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.

[Gutbucket]

I never mix two near-coincident pairs.

I think this is where tapers frequently get into trouble trying to mix separate microphone pairs together.

The underlying issue is that the signals from any microphones being summed together into the same channel need to either be fully phase correlated (usually by being coincident with each other) or different enough from each other that any undesirable cancellations are minimal and do not pose an audible problem.  How to arrange things to achieve that is the key.

[Top Hat]

I never mix two near-coincident pairs.

I think this is where tapers frequently get into trouble trying to mix separate microphone pairs together.

The underlying issue is that the signals from any microphones being summed together into the same channel need to either be fully phase correlated (usually by being coincident with each other) or different enough from each other that any undesirable cancellations are minimal and do not pose an audible problem.  How to arrange things to achieve that is the key.

I should have been more specific about my inquiry. Specifically, recording sound coming from a PA. This is my logic in this terms and agree with respondent, NEVER mix two coincident pairs, it just doesnt make any sense and physics is not on your side. However I do agree with recording a natural sound ..like from an orchestra. But, placement must be taken into account where timing is key. This could take hours or days to place correctly. As far as taper recordings go most tapers are set up in 15-20 minutes tops.

[aaronji]

Not to ruffle any feathers, but a thread that starts with "Controversial statement. Discuss." is pretty much just trolling. Otherwise, a poster would say something like, "Controversial statement. I feel this way about it and here's why." Provocation by design.

That being said, I think that many of the multi-mic taper-type recordings that I have heard don't sound all that great and often not as good as well-done stereo recordings. I figure this is due to the added time/effort/skill that goes into them, which not everyone possesses in equal measure.

For myself, I rarely want to carry the extra stuff and I am usually pretty happy with what I get anyway...

[Top Hat]

Not to ruffle any feathers, but a thread that starts with "Controversial statement. Discuss." is pretty much just trolling. Otherwise, a poster would say something like, "Controversial statement. I feel this way about it and here's why." Provocation by design.

That being said, I think that many of the multi-mic taper-type recordings that I have heard don't sound all that great and often not as good as well-done stereo recordings. I figure this is due to the added time/effort/skill that goes into them, which not everyone possesses in equal measure.

For myself, I rarely want to carry the extra stuff and I am usually pretty happy with what I get anyway...

I agree, I could have worded this topic better. But, the intention wasn't to troll but to educate...myself first maybe others. The outcome? Maybe to save a bit of energy, time and space first, and second to make best use of what you have (equiptment, knowledge) without muddying the water (sound).
 

[Gutbucket]

Somewhat confrontational, but I take it as a good opportunity to explain why.  And agreed that many multi-microphone recordings are a complete mess!  It's a tricky road.  Two channels is a safer bet in most cases.  Definitely best to master that first and really understand whats going on.  If one want's to go further, that's cool but tread carefully, listen closely and critically, and question your own assumptions.

I should have been more specific about my inquiry. Specifically, recording sound coming from a PA. This is my logic in this terms and agree with respondent, NEVER mix two coincident pairs, it just doesnt make any sense and physics is not on your side. However I do agree with recording a natural sound ..like from an orchestra. But, placement must be taken into account where timing is key. This could take hours or days to place correctly. As far as taper recordings go most tapers are set up in 15-20 minutes tops.

I think the important differentiation is between acoustic theory and practicality, between science and applied science.  Can near-spaced pairs be mixed together successfully - yes.  But it is tricky and there is not much room for error in positioning to have it work right, and tapers don't have the luxury of setting up, listening carefully, adjusting the setup based on that, listening again, readjusting, etc.. so the likelihood of it working well simply by chance is slim and the likelihood of it not working well is high.

Not mixing near-spaced pairs is a good practical guideline, not because it can't ever work, but because the odds are against it.  Recording using just two microphones is a much  safer bet.  And so is the combination of a wide spaced omni pair with a coincident center pair (which can actually be even safer, more on that in a following post).

Of course small, lightweight, efficient and quick are all important practical goals for tapers. Fully agree on that.

[Gutbucket]

I never mix two near-coincident pairs.

The underlying issue is that the signals from any microphones being summed together into the same channel need to either be fully phase correlated (usually by being coincident with each other) or different enough from each other that any undesirable cancellations are minimal and do not pose an audible problem.  How to arrange things to achieve that is the key.

^This statement posted earlier is rooted in this kind of real world practicality, based on how tapers operate.

In contrast to that is what actually can be achieved within the realm of acoustic theory, but is not practical for tapers because it cannot be done reliably under the constraints in which tapers are operating.  Carefully arranging and combining sources that are not fully phase-correlated in such a way that the cancellation and reinforcement works to advantage more than causes problems is possible. This falls in the realm of antenna theory, and specifically "beam-forming". Think phased-array sonar and radar systems.  There are more complex multi-element microphones that truly harness phased-array beam-forming techniques that require careful computer modelling and testing during development to get them to work right, followed by being able to producing them within the tolerances required for proper operation.  This is difficult, it gets messy quick.  Tony Faulkner's "Phased Array" four microphone configuration Voltronic mentioned can be argued to be a very rudimentary form of something in this category.. arrived at empirically via the luxury of setting up, listening carefully, adjusting the setup based on that, listening again, readjusting, etc.  Copying exactly that setup and using it in a different recording environment might work for tapers.  But trying to do something similar but not exactly the same without the luxury of going back and forth between carefully listening and adjusting things until getting it to work with minimal problems is asking for trouble. 

This is why a few of the more important aspects of any multi-microphone technique that might be deemed suitable for taper use is sufficient robustness and tolerance for variations in setup.  Mixing two near-spaced pairs scores poorly by this metric, in the same way as does mixing a bunch of mics without carefully managing what's going on between them.  In contrast. mixing spaced omnis with a coincident center pair scores very highly, which is why its an easy one to recommend.  It is a configuration that is even more robust and tolerant of variances in setup than a two channel near-spaced pair used on its own, where getting the angle and spacing right between the pair is more important.

I don't think recording PA-amplified performances verses non-amplified sources such as an orchestra are significantly different in terms of how stereo microphone setups work, but I do think the acoustic situations are dramatically different.  The same aspects apply, but the different acoustic situation calls for different solutions.  The biggest difference is how a PA is carefully designed to project direct sound toward audience in a highly preferential way, shifting the critical radius of reverberation much farther out into room.  An orchestra or other acoustic performance is much more omnidirectional and "illuminates" the room with sound very differently.  Because of this, some taper solutions which work well for recording PA-amplified stuff seem ridiculous and strange in the classical recording world.

And likewise, some classical techniques are less appropriate for use by tapers.  Mentioned previously in the thread was the relatively simple 4 microphone classical recording technique of a pair of spaced omnis flanking a near-spaced ORTF pair.  Yes that can work for tapers.  And it is attractive partly because it would seem to simply add the omnis to the "known-good" near-spaced stereo pair, which on its own is generally preferred by most tapers over a coincident pair. But without listening to get the spacing just right, a much safer bet is using a coincident pair in the center instead of a near-spaced pair.  Once things start getting combined, you need to think about the entire system working as a whole, more than "starting with this and adding a bit of that".  I'd also argue that the simple but specific combination of a coincident center pair and wide spaced pair provides advantages in terms of psychoacoustics.  It's both safe and works well.  Adding more mics beyond that gets trickier.   

[Gutbucket]

If you need the most compact, lightweight setup, record using two microphones.  It is all that's really needed and the right answer for most tapers.

If you want to use more mics in the stereo array, try a coincident pair between a wide-spaced pair.  It can offer advantages and is a safe bet, much more so than trying to add to a near-spaced stereo configuration.

If you want to use more microphones than that, ask yourself what you are trying to achieve by doing so, tread carefully, listen carefully, question what you've already made your mind up about in regards to two channel recording, keep an open mind about whether what you hear is actually better or not, and we can geek out about it 'till the cows come home on this cool recording forum.

If confused about all this stuff and just want to keep it simple, stick with two channels, its probably the right answer.

[voltronic]

I'm going to jump to Gutbucket's defense here, goodcooker. Gut is doing exactly the opposite of what you are saying. He isn't giving one way; He's giving multiple ways like he usually does, and he has developed some very experimental arrays outside the norm which it would seem you would be all over.

[morst]

Anyone else remember the golden rule of K.I.S.S.??


KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID!


 


Lol, but seriously, I have my own opinions and come to think of it, I would not be inclined to mix similar rigs together.

[daspyknows]

I only run 2 almost all the time.  Since I only run  it is hard on the melon to run 2 sets of Schoeps, but I have done it.  If its open taping or taping for the band, go for it.  More sources and options may result in something better and its more fun to play with more gear.

[noahbickart]

Don't listen to Gutbucket's overly pedantic ramble about how this should work or that shouldn't work. No offense to you, Gutbucket, but you go off on some seriously long diatribes about how things are supposed to work and it's tiresome reading sometimes.

I'm confused. Can you quote what you mean by "Gutbucket's overly pedantic ramble"?

He posts a lot, and some of his posts are lengthy. I'll grant you that. However, they're always well thought through, based on the scientific method, and well explained- even for people without advanced training in Audio or Science.

Nobody is forcing you to read what he says.

But pick your favorite band and listen to the combination of near-coincident cardioid and hypercardioid pairs (what most people do), and then a coincident middle pair flanked by omnis (Gutbucket's basic premise).

I think the reason people post these mixes is because it's easy to do on the new multitrack recorders, not because it sounds better.

[vanark]

I think the OP has it right. You can make a very good recording with a single pair of mics. Adding more mics does not necessarily make it a better recording.

And, yes, there are certain posts that would make a newbie run away from the hobby perhaps thinking they will never be able to figure out how to get a good recording. I'd rather keep it simple and grab a board patch in addition to the mics when I can. Find the best *feasible* spot in the room and press record. Tweak the recording in post and get it circulating so others can enjoy it.

[voltronic]

Let's simplify this discussion:

1. If you have methods that work for you, great!
2. Others may have very different methods that work for them. Also great!
3. There may be a different way to do what you're doing better, if you are willing to open your mind and learn. Or, your way of doing something may be better than someone else's way if they are open to learning from you.
4. One method might be great for one situation and terrible in another. You can't apply the same thing to every situation.
5. Science and proven facts through research are not pedantry. This should not be controversial.
6. If you are not always trying to improve and refine what you do, you are limiting yourself. If you're not always learning, you're not growing in your craft or as a person.

