Topic: Best taping methods/gear to record in "boomy" venues?

[Matt Quinn]

ORTF:


http://homerecording.about.com/od/microphones101/ss/stereo_mics_3.htm

Maybe I'm losing it, but that doesn't look even close to ORTF to me.


I'm not sure if the OP is looking to reduce room sound, but my personal preference in shitty sounding rooms is to simply point at the stacks. More direct sound, less reflected sound, which IME is a solid trade off.  I rarely see a point in running a true stereo configuration when the result is your mics pointing a wall.

[Church-Audio]

ORTF:


http://homerecording.about.com/od/microphones101/ss/stereo_mics_3.htm

Maybe I'm losing it, but that doesn't look even close to ORTF to me.


I'm not sure if the OP is looking to reduce room sound, but my personal preference in shitty sounding rooms is to simply point at the stacks. More direct sound, less reflected sound, which IME is a solid trade off.  I rarely see a point in running a true stereo configuration when the result is your mics pointing a wall.

I agree with that statement 100%
In a reverberant field if you want a more direct sound you aim your mics at the source the louder the source is in relation to the room the less reverb or room sound you will end up with.

[Belexes]

I had this exact question that I asked on the board in '07 and a lot of folks advised ORTF at that time.  I tried it and it worked like a charm.

YMMV.

[Will_S]

If you did what the picture you linked to as ORTF shows (referring to http://homerecording.about.com/od/microphones101/ss/stereo_mics_3.htm) you were actually using XY which is what a lot of folks are suggesting.

Edit:  Those pictures are horrible.  Only AB is correct*.  His XY is wrong also.  XY is with the capsule coincident (right on top of each other, no horizontal separation), ORTF has the capsules spaced apart 17cm HORIZONTALLY and aimed out at an angle of 110°, and having the capsules spaced horizontally but pointed at angles inward (like his XY picture) is...goofy.

*Sort of.  Normally you would space A-B mics much further apart, and get a better stereo image as a result.

[morst]

Less of the ambient room characteristics are picked up with ORTF.

Less than what? Spaced omni? I would agree with that. Now, personally, I love ortf, but I try to record in good-sounding locations and max out my ratio of direct:reflected sound by choosing a good location for the mics.

ORTF: http://homerecording.about.com/od/microphones101/ss/stereo_mics_3.htm

Maybe I'm losing it, but that doesn't look even close to ORTF to me.

It's not ortf.

I rarely see a point in running a true stereo configuration when the result is your mics pointing a wall.

If your mics have relatively flat off-axis response, they can get plenty of direct sound even if they appear to be pointed at the wall. If you reduce the angle between them, then I would think that you would start to lose the stereo spread.

[Roving Sign]

ORTF



XY



NOS

[joeshambro]

whoa, i took those photos (and wrote the article) but they don't match up with the ones i thought were there.  actually, they should be photos of KM140s instead of the 184s, too.

about.com just launched a redesign, and some stuff has been garbled in the process.  i'll make sure that gets fixed immediately.

[Scooter]

as posted above, I always get the best pulls from shitty rooms by just using the plain old "point at the stacks" method. 

*Billy Dee Williams voice* Works every time!

[RobertNC]

As far as gear, hypers definitely.

As far as configurations go, I've come to the conclusion that running XY in boomy rooms is not all that helpful.  Maybe it helps a little but personally I think the tradeoff of improvement is not really worth the compression of the sound stage.

I go for a sort of intermediate config.  Basically DINa with the included angle cut down to say 75 degrees or so instead of 90.

[Jammin72]

X,Y 90deg hypers is great for getting a more direct sound.  You can even close the angle a bit to say 85 or even 80.  The more you close the angle the less bass, the more mono the recording becomes but you loose that part of the room acoustics that you seem to be describing.

ORTF would be about the opposite way to go for getting less room.

Of course the best way to get rid of it is get the engineer to notch filter at 110 and 60 use an HPF and then crank the gas!!   

[BC]

ORTF:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.burmajster/O.htm

ORTF is perfect for terrible acoustics in a room, cardoid mics. With hypers, I use DINa.

"   
O.R.T.F.

Its main advantage is that because it uses cardioids, the microphones can be placed further back from the source without capturing too much of the reverberation than most other techniques. This often makes for a better blended balance than techniques that mean putting the microphones a little closer. Also, the use of cardioids enables you to use it in over reverberant acoustics where other techniques would capture too much of the acoustic. "

I think this is meant in comparison with micing using omni mics, not for a comparison of ORTF with other stereo configs using directional mics. ORTF is basically the most wide open of the stereo configs using directional mics, which means you will get more room sound.

For less room sound, narrow the angle between the mics, I like the scientifically tested and proven PAS config (point-at-stacks  ) config as a general rule of thumb in a boomy room.

Other than that I don't know much you can do other than getting closer to the sound source so that you are getting a higher ratio of direct:reflected sound. A big boomy hall is pretty much always going to sound like a big boomy hall.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Edit:  Those pictures are horrible. 

hahaha

actually, that ORTF picture might be close if the mics were pointed the other direction in their mounts. 

I'm pretty sure Joe Shambro is a member here.

[Kindguy]

I'm with Jammin72.

[F.O.Bean]

As far as gear, hypers definitely.

As far as configurations go, I've come to the conclusion that running XY in boomy rooms is not all that helpful.  Maybe it helps a little but personally I think the tradeoff of improvement is not really worth the compression of the sound stage.

I go for a sort of intermediate config.  Basically DINa with the included angle cut down to say 75 degrees or so instead of 90.

I have ran 'modded' configs a BUNCH of times, and they usually work GREAT for the most part. Usually 'modding' the configs angle emans that I am basiclaly just pointing at the stacks, or at least moreson than the standard DINa/DIN/NOS/etc would allow. And then I mark about where those modded configs are in relation to spacing and angle, and there you ahve it. Ive had alot of great success w/ running hypers, but instead of the typical spacing of 17cm w/ hypers, I have ran them ALOT in a 3-4" MAX spacing, and then just poiunting at the stacks or outside of the stcaks from there. That helps cut down on room acounstics and chatter, but still maintains somewhat of a stereo signal/sound but not nearly as mono as XY, since I have been a HUGE XY hater all of my life really.

So yeah, try running hypers w/ a 3-4" MAX spacing and altering the angle until it is pointing pretty much at the stacks. Usually that angle ends up beinga round 60-80 degrees

And as always YMMV. There is only ONE WAY to find out, and thats to experiemnt and try thinsg for yourself. EVERY venue/room is different, and there is no ONE WAY to mic ANY room, except to try things and see what works. Just because you and me or whomever says 'try this' doesnt mean its going to work for the room you are recording in. Thats what makes a great taper IMO, is the ability to walk into ANY room, and pick a location to setup, and then adjust your config accordingly

[morst]

I'm pretty sure Joe Shambro is a member here.

It would certainly seem to be the case, seeing as he just posted about 5 posts up!! 

whoa, i took those photos (and wrote the article) . . .