Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: ORTF + Central Omni thread at GS  (Read 8084 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EmRR

  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 779
    • ElectroMagnetic Radiation Recorders
ORTF + Central Omni thread at GS
« on: September 01, 2019, 03:38:01 PM »
Mics: DPA 4060 w/MPS 6030 PSU/DAD6001/DAD4099, Neumann KM 131, Oktava MK 012, Sennheiser MKH 105, MKH 20, MKH 30, MKH 40, MKH 800 TWIN
Recorders: Zoom F8n, Sony MZ-R50

Offline aaronji

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3861
Re: ORTF + Central Omni thread at GS
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2019, 05:48:51 PM »
Gutbucket has posted on this, and other, configurations in his "OMT" threads (and elsewhere).

[EDIT: Here's a link to part two of those threads. A lot to wade though, though. I will try to find a more pertinent link, if you'd like.]
« Last Edit: September 01, 2019, 05:55:51 PM by aaronji »

Offline EmRR

  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 779
    • ElectroMagnetic Radiation Recorders
Re: ORTF + Central Omni thread at GS
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2019, 06:15:49 PM »
Gutbucket has posted on this, and other, configurations in his "OMT" threads (and elsewhere).

[EDIT: Here's a link to part two of those threads. A lot to wade though, though. I will try to find a more pertinent link, if you'd like.]

Couple of ORTF mentions on pages 9, 10, 11, 17.  Some others in part 1. 

I don't find that in the pdf's, or remember it in the threads.  Anyway, some interesting other comments there.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2019, 06:24:32 PM by EmRR »
Mics: DPA 4060 w/MPS 6030 PSU/DAD6001/DAD4099, Neumann KM 131, Oktava MK 012, Sennheiser MKH 105, MKH 20, MKH 30, MKH 40, MKH 800 TWIN
Recorders: Zoom F8n, Sony MZ-R50

Offline jerryfreak

  • No PZ
  • Trade Count: (31)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 6205
  • The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: ORTF + Central Omni thread at GS
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2019, 06:52:42 PM »
ive done some experimenting with this with mini dpa supercards and omnis
Unable to post or PM due to arbitrary censorship of people the mod doesn't like. Please email me using the link in my profile if you need to connect

Offline prepschoolalumniblues

  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 118
  • Scents and subtle sounds
    • Phish.net Profile
Re: ORTF + Central Omni thread at GS
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2019, 07:10:16 PM »
Thanks for sharing this thread. Would love to hear more from people who have experimented with both spaced omnis + center card(s) and ORTF-ish cards + center omni(s). I know e.g. Gutbucket is a big proponent of the former so it’s interesting to see some folks on another board advocate for the latter.
Oktava MK-012 > Marantz PMD661 (Oade Warm Plus Mod)
AT853 > Marantz PMD620MKII (Oade Concert Mod)

Offline heathen

  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3528
Re: ORTF + Central Omni thread at GS
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2019, 07:33:46 PM »
I think there's a lot to be said for this approach, particularly for recording PA concerts where you don't have to worry about localization of, for example, double basses in an orchestra.  The bass from the PA is likely to be mono.

That said, there's also your playback experience to consider...
Mics: AT4050ST | AT4031 | AT853 (C/SC) | Line Audio CM3 | Sennheiser e614 | Sennheiser MKE2 | DPA 4061 Pre: CA9200 Decks: Zoom F8 | Roland R-05

Offline EmRR

  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 779
    • ElectroMagnetic Radiation Recorders
Re: ORTF + Central Omni thread at GS
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2019, 10:21:28 PM »
All these various approaches have strengths for certain situations. 

dseetoo's ORTF comments about the high frequency hole in the middle (may or may not matter depending on what you are trying to achieve), and the strength of bass from an added pressure omni are all very interesting. 

In mid-side experiments I've added an omni for comparison, and used it for the stronger bass content.

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=127018.msg2285199#msg2285199

 Getting into using crossovers to select strengths and weaknesses within frequency ranges is also very interesting.  Many times with a mid side recording I will find stronger bass intelligibility if I've used a HPF on the side signal, and cut down the directional side wall bass reflections. 