[Top Hat]

Let's simplify this discussion:

1. If you have methods that work for you, great!
2. Others may have very different methods that work for them. Also great!
3. There may be a different way to do what you're doing better, if you are willing to open your mind and learn. Or, your way of doing something may be better than someone else's way if they are open to learning from you.
4. One method might be great for one situation and terrible in another. You can't apply the same thing to every situation.
5. Science and proven facts through research are not pedantry. This should not be controversial.
6. If you are not always trying to improve and refine what you do, you are limiting yourself. If you're not always learning, you're not growing in your craft or as a person.

1. yep, and most times 9.9/10 it is the simplest method that is far more effective.
2. I get that...and then again when I see some of these arrays, I dont, but I accept it.
3. Always open to critic, and mentoring is MUCH needed in taping...We're getting f'n old. I would like to see more ladies and younger folks taping to be honest!!
4. Band contractual and venue constraints..yeah i get that. But, gear is basically the same. If you know the venue, that takes a ton of weight off in my experience.
5. I do not make the rules. However, the only thing that refutes Physics is better Physics. So that being said, Physics tells us that the time it takes sound to travel from Point A to Point B should be as equal as possible creating a nice even sine wave in each channel to work in unison. Adding more factors "mics" creates problems with the reproduction of the sound
6. That is really the intent here with this post...Learning

[kuba e]

5. I do not make the rules. However, the only thing that refutes Physics is better Physics. So that being said, Physics tells us that the time it takes sound to travel from Point A to Point B should be as equal as possible creating a nice even sine wave in each channel to work in unison. Adding more factors "mics" creates problems with the reproduction of the sound

This is a example of when a simple concept can confuse more than help. Imagine you have stereo playback. Place one microphone in your chair and start recording. Play 20Hz to 20kHz sine sweep into your stereo. View the recording. At a certain frequencies you will find comb filtering. Now move the microphone two feets. You can find comb filtering in a different frequencies. Your concept is applicable to this case.

But why doesn't it disturb us while listening?

Because our brain processes sound in a complex way and creates an illusion for us. It depends on the volume, impact time, signal frequency, etc. All of this is beautifully explained by Gutbucket, DSatz and our friends here in TS forum.

I am repeating Gutbucket. We cannot avoid comb filtering. Unless you record in mono and play back with one speaker. Also reflections itself during recording/playback causes comb filtering. But we can reduce negative effect of comb filtering. It depends on microphones count, speakers count, microphone setup, location, our preferences, our listening skills, etc. Some classical music recording masters use only one stereo pair. Some use a decca tree, Voltronic gave you an example Tony Faulkner array.

[rocksuitcase]

I've been reading this.
The Oade brothers started using split omnis with centered XY pairs in 1984 or 1985. I have patched out cassettes of each rig from varying 1985 shows. Good stuff

[goodcooker]

I have removed my comments related to my opinions about another member's habits. Some of it has been quoted so still remains.
It's not related to the topic at hand and my opinion about another members' style of communication doesn't add anything constructive to the discourse.
So, on topic - I'm a big fan of adding a center facing directional mic to a 30cm spaced sub cardioid pair. It gives the arrangement more forward reach and let's me dial in the directional mic as needed in post if at all. I don't always include it if the mix is bright and loud enough. A hypercard works great in this arrangement. I've found that moving the center mic forward a few inches sounds better in the mix.

That's pretty much it for more than a stereo pair of mics for me if I'm in the audience. Being able to bring open mics on a stand into a concert typically limits the amount of stuff I'd be willing to bring to a show without special permission from the artist, venue and security. Flying a 4 or more mic array with a big split limits where you can physically locate your rig due to sightlines, traffic patterns and the other limitations we face as tapers at concert venues.

[vanark]

I have edited my post (I don't believe it was quoted) to still get my point across without making it about a specific person. Fair enough criticism and I'll try to do better. I think the points I was trying to make hold water and may encourage someone to give the hobby a try knowing there are plenty of 2 mic options out there that make a perfectly reasonable recording. I remember being a newbie and being intimidated that I was going to do something wrong or my recording wasn't going to be listenable. I have made, and continue to make, fairly listenable recordings, which is usually my goal.

[kuba e]

Goodcooker and Vanark, I appreciate it very much. I also deleted the posts.

[rocksuitcase]

Goodcooker and Vanark, I appreciate it very much. I also deleted the posts.

I will modify or delete mine.
Fair enough. I did PM to goodcooker, and am thinking we all can get a bong, errr along.
As for the topic, David Griesinger-look him up. 

If we are thinking of newbies starting to tape and what they can glean from taperssection posts, I can say for their benefit: two microphones are most often used for concert recordings from the audience, but are not the only way to make a recording. There are about a dozen standardized methods of two microphone configurations such as XY, NORTF, and such. Depending on access limitations one may choose to run multiple microphone arrays, however, doing so should be done only with a solid understanding of YOUR GEAR related to the concepts behind phased arrays and correlation vs decorrelation. Something rarely discussed- mixing down a multi channel mix, even when "perfectly" arrayed, is also challenging and requires specific skillsets and knowledge of post processing, etc.

That said, I am an old M-fer having taped over 40 years now, so I may be come off a bit curmudgeonly!

[voltronic]

FTR, my comments were not specifically about "audience taping" (which is not my thing) but concert recording in general. While it wasn't exactly stated this way, I wonder if OP's position is partly that there's a certain amount of diminishing returns when you are recording an amplified show from a less than perfect location.

In the classical world, there are some arrays out there that get really crazy, but they all solve certain problems for their creators and only work if the placement is optimal, the room acoustics are cooperative, etc.

[noahbickart]

It's so wonderful that in this little corner of the internet, people treat each other with respect and are willing to take back words which are perceived as hurtful.

It's so rare and thus worth celebrating.

[Top Hat]

So, on topic - I'm a big fan of adding a center facing directional mic to a 30cm spaced sub cardioid pair. It gives the arrangement more forward reach and let's me dial in the directional mic as needed in post if at all. I don't always include it if the mix is bright and loud enough. A hypercard works great in this arrangement. I've found that moving the center mic forward a few inches sounds better in the mix.

Why not just remoce 1/3 of that rig and run M/S.. This is essentially the same without the timing issues?

[Top Hat]

FTR, my comments were not specifically about "audience taping" (which is not my thing) but concert recording in general. While it wasn't exactly stated this way, I wonder if OP's position is partly that there's a certain amount of diminishing returns when you are recording an amplified show from a less than perfect location.

In the classical world, there are some arrays out there that get really crazy, but they all solve certain problems for their creators and only work if the placement is optimal, the room acoustics are cooperative, etc.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned that properly spaced and timed mics have thier benefits in instrument recording. This takes hours if not days to properly set up. PA recordings "Tapers" are usually up and running in 30 m or less. In other words it is a bit different because of time and logistical constaints.

[rocksuitcase]

FTR, my comments were not specifically about "audience taping" (which is not my thing) but concert recording in general. While it wasn't exactly stated this way, I wonder if OP's position is partly that there's a certain amount of diminishing returns when you are recording an amplified show from a less than perfect location.

In the classical world, there are some arrays out there that get really crazy, but they all solve certain problems for their creators and only work if the placement is optimal, the room acoustics are cooperative, etc.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned that properly spaced and timed mics have thier benefits in instrument recording. This takes hours if not days to properly set up. PA recordings "Tapers" are usually up and running in 30 m or less. In other words it is a bit different because of time and logistical constaints.

I am unsure where you get the idea that setting up for recording classical or orchestral HAS TO take more time, hours or days to set up as compared to PA recordings. In my experience doing that stuff, for me it was in the 1980's mostly, with people who were widely considered as the best at what they do, it never took days to do anything. In fact, we had one day/night to do 99% of all recording setups. Rock, punk, folk, Irish, orchestral, we did them all in the salt city in one day/night. OTH, some recordists at certain venues, do get very crazy with their arrays and typically get paid for the awesome outcome.

[goodcooker]

So, on topic - I'm a big fan of adding a center facing directional mic to a 30cm spaced sub cardioid pair. It gives the arrangement more forward reach and let's me dial in the directional mic as needed in post if at all. I don't always include it if the mix is bright and loud enough. A hypercard works great in this arrangement. I've found that moving the center mic forward a few inches sounds better in the mix.

Why not just remoce 1/3 of that rig and run M/S.. This is essentially the same without the timing issues?

Mid/side has a place in my toolkit but good sounding small diaphragm figure 8 mics are hard to come by on my kind of budget. Using a LD is doable and I've done it in the past but I prefer the sound of near coincident mic pairs instead of the mono sound of M/S. Up close like on the stage is fine for M/S but farther back where I'm usually recording it doesn't work out for me as well.

This one turned out okay but we weren't very far back and I still got more chatter than I would have liked - https://archive.org/details/mhb2008-07-23.midside.flac16

What timing issues do you mean?

[yltfan]

Just skimmed all of this, and maybe I missed it, but I often run two pairs of mics when I'm able to place a second pair onstage--sometimes capturing a totally different mix.

[vantheman]

Also want to chime in and say, while I still consider myself a relative noob at this (going on 4 years now but the opportunities are not many), that I value the time and consideration that Gutbucket puts into his posts. His posts are loaded with context and background that would otherwise take me years to build up based on my own experience. I find myself revisiting some of the posts over and over. They are dense, his posts have taught me how to think about this hobby and practice. It’s something that’s very difficult to impart on others. So while I respect that many here don’t need all the detail, others of us will take all we can get

[DSatz]

As someone who has also posted many long messages that aren't the type of thing everyone here is necessarily looking for, I feel left out of the criticism. I feel that I deserve to be ridiculed at least equally to anyone else, OK? Thank you.

That said: There's certain technical information about microphones and sound that's not too complex, that isn't just a matter of opinion, and that could help people avoid bad decisions. Many microphones are designed for use in specific types of applications--and among different applications, sometimes the design criteria conflict. What makes microphone "x" good for its intended use may make it a lot less good for other uses.

