattern along the continuum from omni to bidirectional). 

A shotgun mic uses a supercardioid capsule (first order) with an interference tube attached to the front of it which increases directionality at high frequencies at the expense of greatly reduced off-axis polar pattern quality and consistency.  The off-axis response of a shotgun is both more rough overall and varies dramatically by frequency.  That means shotgun mics don't perform very well as stereo pairs, despite a long history of tapers using them in pairs to record the Grateful Dead from locations far back in the audience.  That worked for a few reasons, yet in a stereo configuration, shotguns suffer greatly from exactly the problem Moke mentions with regards to sound arriving from off-axis.  To help cover their inherent raggedy off-axis and overall response flaws, Dead tapers typically ran them in 3-mic configurations with a single omni in the center, and those 3 channels were combined to two before being recorded to 2-channel tape.  The singe omni extended the frequency response as well as smoothing some of the flaws of the shotguns.  I've argued here at TS for other techniques which utilize the positive attributes directional attributes of shotgun mics and covers for their flaws in a similar way, but without trying to use them as a stereo pair, such as a single forward-facing center mic mixed with two wide spaced omnis or with a wider than normal spaced/angled directional pair.  Those configurations are a more appropriate application for modern outdoor fests and arena shows in which the PA mix is almost always primarily monophonic, unlike 80's era Dead, which was PA reinforced in stereo), yet the taping position is still quite distant, and they avoid the "stereo shotguns" problem altogether while achieving a richer stereo quality across a wider frequency spectrum, with strong potential to produce recordings which are more enveloping.

There are some microphone arrays which can produce higher than first order microphone patterns by way of carefully matrixing the output from multiple microphones, Schoeps does that with their CMIT shotgun which uses a second rear-facing supercardioid capsule and clever DPS programing within the microphone to produce a mic with the increased directivity of a shotgun though the full frequency spectrum with minimal off-axis problems.  They'd probably not call it a higher-order microphone but it is certainly a move in that direction and uses similar techniques.  I'd love to be able to use one of those!  True higher-order microphones typically consist of an array of numerous small omnis arranged in a specific pattern.  In that way second, third, fourth, fifth or higher order microphone patterns can be generated.  The irony is that most higher-order microphones have thus far not been very "musical" and have terrible pattern behavior quality in the sense of the measures which interest us as music tapers.  They achieve greater directionality but just don't sound very good.  Below is an example of a second order cardioid pattern- notice that the front lobe is tighter than a supercard, and that there is not a single secondary lobe but three- a rear lobe with the same polarity as the front, and two side lobes with inverse polarity-



Now we are no longer simply combining one directionless omni pressure component with a bi-directional component pointed in a particular direction.  To achieve greater than first-order directional microphone patterns, we need to generate "higher order components" and combine them in various ways.  Below is a computer generated image of mathematically defined shapes arranged from top to bottom in increasing orders of "spherical harmonics" which can theoretically be extended to any nth-order. Ambisonics deals directly with such spherical harmonics.  The sphere at the top of the pyramid of shapes represents the omni pressure component, think of it as the basic omnidirectional "zero order" stating point.  The second row down represents the first order pressure-gradient bi-directional component, shown as three separate bi-directional fig-8 patterns pointing in the three cartesian directions (left/right, front/back, and up/down).  By various matrix combinations of the omni component and these 3 bi-directional components, we can generate any first order microphone pattern pointing in any direction we like.  That's why any first order ambisonic microphone requires four recording channels.  By recording those four channels live, we can come back later and create as many virtual first order microphone patterns as we like in that point in space and point them in any direction we care to once we get down to mixing.  That's the principle behind how first order ambisonic microphones such as the Soundfield microphones and the Core-Audio Tetramic work.  As the order complexity is increased further, one needs to include all the shapes of the next layer down to produce patterns of the next higher order.  2nd order ambisonics requires 9 channels of information instead of 4.  3rd order requires 16 channels.