ORTF is not a pattern I've really experimented with much, it seldom has suited what I usually want to achieve in recording studio work.  Added omni would probably make it more palatable. 
« Last Edit: September 02, 2019, 12:35:33 PM by EmRR »
Mics: DPA 4060 w/MPS 6030 PSU/DAD6001/DAD4099, Neumann KM 131, Oktava MK 012, Sennheiser MKH 105, MKH 20, MKH 30, MKH 40, MKH 800 TWIN
Recorders: Zoom F8n, Sony MZ-R50

Offline kindms

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5950
    • The Breakfast
Re: ORTF + Central Omni thread at GS
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2019, 08:10:20 AM »
https://archive.org/details/kungfu2019-08-31.akgomt-24/kungfu2019-08-31akgomt-24d1t02.flac

rocksuitcase just posted this

we run an OMT setup a good amount

the above is ck8 forward ck61 reak split ck22s

for all the different setups i think i prefer a card in the center vs a single omni. i much prefer the splits with something in the middle

it definitely gives you lots of options in post. im usually the 2ch "safety" pair in the center with the c426 in various configs
AKG c426, AKG414 XLS/ST, AKG ck61, ck22, >nBob colettes >PFA > V3, SD MixPre >  TCM-Mod Tascam HDP2, Sony M10
Little Bear tube Pre >Outlaw Audio 2200 Monoblocks > VR-2's

Offline aaronji

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3861
Re: ORTF + Central Omni thread at GS
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2019, 10:30:15 AM »
Couple of ORTF mentions on pages 9, 10, 11, 17.  Some others in part 1. 

I don't find that in the pdf's, or remember it in the threads.  Anyway, some interesting other comments there.

Yeah, I guess a lot of the configurations in OMT are mostly "flipped" compared to this (directional mic in the center) or for more microphones. The "omni in the center of a directional pair" question has come up a number of times, though. See this thread or this post, for example.

Offline EmRR

  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 779
    • ElectroMagnetic Radiation Recorders
Re: ORTF + Central Omni thread at GS
« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2019, 12:31:07 PM »
Couple of ORTF mentions on pages 9, 10, 11, 17.  Some others in part 1. 

I don't find that in the pdf's, or remember it in the threads.  Anyway, some interesting other comments there.

Yeah, I guess a lot of the configurations in OMT are mostly "flipped" compared to this (directional mic in the center) or for more microphones. The "omni in the center of a directional pair" question has come up a number of times, though. See this thread or this post, for example.

Yep, those touch it, thanks!
Mics: DPA 4060 w/MPS 6030 PSU/DAD6001/DAD4099, Neumann KM 131, Oktava MK 012, Sennheiser MKH 105, MKH 20, MKH 30, MKH 40, MKH 800 TWIN
Recorders: Zoom F8n, Sony MZ-R50

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8281
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: ORTF + Central Omni thread at GS
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2019, 05:29:39 PM »
Couple of ORTF mentions on pages 9, 10, 11, 17.  Some others in part 1. 

I don't find that in the pdf's, or remember it in the threads.  Anyway, some interesting other comments there.

Yeah, I guess a lot of the configurations in OMT are mostly "flipped" compared to this (directional mic in the center) or for more microphones. The "omni in the center of a directional pair" question has come up a number of times, though. See this thread or this post, for example.
Here is one attempt we made to do center omni using an AKG ck22 on a 460 body. kindms only owned one ck22 at the time so we thought why not?
https://archive.org/details/woodbros2017-03-02.ck61ck22
https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=191771.0

IMO, this works to create some sense of bass or depth to the otherwise 2 channel/dimensional recording.
also IMO, splitting the omnis wide and placing a filler mic other than omni seems to my ears a better "spatial representation" (specifically of PA from any distance beyond 10 feet recording)
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG460|CK61|CK1|CK3|CK8|Beyer M 201E|DPA 4060 SK
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI x2; Sony PCM-M10

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15700
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: ORTF + Central Omni thread at GS
« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2019, 07:12:31 PM »
Hi guys.  You pretty much know what I think already. But that's never stopped me from typing too much anyway..  ;)

Sure it can work and make good sounding recordings, but I don't think its the best choice for tapers.  Its not the best choice for me. BTW this applies to adding a single omni to any 2-ch optimized near-spaced stereo microphone setup- ORTF, NOS, DIN, whatev.

