Topic: Running more than 2 mics

[Top Hat]

This topic will likely be touchy.. Anywho I am a firm believer in less is more. Discuss

[nulldogmas]

This topic will likely be touchy.. Anywho I am a firm believer in less is more. Discuss

I've tried testing this theory by running zero mics, and it hasn't worked out well.

[flask]

I run either 2, 4, or 6 mics. Just because I run more than 2 mics at times doesn't necessarily mean they all end up in the final mix. It's a great way to compare different mics/patterns assuming you're capturing separate tracks.

[fireonshakedwnstreet]

If you have a great all-arounder not necessary, but I have found it useful to run different patterns that complement each other.

[Gutbucket]

The right amount is right. Certainly not less, not necessarily more.  More involves complication, which may be worthwhile when offset by whatever value the addition provides.

Here are four good reasons that come to mind:

1) For making two or more stereo microphone pair recordings simultaneously. Why do that?  To run setups that are intentionally different from each other so as to be able to choose whichever worked best. Or alternately, for a good basis of comparison between different setups, in which case they may be entirely different or nearly identical except for the variable of interest under test.

2) To create a recording intended for playback over more than two speakers: 3 channel L/C/R, quad, 5 or 7 channel surround, Atmos, Ambisonics,, etc.

^The second won't apply to many tapers at TS, while the first does.  However, both are in the same basic category, consisting of setups where each individual microphone channel feeds an individual playback channel on a 1:1 basis.  In either case, a microphone configuration properly designed to to accomplish the desired goal is of fundamental importance.

There is an fundamental categorical difference between that and..

3) Arrangements where there are more microphone channels than playback channels.  Examples: Mono playback of recordings made with a stereo microphone pair.  2-channel playback of recordings made with more than two microphones (I suspect this is the focus of Top Hat's inquiry, and can post more about why one might want to do that if you like). Various forms of multichannel down-mixing.

4) Arrangements where there are more playback channels than microphones.  Examples: Playback of mono recordings over a 2-channel stereo. Ambiance extraction and Matrix surround playback of 2-channel recordings over systems using more than two speakers. Various forms of up-mixing.

There are additional things to consider in these cases, yet again, a microphone configuration properly designed to to accomplish the desired goal is of fundamental importance.  Here's the kicker-  Optimizing microphone configurations for any of the four different categories above will equate to somewhat different solutions.  In some cases the differences will be minor and in others substantial.   Just like there are good reasons, there are also good solutions for each.

[mrfender]

I run as many as I can because, sure as the sun will rise in the east, one deck/mic will have some kind of issue.

[Top Hat]

If you have a great all-arounder not necessary, but I have found it useful to run different patterns that complement each other.

Aren't you concerned with phase cancellation? Isn't almost impossible to avoid with running multiple sets? I have seen some really questionable techniques by some tapers mixing 6 or more pairs..why?

[Top Hat]

I run either 2, 4, or 6 mics. Just because I run more than 2 mics at times doesn't necessarily mean they all end up in the final mix. It's a great way to compare different mics/patterns assuming you're capturing separate tracks.

I used to run cards & hypers or 2 dfferent sets of hypers but select the best pair. Lately, I will likely bring 2 sets however once i feel the venue, and know how the band plays I usually know what to use 9/10. The goal here is to lighten the load as much as possible and being confident in your choices.

[Top Hat]

The right amount is right. Certainly not less, not necessarily more.  More involves complication, which may be worthwhile when offset by whatever value the addition provides.

Here are four good reasons that come to mind:

1) For making two or more stereo microphone pair recordings simultaneously. Why do that?  To run setups that are intentionally different from each other so as to be able to choose whichever worked best. Or alternately, for a good basis of comparison between different setups, in which case they may be entirely different or nearly identical except for the variable of interest under test.

2) To create a recording intended for playback over more than two speakers: 3 channel L/C/R, quad, 5 or 7 channel surround, Atmos, Ambisonics,, etc.

^The second won't apply to many tapers at TS, while the first does.  However, both are in the same basic category, consisting of setups where each individual microphone channel feeds an individual playback channel on a 1:1 basis.  In either case, a microphone configuration properly designed to to accomplish the desired goal is of fundamental importance.

There is an fundamental categorical difference between that and..

3) Arrangements where there are more microphone channels than playback channels.  Examples: Mono playback of recordings made with a stereo microphone pair.  2-channel playback of recordings made with more than two microphones (I suspect this is the focus of Top Hat's inquiry, and can post more about why one might want to do that if you like). Various forms of multichannel down-mixing.

4) Arrangements where there are more playback channels than microphones.  Examples: Playback of mono recordings over a 2-channel stereo. Ambiance extraction and Matrix surround playback of 2-channel recordings over systems using more than two speakers. Various forms of up-mixing.

There are additional things to consider in these cases, yet again, a microphone configuration properly designed to to accomplish the desired goal is of fundamental importance.  Here's the kicker-  Optimizing microphone configurations for any of the four different categories above will equate to somewhat different solutions.  In some cases the differences will be minor and in others substantial.   Just like there are good reasons, there are also good solutions for each.