Below is a mic capable of 5th order which uses 32 microphone channels, those are omnidirectional pressure capsules flush-mounted into the surface of a sphere-



And here's another that is capable of 5th order in some directions, restricted to the horizontal plane only (no up/down virtual microphone adjustment, no virtual mics pointing at the ceiling) but is capable of much higher quality and suitable for music recording, using in this example 8 Schoeps omnis in a specially designed mount.  The 8 recorded channels are then  processed by heavy DSP routines in a dedicated computer control box to create the virtual microphone patterns-

« Last Edit: December 07, 2016, 12:28:23 AM by Gutbucket »
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline admkrk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • I'm an idiot
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2016, 08:13:59 PM »
Sounds great. Bass is a little boomy, but I think it sounds nice.
Thanks, I attribute most of the boomyness to being under the balcony, although the preamp most likely added to it.

Gutbucket's recommendations are spot on also. Stage lip only requires that the mics are far enough above the floor to avoid reflections, and small mics will not likely be noticed from the seats. <edit>He added a couple more posts while I was writing this that I have not read yet.</edit>

It sounds like the board is in the balcony, where you are set up? If they have unused cables in the snake, you could tap into them, have your mics at the stage, and your recorder back at the board. It would likely require some adapters, but its a thought, since you have access.
"the faster you go ahead, the behinder you get"

"If you can drink ram's piss, fuck, you can drink anything"

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2016, 09:11:19 PM »
After all that, below is the best advice in the whole thread!

The bottom line is do not overthink it. What do you have to loose by trying ORTF the next time?

I will make one slight correction to the good admiral's otherwise outstanding wisdom-
Stage lip only requires that the mics are far enough above the floor to avoid reflections.
 
Nah. 

Although if that's a concern you could conversely place the mics directly on floor, or set them up peering just over the stage lip, both of which completely eliminates any floor reflections.  That's partly what is happening when boundary mounting omnis by taping them directly to the wall.  I've had great results taping or just laying omnis on the stage floor itself (make sure they don't get stepped on!) In reality I think the floor reflection thing is somewhat overwrought.  I've made numerous smokin' on-stage and stage-lip tapes with the mics mounted anywhere from 4" to 3' above the stage. Here's a few pics of some successful "very low" on-stage setups I've run.  The first has a triangular 3 mic LD array with the mics 8" to 12" above the floor and an ORTF pair in the center just slightly higher. In the second I turned the LD mics sideways to get a few additional inches of spacing between mics.

The other stand with the mics mounted about 2' to 3' above the stage is is Spyder9's rig.  The second photo also shows additional room facing mics I hung under the stagelip instead of the ORTF pair, just ignore those.





« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 09:13:21 PM by Gutbucket »
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline admkrk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • I'm an idiot
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2016, 11:28:00 PM »
Nah. 

Well yes, but would you lay the TLs perpendicular? My last outing involved running my mics over the SBD tent. I was more concerned for Blues Traveler ,  but raising them made little, to no difference in the sound compared to the previous bands. In other words, I would have been fine with just 6" separation. I doubt that omnis would have behaved so well.

"the faster you go ahead, the behinder you get"

"If you can drink ram's piss, fuck, you can drink anything"

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2016, 11:42:05 PM »
Lay them perpendicular? Like in the 2nd photo above?  Sure.

6" separation? Between mics and sbd tent beneath?  Different situation than on stage.

That BT sounds good, nice job.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline admkrk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • I'm an idiot
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2016, 12:40:21 AM »
Well, my original post got lost, but I did not see the second pic. To put it short, a flapping tarp with people constantly bumping into it, is definitely different than a solid stage floor. The floor is certainly more predicable. I hope to find myself in a similar situation soon, which is why I have such an interest in this thread.

The two times I recorded BT make up some of my best recordings. They just seem to mesh with my gear.
"the faster you go ahead, the behinder you get"

"If you can drink ram's piss, fuck, you can drink anything"

Offline SquirrelMurphy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2016, 08:36:45 AM »
As far as configuration it's a matter of deciding what you like.  I basically point cards straight ahead regardless of distance and location.  I don't think you can go wrong with that.  Others may have other preferences. 

Trial and error seems the best approach in my experience.  If you have the opportunity to experiment I'd do so.

Thanks. This validates what I've been doing. I started to question myself because so many people here talk about DIN-this and ORTF-that and here I am simply pointing my mics.

How much space between narrowly angled microphones?  Below is a chart which recommends spacings between cardioids based on whatever angle between microphones a taper ends up with after pointing the mics directly at the PA speakers.  It takes the point-at-stacks (PAS) taper technique and suggests an appropriate spacing between mics.

