Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: Rick on February 25, 2004, 03:26:37 PM
-
What would be the difference, sound wise? What does that 3cm give you?
Thanks
by the way... this is in reference to the custom schoep bars at cascademedia.net
-
I use the 17cm spacing when I am running hypers and the 20 cm spacing when I am running cards....helps to avoid getting a dead spot in the middle of the sound stage due to the pickup patterns...
-
I can see why you would want to use a smaller separation with the hypers, but would using cards be ok with the 17cm separation?
-
I can see why you would want to use a smaller separation with the hypers, but would using cards be ok with the 17cm separation?
in theory, I am sure you could...this would be more of a point outside the stacks type method I would think...all it would really do is reduce the amount of seperation you are going to get (i.e. the soundstage), but in some cases, it could be the best option...
-
I can see why you would want to use a smaller separation with the hypers, but would using cards be ok with the 17cm separation?
in theory, I am sure you could...this would be more of a point outside the stacks type method I would think...all it would really do is reduce the amount of seperation you are going to get (i.e. the soundstage), but in some cases, it could be the best option...
FWIW, I went the other way and picked up the 20cm/90º bar, so all my DIN recordings - whether cards or hypers - are 20cm/90º.
I'd say even at 17cm, it's not really a point at the stacks method. The included angle is the primary distinction between near coincident stereo techniques and point at the stacks, and since it's still a 90º included angle, the results whether 17cm or 20cm are going to be damn near identical.
FWIW, I've not encountered any issues with a hole in the middle running hypers 20cm/90º.
-
does the distance make a whole lotta difference in this? at the main bar here where most of the bands come...i am at least 40 ft back...no taping allowed fob...when i put my mics at 90 deg...they are pointed at the damn walls...same for XY, and TONS of crowd chatter, esp on quieter songs. I have only taped 2 shows..one here and one in a much smaller bar(DIN there) any suggestions on a distance of 30-50 ft? is DIN fine for this?
-
din can work out in situations like this but the club has to sound good...did you get the hyper caps with your mc012's? if so, run those pointed at the outside of the stacks, about 20 cm apart.
-
does the distance make a whole lotta difference in this?
Yes. The relationship between distance, angle and spacing all play a role and if you increase the distance, you have to adjust the other two if you're trying to capture an equivalent recording angle (sort of the width of the soundstage).
I'll try and dig up some info tomorrow...
-
does the distance make a whole lotta difference in this?
Yes. The relationship between distance, angle and spacing all play a role and if you increase the distance, you have to adjust the other two if you're trying to capture an equivalent recording angle (sort of the width of the soundstage).
I'll try and dig up some info tomorrow...
not only that but the spacing is suppose to help with the reproduction of the way the ear hears it...it's a phase thang, iykwim It helps reduce the brightness too. If the room is small or really reverberent, you may be best served going xy.
I've often wondered about the Neumann ORTF bar..it is set and switching btw cards and hypers it is still held at the same relationship. Generally if I'm using cards it's either DIN or ORTF... with some small runs of DINA or XY for the hypers.
I didn't like the ak 50's xy at the last DAR WP show but Hank W. II came out fine using the 50's in xy.
fwiw
jah
-
What would be the difference, sound wise? What does that 3cm give you?
Thanks
by the way... this is in reference to the custom schoep bars at cascademedia.net
Direct A/B tests will present several sonic differences between the two configurations, as applied to both hypers and cards. Without having my field notes in front of me, this is what I remember from the top of my head:
1. mk41s run on both 20cm(A) & 17cm(B) on an ams-22 mount (meaning that both pairs of mk41s are only 20mm(approx) apart on the vertical plane. The 41s(A) presented to be more muffled with mids buried moreso than the 41s(B), highs were less brilliant (but not too brittle) than the 41s(B), and the low end became sloppier than the 41s(B). Overall, the sound of the 41s(B) was more accurate, less reverberant, and more pleasing to listen to with cans or playback (in this case two HR824s per side(L/R) with one (per side) rolled off to the "B" setting.) The sloppiness created by spreading the mk41s apart goes against known physics of frequency dependence where the wide will create a deeper tone. Widening the hypers created a sloppier tone, not necessarily deeper and warm - I attributed this to be because of the polar pattern of the supers mk41s.
