Apologies in advance for parts of this that are duplicated from a post in Acoustic Recording Techniques, but I thought this may be of interest to this group as well.
Earlier this month I ran a more complex array for a non-PA amplified show, stage lip.
The mics used were:
1) CMC122 @+/-55°, 24"
2) CMC641 @+/-45°, XY - ~2" forward of other mics.
3) DPA 4060 @24" taped to stage
Please see pics below for context of both the band and the mic set up.
The intent was to have options of two different OMT 4 type set ups, using either the subcards or omnis for the outboard pair, with the hypers XY in the centre. I didn't end up liking the mix of any of the mics with the omnis, which may be due to the limited spacing (it was a tiny stage and logistically challenging to get more than 24" spread).
I ended up with an OMT4 ish set up using the 122 and 641 with samples posted here, with which I was very happy.
https://samply.app/p/FqcMuOjiLELXeu9AHMPoToday, I went back and created samples of the same 2 songs with just the omnis, located directly below the 122s, as a reference, to highlight the advantages of the OMT4 set up.
https://samply.app/p/0HRNqc0B2hnWvbHkMzEEI realize this is not a direct comparison but it highlights some of the trade offs between the two mixes as the horns are a bit more distant in the recording that does not include the OMNIs but the sense of space, and refinement of the treble (lack of harshness) is better with the open card, hyper array.
I find both the difference in frequency response, and sense of space, an interesting contract between the two and I strongly prefer the separation in the OMT set up.
The processing that I would highlight as being relevant would be:
1) I increased the level on the right side of all three stereo pairs slightly prior to mixing. Unlike with a PA recording, this was an attempt to bring the trumpet more in mix as he moved around quite a bit and was frequently further from the mics. This was at the expense of increasing the guitar beyond my perception of the mix in the room and may have the effect of pulling the objects LOC further right in the resulting mix. Not necessarily a bad thing given the layout of the instruments onstage.
2) No EQ adjustment was made to the 122s or 641s, however, I did try to adjust for the DPA bump at 12khz with a reduction of 2.5db at 7.96khz and 4db at 12.6khz. I'm still learning with EQ so wanted to minimize any adjustments, however, I did find the treble harsh likely made worse by the reflections due to the lack of absorbing materials on and around the stage.
3) Samples were RMS normalized (for the set, not the individual songs) to make comparisons easier.
I have samples from a binaural(ish) recording of the same band the previous month below (4060s mounted to glassed at temple>R07). I thought this provided a solid representation of space, with reduced treble "harshness", possibly due to my head absorbing reflections. No EQ was applied to this recording and it has not been normalized to the same levels but sharing in case it is helpful in providing context.
https://samply.app/p/Ga5WbtzNargjM4rqsvTDIf you decide to give the samples a listen, and you would like to stream them for convenience, please consider going to audio options at the bottom of the page and selecting lossless.
I may, per GB's suggestion, consider placing the DPAs under the stage lip to capture the audience turning this into more of a OMT6(?) set up next time. That would allow me to bring in the audience a little more at key spots as well as increasing the stage talk as the front of the PA was behind the mics resulting in the banter sounding a bit more distant than ideal.
This is a really interesting thread and thanks to all who have shared ideas and recordings here. It's been a great learning experience!