As one example: Many people know from their own experience that ordinary, directional microphones with full low-frequency response for music applications will sound "boomy" if used for close pickup of speech (e.g. in a public address system). But the opposite situation is true, too: Directional microphones designed for close placement will generally sound bass-deficient when used for music pickup at greater distances. Even high-quality microphones from first-rate manufacturers tend to sound thin if they were designed to have neutral/normal response with close placement, but instead you use them for more distant pickup. It has nothing to do with how "good" the microphone is, and everything to do with how it was designed to be used.

Or another example: Microphones that have big peaks and valleys in their off-axis response may have a lot of "character" close up (i.e. when used for solo vocals in a relatively dry studio or voice-over setting) but give unpredictable, sometimes rather bad-sounding, results when used at a distance from the sound source(s) in reverberant spaces. Much / most of the sound energy reaches them arrives at random-ish angles, where their on-axis frequency response--the smooth-looking graph that gets printed--doesn't apply. Unfortunately you have to know how to read a composite polar diagram to see this problem, and the manufacturer has to publish such diagrams (at various frequencies, not just at 1 kHz), and they have to be honest.

Having a prestigious brand name, and a visual design that looks good in a photo with a well-known singer using the mike close-up, won't alter these facts. But from a lot of what I see on this board, it can apparently be hard for certain individuals to accept that not all delicious-looking treats are meant for you and me. A microphone can only pick up some part of the sound field around itself; microphones can't/don't reach out and sample other parts of a space, and they don't respond to our intentions and wishes, but to what their construction does with the sound field around them.

Beyond that, we can talk about stereophonic perception, but not to the point where there are deductively valid statements about What Should Be Done in most situations--only personal advice which may miss the mark because maybe you're looking for an entirely different sensation from what I'm looking for. It's not that "everything is a matter of taste and opinion" (although a lot is); it's also that recording situations differ so much. Someone earlier in this thread made the point that you need more than one recording approach if you're going to deal optimally with the range of situations that you'll encounter, and I really agree with that. Sure, when I've just discovered or rediscovered some approach, I get enthusiastic about it--but the old saying about "to the person who has only a hammer, the whole world can start to look like a nail" still applies.

Finally, just to say something about the actual topic, I use two microphones whenever I think I can get away with it. I usually find that musicians like the results better that way, and being a musician myself, I agree with them--but I'm not entirely objective about my motives; laziness probably deserves some credit along with idealism.

To me there needs to be a very strong reason to mix anything in with the two main mikes. If I'm just not hearing something clearly enough, that's the main justification. And then those mikes need to be close enough to the "missing" sound source that they specifically pick up what they're aimed at, and don't mess up the overall stereo recording. For spot miking I nearly always use microphones specifically designed for close pickup, i.e. directional microphones with reduced low-frequency response. And I never, ever mix live; I record each mike on its own track, then mix at home later, even though that takes a lot of time, because a lot of what you have to listen for is the type of thing you can't hear over headphones, and also because no initial settings are ever perfect, but any corrections that you need to make will be audible as changes in the mix. -- If a person wants to make multiple, parallel/alternative stereo recordings (i.e. not mixing any signals), for sure that's a good reason to use multiple microphones or pairs of microphones, of course, but I don't think that anyone here is questioning that.

--best regards

[dyneq]

As someone who has also posted many long messages that aren't the type of thing everyone here is necessarily looking for, I feel left out of the criticism. I feel that I deserve to be ridiculed at least equally to anyone else, OK? Thank you.

It's about time you showed up with your pedantic drivel! (how's that?) ;^)

As one example: Many people know from their own experience that ordinary, directional microphones with full low-frequency response for music applications will sound "boomy" if used for close pickup of speech (e.g. in a public address system). But the opposite situation is true, too: Directional microphones designed for close placement to a voice will generally sound bass-deficient when used for music pickup at greater distances--and that unfortunately isn't obvious to everyone, so it's worth emphasizing. Even high-quality microphones from first-rate manufacturers tend to sound thin if they were designed to have neutral/normal response in close-up placement, but you use them for more distant pickup instead. It has nothing to do with how "good" the microphone is, and everything to do with how it was designed to be used.

What are some examples of past and present microphones that have a fuller low-frequency response at greater distances? Are there aspects of their design and construction that they have in common to achieve it?

[EmRR]

If I can get more than 1 or 2 mics up, it’s always some variation of MS, DMS, ambisonic/horizontal B-format as center coincident array and spaced omni’s, I’m generally in the 2 feet or less camp. I did about 4 feet once for lightning strikes, usually we don’t get that sort of directional bass that’s useful. Center coincident as my earlier pic, don’t be afraid to have multiple M options in a MS or DMS array, it’s really not hard to phase them properly, not unlike the Straus Paket approach for in between patterns. You can pre-build some parts so they’re ready to go up fast.

[vantheman]

Here’s a story about how running a 4 mic array got me out of a jam. I had been wanting to experiment with spaced omnis, and recently I recorded a rock trio with some big name guys in a very small room. It’s amazing they were so supportive of me wanting to record them - running on stage, close miking amps, access to multis, the whole ball of wax. I think I’ll be able to share it soon, I just can’t yet. Anyway, as I prepared for the show I had also been reading about these 3-4 mic arrays that some people here like, and decided to run my CM4s in XY in the middle, and the OM1s spaced a little over 2 feet.

When I got home and started to evaluate the material, I had fully expected to not need the center pair, after all it was just an experiment. But with the musicians positioned like this - guitar left, drums center, bass right, I quickly ran into the problem of having way too much bass on the right. It’s really fatiguing especially on headphones to have low frequencies coming out of only one side. I had to go down a big rabbit hole and really learn about how to manage bass in a mix. Dan Worrall helped. The bass ISO was helpful to a point, but on half the songs the bass player used an upright with gut strings, so the DI input was useless on those songs. So I was sitting on a stage mix that essentially sounded empty on the right.

Enter the XY pair. The more I brought them up in the mix, the more everything started to make sense. Bass started moving to the center, drums sounded crisper. It narrowed the mix quite a bit, but it’s basically how it would have sounded standing 15 feet from the stage, and certainly wider than a mono house mix. And it also helped to fill the hole I had on the right. So I really started embracing the XY pair in the mix. It didn’t solve my bass problem entirely but it helped a lot, and it gave me a really interesting, drums-forward sounding mix.

I actually want to revisit this show again and try to come up with a more omni-based mix, but as a result of this bass problem I developed a technique/workaround where I EQ the bass in mid side mode, cut the low frequencies on the side only, and that essentially solves the problem. Still experimenting with the right cutoff, I’ve been cutting it in the 260hz range on the sides. I recorded Dale Watson a couple weeks ago with just a pair on stage and had the same problem with the bass and the technique worked in that case too. In that case there were other things going on in the mix to make it sound not empty on the bass side.

Anyway, just a quick tale about how a center coincident pair saved me one night. Separately if anyone has thoughts on where the right ballpark cutoff might be with the above bass cutting technique please do share your thoughts. I have all sorts of ways to listen to full range music in my home but I don’t have any room treated for bass so I’m always guessing on it. I’ll also share that Dale Watson show in Kickdown shortly.

[morst]

As for the topic, David Griesinger-look him up. 

Did that. His site uses the word concha, which I found out is an anatomical part of the outer ear.
"Current hearing research models the concha and ear canal system as a simple tube. But it is in fact a sophisticated a form of ear trumpet that increases the sound pressure at the eardrum by 18dB (for the author) at ~3kHz."

https://elementsofmorphology.nih.gov/anatomy-ear.shtml

I’ll also share that Dale Watson show in Kickdown shortly.

I was surprised to find out that Dale is on the LMA.
https://archive.org/details/DaleWatson

[Twenty8]

Best part about media?  You can turn it off/change the channel/etc at any time you choose.  I like and tend to read long posts.  I tend to absorb more information than I use in relation, but this is also my joy.

As a beginning taper (5 years), I nearly always run 4 channels.  What my experiences in the field/reading TS have led me to post-pandemic is: still recording 4 channels.  However, I now prefer the sound of each pair individually rather than mixing them at varying levels together.  Reading this board, deciding what was right for me, listening and processing and listening more.  This repeated pattern has helped me realize exactly what DSatz is saying.  Generally, each pair stands on their own better and only about 20% of the time (with phasing adjustments and some post-processing treats) does the matrix really shine above one of the pairs on their own.  I still like the sound, but over the last year have been leaning more on passing forward what pair I feel sounds the best (or both pairs separately).   It took some time for me to run 4 channels, but it has also taken a lot of time and experience to understand running 4 channels.  I feel like I really enjoy the process more now that I don't think each night "I hope the matrix sounds good."  I now enjoy what I am learning and best-practice with a small footprint.

I generally run DIN or DINa with NOS.  Still do most of the time.  I am now experimenting with just a pair in ORTF with subcards or cards and am building an even lower-profile rig to do this in varying capacities around town (think Royal St corner bands).  Reading dense-thread TS, practicing, listening... This is what keeps me going in a hobby.

Don't stop posting at length.  If I don't want to read it, I won't.

[wforwumbo]

I am of the opinion that the only wrong way to live one's life is to insist that others are wrong, especially if I insist I'm right. I tend to take everything with a grain of salt until I've had a chance to knock on theory AND practice quite a bit myself, and understand the benefits or shortcomings of whatever I am actively trying to do. Noah, Gutbucket, and DSatz have all given me more endless practical knowledge that I know what to do with, and I've been spending at least the past 5+ years of my life collectively unpacking their wisdom and trying it for myself.

I tend to run 3 pairs these days because I can. When it's inconvenient for me to run that third pair OR if I'm in a situation where I don't think the third pair will give me any great benefit, I only run two pairs. I never run one pair on its own, it's always "easy enough" for me to run the second pair and get a different recording to experiment with and turn taping into a science laboratory.

There are two extremes of stereo microphone techniques: coincident microphones (XY, Mid-Side, ambisonics) and spaced AB pairs. These two extremes correlate with the two most well known (but by no means complete, exhaustive, or universal) binaural cues that we use for localization and perception of sound in space: the difference in level cue, and the difference in time cue.