2. In the case of the mk4s at 20cm(A) & 17cm(B) on the same ams-22 mount...the cards did not demonstrate that much of a difference except for the low end which because less prominent in the recording. The high ends, what was analyzed to be beyond 10Khz became a little too brittle thatn the cards positioned at 20cm.
These tests were run in a theater with a vdosc array and also in a baffled basement studio with microphones aimed towards aformentioned playback system at 20 & 30ft.
Again, this is off the top of my head.
Edit:
A note. All monitoring is done at a reference level only using calibrated monitors (also sent in for re-calibration every 12months - on average depending on usage and how hot the S.E. summers get ;D ) What happens between my reference monitoring and your playback system is your own ball of wax...
-
These tests were run in a theater with a vdosc array and also in a baffled basement studio with microphones aimed towards aformentioned playback system at 20 & 30ft.
Again, this is off the top of my head.
Edit:
A note. All monitoring is done at a reference level only using calibrated monitors (also sent in for re-calibration every 12months - on average depending on usage and how hot the S.E. summers get ;D ) What happens between my reference monitoring and your playback system is your own ball of wax...
No doubt playback system plays a big role here! In addition, the recording conditions sound fairly ideal. Almost all of my recording is done in large bars/small rooms without a system like the VDOSC array or acoustics of a theater or basement studio.
Hmmmmm...I wonder if the less than ideal conditions would make the differences between DIN and DINA more or less noticable. I'm guessing less noticable. Now...if only I had a second pair of CMC6/MK4 and 41s handy! Anyone wanna lend me a pair so I can run a comp in the field? :P Thanks for the info, Kwon, interesting stuff. :coolguy:
-
I run DINS(DIN stealth). I don't have the measurements down, but it's pretty fucking ingenious, pictures to come.
-
Hey Robert, care to comment on the differences noted between ortf and din for the mk4s and 41s? Have you done that comparsion in a controlled test like DIN and DINA?
-
I just got some good (IMO) results with my cheap little SP AT933 hypers running DINA (17cm/90*) for MMW last Sunday. From my spot, 90* was just outside the stacks. It didn't pick up as much of the really chatty crowd as I was expecting.
-
Hey Robert, care to comment on the differences noted between ortf and din for the mk4s and 41s? Have you done that comparsion in a controlled test like DIN and DINA?
You mean:
mk4s: ortf, 17/90, 20/90?
mk41s: ortf, 17/90, 20/90?
Definintely would stay away from mk41s ortf, would touch that with a stick. mk4s in a ortf, din, dina shootout would be worth it. I only have two pairs of mk4s, anyone care to meet me somewhere in atlanta or let me borrow their mk4s? We can multitrack to harddisk and do a true a/b/c comparison.
I run 17cm/90* DIN cardioid, upclose in acoustic recordings quite frequently with the TL's. And one time so far with the 4022's, and likely will do more of the same.
17cm/90deg DIN cards will work nicely up close. The closer to the soundstage, the harder it is to differentiate between 17cm & 20cm. There are many other factors, but this one is the most critical and the closer you get the more "uni" the polar patterns become (for a lack of a better term).
-
DIN FYI
-For the GD fans all (almost all?) of the classic 1985 Oade Bros Schoeps recordings were done with the mics 17cm/90*... and for you Panic fans a lot of Julian's best work was done with the same configuration.
-
DIN FYI
-For the GD fans all (almost all?) of the classic 1985 Oade Bros Schoeps recordings were done with the mics 17cm/90*... and for you Panic fans a lot of Julian's best work was done with the same configuration.
WTF*** did Julian know about taping?!?!?! And whoare these Oade doods I keep hearing about?
;)
-
I'm telling J you said that ;-)
-
Julian fluffers. The lot of you...
-
Julian fluffers. The lot of you...
this must be a Widespread thing. . .
-
Julian fluffers. The lot of you...
:lol:
-
>You mean:
>mk4s: ortf, 17/90, 20/90?
yeah, I was more referring to ortf vs 20/90, but a comparison of 17/90 to the two would also be great.
mitch
-
I'm running 14cm 90* with fantastic results, DIN-S?