I typically find David Rick's posts in the GS location recording threads to be the most spot on, and the same holds true in that one.  Also generally agreed with Studer58 there.

My feeling is that ORTF is intended and optimized for straight 2-channel stereo recording.  We can try and improve on its inherent trade offs, like adding an omni or two to compensate for the low frequency rolloff of the cardioids, but as DSatz reminds us, it is then no longer ORTF.  ..and my feeling is if its no longer ORTF then why stick with the compromises specific to ORTF.   At that point I'm motivated to modify the ORTF setup to find a more optimal arrangement that uses 3 or 4 mics.

Yeah, the addition of a single omni to ORTF helps the bass extension.  Yeah, its a compact setup and simple to wrap your head around.  If that's sufficient and gets you the results you want, no prob.  Adding a single omni is pretty simple and doesn't change how one thinks about setting up an ORTF pair, and the value of simplicity should not be understated.  As mentioned in some other threads linked above, its probably best to low pass the omni around where the cardioid response drops off if the intent is more bass, because that at least keeps the arrangement ORTF from that low-pass point up and lets you dial in more omni without totally collapsing the image.  But can't we do better?  We want bass extension and weight but do we really want the lowest octaves to be monophonic?  I don't, but one may if the recording is to be cut to LP record (which has to go mono really low to keep vertical groove modulation minimal and the needle from jumping).  And many people have grown accustomed to LP bass sound, which is generally monoish and not super deep, so they may like that sound even though it is most certainly a compromise to fit the format first and foremost.  Do we really want a lot of monophonic room verb if we don't low pass the omni?  I can't imagine any scenario where that's desirable.   Other than low-pass, I'd suggest radical EQing of the omni sort of like one might play around with on the the Side channel of a M/S pair.  Don't EQ it to sound good on its own, EQ it "around" the ORTF pair to fit most appropriately.  If you are getting too much room verb in the mids scoop that out.  Need more vocal clarity, dial in an upper midrange bump.  Try that against doing the same with the ORTF pair  alone. You may end up with something approaching a loudness curve on the omni.  The point is that in approaching it this way, you are not mixing together somewhat equal partners like making a matrix, instead its ORTF + some additional contribution from the omni, and when that contribution is modified to fit the ORTF pair really well the omni may not sound very good in isolation without the ORTF pair.

So yeah, it can work.  It can make for an improvement.  But it's not really giving me what I want from a recording and I don't think it is the best use of available resources.

Here's a problem: Near-spaced mic setups using cardioids are mostly optimized for what arrives inside their front acceptance angle, providing good imaging, timbre and spatiality for the sources toward which the array is directed. They are not particularly well suited for pickup and portrayal of off axis ambience and room reverberation outside of the front acceptance angle.  Their diffuse pickup of off-axis sound is relatively closed-in sounding and monophonic-y not only in the LF range, but also through the midrange for many off-axis directions. That diffuse reverberant sound ends up being not reproduced very diffusely.  This isn't as much of a problem when the mic array can be positioned right were we want it on stage, at or inside the critical distance, where the primary sound pickup which ORTF does a good job of dominates and the trade-off in the reverberant portrayal is acceptable because the direct sound which matters more is good. 

The GS guys are generally recording from an optimal position somewhere around the critical distance away from unamplified musicians in a good sounding halls.  Most posters in that thread are discussing frequency response and direct-imaging effects, and if they are discussing portrayal of reverberance and ambient sound the comments are almost all about the quantity of reverb pickup, an not its spatial quality. David Rick is the only one to hint at that, although many readers probably missed it because it's hidden in technical terms when he states- "I'm not cutting vinyl, and I'd much rather use a widely-spaced pair of omnis in the interest of LF decorrelation."

