Topic: My DIY bar for an alternate Tony Faulker array

[hi and lo]

Adjusting the depth of the center channels can "spread or accentuate"* the resulting mix. It is often preferred to run the center channels slightly forward of the flanking pair. A good product example is the Grace Spacebar Overbridge attachment is designed to make such an adjustment.

*shameless stolen from the SB-CMB product literature

I have the grace bar with the Spacebar overbridge.
How far forward do you run the center channels on the bar?

Unfortunately, I don't yet have my overbridge attachment. I had ordered it from Posthorn, but Jerry couldn't seem to locate it in his backstock. Going to order it from Grace's website today to remedy my situation.

I will probably run it mostly forward. More than anything, I'm just excited to experiment with some three mic setups to better isolate the performance from crowd noise. I imagine I will run it more forward, but not really sure till I do some trial and error.

I love that there is another spacebar owner on this forum. The build quality is nothing short of superb; well worth the scratch if you can afford it!

[dlh]

Ted runs something similar to what you have frequently (omnis and cards)... it must be an AKG thing.   

No doubt! 

[dlh]

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-location-recording/675262-mixing-cardioid-omnis-companding.html

[boa]

"...I can understand the benefit of having a cardioid pointing toward the area you want "in focus" (for lack of a better term related to soundstage image)."

Very cool DIY project and interesting discussion. I've been using hypers (or an M/S stereo mic) with split omnis for this purpose but will now try cards out in front.

[Gutbucket]

Cool setup.  Missed this yesterday.

I can imagine this is a fantastic setup for symphonic band and pipe organ!

Tony Faulkner's similar setup has all the microphones in a line like this, instead of the center pair positioned forward of the outrigger pair.  It depends on this alignment, and because of that he calls it a 'phased array' - a beam-forming sonar/radar reference I think which achieves a degree of forward gain because of it.  I watched an interview of him talking about it a few months back that may have been the same one you mention. Since Faulkner is also recording unamplified acoustic performances, and is highly recognized as a master at doing so, I'd defer to his expertise and experience and start with recording a few things with the mics aligned in a row to establish a base-line configuration before experimenting with moving the center mic or center pair forward for more of a Decca tree-like configuration.  At that point it's no longer a phased array.  A Decca tree setup also typically has a wider base spacing of 1-2 meters, and that spacing probably also shifts things out of the 'phased array' region for all but the bottom couple octaves.  It's really a different approach than Faulkner's closer spaced setups.

I haven't tried this yet explicitly, but did something slightly similar a few years ago with meter spaced omnis flanking a blumlien pair, all mics aligned in a row.  That was to get some additional bass heft and width, and also some additional decorrelated ambience from the omnis.  That setup didn't have the forward gain advantage of this one, but I only used it outdoors where that was less important.

More on the 'other' Faulkner array in a second post..

[Gutbucket]

By coincidence, I just ran a bastardized variation on the other Faulkner array last night- the parallel figure-8 setup which more people associate with him.  I ran it on-stage as an extra pair of mics as an experiment for a regular jazz trio gig without a PA.  It's electric guitar(left), unamplified drum kit(center) and amplified acoustic bass(right).  The orientation and directive radiation of the guitar amp often makes the guitar louder than the drums and the bass.  To help balance things I shift my setup slightly towards the bass side, and then typically rotate my recording angle to point left across the drum kit (mics on the snare side) towards the guitar to help balance.  I setup my main rig that way as usual, then setup the parallel figure 8s not angled, but pointing straight ahead at the bass and snare of the drum kit (mics spaced 12”- a bit more than the Faulkner setup).  The idea being to place the guitar over in a less sensitive region of the figure 8 patterns so that it had less level, yet not all the way over in the nulls.  I actually angled the left fig-8 out ever so slightly, maybe 5-10 degrees, partly to make sure that if the patterns weren’t perfectly parallel I’d err towards more guitar level in the left channel rather than risk generate conflicting time and level differences if the patterns crossed slightly, and partly to add just a touch of level difference to the close A-B setup.

A while ago in another thread I suggested trying this as a unique setup for someone trying to limit the pickup of a source off to one side as much as possible, and figured this was as good time to give that a try, not with the guitar amp all the way to the side in the shared figure-8 nulls but over enough to limit its level in both mics.