!. I can totally see that. However, there comes a time where you just have to trust your gut and go with what you know. Keeping it light and simple. However, if you do have load in access go experiment! Run a multichannel direct feed sometime. The results are extremely better than running a ton of mics, or even stage+board.
2. Redundant for taping purposes I agree. And, why not use M/S using 2 mics ex. Omni + Hyper, shotgun, card. EZ PZ.
3. Direct inputs > Multi-micing IMO. If you have that much access to do this..why are you not multitracking?
4. Not really taper spcific i dont think.

[Gutbucket]

I record using multichannel microphone arrays because that's the best way I've found of fueling the teleportation time machine.

The techniques, well applied, provide additional degrees of freedom that are simply unavailable using only two microphones, and directly address some of the difficult constraints under which tapers operate in contrast to how professional recordists operate.

It can be done in a lightweight, easily managed, relatively simple way.  I usually setup and break down faster than most 2-channel tapers.  But even if not streamlined that way, the choice between "light/easy-setup" and "the best recording I can achieve" should be a personal one each taper needs to determine on their own terms, is it not?  Its is not a binary choice but more of a sliding scale, each taper finding their own comfort/satisfaction zone. 

Yes to M/S.. as the center of a microphone array.  Simplest arrangement is M/S between a pair of spaced omnis - a four microphone arrangement that works really well, better than either pair on its own in most taper situations IME, and is a relatively simple one that is hard to screw up. This is the "more than 2 microphone" configuration I recommend to other tapers interested in using arrays of more than two microphones.  Yet even with this simple 4-microphone arrangement there are strategies for optimizing the spacing between the wide pair, and how far forward of that the M/S pair is.   In more difficult acoustics, swap the omnis for a more directional pattern, pointed at the PA.  The biggest practical challenge is how to effectively space the wide pair.

Don't like it? That's cool.  Other folks do, that's cool too.  Its good that we don't all like the same things, or do things in the same way.

Run a multichannel direct feed sometime. The results are extremely better than running a ton of mics, or even stage+board.

Not if you do it right.  Sure, have done that.  Not what I'm looking for most of the time.

Aren't you concerned with phase cancellation? Isn't almost impossible to avoid with running multiple sets?

Its impossible to avoid using just two microphones, unless using a coincident pair configuration.  To be absolutely safe on this account, record in mono.

I have seen some really questionable techniques by some tapers mixing 6 or more pairs..why?

I see plenty of questionable two channel techniques as well.  This gets to the deeper issue I think, which is optimizing any microphone arrangement to work well in the particular situation.  That's vitally important for two channel configurations as well as more complex ones.  Yes, with additional channels the complexity multiplies rapidly and unless strategically addressed can get out of hand, but the fundamental issue of optimizing the arrangement applies to any number of microphones.

[EmRR]

This is in another thread, but I'll put it here too.    Center stack is all coincident MS options + one PAS.  Worked well. 

[fireonshakedwnstreet]

I use a 3ft bar (or more) to kind of give the mics their own "space" and hopefully avoid conflicts. If things line up you get a nice forward gain. Really like what the multi-channel OMT approach brings in terms of flexibility too.
 

[voltronic]

I'm probably not recording what the OP is, but a couple points I wanted to add from the classical / acoustic side:

Number of mics: While it's very possible to get a fantastic capture with a single pair, you need a convergence of the right mic pattern, type, spacing, angle, height, distance from source, etc. And all that changes for every single room, type and size of performing group, etc. Then there are the concerts where you are restricted in one or more ways from your ideal setup and you need to compensate. Having more than one pair gives you options, and as Gut has explained, these multi pair arrays are often greater than the sum of their parts.

...Which leads me to the phase cancellation / comb filtering concern: This one can get complex, but there are countless proven 4+ mic arrays where those is not a problem in practice. A very common classical recording setup is a center ORTF pair with wide omni flanks several meters apart. But you can use four or more mics in much closer spacing and get great results. For example, a popular one with the orchestral recording people the last several years is an array developed by the great Tony Faulkner which uses an inner pair of subcards 47 cm wide, flanked by omnis 67 cm wide and all angled out 45 degrees. The entire system works as a "phased array" because the capsules of all 4 mics are aligned so that sound sources arriving from the front reach all of them at the same time. There are people that make all kinds of complaints that you can't have the inner and outer pairs of mics only 10 cm away from each other because of comb filtering, but in practice it does not come through and recordings. Possibly because you almost never have the level of the inner and outer pairs the same.

[roffels]

I run either 2, 4, or 6 mics. Just because I run more than 2 mics at times doesn't necessarily mean they all end up in the final mix. It's a great way to compare different mics/patterns assuming you're capturing separate tracks.

Right. I run a pair of omnis and a pair of cardioids, ideally to later mix with a board feed. Usually I prefer the omnis+board, but run the cardioids for redundancy in case the board feed doesn't work out.

[noahbickart]

I prefer the sound of my mk41v pulls on compromised systems like car stereos, earbuds while one the subway and plugging in to the audio equipment at the homes of non-audiophiles.

In my listening room, or on fancy headphones, I far prefer the mk22 pulls.

So I always run both.

Then I use a third pair for experimentation with things like M/S pairs or split Omnis.

And a central coincident (xy or ms) pair with split omnis can made a delightful "tape."

I never mix two near-coincident pairs.