A near spaced pair of cardioids does not achieve good LF decorrelation.  Adding a single omni in the middle increases bass pickup, yet reduces LF decorrelation further.  The single omni picks up more room reverberation, yet degrades the spatial quality of that reverberant pickup, due to its monophonic nature and close positioning to the ORTF pair.  The ambience it picks up is is reproduced as flat and centered in the stereo image. It conflicts with the desired image we want from the front.  Really good reverberant pickup requires good decorrelation.  That makes the reverberation sound like it is coming from all around (diffuse) instead of being centered in the middle where it competes with what we want and expect to hear in the middle.  To get good decorrelation we need to space the mics far enough apart and/or angle directional mics far enough apart.  This essentially does the opposite of that. 

Unlike GS location recordists, TS tapers are usually recording from positions further into the reverberant field.  Because of that we actually need a better sounding portrayal of ambience than they do, simply because it so often tends to dominate in our recordings whether we wish it to or not.  Good low frequency decoration makes the ambience and room verb sound good, natural, open, and enveloping, even if that is not always an "accurate" portrayal of how it sounded there live.  And there is nothing wrong with making a recording sound better than it did live.

Another thought: I typically want more stereo width in the bass than the higher frequencies.  Notice that "hole-in-the-middle-ness" never seems to affect the bass region, it's a phenomena which manifests in the mid/treble range.  I'll rather err toward over-centeredness in the higher frequencies to keep the center image solid, while keeping the bass wide and encompassing, but this is the exact opposite of what ORTF + single omni is doing. 

If I really want ORTF, instead of trying to improve it I'd rather try and do it right by using an alternate pair of cardioids which have particularly good bass extension on their own. 

Otherwise I'd move away from ORTF and set things up to take better advantage of the Duplex Theory of directional hearing using an arrangement which takes more advantage of Interaural Time Difference at low frequencies and transitions to more Interaural Intensity Difference at higher frequencies.  Spaced omnis get good low-frequency stereo envelopment along with coincident directional mics to get good high frequency stereo imaging. I don't need to high pass the directional mics because they already have a reduced low frequency sensitivity at a distance.  I don't high pass the spaced omnis because at mid and high frequencies they are far enough away to be decently decorrelated from the directional pair so as to add "air" and decorrelated ambience without otherwise interfering with the coincident imaging.

That makes a lot more sense to me for all the reasons above, but it does require spacing the omis far enough apart to get sufficient decorrelation between each other and between them and the coincident directional pair, which is a dealbreaker in terms of setup practicality for many tapers and situations. 
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 07:24:44 PM by Gutbucket »
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline EmRR

  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 779
    • ElectroMagnetic Radiation Recorders
Re: ORTF + Central Omni thread at GS
« Reply #12 on: September 17, 2019, 12:40:27 AM »
All good points Gutbucket.

With concert multi-tracking we usually face the same problems as audience taping; an inability to really put the ambient mics where ideal. 

My last outing was a house console sourced multitrack for a client at the Reeves Theater in Elkin, NC.  I took a number of options, but it turned out they didn't really have any simple mounting/routing paths to get audience mics into the house mic path, so it ended up being KMR 81i /MKH 30 mid-side from FOH position, which is pretty far back into the diffuse field and off to the side.  If I'd pushed for a ladder, we might have clamped something at about the same distance, but more center of the room, at the balcony lip, then run much longer wire back to FOH with a lot of gaffe tape and safety chains.  They have one of those glass balcony rails with no mounting positions, but there is a projector mount you could get to off the front bottom of the balcony. 

I think my next experiment is looking like dual mid side (MKH 800 Twin and MKH 30) with coincident center pressure omni and shotgun (hear all the options within the MS spectrum for a given space), and spaced omni's.  Within MS, as I said previously, I've liked the addition of a pressure omni for the lows, and that could be high passed.  I'm curious whether that will at all prove useful with spaced omni's, I'm thinking maybe not.  Comparison of the shotgun against a mid super-cardioid derived from the MKH 800 Twin, haven't done that yet. 

I could also rig the spaced pair Strauss-Packet with center DMS done with a pair of dual output mics, curious to hear that one too. 
Mics: DPA 4060 w/MPS 6030 PSU/DAD6001/DAD4099, Neumann KM 131, Oktava MK 012, Sennheiser MKH 105, MKH 20, MKH 30, MKH 40, MKH 800 TWIN
Recorders: Zoom F8n, Sony MZ-R50

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15700
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: ORTF + Central Omni thread at GS
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2019, 06:20:05 PM »
Apologies for going OT.  But there is some good stuff in EmRR's post I'd like to riff off and reply to.