On a quick listen when I got home, it worked pretty well.  Compared to the 8-1/2” spaced ~80-85 degree inclusive angled cardioids I had pointing across the kit, it was more like a moderately spaced omni recording image-wise, which would  be expected with the mics nearly parallel, and the guitar was lower in level than the bass and drums just as I’d hoped.

[John Willett]

Adjusting the depth of the center channels can "spread or accentuate"* the resulting mix. It is often preferred to run the center channels slightly forward of the flanking pair. A good product example is the Grace Spacebar Overbridge attachment is designed to make such an adjustment.

*shameless stolen from the SB-CMB product literature

I have the grace bar with the Spacebar overbridge.
How far forward do you run the center channels on the bar?

Unfortunately, I don't yet have my overbridge attachment. I had ordered it from Posthorn, but Jerry couldn't seem to locate it in his backstock. Going to order it from Grace's website today to remedy my situation.

I will probably run it mostly forward. More than anything, I'm just excited to experiment with some three mic setups to better isolate the performance from crowd noise. I imagine I will run it more forward, but not really sure till I do some trial and error.

I love that there is another spacebar owner on this forum. The build quality is nothing short of superb; well worth the scratch if you can afford it!

A Faulkner Array is 20cm spaced, parallel, fig.8 mics. - you can do that easily with a standard stereo bar.

[Gutbucket]

John, you posted in the same thread here where the link to the interview was as I recall.. maybe it was the Team Classical thread here.  I remember you mentioning that the interview was done in Tony's kitchen, which you recognized as you had been there previously.  The same confusion came up about the 'classic' Faulkner Array (which as I understand he came up with originally to address overbearing side reflections in a difficult acoustic) and this newer 'phased array' that he's been using more recently.. and which I assume is probably applicable to more situations with favorable acoustics.  But he'd probably agree that different situations call for different approaches.

[edit-  I was mistaken, the confusion between more than one Faulkner Array didn't come up in the Team Classical thread, maybe it was over at GS.  Here's the portion of that thread with a link to the video- http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=123523.msg1882911#msg1882911, not sure if that is the same interview dlh mentions here or not, but it is interesting.]

[bryonsos]

I'm still curious to hear thoughts about how important the 67cm spacing is. Like I said, I've been playing with this type of config with 3' omnis and PAS/DIN cards.

[Gutbucket]

I'm still curious to hear thoughts about how important the 67cm spacing is. Like I said, I've been playing with this type of config with 3' omnis and PAS/DIN cards.

Two thoughts come to mind. 

Varying the spacing of the omnis changes the stereo recording angle of the pair (in Stereo Zoom terminology), and my first thought is maybe that distance was chosen to match the stereo recording angle of the center pair.

But varying the spacing also changes the timbre balance of the frequency pickup, due to phase cancelation as sources arrive from off-axis, and I can attest to that from varying the spacing myself while listening over headphones.  So maybe it has to do with that.

Or maybe it's based on some other reasoning entirely.


Micheal Williams' published Zoom charts for omnis only go up to 50cm for a +/- 50 degee SRA (or 100 degrees total recording angle), but after arriving at the something around 3' by ear a couple times I extrapolated that chart out to a meter spacing a few years back to see what SRA a ~3' spacing should produce and the ~40 degree total recording angle result pretty much agrees with what comes out of the on-lineImage Assistant calculator- http://www.hauptmikrofon.de/ima2-folder/ImageAssistant2.html.. and was also about the same angle of sources in the situations where I arrived at that spacing just by listening.

Plugging a 67cm omni spacing into that calculator, gives a total stereo recording angle of 54 degrees.  The same calculator indicates an ORTF recording angle of 102 degrees.

But I really don’t know if the SRAs are supposed to match for the omni and directional pairs or not. You could play around with the calculator to find various configurations for the center directional pair which produce the same SRA as that of the omni pair if you want to.

Maybe someone should ask Mr. Faulkner about it!

[alpine85]

Very cool discussion!

I've been running a similar setup - coincident (or near coincident) pair in the middle and omnis with a 65cm split.  I had intended to do some post mixes and surround stuff, but up to this point I've only been choosing the better of the 2 sources (which, as expected, varies because of crowd noise, mics used, venue, all the usual variables). 

I came up with the 65cm split based on a mic config document I found somewhere - I'm thinking it was DPA's website, but it may have been Schoeps or Neumann.  They recommended that split on omnis based on the wavelength of the frequency where sound becomes "directional" (120 Hz? 150 Hz?... I forget).  Anyway, the logic was similar to the concept of a subwoofer/satellite system, applied to recording separate L/R channel audio.   If your ears can't recognize the direction of a sound, why have the delay from one channel to another - it just muddies up the sound, right?

Reading that recommendation sort of reinforced what I had found from personal experience... spreads that are too wide just sound unnatural and somehow "wrong" to my ears (especially with headphones).  I have found the 65cm spread to sound pretty good with both headphones AND speakers and give a nice stereo image. 

YMMV, of course ; )


Anyway, I wonder if that's how Faulker came up with the 67cm number...

[bryonsos]

Thanks Gut and Alpine85! That's enough to make me get the drill out and try some other spacings.

[dlh]

John, you posted in the same thread here where the link to the interview was as I recall.. maybe it was the Team Classical thread here.  I remember you mentioning that the interview was done in Tony's kitchen, which you recognized as you had been there previously.  The same confusion came up about the 'classic' Faulkner Array (which as I understand he came up with originally to address overbearing side reflections in a difficult acoustic) and this newer 'phased array' that he's been using more recently.. and which I assume is probably applicable to more situations with favorable acoustics.  But he'd probably agree that different situations call for different approaches.

[edit-  I was mistaken, the confusion between more than one Faulkner Array didn't come up in the Team Classical thread, maybe it was over at GS.  Here's the portion of that thread with a link to the video- http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=123523.msg1882911#msg1882911, not sure if that is the same interview dlh mentions here or not, but it is interesting.]

Yes, that's the same interview.  From my memory, Tony seems so expicit when he refers to 67cm that I deferred to him; I have nowhere near his knowledge or experience (or anyone here for that matter).  What I'm still not sure about, and I don't think was mentioned in the interview, is whether his wide cardioids are ORTF or some other config.  So I just thought  I'd try ORTF.  I'm already benfiting from the current discussion and really appreciate everyone's contribution to this thread (some of the best minds here).  I'd really like to know the facts about Mr. Faulkner's center pair.  I'm pretty sure I remember his placement was slightly above and behind the conductor's head which is what I shot for.  I do realize that depends on the width (size) of the ensemble.  What I was most pleased with was the way the omni's captured the split pipes of the organ (and the pedal tones).

Thanks,
Dave

[John Willett]

John, you posted in the same thread here where the link to the interview was as I recall.. maybe it was the Team Classical thread here.  I remember you mentioning that the interview was done in Tony's kitchen, which you recognized as you had been there previously.  The same confusion came up about the 'classic' Faulkner Array (which as I understand he came up with originally to address overbearing side reflections in a difficult acoustic) and this newer 'phased array' that he's been using more recently.. and which I assume is probably applicable to more situations with favorable acoustics.  But he'd probably agree that different situations call for different approaches.

[edit-  I was mistaken, the confusion between more than one Faulkner Array didn't come up in the Team Classical thread, maybe it was over at GS.  Here's the portion of that thread with a link to the video- http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=123523.msg1882911#msg1882911, not sure if that is the same interview dlh mentions here or not, but it is interesting.]

I don't have a problem with the technique - it's just that the parallel fig.8s have been well documented for very many years as a "Faulkner Array" it's just very confusing to call a totally different microphone set-up by the same name.

The parallel fig.8s were called a "Faulkner Array" many years before the new set-up so I would stick to that and find a new name for the new set-up.

After all Alan Blumlein was the main user of MS (didn't he invent that as well?) and we don't call MS "Blumlein", only crossed fig.8s.

[Gutbucket]

Good point.  Someone should come up with a better name for this one, to avoid confusing things.


edit to add-

After all Alan Blumlein was the main user of MS (didn't he invent that as well?) and we don't call MS "Blumlein", only crossed fig.8s.

True, and if I remember correctly, before a decent figure-8 was developed the good Mr Blumlein worked with two near-spaced baffled omnis, developing the concept that we now refer to as 'Jecklin Disk'.