The idea behind the "classic" stereo near-coincident techniques such as ORTF, DIN, NOS, etc is to get a blend of these two cues in a manner that the engineer designing them finds both pleasant to listen to on playback, and accurate for depicting the acoustic field that the microphones captured. We use them as a template, and I now notice a larger number of tapers going "off script" when we find techniques we enjoy better - I personally prefer the bass response and increased time cue of NOS's wider spacing, but narrow the mic angle to get more of the image "in front" of my recording and to get closer to on-axis with the stacks when taping.

I echo Gutbucket's sentiments that many tapers likely shy away from multi mic techniques because it's possible to get into trouble pretty quickly - not just from combs, but from phase misalignment. Trying to mix two near-coincident pairs is difficult to get right in my experience, but that's not to say one can't get reliably pleasant results with it - just that it's a problem I haven't figured out and haven't bothered trying to solve.

For multi mic pairs, I have had the most success running AB Omnis or sub cards, and mid-side or XY pairs between them, then mixing down in post. You can stream the results of this method using 60cm AB mk21s and a mk4/mk8 mid-side pair here: http://phish.in/2019-08-30 if I use my Omnis today for the AB pair and add a third pair of hypers, cardioids, or subcards in a classic near-coincident technique for consistency and because I like the results, I'm at 3 pairs right there. Given I own 4 pairs of microphones, I've been thinking long-term about switching to a deck that can run all 4 pairs when I want to... but time and my finances will dictate if I ever get around to that.

While the basic concept of comb filtering is straightforward enough, we are still receiving many, many, many combs from a variety of sources. As the pinna (outer earlobe) and concha (inner bowl surrounding your ear canal) serve to funnel sound, they also serve to provide a quick reflection off a certain point of your ear, and this contributes strongly to your sense of elevation or height of an audio source. Likewise, there is a comb between your left and right ear in the free field, not to mention all of the combs that are a result of arriving specular reflections in any acoustic space with a boundary capable of reflecting sound. David Griesinger is a close friend, and former mentor and boss of mine - he's a wonderful and smart individual. I've discussed live music taping with him a number of times, he thinks we are simultaneously noble and crazy for attempting to record amplified pop music in a noisy crowd. He himself is an extremely accomplished classical recording engineer, and his go-tos are binaural microphones for recordings he makes in Boston Symphony Hall; when he hangs main pairs, he's a big fan of hypercardioid SDCs in ORTF-ish, though he doesn't do that any more the last I spoke with him.

[Derp1]

6-8 channels on stage seems to sound pretty good most times.

[DSatz]

dyneq wrote:

> It's about time you showed up with your pedantic drivel! (how's that?) ;^)

Many thanks. We're good now.

> What are some examples of past and present microphones that have a fuller low-frequency response at greater distances? Are there aspects of their design and construction that they have in common to achieve it?

Well, I was talking specifically about directional (pressure gradient) microphones, since those can have flat response to low frequencies EITHER for close miking OR for more distant miking, but never both. That mutual exclusivity doesn't occur with single-diaphragm omni microphones that function as pressure transducers, but it does with all other directional patterns. In fact, a supercardioid or hypercardioid will have this characteristic even more than a standard cardioid, all other things being equal (i.e. the amount of proximity effect will be greater).

And I'm saying that if you're looking at the description of a particular product and you notice that the words and pictures all show close placement (e.g. being attached to musical instruments) then chances are, it was designed specifically for close miking and will be relatively thin sounding when used for more general recording. Sometimes the manufacturer or dealer will list the recommended applications for a given type of mike--again, if it's designed for communications or speech, then be warned.

Even when specifications and curves accompany the verbal description, the trend nowadays is for the manufacturer to set the measuring distance according to the intended application for the microphone. They don't usually tell you when they've done this, however. The same manufacturer could use 1 meter measuring distance for their "flagship" microphones (say, for classical music recording) and 30 or even 15 cm for microphones intended for close placement, e.g. to solo instruments or voices.

Take for example Audio-Technica, a company that makes really good microphones in my opinion. The mikes that they design for close placement are measured up close, whereas the mikes that they design for more distant placement are measured at a greater distance. So their response graphs all look as if they will offer well-balanced low-frequency response, and indeed they do--WHEN used at the intended miking distance for the particular model! But if you take a directional microphone that was designed to be clamped to the bell of a saxophone, say, and you use it for recording stuff that's 25 feet away ... you won't get the advertised low frequency response, maybe even by 10 - 12 dB (say at 50 or 100 Hz).

On a technical level, adapting the design of a more general-purpose directional capsule for close speech pickup can involve increasing its membrane tension. But that's not a parameter that the manufacturers publish, so it's not something that you can go looking for!

[kuba e]

DSatz, thank you for the explanation. I have a question. When the directional microphone is not suitable for distant recording, can we fix lower bass with eq? Probably the eq will increase a noise in the low frequencies. We are not so sensitive to the low frequency noise. That noise could be covered by the higher background of our audience recordings. I looked, background audience noise in recordings is from 200-300hz and above. I had a couple of audience recordings that had very weak bass. When I fixed it with eq, sometimes even +12db, they were good. I understand that it is better to record correctly from the beginning than to repair it amateurishly. Eq is not a clean solution, but is there anything else besides the noise that we should watch out for?

But with the musicians positioned like this - guitar left, drums center, bass right, I quickly ran into the problem of having way too much bass on the right. It’s really fatiguing especially on headphones to have low frequencies coming out of only one side. I had to go down a big rabbit hole and really learn about how to manage bass in a mix.

I like onstage recordings and I don't mind if the bass (or drums) are on one side.  This is normal for onstage recording. If you recorded with xy, definitely try mid/side ratio and mid/side eq. Be careful when reducing the bass in side, sometimes spatiality can be lost. Also read a tread in the link below. There are interesting posts, maybe some of it will work for you (you can try free PhaseBug vst plugin, i don't know if it's good but i tried it couple times and it works).
https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=201100.15

[DSatz]

kuba e, yes--that kind of thing is exactly why EQ exists. And honestly I think that many people's aversion to it is -- well, I just think that maybe they could use an occasional walk on the wild side. The important thing is to sin in moderation, especially if you're just starting out on the road to hell. A recording that (objectively measured) is somewhat bass-deficient compared to the original sound in the performance space can still sound quite good, especially if the original sound was artificially "boomy". That happens pretty often. Plus people's playback systems and listening rooms usually have various bumps at low frequencies.

So it's not always a blessing to record with microphones that have absolutely flat low-frequency response. You just have to get "into the ballpark" and get a reasonable balance of the bass with everything else. Clinical correctness never won anyone a Grammy award.

[grawk]

My experience is that almost every live recording sounds better with a little less bass than was in the room, unless you're going to be listening to it in a room filled with people at concert level volumes.

[JiB97]

kuba e, yes--that kind of thing is exactly why EQ exists. And honestly I think that many people's aversion to it is -- well, I just think that maybe they could use an occasional walk on the wild side. The important thing is to sin in moderation, especially if you're just starting out on the road to hell. A recording that (objectively measured) is somewhat bass-deficient compared to the original sound in the performance space can still sound quite good, especially if the original sound was artificially "boomy". That happens pretty often. Plus people's playback systems and listening rooms usually have various bumps at low frequencies.

So it's not always a blessing to record with microphones that have absolutely flat low-frequency response. You just have to get "into the ballpark" and get a reasonable balance of the bass with everything else. Clinical correctness never won anyone a Grammy award.

Personally, I seem to have a hang up on doing EQ for a few reasons on my recordings:

• I use Audacity which I find great for most things but lacking in this area
• Applying EQ to a full recording takes a while and is resource intensive
• I don't have any training in really what I am doing with EQ besides a basic grasp of the 20hz-20khz range and what I think sounds OK
• As such, I feel I will cause more harm than help in the long run
• I mainly edit and listen to my recordings on my home stereo and not on ear/headphones
• Mostly, I guess I would rather leave it up to the listener to decide their on EQ settings

I also feel like I would go down a rabbit hole of tweaking things and working to get it "just exactly perfect" if I were to have EQ be part of my processing workflow. More often than not, if I run a 4 channel mix with the intention of actually using all 4 channels in the final mixdown I will be running AKG ck8s with a pair of AT u853r omnis. The omnis help to round out the low end if the bass is somewhat lacking in the AKG pair when listened to on it's own, whereas the omni pair can sometimes be a little less detailed than I normally like when played back by itself. I have found doing a mix of the two stereo pairs where I keep the AT omni source around 6-8 dBs lower than the AKG pair seems to work well without sounding too cluttered for my liking. YMMV.

[vantheman]

I’m sort of in the same boat with EQ and I’m taking it slow. Audacity is great for some things but the world opened up for me when I started using Reaper, especially when I have more than 2 tracks. The UI is better for things like EQ. I mostly use EQ to tame the bass. I have Ozone 9, and to practice EQ I’m getting into the habit of running through their mastering presets which gives me a sense of how things could sound with a wide variety of curves. For example I can look at the curve on their “reduce mud” preset, and then i can go back into Reaper and fine tune my own curve. But I find that a many of their presets will sound good on a particular recording, so I’m starting to realize how much of EQ is about stylistic choices.

[morst]

I’m sort of in the same boat with EQ and I’m taking it slow. Audacity is great for some things but the world opened up for me when I started using Reaper, especially when I have more than 2 tracks. The UI is better for things like EQ. I mostly use EQ to tame the bass. I have Ozone 9, and to practice EQ I’m getting into the habit of running through their mastering presets which gives me a sense of how things could sound with a wide variety of curves. For example I can look at the curve on their “reduce mud” preset, and then i can go back into Reaper and fine tune my own curve. But I find that a many of their presets will sound good on a particular recording, so I’m starting to realize how much of EQ is about stylistic choices.

I use audacity ALL THE TIME I mean daily like EVERY DAY and I just tried to use an EQ on a small section of a track where I wanted to just bring midrange through so I could hear lyrics of one song.
Audacity is SO ANNOYING with respect to plugins. very impractical (I am using V 2.4.2 'cause of all the stuff about how v3+ "phones home"




ugh. Sony Soundforge 2015 for mac is WAY nicer for the plug in interface, even considering how often the old thing crashes!!!

[fireonshakedwnstreet]

The new Audacity is great for plugins with the real-time non-destructive functionality. I still do my basic cleanup on Audacity and master through Reaper. For anyone a little lost on EQ, you can use a reference track of a recording you know well and like to try and match the tonality. Just make sure they are normalized to the same loudness as your recording. You can then use an EQ plugin like TDR Nova. Very use to use. Lots of good info on YouTube too.

[Craig T]

You can then use an EQ plugin like TDR Nova.

I second this recommendation for Audacity users.  My go to.  And to bring it back on topic, for a recent recording I used 2 pairs of mics (cards and omnis) and used TDR Nova to apply complimentary HPF/LPF (200 Hz) to mix the two pairs together.  The mix was definitely better than either on their own.

[HealthCov Chris]

I've done it all and still do it all.  For this discussion I will assume we are referring to taping indoors on a stand from the soundboard area.  Onstage or festival situations are conducive to more diverse configurations.  These days I always run a pair of cards in NOS and hypers in some form of PAS (lately 25cm @ 70deg).  It is so easy, light, and low profile with actives and SRS mounts...so why not.  I post all mic pairs on their own and have typically mixed the pairs together.  I can hear all the differences and am usually left wanting something more from the individual pairs.  The cards offer more bass and a richer sound field but lack some focus that the hypers bring. The hypers lack some of what the cards offer.  I know this is not new info to you all.  However, with lots of critical listening lately, I feel that the mix of the two stereo pairs are not hitting my sweet spot either.  I can hear how they may step on each other's toes a bit and prevent their best qualities from shining through together. Recent experimentation with a center channel (hyper or shotgun) has seemed to work for me.  Any phasing and/or cancellation caused by mixing in the center channel is outweighed (to my ears) by the addition of center focus, which usually equates to cleaner vocals.  Often that is what everyone fails to consider..."Does that additional channel/s benefits outweigh the downfalls?".  This question is personal to the taper.  The "Physics" argument is all well and good, but we do not record in a vacuum.  There are so many variables in a given concert recording scenario that influence the raw product, I feel comfortable saying anyone not taking them into consideration is perhaps making the most aggreges error in judgement.  To say that a certain configuration is the best for every scenario may be too simplistic.  What works best in theory is not always what works best in practice. The "less is more" statement is also inaccurate or you would be recording with a single mic.

So Yes, I am on a slightly more minimal trend by cutting down from 4 mics to 3.  This would finally justify my picking up a MixPre-3ii.  But heck, I may rather be moving up from 4 mics to 5 since I hate to lose the pair of hypercards because you never really know which pair will shine that night.  Regardless, I view this as my hobby and the quality of my pulls equate to the degree of effort and concern I have for that particular piece of work.  It is my effort, my time, and my money so I will do what makes me happy and not pee in your beer if you do something different. 

[goodcooker]

I've done it all and still do it all.  For this discussion I will assume we are referring to taping indoors on a stand from the soundboard area.  Onstage or festival situations are conducive to more diverse configurations.  These days I always run a pair of cards in NOS and hypers in some form of PAS (lately 25cm @ 70deg).  It is so easy, light, and low profile with actives and SRS mounts...so why not.  I post all mic pairs on their own and have typically mixed the pairs together.  I can hear all the differences and am usually left wanting something more from the individual pairs.  The cards offer more bass and a richer sound field but lack some focus that the hypers bring. The hypers lack some of what the cards offer.  I know this is not new info to you all.  However, with lots of critical listening lately, I feel that the mix of the two stereo pairs are not hitting my sweet spot either.  I can hear how they may step on each other's toes a bit and prevent their best qualities from shining through together. Recent experimentation with a center channel (hyper or shotgun) has seemed to work for me.  Any phasing and/or cancellation caused by mixing in the center channel is outweighed (to my ears) by the addition of center focus, which usually equates to cleaner vocals.  Often that is what everyone fails to consider..."Does that additional channel/s benefits outweigh the downfalls?".  This question is personal to the taper.  The "Physics" argument is all well and good, but we do not record in a vacuum.  There are so many variables in a given concert recording scenario that influence the raw product, I feel comfortable saying anyone not taking them into consideration is perhaps making the most aggreges error in judgement.  To say that a certain configuration is the best for every scenario may be too simplistic.  What works best in theory is not always what works best in practice. The "less is more" statement is also inaccurate or you would be recording with a single mic.

So Yes, I am on a slightly more minimal trend by cutting down from 4 mics to 3.  This would finally justify my picking up a MixPre-3ii.  But heck, I may rather be moving up from 4 mics to 5 since I hate to lose the pair of hypercards because you never really know which pair will shine that night.  Regardless, I view this as my hobby and the quality of my pulls equate to the degree of effort and concern I have for that particular piece of work.  It is my effort, my time, and my money so I will do what makes me happy and not pee in your beer if you do something different.

I do cards NOS and a center mic quite often in larger indoor venues when I'm towards the back. I almost always end up mixing in some of the center mic.

[Gutbucket]

If either of you guys have access to a fig-8, consider adding that to the single center microphone position to form a Mid/Side pair.  That works particularly well in the above described situations as it does not change your currently preferred 3-microphone arrangement, yet allows you to add as much Side as the situation calls for afterward by ear.. which might be none at all, but you gain that option.  That's a big reason why this is my preferred 4 microphone arrangement and the one I recommend to other folks.

If you don't have a fig-8, consider trying X/Y in the center position.  That does change your primary arrangement slightly, yet retains a coincident "single position" in the center.  A typical 90-degree X/Y angle is likely good, but to hedge the bet in light of what you know you like currently, you might try a rather narrow X/Y angle to start (say no wider than PAS), which will be close to what a single highly directional center microphone pointed directly ahead provides, but with a bit more stereo interest.  Similar to the tweaking how much side you use in a Mid/Side pair, you can always pan the X/Y pair closer to center instead of hard Left/Right to get something closer to what a single microphone pointed directly forward would be doing.  With X and Y panned full center, you form a virtual single microphone pointed directly forward again, although with a wider pattern than either of the individual X/Y microphones.  The wider the X/Y angle, the wider the pattern of the virtual forward facing center microphone. 

However, with lots of critical listening lately, I feel that the mix of the two stereo pairs are not hitting my sweet spot either.  I can hear how they may step on each other's toes a bit and prevent their best qualities from shining through together. Recent experimentation with a center channel (hyper or shotgun) has seemed to work for me.  Any phasing and/or cancellation caused by mixing in the center channel is outweighed (to my ears) by the addition of center focus, which usually equates to cleaner vocals.

This correlates to what I hear as well, and why I frequently campaign for the use of a single microphone position in the middle (either one microphone or a coincident pair) between a somewhat wider than normal near-spaced pair, rather than combining two near-spaced pairs together.  This often gets push back from other tapers at TS, because many prefer a near-spaced pair to an X/Y pair when used by itself, myself included, but the important difference in this case is that center pair is no longer being used by itself in isolation.  Instead it combines better with the near-spaced pair without "stepping on each others toes" as much as two near-spaced pairs will tend to do.  The same argument applies to using a single microphone in the center.  Most will prefer an X/Y pair over a single mono microphone when listened to by itself.  So not liking X/Y by itself is not really relevant to its use in combination with a near-spaced pair, or with a wider spaced omni pair.

When recording using more than two microphones the interaction between channels that are mixed together cannot be avoided or ignored and has a big influence on the outcome.  Limiting that complexity to just three positions in space greatly improves the odds of everything working well in the mix without problems.  Using a coincident pair in the center position does't increase the phase-interaction complexity any more than a single microphone in the center, but in my experience increases the odds of achieving a good sounding recording by adding an additional degree of flexibility and control.

[JiB97]

pic of a time i ran the AT "line cards" PAS and a single AKG ck8 short shotgun in the middle

[goodcooker]

I think a few of the folks around here are bantering about the term "phase" and how it relates to what we do without really understanding what it means.

The only way to be "in phase" when using more than one microphone at one time is to make them completely coincident (located at close as possible to each other in physical space). When we are using 2 mics to make a stereo pair that are near spaced there is "out of phase" action creating partial reinforcement or cancellation of the two sources. This is inevitable when using spaced pairs. I like the sound of spaced mics and like it when I see a good amount of "scattering" on the phase scope that I use 100% of the time when I'm mixing. Managing what happens with phase correlation between multiple sources is as much art as it is science. Don't get lost in the details. All sorts of techniques can produce great results.

There's a nice article using layman's terms and easy to understand concepts here at the Fabfilter website -
https://www.fabfilter.com/learn/science-of-sound/phase-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter
This one is neat too - good basics here to provide some terminology for discussion without being overly technical - https://www.fabfilter.com/learn/science-of-sound/wave-theory

[Gutbucket]

Good points. "Phase" in audio is a funky thing, frequently misunderstood. The guy that does the Fabfilter videos on youtube is generally an excellent resource as well. 

Phase meter tools are good way to visually check and confirm what's going on.  Generally, there are two kinds.  The first is a simple looking meter that ranges from 0 to 1 indicating the degree of phase correlation between two signals. Here is a good write up on that kind of phase metering with respect to spaced microphone pairs- https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-what-are-my-phase-correlation-meters-telling-me

The other type, the one goodcooker mentions, is a Lissajous display which presents a "spagetti pattern" or "cloud of points", providing more intuitive information about the stereo nature of the relationship.  This was originally done using an oscilloscope.  Here's a more in-depth write up which includes good info on this type of metering- https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/phase-meters-can-help-mixes/

Generally for taper recordings, a nice round blob of dancing spaghetti on that type of display while the music is playing represents a good stereo signal.  The direct sound content is generally more phase correlated (more in-phase) between the two channels and tends to excite the blob vertically, while the reverberant / ambient content is preferably mostly decorellated and excites the blob more horizontally.  It's the dance between the two that creates good stereo interest.  Taper recordings can, will, and generally should have more decorellated content in comparison to most studio recorded stuff.  This helps to best portray the "you are there" live performance aspect, and serves to sort of audibly separate the audience reaction and hall sound from the direct arriving sound from the stage and PA. Its okay for the blob to "go wide" during the break between songs when the content is primarily hall and audience sound. We don't need to worry about LP needles jumping out of the groove, yet decent mono-compatibility remains important. 

[Gutbucket]

Here are a few bullet points that come to mind about phase in regard to audio signals:

• Phase describes a relationship between signals - a single signal has no "phase" at all.
• Explanations of phase generally describe the relationship between two steady state sine waves.  But that's not what music is like.  Music is neither steady state nor a single sinewave.
• Phase is not the same as polarity. Polarity is an inversion of the waveform, without any time-shift, and an inversion of polarity affects all frequencies equally. Phase is a time-shift of one waveform verses another which affects the interaction between the two, and that interaction will vary with frequency. A specific time shift will create a 180-degree phase relationship at a certain frequency and even multiples of that frequency (which is still not the same as a polarity inversion, as it takes time for this interaction to occur), but shifts the phase relationship of all other frequencies by differing amounts.
• A perfectly implemented coincident stereo microphone pair arrangement (X/Y or Mid/Side) will produce no phase difference between channels.  But those which use microphone patterns that have a rear lobe will produce some polarity inversions between channels.
• Any spaced stereo pair of microphones will produce phase differences between channels.  That phase relationship is always complex, varying with frequency, angle of arrival, and the spacing distance between the microphones.
• But any spaced stereo pair of microphones will also produce signals that are in phase.  The in-phase signals occur for sounds that arrive from directly in front, directly in back, above or below (from anywhere along the median plane

 
I suspect it is that last point that makes spaced microphone configurations work well - sources in the dead center of the soundfield will be in phase, and those close to center more in phase than sources located farther out to the sides.. collectively, the reverberant sound which arrives from all directions equally ends up being more decorrelated and thus gets reproduced more diffusely, while the stuff in the middle is more correlated and in-phase.

Optimized spacing between a stereo pair of microphones provides both of those things.

I think the most useful way to setup and use a combination of more than two microphones is with this relationship in mind.  That's what the combination of a wide-spaced pair plus a center coincident pair does particularly well, while keeping the phase interaction complexity from getting out of hand. The two channels of the center coincident pair are fully phase-correlated, producing no phase-difference between its two channels.  That pair provides the clear, sharp imaging needed for good reproduction of the direct sound from stage and PA.  It does that very well, but doesn't do as great a job translating the space, openness, reverb, and "liveness".  The wide pair provides that, via the more decorellated phase relationship between its channels (a good reason to go wider with this pair than you otherwise would if it were used alone).  In this way the two pairs are different enough that they won't tend to step on each others toes, yet will be more likely to complement each other - each providing more of what the other lacks.

[Organfreak]

I record pipe organs in large churches using an omni pair spaced at 1 meter distance. That works well, except for organs placed so high that my stand (6 meters high) is not tall enough to get the mikes close enough to the pipes and I get too much acoustics. See picture.
A solution may be to place an extra pair of cards on the same bar.
Should this extra pair be a standard DIN or ORTF configuration or should this extra pair match the SRA of the omni pair?

[voltronic]

I record pipe organs in large churches using an omni pair spaced at 1 meter distance. That works well, except for organs placed so high that my stand (6 meters high) is not tall enough to get the mikes close enough to the pipes and I get too much acoustics. See picture.
A solution may be to place an extra pair of cards on the same bar.
Should this extra pair be a standard DIN or ORTF configuration or should this extra pair match the SRA of the omni pair?

Instead of the same bar, I would follow Decca's advice and place an ORTF pair of "detail cardioids" much closer to the pipes than your omnis. See attached picture from the Recording in the Decca Tradition book.

What stand are you using that goes 6 m? I don't think it's the Manfrotto 269 HDBU since that one goes over 7 m.

[Organfreak]

I record pipe organs in large churches using an omni pair spaced at 1 meter distance. That works well, except for organs placed so high that my stand (6 meters high) is not tall enough to get the mikes close enough to the pipes and I get too much acoustics. See picture.
A solution may be to place an extra pair of cards on the same bar.
Should this extra pair be a standard DIN or ORTF configuration or should this extra pair match the SRA of the omni pair?

Instead of the same bar, I would follow Decca's advice and place an ORTF pair of "detail cardioids" much closer to the pipes than your omnis. See attached picture from the Recording in the Decca Tradition book.

What stand are you using that goes 6 m? I don't think it's the Manfrotto 269 HDBU since that one goes over 7 m.

Hello Voltronic, thanks for your reply. I could not find the Decca tree attachment?

I made a combination of 2 stands: A K+M aluminum stand and a K+M fishing pole (I thought K+M 24645 and K+M 23783). The aluminum stand has a top section of 30 mm. The fishing pole has a bottom section of 30 mm (foam removed). I took out the top section of the aluminum stand and inserted the fish pole instead. Secured the bottom section of the fish pole after inserting through the clamp with some tape windings to prevent accidental pulling out during set up. This makes a very light weight stand, small size in collapsed state, maximum length 6 meters but sturdy and stable enough to support a bar with 4 mics.

For a Decca tree set up the stand may however not be stable enough, I am both technician and performer and the stand can be unattended while people are walking around during church visits... Catholic churches are always open for public.
To get an idea of the huge dimensions: The ceiling of the church in the picture above is at least 20 meters high. My 6-meter stand did even not reach to the balcony below the organ. So placing a pair of ORTF much closer to the pipes is impossible for my equipment.

The SRA (Stereo Recording Angle) for an omni pair at 1 meter distance is 60 degrees (as per the Neumann app "recording angle calculator"). The SRA for an ORTF pair is 96 degrees. Should the SRA's of two pairs on the same bar match eachother?

[Gutbucket]

A solution may be to place an extra pair of cards on the same bar.
Should this extra pair be a standard DIN or ORTF configuration or should this extra pair match the SRA of the omni pair?

The real-world answer will be to try a few different things, listen carefully and decide how well it works or not. 

The SRA (Stereo Recording Angle) for an omni pair at 1 meter distance is 60 degrees (as per the Neumann app "recording angle calculator"). The SRA for an ORTF pair is 96 degrees. Should the SRA's of two pairs on the same bar match eachother?

The part I've bolded above is a question I think about frequently.  I've found no clear answer to this yet.  As far as I can tell the answer is.. maybe.. but not necessarily.. sometimes best if not.

Here's one thing: Even if SRA of two pairs is the same, the image distribution within the SRAs of the two different configurations is going to be somewhat different.  How much does this matter?  Probably depends on the situation and content.  With an organ recording where image is generally diffuse, probably not as much as other things where sharp imaging is expected.

Here's another thing more fundamental altogether: Mixing the two pairs together will produce a new SRA that is going to be different than that of either pair in isolation.

One take away is that when introducing an additional pair in the middle, it can be a good idea to try spacing the omnis more widely.  The best solution may end up being anywhere from the same 1 meter width you are currently using up to twice as wide at 2m.  Using the Schoeps Image Assistant visualizer you can see this for yourself by switching between a two microphone configuration and a three microphone configuration that both use the same spacing between the wide pair, noting how the introduction of a third microphone in the center effects the SRA.

Here are a few guidelines from my experience: If you don't have the ability to monitor and adjust the setup prior to recording, you can reduce the chances of bad phasiness occurring by using a coincident pair arrangement in the middle between the omnis instead of a near-spaced pair.  That reduces the phase interactions to three different microphone positions in space rather than four.  Sorry for being repetitive about this, but its a fundamental issue that becomes important when one cannot monitor and readjust things prior to making the recording.   A near-spaced pair can certainly work in the middle, its just more likely to have issues when mixing the two pairs together which you won't be able to discover until after you mix them.  Its also less likely to be problematic because it is combining two stereo pairs that behave sufficiently differently from each other - one producing stereo cues based strongly on time of arrival differences, the other solely on level differences - making them less likely to "step on each others toes".

Somewhat OT but related-
I'm currently working on a 3-position version of the 2-channel stereo Improved PAS table I posted at TS years ago.  The idea of the original Improved PAS table was to create a list of stereo microphone pair spacing/angle combinations for various Orchestra Angles (OA - which for PA amplified things is the PA angle) where SRA is always equal to OA (more precisely, OA + 10 degrees).  This simplifies the optimization of a microphone configuration from a restricted recording location which may be more distant than desirable by pointing the microphones directly at the outer edges of the source, ensemble or PA and adjusting the spacing between the microphone pair based upon whatever the angle between them ends up being.  The new 3-position Improved PAS table extends this to microphone arrays of 3 or 4 channels, 3 if using a single microphone in the center, 4 if using a coincident pair in the center.

^ A couple general takeaways I've noticed while working this up are:
The spacing between the wide pair is always larger (up to twice as wide as mentioned).
The center single microphone or coincident-pair is typically best placed about 20cm forward of the wide pair.

If you end up trying a few different things, please let me know what ends up working best for you.

[voltronic]

I record pipe organs in large churches using an omni pair spaced at 1 meter distance. That works well, except for organs placed so high that my stand (6 meters high) is not tall enough to get the mikes close enough to the pipes and I get too much acoustics. See picture.
A solution may be to place an extra pair of cards on the same bar.
Should this extra pair be a standard DIN or ORTF configuration or should this extra pair match the SRA of the omni pair?

Instead of the same bar, I would follow Decca's advice and place an ORTF pair of "detail cardioids" much closer to the pipes than your omnis. See attached picture from the Recording in the Decca Tradition book.

What stand are you using that goes 6 m? I don't think it's the Manfrotto 269 HDBU since that one goes over 7 m.

Hello Voltronic, thanks for your reply. I could not find the Decca tree attachment?

I made a combination of 2 stands: A K+M aluminum stand and a K+M fishing pole (I thought K+M 24645 and K+M 23783). The aluminum stand has a top section of 30 mm. The fishing pole has a bottom section of 30 mm (foam removed). I took out the top section of the aluminum stand and inserted the fish pole instead. Secured the bottom section of the fish pole after inserting through the clamp with some tape windings to prevent accidental pulling out during set up. This makes a very light weight stand, small size in collapsed state, maximum length 6 meters but sturdy and stable enough to support a bar with 4 mics.

For a Decca tree set up the stand may however not be stable enough, I am both technician and performer and the stand can be unattended while people are walking around during church visits... Catholic churches are always open for public.
To get an idea of the huge dimensions: The ceiling of the church in the picture above is at least 20 meters high. My 6-meter stand did even not reach to the balcony below the organ. So placing a pair of ORTF much closer to the pipes is impossible for my equipment.

The SRA (Stereo Recording Angle) for an omni pair at 1 meter distance is 60 degrees (as per the Neumann app "recording angle calculator"). The SRA for an ORTF pair is 96 degrees. Should the SRA's of two pairs on the same bar match eachother?

Hi There,

Sorry about that - the relevant pages are attached.

Just to be clear, I was not referring to a Decca Tree at all (I think that would not work well here), but other specific techniques Decca engineers have used for organ recording as shown/described in the attachments. You will see that the near cardiods are not very close to the omnis. Besides the setups shown in the Haigh/Dunkerley book, I've seen other engineers do something like fig. 14.2 but with the distant pair used even if there is no division at the opposite end of the church. Sometimes another pair of omnis; sometimes subcards facing away from the organ.

I understand the height issues with the huge church you are recording in. Is there any way you could position your close detail pair actually ON the balcony where the main case is located? If there's a rail, I'm picturing a clamp setup with your K&M pole.

[Organfreak]

A solution may be to place an extra pair of cards on the same bar.
Should this extra pair be a standard DIN or ORTF configuration or should this extra pair match the SRA of the omni pair?

The real-world answer will be to try a few different things, listen carefully and decide how well it works or not. 

The SRA (Stereo Recording Angle) for an omni pair at 1 meter distance is 60 degrees (as per the Neumann app "recording angle calculator"). The SRA for an ORTF pair is 96 degrees. Should the SRA's of two pairs on the same bar match eachother?

The part I've bolded above is a question I think about frequently.  I've found no clear answer to this yet.  As far as I can tell the answer is.. maybe.. but not necessarily.. sometimes best if not.

Here's one thing: Even if SRA of two pairs is the same, the image distribution within the SRAs of the two different configurations is going to be somewhat different.  How much does this matter?  Probably depends on the situation and content.  With an organ recording where image is generally diffuse, probably not as much as other things where sharp imaging is expected.

Here's another thing more fundamental altogether: Mixing the two pairs together will produce a new SRA that is going to be different than that of either pair in isolation.

One take away is that when introducing an additional pair in the middle, it can be a good idea to try spacing the omnis more widely.  The best solution may end up being anywhere from the same 1 meter width you are currently using up to twice as wide at 2m.  Using the Schoeps Image Assistant visualizer you can see this for yourself by switching between a two microphone configuration and a three microphone configuration that both use the same spacing between the wide pair, noting how the introduction of a third microphone in the center effects the SRA.

Here are a few guidelines from my experience: If you don't have the ability to monitor and adjust the setup prior to recording, you can reduce the chances of bad phasiness occurring by using a coincident pair arrangement in the middle between the omnis instead of a near-spaced pair.  That reduces the phase interactions to three different microphone positions in space rather than four.  Sorry for being repetitive about this, but its a fundamental issue that becomes important when one cannot monitor and readjust things prior to making the recording.   A near-spaced pair can certainly work in the middle, its just more likely to have issues when mixing the two pairs together which you won't be able to discover until after you mix them.  Its also less likely to be problematic because it is combining two stereo pairs that behave sufficiently differently from each other - one producing stereo cues based strongly on time of arrival differences, the other solely on level differences - making them less likely to "step on each others toes".

Somewhat OT but related-
I'm currently working on a 3-position version of the 2-channel stereo Improved PAS table I posted at TS years ago.  The idea of the original Improved PAS table was to create a list of stereo microphone pair spacing/angle combinations for various Orchestra Angles (OA - which for PA amplified things is the PA angle) where SRA is always equal to OA (more precisely, OA + 10 degrees).  This simplifies the optimization of a microphone configuration from a restricted recording location which may be more distant than desirable by pointing the microphones directly at the outer edges of the source, ensemble or PA and adjusting the spacing between the microphone pair based upon whatever the angle between them ends up being.  The new 3-position Improved PAS table extends this to microphone arrays of 3 or 4 channels, 3 if using a single microphone in the center, 4 if using a coincident pair in the center.

^ A couple general takeaways I've noticed while working this up are:
The spacing between the wide pair is always larger (up to twice as wide as mentioned).
The center single microphone or coincident-pair is typically best placed about 20cm forward of the wide pair.

If you end up trying a few different things, please let me know what ends up working best for you.

Thanks Gutbucket, this makes sense. For me, having two omnis and two cards, only XY will be possible to make a coincident pair between the spaced omni mics. Placing of the middle pair 20 cm forward of the wide pair may be possible by careful bending of the aluminum bar in the horizontal plane.
My monitoring option is just listening back via headphones at recording location.
-Is that 20 cm forward position not introducing other phase problems? The sound will hit the middle pair just before hitting the spaced mics.
-Do you have suggestions for the angle between the XY mics? As my Rode NT55 card capsules can sound a bit bright/sharp, sound wise I would prefer rather 110 degrees than 90 degrees.

[Organfreak]

I record pipe organs in large churches using an omni pair spaced at 1 meter distance. That works well, except for organs placed so high that my stand (6 meters high) is not tall enough to get the mikes close enough to the pipes and I get too much acoustics. See picture.
A solution may be to place an extra pair of cards on the same bar.
Should this extra pair be a standard DIN or ORTF configuration or should this extra pair match the SRA of the omni pair?

Instead of the same bar, I would follow Decca's advice and place an ORTF pair of "detail cardioids" much closer to the pipes than your omnis. See attached picture from the Recording in the Decca Tradition book.

What stand are you using that goes 6 m? I don't think it's the Manfrotto 269 HDBU since that one goes over 7 m.

Hello Voltronic, thanks for your reply. I could not find the Decca tree attachment?

I made a combination of 2 stands: A K+M aluminum stand and a K+M fishing pole (I thought K+M 24645 and K+M 23783). The aluminum stand has a top section of 30 mm. The fishing pole has a bottom section of 30 mm (foam removed). I took out the top section of the aluminum stand and inserted the fish pole instead. Secured the bottom section of the fish pole after inserting through the clamp with some tape windings to prevent accidental pulling out during set up. This makes a very light weight stand, small size in collapsed state, maximum length 6 meters but sturdy and stable enough to support a bar with 4 mics.

For a Decca tree set up the stand may however not be stable enough, I am both technician and performer and the stand can be unattended while people are walking around during church visits... Catholic churches are always open for public.
To get an idea of the huge dimensions: The ceiling of the church in the picture above is at least 20 meters high. My 6-meter stand did even not reach to the balcony below the organ. So placing a pair of ORTF much closer to the pipes is impossible for my equipment.

The SRA (Stereo Recording Angle) for an omni pair at 1 meter distance is 60 degrees (as per the Neumann app "recording angle calculator"). The SRA for an ORTF pair is 96 degrees. Should the SRA's of two pairs on the same bar match eachother?

Hi There,

Sorry about that - the relevant pages are attached.

Just to be clear, I was not referring to a Decca Tree at all (I think that would not work well here), but other specific techniques Decca engineers have used for organ recording as shown/described in the attachments. You will see that the near cardiods are not very close to the omnis. Besides the setups shown in the Haigh/Dunkerley book, I've seen other engineers do something like fig. 14.2 but with the distant pair used even if there is no division at the opposite end of the church. Sometimes another pair of omnis; sometimes subcards facing away from the organ.

I understand the height issues with the huge church you are recording in. Is there any way you could position your close detail pair actually ON the balcony where the main case is located? If there's a rail, I'm picturing a clamp setup with your K&M pole.

Thanks, this is a lot of useful information I did not see up to now. Nice book to ask for my next birthday .
If I read chapter 14.4, it seems moving the cardioids forward is specifically done to highlight a choir section of the organ and just adding more detail allows the cardioids remain sitting on the same bar as the omnis?
I try to keep my set-up as easy as possible.

[Gutbucket]

[snip]
-Is that 20 cm forward position not introducing other phase problems? The sound will hit the middle pair just before hitting the spaced mics.
-Do you have suggestions for the angle between the XY mics? As my Rode NT55 card capsules can sound a bit bright/sharp, sound wise I would prefer rather 110 degrees than 90 degrees.

With the omnis spaced 1 meter apart, an approx 20cm forward center pair spacing is not likely to alter the complex phase relationship between the omnis and center pair in a way that is problematic.  Generally, the center pair fwd spacing should be greater when the omni spacing is smaller, lass when wider. In the modeling and in my experience 20cm seems to work well across a wide range of cases. Positionong the center coincident pair somewhat forward of the omnis helps in aligning the imaging which results from the interaction between the coincident pair in the center and the omni over to one side, and vice versa for the center coincident pair and omni on the other side, without requiring any application of delay.

This is meaningful because in addition to the stereo image interaction between the left and right channels of the each separate individual pair (the omni pair, the coincident X/Y pair), there will also be stereo interaction between the left omni with the right center drectional microphone, and the right omni with the left center directional microphone.  These subsequent secondary pairs produce their own SRAs, which complicates things. Pushing the center pair forward by ~20cm or so helps to get these secondary SRAs to "hand-off" from one to the other across the center more so than simply overlaping, miminizing potentially conflicting imaging cues.

That said, the nature of organ music will tend to downplay imaging and emphasise steady-state tonal aspcts more so than other types of music, so tweaking the relationship between the three separate microphone positions in space in your situation my be more about finding the right tonal interaction, than optimizing image.

Use whatever X/Y angle you are most comfortable with and sounds best to you. Because I can alter the frequency response of that pair with EQ, and its stereo width with a mid/side ratio adjustment, I tend to choose X/Y angle based on how on or off-axis from the source I want each microphone if that pair to be in terms of center clarity and direct/reverberant ratio.

110 degrees is entirely reasonable.  If you find you want a bit more direct definition and clarity from that pair, narrow it up and adjust its EQ to comoensate if it gets too bright.

[Organfreak]

[snip]
-Is that 20 cm forward position not introducing other phase problems? The sound will hit the middle pair just before hitting the spaced mics.
-Do you have suggestions for the angle between the XY mics? As my Rode NT55 card capsules can sound a bit bright/sharp, sound wise I would prefer rather 110 degrees than 90 degrees.

With the omnis spaced 1 meter apart, an approx 20cm forward center pair spacing is not likely to alter the complex phase relationship between the omnis and center pair in a way that is problematic.  Generally, the center pair fwd spacing should be greater when the omni spacing is smaller, lass when wider. In the modeling and in my experience 20cm seems to work well across a wide range of cases. Positionong the center coincident pair somewhat forward of the omnis helps in aligning the imaging which results from the interaction between the coincident pair in the center and the omni over to one side, and vice versa for the center coincident pair and omni on the other side, without requiring any application of delay.

This is meaningful because in addition to the stereo image interaction between the left and right channels of the each separate individual pair (the omni pair, the coincident X/Y pair), there will also be stereo interaction between the left omni with the right center drectional microphone, and the right omni with the left center directional microphone.  These subsequent secondary pairs produce their own SRAs, which complicates things. Pushing the center pair forward by ~20cm or so helps to get these secondary SRAs to "hand-off" from one to the other across the center more so than simply overlaping, miminizing potentially conflicting imaging cues.

That said, the nature of organ music will tend to downplay imaging and emphasise steady-state tonal aspcts more so than other types of music, so tweaking the relationship between the three separate microphone positions in space in your situation my be more about finding the right tonal interaction, than optimizing image.

Use whatever X/Y angle you are most comfortable with and sounds best to you. Because I can alter the frequency response of that pair with EQ, and its stereo width with a mid/side ratio adjustment, I tend to choose X/Y angle based on how on or off-axis from the source I want each microphone if that pair to be in terms of center clarity and direct/reverberant ratio.

110 degrees is entirely reasonable.  If you find you want a bit more direct definition and clarity from that pair, narrow it up and adjust its EQ to comoensate if it gets too bright.

Thanks Gutbucket for all these really professional advices!

-> Reading back in the thread above: One option of the 4 mics placement was not discussed: Moving the inner (cardiod) mics outwards to the same location as the outer (omni) mics. This will set the left pair and right pair mics time wise the same (no toes stepping with regard to timing of arrival) but there is still the option of intruducing level differences by turning the mics outwards.

[Gutbucket]

One fundamental thing is that what you describe will act more like a two channel stereo microphone arrangement rather than a multichannel stereo microphone arrangement.

In terms of microphone array geometry, positioning each cardioid microphone so as to be as coincident as possible with the omni on either side (and recording all four channels separably) essentially creates a two channel stereo microphone configuration, but one which provides the ability to derive any pattern between omni and cardioid afterward, based upon how much cardioid verses how much omni is used in the mix.  100% omni with no cardioid = omni, 100% cardioid with no omni = cardioid, and equal measure of both = subcardioid.

How well that actually works will depend on how closely coincident the diaphragms of the two microphones on each side are placed, and how close the phase and frequency responses of each microphone are to each other.  In a real world situation, a less than perfect coincident alignment of the microphones (inevitable to some degree) will produce some phase interaction at very short wavelengths that corresponds to the (small) offset distance between diaphragms.  That is likely to be heard as either a somewhat dull or more shimmery high frequency treble when both pairs are used together at a near equal mix ratio.  In addition to that, inherent phase and response differences between the cardioid and omni will alter the shape of the resulting pattern somewhat in the range where they differ, in addition to altering tonal response somewhat as the ratio between the two pairs is adjusted.

That first part is all about how close the two microphones can be positioned to each other on each side.  In regard to the second part, just be aware that there will be some change in frequency response as well as some minor pattern alteration with frequency as the ratio between the two are adjusted in the mix. To reduce that influence you could EQ each pair so that they have a very similar response prior to combining them.

Because the two microphones on each side being mixed together are pointed the same way [edit- and mostly even if not, since one is an omni], the angle of the virtual pickup pattern produced as a result of the mix of the two will not differ from the direction the cardioid was pointed.  You just morph between omni and cardioid patterns while retaining the original angle of the cardioid.  [more edit- if you find the mix of the two sounds a bit more "dull" in the high frequency region than either alone, that may be due to some destructive cancellation at high frequencies from the microphone capsules being close yet not perfectly coincident.  In that case it may help to either cut the highs in one and boost in the other to compensate, thus eliminating the interference.. or to point the two microphones differently from each other while keeping them as close to each other as possible]


As always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.  You really need to try it and listen to decide if its achieving what you want.  This approach attempts to minimize potential problems by placing the additional microphones as close as possible to the first pair, while the opposite approach of spacing them differently attempts to minimize potential problems by getting the additional microphones sufficiently far enough apart from each other (but for other reasons not overly far).  The decision of which is better will come down to whether the sound of the interaction of the two differently spaced pairs dancing with each other appeals to your sense of what the organ should sound like in the recording or not. Forget about time of arrival and all the other theoretical stuff when listening back and determining which approach sounds most right.

[goodcooker]

I'm teaching myself how to play the organ (on my Hammond M3 - funk and soul style not church type stuff) and I'd be real interested to hear some of your organ recordings if you have a place to share them.

[Organfreak]

I'm teaching myself how to play the organ (on my Hammond M3 - funk and soul style not church type stuff) and I'd be real interested to hear some of your organ recordings if you have a place to share them.

Hello Goodcooker, nice to hear there is another organist on this forum! An original Hammond organ with its tonewheel and tubes is a nice, warm and rounded sounding instrument. Do you have a separate Leslie box attached to the organ?

I have never posted my recordings anywhere. Just for own use, sometimes for family or friends; sometimes burn a few CD's. But not on the internet or commercial.
Do you have a suggestion where and how to post some recordings?

[goodcooker]

I'm teaching myself how to play the organ (on my Hammond M3 - funk and soul style not church type stuff) and I'd be real interested to hear some of your organ recordings if you have a place to share them.

Hello Goodcooker, nice to hear there is another organist on this forum! An original Hammond organ with its tonewheel and tubes is a nice, warm and rounded sounding instrument. Do you have a separate Leslie box attached to the organ?
I have never posted my recordings anywhere. Just for own use, sometimes for family or friends; sometimes burn a few CD's. But not on the internet or commercial.
Do you have a suggestion where and how to post some recordings?

I don't use a Leslie - I have an M3 the baby brother of the B3. It has a built in amp and speaker since it was marketed for home use. There's a system for adding vibrato that is an approximation of the effect of a spinning Leslie but it's just not the same. Leslie pedals and outboard simulators are getting better and better every year though so maybe one of those is in my future after getting better as a player. I spent a large part of last night's Govt Mule show watching the spinning baffle in the Leslie amp onstage (they had the panel off) to see how the keyboard player was working the speed and brake controls. Voicing that instrument with the drawbars, percussion, different manuals and the speed of the rotating speaker is an art form in itself.

If you don't think there would be any problems with the players I would think the Community Audio section of the Internet Archive would be a good place to share some of your recordings. Otherwise you could put them in a Google drive where audio files can be sampled direct from the drive without having to download them.

Sorry for the derail. Back to microphone configs.

I used 2 mics for Govt Mule last night. I thought about using a center hyper in between my two subcards but decided to just decrease my spacing, increase my angle a little and run 2 channels. How much effort I'm willing to put in hauling gear, cables, batteries etc was down last night and it turned out just fine with 2 subcards 25cm spacing point at inside of stacks from 45 feet back.

[Organfreak]

I'm teaching myself how to play the organ (on my Hammond M3 - funk and soul style not church type stuff) and I'd be real interested to hear some of your organ recordings if you have a place to share them.

Hello Goodcooker, nice to hear there is another organist on this forum! An original Hammond organ with its tonewheel and tubes is a nice, warm and rounded sounding instrument. Do you have a separate Leslie box attached to the organ?
I have never posted my recordings anywhere. Just for own use, sometimes for family or friends; sometimes burn a few CD's. But not on the internet or commercial.
Do you have a suggestion where and how to post some recordings?

I don't use a Leslie - I have an M3 the baby brother of the B3. It has a built in amp and speaker since it was marketed for home use. There's a system for adding vibrato that is an approximation of the effect of a spinning Leslie but it's just not the same. Leslie pedals and outboard simulators are getting better and better every year though so maybe one of those is in my future after getting better as a player. I spent a large part of last night's Govt Mule show watching the spinning baffle in the Leslie amp onstage (they had the panel off) to see how the keyboard player was working the speed and brake controls. Voicing that instrument with the drawbars, percussion, different manuals and the speed of the rotating speaker is an art form in itself.

If you don't think there would be any problems with the players I would think the Community Audio section of the Internet Archive would be a good place to share some of your recordings. Otherwise you could put them in a Google drive where audio files can be sampled direct from the drive without having to download them.

Sorry for the derail. Back to microphone configs.

I used 2 mics for Govt Mule last night. I thought about using a center hyper in between my two subcards but decided to just decrease my spacing, increase my angle a little and run 2 channels. How much effort I'm willing to put in hauling gear, cables, batteries etc was down last night and it turned out just fine with 2 subcards 25cm spacing point at inside of stacks from 45 feet back.

Sorry goodcooker, but I could not find the location on taperssection to share some recordings. Maybe you can be a bit more specific. Can I post .wav files (16 bit, 44.1 kHz) or are these too big?

What subcards do you use? Recently I changed a brand new pair of KM184 for a used pair of KM143. Hope this was a good deal. The KM143 sounds beautiful.

[vantheman]

I can finally share one of my projects from earlier in the year that utilized a 4 mic array. Curious to see how you all like it, and what you think of the mix captured by the onstage array. The band is the Chris Spedding Trio with Tony Garnier on bass and Anton Fig on drums at the Turning Point in Piermont, NY from January of this year. Tiny little room. The mic array consisted of 2 Line Audio OM1s spaced 3-4 feet apart and 2 Line Audio CM4s in XY into a Sound Devices MixPre10ii. I actually had the multis too, and I use a few of them here mostly to provide some light reinforcement to the live mix captured by the array, which is to say that what you're hearing is pretty true to what the array captured, and sweetened a tad by the multis. I have more info about it, and a link to download, here: https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=202753.0.