This is super helpful. It'd be even better i there was a distance multiplier for distance-from-source. I've recorded a few AB recordings with just 6" to 12" between cardioid mics thinking that's the distance between ears... but for some reason when I'm further back (at other venues) I tend to increase the distance between mics. I often do 3' but don't know why I do it. Seems to feel right sometimes. I recorded a couple of shows in a dished "shed" with a steel roof and I was all the way back at the back where they put me... I flew my cardioids 10-feet up on a 3' omni bar pointed at the stage stacks... thought I was doing it "wrong" but once again I wanted to minimize reflections from that roof so I thought to point straight-on imagining a directional cone of focus on the stacks. I'm happy with the recordings, but the room is quite present as always it seems.

Space them 3' apart or so back at the soundboard, but tape them directly onto the front face of that wall which faces the stage on which the mics are sitting in the photo you posted above. This is called boundary-mounting and works best if the wall is hard rather than soft.

I may try this first because you have me curious. I have a 3' omni bar (makeshift, but it works for those little mics) and a mount-point to that wall. I can push the bar right to the wall surface and clip the mics at 180-degrees and flush to the wall. I've always thought about recording there, but worried about the wall reflections. This will be interesting to try.

It sounds like the board is in the balcony, where you are set up? If they have unused cables in the snake, you could tap into them, have your mics at the stage, and your recorder back at the board. It would likely require some adapters, but its a thought, since you have access.

Yup. Good idea. I'll look. There's a patch-box there with like 10 jacks (BNC or XLR, can't remember). 4 are used for overhead stage mics. I'm not sure where the others go (likely nowhere), but I can go explore and see if there's a stub or jack somewhere on the stage / stage front.

...you can't go too far wrong with ORTF up front at the stage-lip or in the front rows. Same goes for DIN or NOS...
...Barely peaking over the edge of the stage can work very well.
...Recording very low in the first row with the back of the seat acting to attenuate the close audience applause

OK. I will try to find an opportunity for this setup too. Gives me a chance to try DIN up close.

Too bad my kid is a senior. I waited too long to try all this stuff. Wish I had 2 recorders so I could record off the house-mics / mixer + try one of the other mic combos and placement you guys are recommending and keep the better of the 2.

Thanks for all the ideas. It's all becoming clearer to me how this all works and what I should consider.

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #22 on: November 30, 2016, 11:18:39 AM »
How much space between narrowly angled microphones?  Below is a chart which recommends spacings between cardioids based on whatever angle between microphones a taper ends up with after pointing the mics directly at the PA speakers.  It takes the point-at-stacks (PAS) taper technique and suggests an appropriate spacing between mics.

This is super helpful. It'd be even better i there was a distance multiplier for distance-from-source. I've recorded a few AB recordings with just 6" to 12" between cardioid mics thinking that's the distance between ears... but for some reason when I'm further back (at other venues) I tend to increase the distance between mics. I often do 3' but don't know why I do it. Seems to feel right sometimes. I recorded a couple of shows in a dished "shed" with a steel roof and I was all the way back at the back where they put me... I flew my cardioids 10-feet up on a 3' omni bar pointed at the stage stacks... thought I was doing it "wrong" but once again I wanted to minimize reflections from that roof so I thought to point straight-on imagining a directional cone of focus on the stacks. I'm happy with the recordings, but the room is quite present as always it seems.

Here's a link to the thread discussing the Improved PAS technique- http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=167549.msg2087409#msg2087409

The cool thing is that a distance multiplier is already built-in.  As the recording position is moved further away from the stage, the angle to the PA speakers on either side of the stage (or to the outer edges of an un-PA-amplified ensemble) becomes narrower, and the suggested microphone spacing automatically increases to compensate.  The farther back the recording position is moved, the wider the mic spacing becomes.

The primary motivation for putting that together was simplifying stereo mic setups for tapers by eliminating head-scratching and confusion in finding the optimal mic configuration from a given recording position. When figuring it out initially, I got excited that it actually addresses two of the most common problems tapers face- Maximizing the direct/reverberant sound balance from a recording position out in the audience, usually further away than what would normally be prefered (by using super/hypercardioids when available, cardioids if not or if of superior quality, and pointing them directly at the PA sources), and optimizing the stereo image from that location so that it is as full, wide and open sounding as possible without becoming over-wide and swimmy, and without a hole-in-the-middle (through linking spacing, angle and pickup pattern).  It's an easy way to minimize room verb and maximize clarity as much as possible while optimizing the stereo spread from a recording position out in the audience.

The best way by far to reduce "room sound" is to move closer to the source, and this doesn't change that, but simply helps do as much as is possible to do from whatever position you end up setting up in.  It includes configurations which are very close to DIN and ORTF, which are along a continuum of configurations determined by the distance from and the apparent width of the source.

 
« Last Edit: November 30, 2016, 11:21:18 AM by Gutbucket »
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline down2earthlandscaper

  • Multiple-Rig Maniac
  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 372
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #23 on: November 30, 2016, 12:50:43 PM »
As for trying the omnis, I have two suggestions-

1) Space them 3' apart or so along the front stage lip edge.  Most patrons won't even notice them.  Excellent natural sounding recordings can be made this way and good proximity to the performers will limit overbearing room reverberance even though they are omnidirectional.  I'd still suggest pointing them at the performers, since omnis are slightly directional and you'll get better detail and transients by pointing them directly at the main sources of interest.

2) Space them 3' apart or so back at the soundboard, but tape them directly onto the front face of that wall which faces the stage on which the mics are sitting in the photo you posted above. This is called boundary-mounting and works best if the wall is hard rather than soft.  It's a somewhat unusual technique that in the right situation can seemingly work magic, providing astounding clarity and a dramatic reduction in reverberation.  Boundary mounting works best with the mics as close to the wall surface as possible, so taping your small lightweight omnis directly to that wall can be a good option.  I'd point the omnis directly to either side, facing 180 degrees apart instead of trying to point them directly at the stage.  With boundary mounting, the direction the wall is facing will do most of the "pointing", and that gets the diaphragms closer to the wall surface while providing a small about of directional difference at the highest frequencies.  Ideally the omnis would be mounted so that their capsule surfaces were flush with the wall surface itself, but taping them to the wall works fine as long as they don't vibrate.   This technique makes the omnis behave more like cardioids, they become "hemispherically directional" instead of omnidirectional, and increases the direct-sound to reverberant-sound pickup ratio in a way no other technique can.  It's an odd-ball technique which can be a real problem solver and I think is worth a try in this situation, especially when you need to record from the back of the room instead of from up front.

Thanks for this! The Neptune Theater in Seattle is a horrible room to record (old movie theater with a balcony, lots of concrete) I think I will try this omni technique. I've always just clamped to the balcony rail with cards or hypers PAS, but there is a solid concrete wall under that rail. I had thought of using this wall before to help reduce some of the reverberation, but I had thought of hanging a blanket or piece of fabric between the wall and mics to minimize reflections. Very interesting that you say this works better if the wall is hard rather than soft. I will skip the blanket and tape straight to the concrete.
Mics: CA-14(cards & omnis) and CA-11(cards & omnis) ; AT853's(cards, hypers, mini shotguns); Busman BSC-1 (card, hypercard, omni)
Nakamichi CM300(x4) - CP1(x4) CP2(x2) CP3(x2) CP4(x2)
Nakamichi CM700's (cards, omnis, -10db)
Tascam PE-120's (cards, omnis)
Peluso CEMC-6 (cards)
DPA 4061's
Preamps: CA-9100; Naiant Tinybox (12v/48v + PIP 8V); Naiant Littlebox;
DPA MPS6030
Decks: Sony PCM M10; Edirol R-4; Zoom H6; Marantz PMD-661; Sound Devices 722

Offline SquirrelMurphy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #24 on: November 30, 2016, 12:57:47 PM »
The primary motivation for putting that together was simplifying stereo mic setups for tapers by eliminating head-scratching and confusion in finding the optimal mic configuration from a given recording position.

And that, sir, is appreciated by this guy. I can't say that I follow all the technical stuff, but I follow the general principles and outcomes enough to put it to work in a sensible way. This is quite helpful. Thank you.

Offline down2earthlandscaper

  • Multiple-Rig Maniac
  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 372
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2016, 01:20:55 PM »
Sounds great. Bass is a little boomy, but I think it sounds nice.
Thanks, I attribute most of the boomyness to being under the balcony, although the preamp most likely added to it.

Gutbucket's recommendations are spot on also. Stage lip only requires that the mics are far enough above the floor to avoid reflections, and small mics will not likely be noticed from the seats. <edit>He added a couple more posts while I was writing this that I have not read yet.</edit>

It sounds like the board is in the balcony, where you are set up? If they have unused cables in the snake, you could tap into them, have your mics at the stage, and your recorder back at the board. It would likely require some adapters, but its a thought, since you have access.

I'm curious about your comment about the preamp adding to the boomyness? (Recording sounds great, by the way)
Mics: CA-14(cards & omnis) and CA-11(cards & omnis) ; AT853's(cards, hypers, mini shotguns); Busman BSC-1 (card, hypercard, omni)
Nakamichi CM300(x4) - CP1(x4) CP2(x2) CP3(x2) CP4(x2)
Nakamichi CM700's (cards, omnis, -10db)
Tascam PE-120's (cards, omnis)
Peluso CEMC-6 (cards)
DPA 4061's
Preamps: CA-9100; Naiant Tinybox (12v/48v + PIP 8V); Naiant Littlebox;
DPA MPS6030
Decks: Sony PCM M10; Edirol R-4; Zoom H6; Marantz PMD-661; Sound Devices 722

Offline admkrk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • I'm an idiot
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2016, 01:33:25 AM »
I'm curious about your comment about the preamp adding to the boomyness? (Recording sounds great, by the way)
I used a warm mod UA5, which adds to the bottom end. Outdoors, it sounds "OK", usually, but in a boomy situation, it tends to add too much bottom. I am used to Phil powering up the bottom, but it tends to muddy up most other bands. To be honest, I think all my recordings that use it would have sounded better with a cleaner preamp.
"the faster you go ahead, the behinder you get"

"If you can drink ram's piss, fuck, you can drink anything"

Offline down2earthlandscaper

  • Multiple-Rig Maniac
  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 372
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #27 on: December 01, 2016, 02:12:02 AM »
I'm curious about your comment about the preamp adding to the boomyness? (Recording sounds great, by the way)
I used a warm mod UA5, which adds to the bottom end. Outdoors, it sounds "OK", usually, but in a boomy situation, it tends to add too much bottom. I am used to Phil powering up the bottom, but it tends to muddy up most other bands. To be honest, I think all my recordings that use it would have sounded better with a cleaner preamp.

Ah yes. That makes sense now.  I've noticed the difference in preamps - This  https://archive.org/details/DPO2016-10-21.dpa4022.flac24  was my first time using this combo: DPA 4022 > Naiant Tinybox > Sony M10  At first listen it almost sounded thin on bass but when I transferred it to my computer to really check it out I was pretty impressed with the tight, punchy bass and the clear detail from clean power of the Tinybox.
 
Mics: CA-14(cards & omnis) and CA-11(cards & omnis) ; AT853's(cards, hypers, mini shotguns); Busman BSC-1 (card, hypercard, omni)
Nakamichi CM300(x4) - CP1(x4) CP2(x2) CP3(x2) CP4(x2)
Nakamichi CM700's (cards, omnis, -10db)
Tascam PE-120's (cards, omnis)
Peluso CEMC-6 (cards)
DPA 4061's
Preamps: CA-9100; Naiant Tinybox (12v/48v + PIP 8V); Naiant Littlebox;
DPA MPS6030
Decks: Sony PCM M10; Edirol R-4; Zoom H6; Marantz PMD-661; Sound Devices 722

Offline scrtaper

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #28 on: January 01, 2017, 05:47:21 PM »
Did you ever try hanging the omnis over the band?
When I'm dead, I want to be remembered as a musician of some worth and substance
Freddie Mercury

Offline SquirrelMurphy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #29 on: January 02, 2017, 11:46:31 AM »
Did you ever try hanging the omnis over the band?

Funny you should ask... I planned on posting here after the last recording but hadn't gotten around to it yet.

I showed up for the last show with plans to record off the house mics and had some ideas on how to tweak the gain and mix. Turns out the mixer had died and the TV crew had a cheapie stand-in... but all the outputs were in use. I was unprepared for splitting/patching and time was very short (I had 15 min to set-up)... So I hastily set up my mics and my plan B was to try the omnis based on our discussion here.

I decided to stay in the box and not go setup in the front row (I'll maybe try that next time). There's a little lip where the maple box railing meets the drywall on the front face of the box. The maple railing is where you see my recording setup sitting in my first post. I have a 6"x2" make-shift mic bar I carry with me. I taped that to the bottom of the lip and flush to the wall (see pic below). Mics are clipped to the ends and pointing at the stage -- not 180-degrees as discussed in this thread. I was hoping that the wall would shield the mics from whispered conversations in the box (3 camera people this time) and it worked. I was a little worried about the effect of the slight recess behind the mics but was reticent to completely push the back of the mic against the wall due to the fact that it'd be a little under that maple lip. There's no audience under that wall (it's an entrance to a service/camera room) so audience clapping and whispers is probably OK.

I posted a sample here. Some things I noticed:

- It's more boomy than with the cardioids. I like the cardiod recordings better. Cards are more detailed and not boomy. Seem crisper.
- I used line-in instead of mic-in like I usually do (just screwed up). Levels were much lower... the PCM-M10 is usually at 3 or 4 but I had to do 7 and 8 for this one and they were still too low... stage announcements did not even read on the VU meter. Pre-amp was maxed (+12dB) and I used line-in. I amplified in post (Audacity "Amplify") but it's still pretty low.
- The performance was more dynamic than usual... very quiet "pin-drop" moments and then other times when all the horns are blaring. I was reticent to take the levels higher for fear of clipping.

I don't think I'll record from back there with the omnis again. The Cards just seem much better to me... but you can compare because I posted a sample of each in this thread.

One thing I learned is that there is a catwalk over the audience and close to the stage (not directly over the stage, although I bet there's one there for lights and stage rigging). I'm guessing it's over row 7 or so. I can put mics up there... but I'd have to put my whole rig up there with pre-set levels and let it roll hoping for the best. I can't stay and monitor the recording from there (and I don't want to) or find a remote option (that's what the camera guys do).

Next time I'll try the cards or omnis from the front seat or I'll go back to the house mics to play with them more. I think there's 2 more concerts to go before my kid graduates (although I can still go and record of course).

Thanks for all the help here. You guys are great.

Pic:

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2017, 07:14:13 PM »
Thanks for the follow up and the samples.

It's more boomy than with the cardioids. I like the cardiod recordings better. Cards are more detailed and not boomy. Seem crisper.

Much of that is frequency response differences, primarily due to the dramatic differences of recording location and distance from the stage, but also the inherent low frequency rolloff of cards vs omnis and the different overall frequency responses of the microphones.  The two recordings could be made to sound much closer to each other after EQ, but other things like transient clarity and dynamic punch only comes with being close enough to capture those qualities.

Try the mics up in that catwalk if you can, that could work very well.  Try spacing the omnis and hanging them from their cables to get them as low as the short cables allow.  I doubt anyone will even see them.  You probably can't hang the cards as easily as you need to point them correctly, so just tape or clamp them (safely of course) to the catwalk itself if you don't have a way to extend them downwards without them twisting around.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline SquirrelMurphy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #31 on: January 03, 2017, 09:30:41 PM »
Try the mics up in that catwalk if you can [...] hanging them from their cables...

You guys are getting me deeper and deeper into it.  :)

But I'm game. How to set the levels though? There's no chance at a test run. You think this'll be better than cards from the front row? At least then I can sit with them and shush the neighbors.

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Switch to DIN or ORTF for a situation like this? CA-14 cards
« Reply #32 on: January 04, 2017, 09:52:32 AM »
Cards in the front row is simple and easy and may be the best way to go simply on that account.  But if it interests you to figure out what works best, I'd certainly give the catwalk a try.  Hanging spaced omnis over the conductor position is a commonly prefered way to record professionally in a concert hall.  You can do it like the pros do.  Most here will never have a chance to record that way.  Personally, I'd jump at the chance!

Compared to recording from the front row seated position, from a hanging position over the conductor the orchestra will sound brighter and generally clearer overall, the instruments in the back rows less distant and reverberant, and the audience reaction more distant and evenly diffuse.

Use the level settings which worked for you previously from the front row, maybe with a touch more headroom just to be safe.

volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.503 seconds with 59 queries.
© 2002-2017 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF
Website Design by Foxtrot Media, Inc., a Baltimore Website Company