With concert multi-tracking we usually face the same problems as audience taping; an inability to really put the ambient mics where ideal.

Ignoring a SBD feed, I feel it's hardest for us to place the primary audience mics where they are ideal, representing the primary taper challenge.

My thinking on ambient mics has evolved over the years, mostly influenced by a few years of experimenting with on-stage surround recordings at a monthly jazz series, playing around with different surround/ambient channel configurations.  Prior to that I occasionally ran a separate ambient pair a few rows behind my main rig at outdoor festivals.  During the jazz series I started out similarly by placing the ambient/surround-ch mics remotely as boundary-mounted omnis on the back wall of the room behind the audience, then as directional microphones facing the ceiling back there, then tried directional mics at the main microphone position on stage facing away from the band and toward the audience, then boundary mounted omnis on the front wall under the lip of the stage facing toward the audience, then cardioids in a similar placement below the stage lip facing the audience,  in both wide and near-spaced configurations. 

My preference, which held equally for surround playback as well as stereo mixdown using the surround channels for ambience, was placement of the ambient/surround mics relatively close to the same time-of-arrival plane as the main microphones (regardless of delay correction), yet with the maximum amount of rear-rejection attainable in order to minimize pickup of what the main mics are getting.  In that situation this meant cardioids placed up front, below the stage lip facing the audience (thankfully "jazz church quiet" for the most part) and away from the band, such that the stage itself served to block clear pickup of onstage sound in addition to the rear-rejection from cardioid directivity. 

My main conclusion from all that, which has served well since, is I prefer the difference in content between the main forward-facing and ambient/surround microphones to be based primarily on level differences rather than time of arrival differences.  In other words, the most important thing in my placement choice for the ambient mics was achieving maximal exclusion of the direct-sound the main microphones were picking up, while still being in a reasonable stereo/surround relationship with the main microphones.  I recognize this preference may be influenced by unavoidable amount of bleed between channel pairs, some degree of which is desirable.  So it my take away may be a practical one as much as an absolute one.  Regardless, I welcomed this conclusion as it made setting things up easier with all the microphones in relatively close proximity, and made the idea of a full OMT array on a single stand practical, which largely evolved out of this.

Quote
My last outing was a house console sourced multitrack for a client at the Reeves Theater in Elkin, NC.  I took a number of options, but it turned out they didn't really have any simple mounting/routing paths to get audience mics into the house mic path, so it ended up being KMR 81i /MKH 30 mid-side from FOH position, which is pretty far back into the diffuse field and off to the side.  If I'd pushed for a ladder, we might have clamped something at about the same distance, but more center of the room, at the balcony lip, then run much longer wire back to FOH with a lot of gaffe tape and safety chains.  They have one of those glass balcony rails with no mounting positions, but there is a projector mount you could get to off the front bottom of the balcony. 

Maybe try mics up front facing the audience or maybe even angled toward the side walls, arranged to maximally excluding stage/FOH sound as much as possible.  Perhaps wide spaced on either side of the stage, or under the lip in the center as long as there is sufficient space between the stage and audience.  Easier to run cables there, the audience contribution up there is more "engaged" than that in back, and the room verb is generally "deeper"  due to long reflection paths from PA to the back walls and back again, as long as the direct FOH and onstage sound can be attenuated sufficiently to avoid masking.

Quote
I think my next experiment is looking like dual mid side (MKH 800 Twin and MKH 30) with coincident center pressure omni and shotgun (hear all the options within the MS spectrum for a given space), and spaced omni's.  Within MS, as I said previously, I've liked the addition of a pressure omni for the lows, and that could be high passed.  I'm curious whether that will at all prove useful with spaced omni's, I'm thinking maybe not. 
 

I'd like to get my Tetramic back in operation to similarly try ambisonic (DMS equivalent) coincident stereo again between wide omnis rather than what are essentially near-spaced "all directions" arrays I'm currently using.  Mostly because it would make for a simple, compact 2nd recording setup.. and also because I mostly spent my time with the Tetramic exploring coincident stereo pattern variations rather than how it could be best incorporated into an array with other mics such as a spaced pair of omnis.  Will be good to revisit that.

