Topic: Thoughts on this outdoor 4-mic setup?

[acidjack]

For a show next week, I was considering going MK41 (A-B) + MK22 (NOS) for an outdoor show. The theory being that the A-B config would work more or less like a center channel and would be less prone to phasing, and would give the most direct sound, while the 22s would provide that "open" feel.

I was also considering running my MK5s split omni with the 41s, but really, I haven't been as impressed by outdoor omnis as I feel like I should be.

Is running the 41s A-B accomplishing anything, or am I better off just going with a more traditional 90 degree pattern?  It just seems to me that I would get the stereo information from the 22s, and running them straight ahead would be best for getting the most direct sound....

[NOLAfishwater]

Mk22 AB + mk41 dina

[acidjack]

^^ so the opposite of what I was thinking?  Just out of curiosity, why?  It doesn't make sense to me, but I don't claim to be any kind of expert at outdoor shows.  Out of 100+ I do a year outdoors are maybe 5 or less.

[Shawn]

you'll basically have no real stereo image. omnis nos is basically split omnis with a tiny split. so not much stereo image there. hypers AB (assuming a small distance) will also not have much of an image. now, with that being said, i think imaging is really unimportant for taping the PA of an outdoor rock concert. hell more than half the time those things are mixed in mono so any imaging you get is from crowd and ambient noise (not exactly what I am hoping to capture). I'm all for experimenting with stuff like this, but IMO i always come back to split omnis and a Near-coincident pair being my favorite outdoor 4 mic config.

as always i suggest critical listening to each stereo pair independantly before mixing. often times the mix of both pairs doesn't sound any better or even sounds worse. 4 mics not always better than 2.

[page]

as always i suggest critical listening to each stereo pair independantly before mixing. often times the mix of both pairs doesn't sound any better or even sounds worse. 4 mics not always better than 2.

excellent post, but this in particular resonates (no pun intended).

[acidjack]

you'll basically have no real stereo image. omnis nos is basically split omnis with a tiny split. so not much stereo image there. hypers AB (assuming a small distance) will also not have much of an image. now, with that being said, i think imaging is really unimportant for taping the PA of an outdoor rock concert. hell more than half the time those things are mixed in mono so any imaging you get is from crowd and ambient noise (not exactly what I am hoping to capture). I'm all for experimenting with stuff like this, but IMO i always come back to split omnis and a Near-coincident pair being my favorite outdoor 4 mic config.

as always i suggest critical listening to each stereo pair independantly before mixing. often times the mix of both pairs doesn't sound any better or even sounds worse. 4 mics not always better than 2.

Just to clarify one thing (because I agree with what you're saying), the MK22s are not omnis - they're "open cardiods" which I'm not sure anyone knows exactly how to define.  But basically, they're somewhat wider than cardiods and less wide, with less low-end, than wide cardiods.

Thus, my thinking was running the MK41 hypers A-B would provide an essentially mono representation of the most direct sound, while the MK22s NOS would provide what stereo imaging I could get.  Does my thinking here make any sense?

[Todd R]

I think some clarification on terms might be useful. AB I believe traditionally meant mics split, presumably facing forward. As in omnis split 3 feet, facing forward. It seems others have taken AB to mean mics split just a few inches or so (near coincident), but pointing at the stacks. I really don't know where this definition of AB came from, but it is totally different than splitting your mics by a meter or two.

So what are you meaning when you say AB?

[acidjack]

I think some clarification on terms might be useful. AB I believe traditionally meant mics split, presumably facing forward. As in omnis split 3 feet, facing forward. It seems others have taken AB to mean mics split just a few inches or so (near coincident), but pointing at the stacks. I really don't know where this definition of AB came from, but it is totally different than splitting your mics by a meter or two.

So what are you meaning when you say AB?

By A-B I mean split, facing forward (i.e, at an exactly 90 degree angle to the kwonbar, parallel to each other).  In this case, the kwonbar I have is more like a 12in split, which for what I'm going for here is fine.

[MIQ]

Just to clarify one thing (because I agree with what you're saying), the MK22s are not omnis - they're "open cardiods" which I'm not sure anyone knows exactly how to define... 

The attached pic is my understanding of "open cardiod".  It is down -17dB at 180 degrees (behind the mic).  It is definitely NOT omni.  Also attached for comparison is a pic of Sub Card (-10dB at 180 degrees).

-MIQ

[Shawn]

you'll basically have no real stereo image. omnis nos is basically split omnis with a tiny split. so not much stereo image there. hypers AB (assuming a small distance) will also not have much of an image. now, with that being said, i think imaging is really unimportant for taping the PA of an outdoor rock concert. hell more than half the time those things are mixed in mono so any imaging you get is from crowd and ambient noise (not exactly what I am hoping to capture). I'm all for experimenting with stuff like this, but IMO i always come back to split omnis and a Near-coincident pair being my favorite outdoor 4 mic config.

as always i suggest critical listening to each stereo pair independantly before mixing. often times the mix of both pairs doesn't sound any better or even sounds worse. 4 mics not always better than 2.

Just to clarify one thing (because I agree with what you're saying), the MK22s are not omnis - they're "open cardiods" which I'm not sure anyone knows exactly how to define.  But basically, they're somewhat wider than cardiods and less wide, with less low-end, than wide cardiods.

Thus, my thinking was running the MK41 hypers A-B would provide an essentially mono representation of the most direct sound, while the MK22s NOS would provide what stereo imaging I could get.  Does my thinking here make any sense?

my bad I read that as mk2 instead of mk22.

[alpine85]

I like to run one pair X/Y when I mix 2 pairs (but I usually use omnis for the second pair, so YMMV)... less phasing problems and a more stable stereo image

I would go for maximum level difference on one pair - coincident or near coincident, and maximum time difference on the other pair (within reason, no more than a 3 ft split or so). 

I have found that you can get away with a wider angle on X/Y outdoors (I actually prefer wider XY angles anyway, but that's just a personal preference)

I would love to hear what those MK22s sound like at X/Y somewhere between 105-120 degrees.  Maybe mix that with the MK41s at a wider-than-normal spread (like DIN or NOS). 

OR... MK41s at X/Y with the 22s A/B (similar to what NOLAfishwater suggested)

[Gutbucket]

MK41s at X/Y with the 22s A/B (similar to what NOLAfishwater suggested)

I'm in this boat.  But I'd prefer more than 12" to A-B the 22s.

Here's an alternate idea- mount the 41s and 22s together, in DIN or NOS or whatever, with the caps as coincident as possible and at the same angle on each side.  Comparing the two seperate resulting recordings will be interesing in itself, and when matrixing them, the coincident mounting will minimize potential phase problems. The cool part? Varying the mix ratio between the two would let you seemlessly adjust the resulting combined mic pickup pattern to any pattern that lies between supercardioid and open-cardioid.

[MIQ]

If you mount the 41s and the 22s coincidently on both sides like Lee mentioned, as you vary the mix you would be varying the recording angle, along with the differences in LF and direct to reverberant ratio (although there should be much less reverberant info outdoors).  For NOS (90 deg 30 cm) as you vary the mix of 41s to 22s, you would vary the recording angle from the 41s RA = 69 deg to the 22s RA = 86 deg.  For DIN (90 deg 20 cm) the recording angle would vary from 85 deg to 114 deg.

Depending on how far away from the stage you are you may want the more narrow recording angle of NOS and the added LF from more 22s in the mix. 

NOS (90 deg 30 cm) --> 41s RA = 69 deg,  22s RA =   86 deg
 DIN (90 deg 20 cm) --> 41s RA = 85 deg,  22s RA = 114 deg

-MIQ

[NOLAfishwater]

^^ so the opposite of what I was thinking?  Just out of curiosity, why?  It doesn't make sense to me, but I don't claim to be any kind of expert at outdoor shows.  Out of 100+ I do a year outdoors are maybe 5 or less.

well I also am a fan of running XY with cards/hypers with split subs/open/omni. with the P82 you can then pan the xy pair 50% left and 50% right and then the flanking mics pan 100% left and right. that way the mix mimics the stereo array. I have done this with 4 onstage mics. xy cards and 15' split subcards pointing straight into the stage then add the SBD to it. gives it huge soundstage

[acidjack]

If you mount the 41s and the 22s coincidently on both sides like Lee mentioned, as you vary the mix you would be varying the recording angle, along with the differences in LF and direct to reverberant ratio (although there should be much less reverberant info outdoors).  For NOS (90 deg 30 cm) as you vary the mix of 41s to 22s, you would vary the recording angle from the 41s RA = 69 deg to the 22s RA = 86 deg.  For DIN (90 deg 20 cm) the recording angle would vary from 85 deg to 114 deg.

Depending on how far away from the stage you are you may want the more narrow recording angle of NOS and the added LF from more 22s in the mix. 

NOS (90 deg 30 cm) --> 41s RA = 69 deg,  22s RA =   86 deg
 DIN (90 deg 20 cm) --> 41s RA = 85 deg,  22s RA = 114 deg

-MIQ

NOS + DIN is certainly easy/doable/something I have mounts for.  Wide-spaced 22s at 3ft is also doable for me with my Bogen bar, but man that thing is  big...

[MIQ]

Can you mount both sets of mics in the same config, one on top of the other?  That way the mics on each side will have the same arrival time (phase).  Comb filtering (phasing) would not be an issue when you blend from one set to the other.  If you set them up with one set at 20cm and the other at 30cm, the arrival times on each side are different.  Sorry if you get all this and I'm just misunderstanding your post "NOS + DIN".

-MIQ