Topic: Mic Setup...Mounting Bars vs. Free Style

[stevetoney]

With actives options hitting the market like wildfire, I've noticed that the YS demand for mounting bars is sky high. 

Just thought I'd throw it out there that, while I respect the size and convenience of the bars, I'm not a fan of being limited to specific configurations.  Every recording situation provides a different challenge and I like having the flexibility to adjust.  The fixed nature of mounting bars takes the Stereophonic Zoom concept pretty much out of the equation, in terms of applying it on the fly at the venue.

That said, after using standard configs for a number of years, I've discovered lately that I'm a point-at-stacks guy because my recordings just sound better in the rooms here in Pittsburgh. 

Bottom line is that I like having a mount that allows me to adjust my angles based on the venue and my location.

[acidjack]

I think this is a great point.  There's no doubt that kwon/NOLA bars are an awesome option and are especially useful where weight is a big factor (clamping to big stands, balconies, etc.) and/or the lowest profile possible is needed.   But it is nice to be able to pick your own config and spacing when you can, and I often find I prefer a tighter pattern more like PAS as well. 

That said, it's great to have both in your bag if you can.  Nothing beats the convenience of Kwon/NOLA bars.

[Rob D.]

Nothing beats the convenience of Kwon/NOLA bars.

^ this ^

It's all I ever need

[cd2go]

But it is nice to be able to pick your own config and spacing when you can, and I often find I prefer a tighter pattern more like PAS as well. 

I agree; if I'm in the ideal spot for a certain config, I will use it, but most times it's just not the case.

[stevetoney]

So, when I started this thread, one of the things I was curious to ask people about is, why do people spend thousands of dollars on schoeps mics with active cables, then instead of going for the best IMHO sound, go for convenience of a standard configuration when the mics might be pointing at the walls of a boomy venue when a narrower config is called for.  I mean, if convenience is your thing, I agree nothing beats the bars, but I don't particularly understand the logic...at least not when you've invested alot for top quality sound.  It seems kinda counterproductive if getting the top sound is your priority.

[bryonsos]

In a really great sounding room, the standard configs work out great, but I often end up running something more PAS. I never get the caps closer than 20cm though.

[F.O.Bean]

Nothing beats the convenience of Kwon/NOLA bars.

^ this ^

It's all I ever need

99 out of 100 times I'm either FOB/DFC or DFC at the SBD, and IMO, my pulls sound just fine, if not stellar for the most part I do have options for running PAS and do so at a few venues here in Pittsburgh, but more often than not I'm in a good spot and wouldn't trade my active bars for anything

[Ultfris101]

This is definitely a YMMV topic. The place I've been taping the most is long and narrow. DIN would only work about 8ft from the stage and that's not going to be allowed by the venue most of the time. I end up putting my mics up about 9ft above the SBD and if I'm even getting 70 degrees when I PAS I'd be surprised. I also can't get more than about 17cm of separation without being straight ahead which I might decided to try for grins sometime to see. This place is a tough place to pull aud recordings. I'm thinking I'll try some stagelip/on stage stuff soon and that might well benefit from exact DIN/ORTF so I may adjust my thinking on how much use I get out of a set pattern bar.

Dopapod is playing there on 4/6. If my recording is half as good as NYE was I'll consider it a success.

I'm getting to do some orchestra recording soon which will be a good opportunity to run true ORTF but I haven't found I'm in that position often enough so far. The National here in Richmond is a notable exception and DIN if you're at the SBD is great. More often than not they're pushing tapers back behind the board these days so you're back to PAS with hypers.

I picked up long and short delrin bars from Robb so those are going to work for me for now. I'm considering an ORTF bar to simplify setup for perfect situations and when I want to keep profile as simple and clean as possible (like when running mics behind an orchestra conductor and in front of a big audience for example).

[F.O.Bean]

This is definitely a YMMV topic. The place I've been taping the most is long and narrow. DIN would only work about 8ft from the stage and that's not going to be allowed by the venue most of the time. I end up putting my mics up about 9ft above the SBD and if I'm even getting 70 degrees when I PAS I'd be surprised. I also can't get more than about 17cm of separation without being straight ahead which I might decided to try for grins sometime to see. This place is a tough place to pull aud recordings. I'm thinking I'll try some stagelip/on stage stuff soon and that might well benefit from exact DIN/ORTF so I may adjust my thinking on how much use I get out of a set pattern bar.

Dopapod is playing there on 4/6. If my recording is half as good as NYE was I'll consider it a success.

I'm getting to do some orchestra recording soon which will be a good opportunity to run true ORTF but I haven't found I'm in that position often enough so far. The National here in Richmond is a notable exception and DIN if you're at the SBD is great. More often than not they're pushing tapers back behind the board these days so you're back to PAS with hypers.

I picked up long and short delrin bars from Robb so those are going to work for me for now. I'm considering an ORTF bar to simplify setup for perfect situations and when I want to keep profile as simple and clean as possible (like when running mics behind an orchestra conductor and in front of a big audience for example).

I would get a DIN Bar over an ORTF Bar, IMHO. ORTF needs to be used with cards/hypers when in the PERFECT spot. DIN is a little more forgiving and can be run in good, but less than ideal spots. I would pick up an ORTF Bar too, but if I had to choose one first, it would def be a DIN Bar!

[hi and lo]

Schoeps/Nola/Kwon bars provide certain convenience that I enjoy, but I like to think of their convenience as a minor perk rather than the main benefit. For me, it's all about the ability to accurately reproduce a 'standard' configuration and use it as a land mark for all other configurations. Think of them as a learning tool rather than an absolute best practice because, as tonedeaf points out so well, the 'perfect' setup will almost always be somewhere in the middle and we're leaving something on the field by choosing convenience over perfection.

[Rob D.]

So, when I started this thread, one of the things I was curious to ask people about is, why do people spend thousands of dollars on schoeps mics with active cables, then instead of going for the best IMHO sound, go for convenience of a standard configuration when the mics might be pointing at the walls of a boomy venue when a narrower config is called for.  I mean, if convenience is your thing, I agree nothing beats the bars, but I don't particularly understand the logic...at least not when you've invested alot for top quality sound.  It seems kinda counterproductive if getting the top sound is your priority.

Don't assume everyone who runs active mics are restricted to just the actives config. If none of the DIN, DINa, NOS or M/S Kwon bars I have are adequate for the situation I'll just run the full bodied mics/caps on the Shure vert bar I keep in my bag.

[Gutbucket]

Just a reminder that if you typically like DIN but your PAS arrangement at any particular venue has you using less angle between mics, which it will in most situations, it will be advantageous to compensate for the narrower angle between mics by introducing more spacing between them.  The moral to the story is this: If you use PAS a lot, figure out a way of achieving adjustable mic spacing with your mounting setup which can place the mic capsules wider than a typical 7” to 12" bar.

It's that increased spacing part of optimizing a PAS setup which most people either neglect entirely or compromise on.  Some may be unaware of the basic relationship, but others here who are aware of the relationship are constrained by the limitations of their mounting system and/or simply unsure of how much additional distance between mics is appropriate. 


About a year ago I started a thread about that, which went into far more technical detail than most here probably care to immerse themselves in.  It was a good discussion, but the complexity was unfortunate in a way, because my primary motivation was to derive simplified tables which easily indicate the optimal microphone spacing for whatever PAS mic angle the user ends up with.

Here's that thread- http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=153112.0

And below is the resulting table, which is based upon the standard 'DIN' configuration (cardioids @ 90 degrees, 20 cm). The idea is that if you like what you hear from a DIN setup when that is an appropriate choice, but wish to use PAS instead in a compromised situation, you can get a recording with some similar attributes by first pointing your mics at the stacks (or just outside them) and estimating the resulting angle between the mics, then checking the table to find the appropriate spacing for that microphone angle.

You really only need the first two columns.  The first column indicates the angle between mics and the second indicates the suggested spacing to arrive at the same recording angle as a DIN setup. Note that the mic spacing indicated in the second column is specified in centimeters.  For most PAS situations where the angle between mics is narrower than 90 degrees, you would be referring to the bottom half of the table. DIN is in the middle-

[Ultfris101]

Thank you! Perfect timing.  I'll see what I can do Thursday night. After my classical recording I'm planning to hit the narrow bar. I'll see if I can rig something up to get the wider spacing. The largest of my current mic bars is about 12" I believe.

Seems like  somewhere around 29-33cm is where I need to be looking at the chart. Just slightly longer than my current bars but I'm way short of that spacing now so I can at least get a lot better.

[achalsey]

Just a reminder that if you typically like DIN but your PAS arrangement at any particular venue has you using less angle between mics, which it will in most situations, it will be advantageous to compensate for the narrower angle between mics by introducing more spacing between them. [snip]

Avoiding the "explain this like I'm 5 years old" question, this is based on a relatively specific relationship between the mic spacing and your speaker playback system correct?  If you are playing back through headphones, or have a specific spacing of speaker playback, that will change the relative angle/spacing of your mics, will it not?

In the end, if you're taping primarily for yourself, it should all be calculated in reference to your playback system right?

[Gutbucket]

Just a reminder that if you typically like DIN but your PAS arrangement at any particular venue has you using less angle between mics, which it will in most situations, it will be advantageous to compensate for the narrower angle between mics by introducing more spacing between them. [snip]

Avoiding the "explain this like I'm 5 years old" question, this is based on a relatively specific relationship between the mic spacing and your speaker playback system correct?  If you are playing back through headphones, or have a specific spacing of speaker playback, that will change the relative angle/spacing of your mics, will it not?

In the end, if you're taping primarily for yourself, it should all be calculated in reference to your playback system right?

Well technically yes, however the same applies to any microphone setup: X/Y, ORTF, NOS, or what have you, each of which assume a more or less defacto 60degree speaker angle stereo listening triangle setup.  In a practical sense, variations in specific playback system speaker setup angle don’t matter as much as one might be lead to believe.  The resulting Stereo Recording Angle from any of those setups effects the position at which sounds appear to be reproduced somewhere between the two speakers or directly from them- the relative position doesn’t change much if the speakers are setup at a different angle than 60 degrees, within reason.

The table I posted above is based on the Williams’ Stereo Zoom (a link to the Stereo Zoom paper and explanatory thread here are stickied at the top of this forum) and the values in the table were derived from this on-line calculator- http://www.sengpielaudio.com/HejiaE.htm

[stevetoney]

Just a reminder that if you typically like DIN but your PAS arrangement at any particular venue has you using less angle between mics, which it will in most situations, it will be advantageous to compensate for the narrower angle between mics by introducing more spacing between them. [snip]

Avoiding the "explain this like I'm 5 years old" question, this is based on a relatively specific relationship between the mic spacing and your speaker playback system correct?  If you are playing back through headphones, or have a specific spacing of speaker playback, that will change the relative angle/spacing of your mics, will it not?

In the end, if you're taping primarily for yourself, it should all be calculated in reference to your playback system right?

Well technically yes, however the same applies to any microphone setup: X/Y, ORTF, NOS, or what have you, each of which assume a more or less defacto 60degree speaker angle stereo listening triangle setup.  In a practical sense, variations in specific playback system speaker setup angle don’t matter as much as one might be lead to believe.  The resulting Stereo Recording Angle from any of those setups effects the position at which sounds appear to be reproduced somewhere between the two speakers or directly from them- the relative position doesn’t change much if the speakers are setup at a different angle than 60 degrees, within reason.

The table I posted above is based on the Williams’ Stereo Zoom (a link to the Stereo Zoom paper and explanatory thread here are stickied at the top of this forum) and the values in the table were derived from this on-line calculator- http://www.sengpielaudio.com/HejiaE.htm

I'm not sure I understand either the question or the response, but just to try to clarify what I think I'm reading, the Stereo Zoom concept is about stereo imaging produced by two directional microphones.  In that respect, it's all about what we're trying to achieve at the point of capture in mic'ing up a room, and most rooms have PA speakers on the stage of a venue...it's about reproduction the sound imaging experienced in the room as closely as possible by those two microphones.  (For example, if you're facing the stage and straight ahead is considered 12 noon, if the drums are physically located on stage at 10 oclock, you'd ideally like them to sound like they're at 10 oclock on your recording...but if you don't use the correct SRA and spacing, they might sound in the recording as if they were located at 9 oclock or 11 oclock.)

Please correct me if I'm wrong Lee because it's been awhile since I read and re-read (15 times or so) the article, but the article is not about the playback speakers in your living room.  I think the assumption of the article is that in order to accurately hear what you've captured at the venue, you're listening and evaluating through an 'honest' stereo playback system.  In other words, you can't expect to hear the true results of the capture on playback if your playback system is somehow biased or you're not listening in a sweet spot location.

[achalsey]

I think the assumption of the article is that in order to accurately hear what you've captured at the venue, you're listening and evaluating through an 'honest' stereo playback system.  In other words, you can't expect to hear the true results of the capture on playback if your playback system is somehow biased or you're not listening in a sweet spot location.

This was basically my question and I'm pretty sure you've answered it as well for the most part.

But, another side of my question though was about this though:

it's about reproduction the sound imaging experienced in the room as closely as possible by those two microphones.

That reproduction has to be based on a specific ratio of your playback as well though, right?  Gutbucket says the angle is based on ~60 degrees, though that can differ to a certain extent.  Then the spacing between the speakers has to be a relatively specific number as well right?  Running DIN with a playback of 4' between the speakers and 15' would affect the image.

[Gutbucket]

I'm not sure I understand either the question or the response, but just to try to clarify what I think I'm reading, the Stereo Zoom concept is about stereo imaging produced by two directional microphones.  In that respect, it's all about what we're trying to achieve at the point of capture in mic'ing up a room, and most rooms have PA speakers on the stage of a venue...it's about reproduction the sound imaging experienced in the room as closely as possible by those two microphones.

It’s about exercising control over the imaging as well as and other aspects like the reverberant balance and the qualities of the sound arriving from well off-axis.  At best, you can use that control to push things toward what you want, which might be reproducing things as ‘closely as possible’ or might be modifying  aspects to better optimize them. 

(For example, if you're facing the stage and straight ahead is considered 12 noon, if the drums are physically located on stage at 10 oclock, you'd ideally like them to sound like they're at 10 oclock on your recording...but if you don't use the correct SRA and spacing, they might sound in the recording as if they were located at 9 oclock or 11 oclock.)

It provides the understanding to control that, but I don’t really care if the drums image at exactly 10 o’clock or not and I doubt anyone else does either.  I do want a nice open clear and distinct image across the playback stage, with things in their correct place, a nice width to the band, and an enveloping ambience, with all that in balance.  I think of it more in terms of controlling the apparent playback width and depth, minimizing undesirable distortion of perspective.

Please correct me if I'm wrong Lee because it's been awhile since I read and re-read (15 times or so) the article, but the article is not about the playback speakers in your living room.  I think the assumption of the article is that in order to accurately hear what you've captured at the venue, you're listening and evaluating through an 'honest' stereo playback system.  In other words, you can't expect to hear the true results of the capture on playback if your playback system is somehow biased or you're not listening in a sweet spot location.

That and the follow up questions after the break..

[Gutbucket]

One assumption underlying most stereo recording techniques is that the speakers are 60 degrees apart.  That’s what recording labels, studios, radio stations, equipment manufacturers, engineers, researchers and amateurs like us all accept as a de facto standard. It helps to have a standard we can all agree on so  we are talking the same language.  It’s a more or less agreed on thing which specifies one aspect of Steve's 'honest' stereo playback system.

Likewise a pair of speakers 60 degrees apart is what was used in testing the listeners to generate the imaging location data upon which the Stereo Zoom curves are based (I checked once upon a time and William’s notes that somewhere, an AES paper probably. I don’t recall it being noted specifically in the SZ usage paper PDF, but the source is referenced there I’m sure). 

So the information given on the Stereo Zoom charts does assume that a ‘normal’ stereo speaker setup will be used to play the recording back.  But, what is most important about the Stereo Zoom is not figuring out the precise measurement in degrees of things but in the relative position and relationships.  The Stereo Zoom can help to set things up to get a nice wide and stable image that isn’t clumped in both speakers, regardless if they are setup 40 or 90 degrees apart.  In my experience when it works well on speakers it to work well on headphones too. 

Michael Williams expanded the Stereo Zoom to recording setups with multiple microphones played back on speakers which are not all equally spaced at 60 degrees and the same principles work.  (see the MMAD- Multi Microphone Array Design cross linked PDF chart pages on his website, and the AES papers there for details)

The basic aspect of Stereo Zoom is controlling the Stereo Recording Angle, which is the recorded angle as seen from the microphone position which is reproduced between the speakers.  What we call the DIN setup has an SRA of (+/- 50 degrees) 100 degrees total.  That means sound sources arriving through an imaginary window in front of the microphones which is 100 degrees wide will fill the space between speakers, regardless of the speaker spacing.   All the mic angle and spacing combinations in the table I posted above attempt to achieve a similar SRA of about 100 degrees.  Sounds arriving through that 100 degree wide window will fill the space between the speakers.  What the table lets you do is more or less keep that DIN recording angle unchanged, while repointing the mics the way you want them.

[F.O.Bean]

I run active bars in good venues and spots and when in shitty spots I run hypers/PAS, PERIOD!

[Todd R]

So, when I started this thread, one of the things I was curious to ask people about is, why do people spend thousands of dollars on schoeps mics with active cables, then instead of going for the best IMHO sound, go for convenience of a standard configuration when the mics might be pointing at the walls of a boomy venue when a narrower config is called for.  I mean, if convenience is your thing, I agree nothing beats the bars, but I don't particularly understand the logic...at least not when you've invested alot for top quality sound.  It seems kinda counterproductive if getting the top sound is your priority.

For me, I reject the basic premise you're working off of, so it doesn't seem like a disconnect.

With the exception of some of the latest active cable offerings, when you're spending thousands of dollars on active cable mics, you're not spending money on the best sound, you're spending it on convenience of set up and low profile. You can get the same mics for less without active cables or potentially could get better mics if you didn't keep the requirement of active cables. I realize there are lots of ways of spending lots of money on your rig, but the mounting bars really seem to be connected directly to those tapers who use active cable mics. And the choice of actives (particularly for open tapers and not stealthers) to me is largely a choice of convenience and not maximizing sound quality vs price, since the non-active versions sound the same and are cheaper.

So to me it isn't a surprise that someone who spent money on active cable mics puts a premium on convenience, and it then isn't a surprise that the same person wants the convenience of standard mounting bars. Convenience and ease of setup, size of gear bag, etc are very high on my list these days, and are probably more important to me than sound. And I like the convenience of mounting bars, though I don't use them exclusively. If I wanted best sound, I'd probably be dragging around a V3 and an AD2k or Mytek. Instead, an Aerco and an M10 seems much better.

[Todd R]

I'm not sure I understand either the question or the response, but just to try to clarify what I think I'm reading, the Stereo Zoom concept is about stereo imaging produced by two directional microphones.  In that respect, it's all about what we're trying to achieve at the point of capture in mic'ing up a room, and most rooms have PA speakers on the stage of a venue...it's about reproduction the sound imaging experienced in the room as closely as possible by those two microphones.  (For example, if you're facing the stage and straight ahead is considered 12 noon, if the drums are physically located on stage at 10 oclock, you'd ideally like them to sound like they're at 10 oclock on your recording...but if you don't use the correct SRA and spacing, they might sound in the recording as if they were located at 9 oclock or 11 oclock.)

Sorry Steve, disagreeing with you alot here, but the value to me with the SZ info isn't about reproducing a particular stereo image, but rather understanding generally how your recording ange and capsule spacing relate to the stereo image reproduced.

I actually don't lean towards the archivist stance, and instead want to produce a recording I enjoy. So if the actual stereo spread of instruments as panned and reproduced by the PA only goes from about 11-1, or worse 11:30-12:30, I might want to manipulate the stereo image I record so that on playback it sounds like an image extending from 10-2.

Lee already has got a lot of good feedback in this thread, including my bit above that the SZ concept is about exercising control over the stereo image.

He also mentioned something that is very important to me:  that is, if you want to get more towards PAS and hence are using a smaller included angle, you should then increase your capsule spacing.

For years, one of my favorite configuration is a wider spacing, like 12 inches (NOS spacing), and an angle of 65-75 degrees. I really keep hoping one of the mounting bar folks will make this as an offered product -- 12 inch spacing and 70 degree angle. This is often a great pattern for what we do.

[noahbickart]

I think this discussion should also encourage folks to think about M/S.

The convenience is unmatched, setup is simple, and the angle can be changed in post.

To those who have multiple schoeps caps already, a mk6 or mk8 adds a whole bunch of options.

[stevetoney]

Sorry Steve, disagreeing with you alot here, but the value to me with the SZ info isn't about reproducing a particular stereo image, but rather understanding generally how your recording ange and capsule spacing relate to the stereo image reproduced.

It's OK, Todd.

My comments are just my thoughts and the purpose of this thread was to solicit feedback and discussion from people on how they see things.  My thoughts are formed by the perceptions I have when I go out and record in the field, but rarely have those perceptions got hard core factual validation, like you'd get in controlled lab experiments, so I can still learn and I'm not so vested in an opinion that I have to prove myself right for the sake of being right (which unfortunately too many people here do).  Besides it's just fun to talk about this stuff and learn what others think on certain subjects. 

BTW, I'm on board with your comment about the general value of the SZ article.  We've talked about that before and there general conclusion was that you can break that article down and get really technical about it, but in the end the big picture takeaways are this general understanding about spacing and angles that you speak of.

[Todd R]

No worries Steve, I just didn't want to come off as too much of a contrarian.

I will say, the mic angle thing is the one thing that makes me miss my Milabs, and it has always made me wonder why so many Milab owners complained about mounting options. 

A short delrin riser tying together the supplied Milab mounts and put into a shockmount ended up just as easy and convenient as a kwon-bar setup.  And the forks of the milab mounts swivel, easily allowing you to change the mic angle.  This gave the ease and convenience of a mounting bar setup, but allowed different mic angles to be used.  I was able to score a few different delrin bars with the threaded studs, allowing DIN, a 9-10" spacing, and a 12" NOS spacing.  With the option to change mic angles, this was really versatile and easy.

[stevetoney]

I will say, the mic angle thing is the one thing that makes me miss my Milabs, and it has always made me wonder why so many Milab owners complained about mounting options. 

Honestly, that was another thing I had in mind in the Orig Post.  I was kinda thinking that, judging by the number of unfulfilled ISOs in the YS, since it seems some new active owners are stuck not finding bars for their new actives, that they might want to consider that the fixed bar option isn't the only way to go.

[Chuck]

For years, one of my favorite configuration is a wider spacing, like 12 inches (NOS spacing), and an angle of 65-75 degrees. I really keep hoping one of the mounting bar folks will make this as an offered product -- 12 inch spacing and 70 degree angle. This is often a great pattern for what we do.

I use the wider spacing and smaller included angle in a couple of my local venues, when I run hyper-cardioids from farther back than I'd really like to be. I even carry around the SZ included angles/ distance apart chart with me, so if I'm confronted with a weird scenario I can adapt.

I came to a somewhat profound realization when preparing for the Colorado Furthur shows this week. I made a DINa bar to run my active CK-63's recently and then realized that I should make it adjustable, for just this very reason. For example. I'm more likely going to run the hypers 11" apart and with a smaller angle at the 1st Bank Center over the weekend instead of ~ 7 inches apart with a 90 degree angle. A typical DINa mount won't work for me in that situation... 

[Gutbucket]

In the past I thought about designing an articulating bar, with sliding mounts which rotate as they are extended in the appropriate relationship to automatically retain the same SRA across the entire adjustment range - eliminating the need for refering to the table, measuring, and all of that.  I'm sure it would be possible but probably overly costly to produce given the machining and moving parts required.  Never got around to working out the mechanism for it in CAD or on a cocktail napkin.

I do remember seeing a video of a powered bar, with linear motors and stepper rotation which adjusts spacing and angle by remote computer control- a robot factory looking thing that is way complex and costly. I was thinking more of a simple mechanical sliding ruler thing with some plastic gears and components.

[ScoobieKW]

While I don't use a mounting bar, I have found that more than half the time, I'm using a setup for a 60 degree SRA, but capsule choice varies. Even in the 60 degree case, that would be three mounting bars.

[DigiGal]

In the past I thought about designing an articulating bar, with sliding mounts which rotate as they are extended in the appropriate relationship to automatically retain the same SRA across the entire adjustment range - eliminating the need for refering to the table, measuring, and all of that.  I'm sure it would be possible but probably overly costly to produce given the machining and moving parts required.  Never got around to working out the mechanism for it in CAD or on a cocktail napkin.

I do remember seeing a video of a powered bar, with linear motors and stepper rotation which adjusts spacing and angle by remote computer control- a robot factory looking thing that is way complex and costly. I was thinking more of a simple mechanical sliding ruler thing with some plastic gears and components.

Probably this one...
STEREOBLADE MOTORIZED STEREO BAR (AB, XY, ORTF, NOS, DIN...)

[Gutbucket]

That's it.  I think you are the one who posed a link to that video originally.  Thanks.

It would be really informative if they would make a video with that thing switching through a bunch of angle/spacing combinations which provide the same SRA.  I'd really like to listen to that.

[JimmieC]

awesome.  I like this thread and the posted video.

[stevetoney]

That's it.  I think you are the one who posed a link to that video originally.  Thanks.

It would be really informative if they would make a video with that thing switching through a bunch of angle/spacing combinations which provide the same SRA.  I'd really like to listen to that.

...and then the comp cops could crap all over the methodology used.  Hehehe

[page]

In the past I thought about designing an articulating bar, with sliding mounts which rotate as they are extended in the appropriate relationship to automatically retain the same SRA across the entire adjustment range - eliminating the need for refering to the table, measuring, and all of that.  I'm sure it would be possible but probably overly costly to produce given the machining and moving parts required.  Never got around to working out the mechanism for it in CAD or on a cocktail napkin.

This, its the only reason I want a 3D printer... ive got some sketches ive worked on for an adjustable bar, just need the prototype put in a CAD.


Yall are lucky im traveling on a tablet; in short, i use a given SRA that I like as a basis and adjust my angle/spacing to match.

[F.O.Bean]

I'm not sure I understand either the question or the response, but just to try to clarify what I think I'm reading, the Stereo Zoom concept is about stereo imaging produced by two directional microphones.  In that respect, it's all about what we're trying to achieve at the point of capture in mic'ing up a room, and most rooms have PA speakers on the stage of a venue...it's about reproduction the sound imaging experienced in the room as closely as possible by those two microphones.  (For example, if you're facing the stage and straight ahead is considered 12 noon, if the drums are physically located on stage at 10 oclock, you'd ideally like them to sound like they're at 10 oclock on your recording...but if you don't use the correct SRA and spacing, they might sound in the recording as if they were located at 9 oclock or 11 oclock.)

Sorry Steve, disagreeing with you alot here, but the value to me with the SZ info isn't about reproducing a particular stereo image, but rather understanding generally how your recording ange and capsule spacing relate to the stereo image reproduced.

I actually don't lean towards the archivist stance, and instead want to produce a recording I enjoy. So if the actual stereo spread of instruments as panned and reproduced by the PA only goes from about 11-1, or worse 11:30-12:30, I might want to manipulate the stereo image I record so that on playback it sounds like an image extending from 10-2.

Lee already has got a lot of good feedback in this thread, including my bit above that the SZ concept is about exercising control over the stereo image.

He also mentioned something that is very important to me:  that is, if you want to get more towards PAS and hence are using a smaller included angle, you should then increase your capsule spacing.

For years, one of my favorite configuration is a wider spacing, like 12 inches (NOS spacing), and an angle of 65-75 degrees. I really keep hoping one of the mounting bar folks will make this as an offered product -- 12 inch spacing and 70 degree angle. This is often a great pattern for what we do.

I too wished someone produced a more PAS active bar. I would def buy one

[noahbickart]

Darktrain's new larger "vark" bars are the perfect pas active bar. Use one of his new small risers in a shure doughnut, and point away!

[F.O.Bean]

Darktrain's new larger "vark" bars are the perfect pas active bar. Use hs new small riser in a shure doughnut.

Yea I have one of those and 2 vark bars so I'm covered if I need to run something other than the active bars. And the schoeps actives fit perfectly into Oktava mic mounts as well. I use those and the vark bars together to get just what I need!!!

[it-goes-to-eleven]

If there is sufficient interest, I will do a run of PAS bars for Schoeps and Jon's AKG actives:

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=160867.0

[ArchivalAudio]

So I've read most of all the words here and I am not disagreeing  ~ or agreeing.
I'll add that using "bars" are really creating a stereo array, and this makes the "stereo" image.

While I have done many free form, and PAS, in the past I usually  (currently) like to use a stereo array to create a realistic stereo image.
ORTF up close is nice, but further back can be boomy, and have a hole in the imaging, NOS is also good for this. DIN or DIN a are nice for further back.
all of these stereo arrays were "developed" by reputable sources to "create" a STEREO image, most with using a Cardiod capsule.
Obviously there is Blumlein, for Figure 8's (which I love this natural image), and other omni set ups, spaced etc.

Back in the late 80's I often heard folks refer to Near coincident or cross coincident. for usually running XY and different angles.
Some of the Oade';s recordings from 1985 were running schoeps DIN they called it 17cm @90°, some said near coincident.

my point is that just aiming at the stacks (PAS) may get full direct sound , but may not give you a convinceable stereo image -~ Heck before I knew much I ran my old TOA k1' spaced at 24" on a bar a friend made pointed at the stacks, those recordings sound good, but do have a hole in the middle, sometimes.

I seek to create a stereo snapshot of an event, that is pleasing to my ears, and hopefully others too.

If you read Audio In Media there are some great pictorial descriptions of various mic arrays to create stereo images.

In AUDIO IN MEDIA, Ninth Edition, Stanley Alten-internationally recognized as a scholar and expert in the area of audio production-continues to provide students with an introduction to the basic techniques and principles necessary for audio production in today's media. The clear and current illustrations and photos and student-friendly writing in Alten's market-leading text have helped professors effectively teach this technically-based course to thousands of introductory audio production students. Comprehensive, technically accurate, and up-to-date, the text covers informational, perceptual, and aesthetic aspects of sound as they apply to each stage of the production process-from planning to post-production.

any how
"bars" are not only convenient they can help create a truer stereo image, sure you can get tou your templates, and measure , creating stereo , has been designed by many authorities to convince our ears that we are there.

 
--Ian

[ScoobieKW]

Stereo image is a function of two variables, distance between mics, and angle of mics. The result varies depending on these factors.
Each fixed bar gives you one solution. Variable bars allow you to vary distance and angle to achieve a stereo image suitable for that particular position.
The new Neumann iOS app, lets you see easily how changeing angle and distance changes the stereo image, and also how much of the stereo information comes from time arrival diffences between the mics, and how much of the stereo information is from level differences.

while fixed bars are useful in known and consistent mic placements, I wouldn't leave home without a flexible variable bar, along with my Stereophonic Zoom charts, and the iOS app.

[stevetoney]

Stereo image is a function of two variables, distance between mics, and angle of mics. The result varies depending on these factors.
Each fixed bar gives you one solution. Variable bars allow you to vary distance and angle to achieve a stereo image suitable for that particular position.
The new Neumann iOS app, lets you see easily how changeing angle and distance changes the stereo image, and also how much of the stereo information comes from time arrival diffences between the mics, and how much of the stereo information is from level differences.

while fixed bars are useful in known and consistent mic placements, I wouldn't leave home without a flexible variable bar, along with my Stereophonic Zoom charts, and the iOS app.

Archivalaudio and scoobie...philosophically, I agree completely with what is said in your posts above, but I'd point out that at a club show where the PA is pumping out most of the sound, unless you're stage lip, close to the stage where you're hearing the instruments from the stage, or the show isn't mic'ed through the PA, your stereo image out on the floor in the sweet spot is mostly a function of whatever the sound engineer decides he want's to route through each PA channel. 

In addition to that, albiet small, there's a latency sound delay between the PA sound and the sound coming from the stage.  If you're not pointed at the stacks to maximize the clean signal coming from the primary sound source, IMO the recorded sound tends to break up and become less defined...more echo-y.  Obviously, the closer to the stage, the less this is an issue.

Both of these are addtional reasons to consider PAS configs, IMO.

[page]

I'm with Steve on that one. There is a time and place, and in a shitty bar recording "in the room" is one of those.

[ScoobieKW]

I'm not one to disagree that PAS may be appropriate at the right time. Many Nak300 recordings I cut my teeth on as a young Deadhead were recorded PAS.

My point is simply that given the variables in mic placement and room acoustics, I don't see much value for my recording style in a mounting bar for a fixed pattern.

[page]

I'm not one to disagree that PAS may be appropriate at the right time. Many Nak300 recordings I cut my teeth on as a young Deadhead were recorded PAS.

My point is simply that given the variables in mic placement and room acoustics, I don't see much value for my recording style in a mounting bar for a fixed pattern.

I also agree with this. I use a kwon-style setup, but it's a variable adjustable (within reason). I'm not sure I'd go back to a fixed bar setup....

I don't think there is a universal PAS setup, there is stuff that comes closer, but there just isn't a universal setup option that really maximizes the output of our gear. We encounter too many variables for it to work like that.


edit: palindrome post. w00t w00t
n3rd4lyf3.

[trustthex]

110 posts away from l33t palindrome actions...


also, i love my SP-GNA-3 for this very reason.  It will do just about everything a protractor & ruler can dream up.