Quote
Comparison of the shotgun against a mid super-cardioid derived from the MKH 800 Twin, haven't done that yet. 

Likewise I'm currently curious how a true shotgun (albeit a short one) as Mid compares against the supercard Mids I'm using (Microtek Gefell M21 or DPA4098 which does incorporate a miniature interference tube, although its pattern is supercardioid rather than gun-ish) as the logical next step in OMT evolution, following a decade long trend of ever-increasing center mic forward directivity from omni to cardioid to supercardioid..  and from mono to M/S stereo for that forward-center position in the array.  It's also what motivated my suggestion in the B9Audio thread this morning, upon the proprietor's post about some potential design variants of B9 mics, requesting consideration of an end-address M/S stereo microphone with an interchangeable Mid capsule, where any Mid pattern from omni to gun could be swapped in. https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=187681.msg2311215#msg2311215

My current thoughts are that the ultimate cost-is-no-object microphone for that center OMT position in terms of performance alone could be Neumann RSM 191A, or an imaginary M/S version of the DSP directionally-enhanced SuperCMIT, with an analog M/S output.  Thinking I'll to try a lesser performing but reasonably priced stereo shotgun as proof of concept.

Quote
I could also rig the spaced pair Strauss-Packet with center DMS done with a pair of dual output mics, curious to hear that one too.
 

This is another variation I've long thought about and would like to try.  I'm thinking it could potentially eliminate the rear-facing OMT supercardioid pair by Strauss-Packeting the wide omnis already in the array, effectively producing a wide-spaced rear-facing cardioid or supercard ambient/audience pair.  It would mean significantly more weight to support out wide, yet simplifies the array in the center and retains the same channel count.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline EmRR

  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 779
    • ElectroMagnetic Radiation Recorders
Re: ORTF + Central Omni thread at GS
« Reply #14 on: September 18, 2019, 11:42:12 AM »
More off topic continuation! 

Apologies if I've mangled your meaning in editing:

  My preference, which held equally for surround playback as well as stereo mixdown using the surround channels for ambience, was placement of the ambient/surround mics relatively close to the same time-of-arrival plane as the main microphones (regardless of delay correction), yet with the maximum amount of rear-rejection attainable in order to minimize pickup of what the main mics are getting.

I prefer the difference in content between the main forward-facing and ambient/surround microphones to be based primarily on level differences rather than time of arrival differences.  In other words, the most important thing in my placement choice for the ambient mics was achieving maximal exclusion of the direct-sound the main microphones were picking up, while still being in a reasonable stereo/surround relationship with the main microphones.

When looking at your OMT pdf’s, I took it as a general approach to have the center somewhat forward of the spaced omni’s.  Trying to parse your thoughts above in that context.  I’m guessing some offset for minimal time of arrival, but not a lot?  I'm remembering 3-12" from somewhere. 

Quote
My last outing was a house console sourced multitrack for a client at the Reeves Theater in Elkin, NC, pretty far back into the diffuse field and off to the side.   

Maybe try mics up front facing the audience or maybe even angled toward the side walls, arranged to maximally excluding stage/FOH sound as much as possible.  Perhaps wide spaced on either side of the stage, or under the lip in the center as long as there is sufficient space between the stage and audience.  Easier to run cables there, the audience contribution up there is more "engaged" than that in back, and the room verb is generally "deeper"  due to long reflection paths from PA to the back walls and back again, as long as the direct FOH and onstage sound can be attenuated sufficiently to avoid masking.

Yes that all makes good sense.  I seem to remember many official concert recordings and broadcasts using shotguns on the outside lip of the stage or light rigging pointed out at the audience.   The Reeves is unique in that there are side boxes of custom concrete with no clean wiring paths.  You could do it with a LOT of gaffe tape and multiple 50’ and 100’ XLR runs in the specific case (integrating with FOH system).  Most of my usual improv assumptions for a venue I hadn’t seen didn’t work there.  The balcony with no mounting points was a real puzzler.  There is room down front, so long as it’s not being used as dance space.  The PA is different in that it’s just a couple of boxes flown really high, and a lot of small repeater speakers mounted around the room, some on walls, some on the lip of the stage.   It has a ton of potential, and I’ll have further conversations there and another place about installing a flying system that can be accessed.  It’d be awesome if they’d get something at the critical distance boundary.  It's really a room designed for lower volume acoustic music.  Drums can easily overexcite the room. 