-
DIN FYI
-For the GD fans all (almost all?) of the classic 1985 Oade Bros Schoeps recordings were done with the mics 17cm/90*... and for you Panic fans a lot of Julian's best work was done with the same configuration.
This is why TS is awesome. This 17 year old post just unlocked some incredible examples for me.
-
DIN FYI
-For the GD fans all (almost all?) of the classic 1985 Oade Bros Schoeps recordings were done with the mics 17cm/90*... and for you Panic fans a lot of Julian's best work was done with the same configuration.
This is why TS is awesome. This 17 year old post just unlocked some incredible examples for me.
And the Oade's ran a mic comp for us as well!
https://archive.org/details/gd85-08-31.schoeps-oade.sacks.25943.sbeok.flacf 90 X-Y 17cm/90* Schoeps CMC441 & 8ft spaced Schoeps CMC42s -> custom M118 x2 -> custom Oade mixer -> Oade MOD PCM-F1
https://archive.org/details/gd85-08-31.oade.connor.8237.sbeok.shnf 90 X-Y 17cm/90* Schoeps CMC441 only
I just happened on these as I was uploading our AKGc422 recording of this show last month, AND I happened to be set up next to them at this show and our third deck was patched into their analog chain. my master cassette is sick (in a good way)!
-
These "cookbook" miking arrangements were developed decades ago from various peoples' experience, with whatever kinds of music they happened to be recording, under the conditions that they typically encountered. Later on, various formulas were devised which gave a mathematical basis for evaluating mike setups, but even those formulas aren't necessarily precise or reliable (e.g. the way in which arrival-time differences are equated with level differences and vice versa).
The kind of recording that most people here seem to do most of the time is quite different in principle from the kinds of recording that these "cookbook" methods were devised for. The "cookbook" methods assume live, unamplified performers in concert hall settings or studio recording of live ensembles. There are certain built-in assumptions about the way that reverberation will vary with distance from the sound sources, which aren't particularly valid when the sound sources are loudspeaker arrays that are pumping out pre-mixed audio (generally in mono) and where the room has other than concert-hall acoustics. Most of all there's an assumption that the engineer is free to place the microphone pair at any desired distance from the sound sources and at any desired height, so that the balance of direct vs. diffuse sound can be chosen to suit the room, the type of music, and the intended type of playback system.
I'm not saying that the formulas are irrelevant; I'm just saying that there's no reliable basis for any argument over which one is "best". Certain approaches make more technical sense than others--but even the approaches that are obviously flawed from a technical standpoint (e.g. coincident, large-diaphragm, dual-diaphragm cardioids, or pairs of shotgun microphones in any configuration whatsoever) can, at least sometimes, produce good-sounding recordings. And the approaches that make much better technical sense overall (e.g. with small, single-diaphragm supercardioids or wide cardioids having some moderate spacing between them) can be disappointing. A lot depends on factors that are simply outside the recordist's control. And a lot depends on what you personally consider to be a satisfying or a disappointing recording, since different people listen for different qualities in a recording.
--best regards
-
The main thing I've learned over the years recording bands where the source (backline amps+PA) isn't a soundstage created by the actual instruments is to reflect back on one fundamental of what stereo recording is about, controlling the effect of sound that seems to reside in between the loudspeakers on playback. What I hear when I listen to a DIN vs XY recording of a concert stage is what sounds come from between the loudspeakers and what sounds are pushed off to the sides. Once you get far enough away that your distance is greater than the width of the music's soundstage, there isn't much of a difference in how the mics "hear" the desired source with XY and DIN. What noticably changes is the position of ambient sounds, particularly undesired sounds like audience noise. Consider an audience member several feet away and seated 85 degrees to one side of the mics position relative to the stage, clapping extra loudly or making some other distracting racket. In an XY recording, the directional cue of where that person is located will be audible due to the L/R intensity differences between the channels, but they will sound in between the speakers on playback along with the desired soundstage, just closer to one side than the other. Adding inter-channel delay with a 20cm spacing narrows the SRA enough that it creates an illusion that they are well off to the side of the soundstage, being almost entirely heard coming from one speaker on playback.