Quote
I think my next experiment is looking like dual mid side (MKH 800 Twin and MKH 30) with coincident center pressure omni and shotgun (hear all the options within the MS spectrum for a given space), and spaced omni's.  Within MS, as I said previously, I've liked the addition of a pressure omni for the lows, and that could be high passed.  I'm curious whether that will at all prove useful with spaced omni's, I'm thinking maybe not. 
 

I'd like to get my Tetramic back in operation to similarly try ambisonic (DMS equivalent) coincident stereo again between wide omnis rather than what are essentially near-spaced "all directions" arrays I'm currently using.  Mostly because it would make for a simple, compact 2nd recording setup.. and also because I mostly spent my time with the Tetramic exploring coincident stereo pattern variations rather than how it could be best incorporated into an array with other mics such as a spaced pair of omnis.  Will be good to revisit that.

Another I still haven't run enough is the horizontal only B-format array with the pair of MKH 30's and a 4060. 

I did a dry run of that crazy rig for last night’s recording, burst into laughter, and backed it off to 5 channel basic DMS and spaced omni’s.  Will revisit on a show with less pressure, and I’d have been a channel short once I heard I was getting a board feed.  I really need a custom mount for that MKH 800, there was a shapeways version that was close to what I want.  That flex arm is the Impact heavy duty version, and it's pretty dang stiff.  I'm just not wild about the added weight of it and the clamp.  I tried an added small boom pole and boom clamp, and it was both heavier and larger footprint.  I'm getting about 32" between the omni's there, BTW, and the mounts were switched out to shocks since those Oktava as prone to vibration interference. 





Quote
Comparison of the shotgun against a mid super-cardioid derived from the MKH 800 Twin, haven't done that yet. 

Likewise I'm currently curious how a true shotgun (albeit a short one) as Mid compares against the supercard Mids I'm using as the logical next step in OMT evolution.

I will get back to this question.  I’ve run the KMR 81i twice, once in MS and once with two in a PAS array along with a MS pair and a board feed.  The PAS was kinda weird in the imaging, as dsatz has frequently pointed out.  It does have that certain Neumann lower midrange quality we like so much.  In both cases, the highs are both clear (on-axis) AND muffled (off-axis), I can hear the interference tube for better or worse.  I take his point that the off-axis stuff will have a much smoother transition with a supercard in the upper mids and highs, and in the lower registers sound mostly the same.   With the MS version I have a full multitrack to combine it with, the PAS version worked OK as supplemental 'focus' fill with the MS doing most of the work, plus I like that particular mic's low mid contribution.   

I feel like I'd use the shotgun MS setup in a pinch in a big distant room again, if I knew I wouldn't have much footprint or options, I don't see myself revisiting a close spaced pair again anytime soon, maybe widely spaced in a larger multitrack situation. 

With a PAS shotgun approach in a fairly small indoor room like I tried, I gotta wonder if there is value in using only one, pointed directly at the closest stack rather than at the center of the stage, then mixing it in the center of another stereo array.  It's usually vocal register stuff I'm missing, and dead on the stage adds more drums than anything, which is NOT the deficit in the other arrays. 

My current thoughts are that the ultimate cost-is-no-object microphone for that center OMT position in terms of performance alone could be Neumann RSM 191A, or an imaginary M/S version of the DSP directionally-enhanced SuperCMIT, with an analog M/S output.  Thinking I'll to try a lesser performing but reasonably priced stereo shotgun as proof of concept.

I’d like to hear the Pearl MS 8CL. 
« Last Edit: September 18, 2019, 11:46:08 AM by EmRR »
Mics: DPA 4060 w/MPS 6030 PSU/DAD6001/DAD4099, Neumann KM 131, Oktava MK 012, Sennheiser MKH 105, MKH 20, MKH 30, MKH 40, MKH 800 TWIN
Recorders: Zoom F8n, Sony MZ-R50

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.099 seconds with 44 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF