Topic: Schoeps CMXY4V users

[dointhatrag]

I find not spreading them apart at all really cuts down on the "ambient" noises.

I find myself only spreading these babies open now when placed on a stage.

any CMXY4V users out there?



here is a great listen:

Kimock playing Little Wing

recorded from the crowd. right in front of the soundboard.


http://www.archive.org/download/zero2006-08-20schoeps/Zero2006-08-20schoeps4V.flac/Zero2006-08-20schoepsd204.flac

[Tim]

what do you mean by "spreading out"? Increasing the angle?

[DSatz]

Tim, I wondered about this, too, since the CMXY 4 doesn't let you change the spacing between the microphones. But then I realized what dointhatrag meant: Keeping the angle narrow (i.e. not angling the capsules apart by much) reduces ambient noise. That makes sense, though the resulting recording will be very nearly mono--it will probably be more vivid sounding over headphones than over loudspeakers.

This "almost mono" quality is frequently a problem with coincident cardioids unless they can be spread apart beyond 90 degrees. Unfortunately, some people apparently think that 90 degrees is The Ideal Angle for coincident cardioids, and in recent years a number of stereo recorders (Sony, Zoom) and stereo mikes (Røde NT4) with built-in cardioids have their angle fixed at 90 degrees.

But cardioids aren't as strongly directional as many people seem to think they are. In fact their directivity is barely adequate for coincident stereo recording in any form. The stereophonic recording angle which you get with a 90-degree pair of cardioids is much wider than you normally ever need, and this arrangement results in an excess of the sound in the center of the stereo image, and much less energy from the sides. If you follow the principle of setting your mikes so that their patterns overlap where each microphone puts out half the power that it would put out on axis, then you'd actually have to angle a pair of cardioids over 130 degrees apart (!) for stereo recording. There are practical reasons not to go that far in most situations, but I mention it just to show that 90 degrees is in no way "the ideal angle for cardioids."

For that matter the whole concept of "the ideal angle" for any one pattern of (coincident) microphones--i.e. formulas that say, "it should be X degrees for cardioids, Y degrees for hypercardioids," etc.--leaves out half or more of what a person might consider when choosing a setup. But that's something that I should probably post about in the featured thread that has these formulas. It's very disturbing the way those recipes are being objectified and handed down; it's like trying to determine "which direction should a slingshot be aimed" without considering where (or what, or who) the target is.

--best regards

[stirinthesauce]

Tim, I wondered about this, too, since the CMXY 4 doesn't let you change the spacing between the microphones. But then I realized what dointhatrag meant: Keeping the angle narrow (i.e. not angling the capsules apart) reduces ambient noise. That makes sense, though the resulting recording will be very nearly mono--it will probably be more vivid sounding over headphones than over loudspeakers.

This "almost mono" quality is frequently a problem with coincident cardioids unless they can be spread apart beyond 90 degrees. Unfortunately, some people apparently think that 90 degrees is The Ideal Angle for coincident cardioids, and in recent years a number of recorders and stereo mikes made with pairs of cardioids (Sony, Zoom, and that crazy Rode microphone) have them fixed at 90 degrees.

But cardioids aren't as strongly directional as many people think they are. In fact their directivity is barely adequate for coincident stereo recording in any form. The stereophonic recording angle which you get with a 90-degree pair of cardioids is much wider than you normally ever need, and this arrangement results in an excess of the sound in the center of the stereo image, and much less energy from the sides. If you follow the principle of setting your mikes so that their patterns overlap where each microphone puts out half the power that it would put out on axis, then you'd actually have to angle a pair of cardioids over 130 degrees apart (!) for stereo recording. There are practical reasons not to go that far in most situations, but I mention it just to show that 90 degrees is in no way "the ideal angle for cardioids."

For that matter the whole concept of "the ideal angle" for any one pattern of (coincident) microphones--i.e. formulas that say, "it should be X degrees for cardioids, Y degrees for hypercardioids, etc.--leaves out half or more of what a person might consider when choosing a setup. But that's something that I should probably post about in the featured thread that has these formulas. It's very disturbing the way those recipes are being objectified and handed down; it's like trying to determine "which direction should a slingshot be aimed" without considering where (or what, or who) the target is.

--best regards

I look forward to your ellaboration of stereo angles/widths/spacing and the effects using differing polar patterns.

Thanks for your contributions to this community. 

-Jon

[dointhatrag]

hey man all that stuff you wrote really makes alot of sence, I use to runs these things "wide" and it felt like there was a hole in the middle of the recording.

I forgot to mention I use a pre-amp that can pan on each channel . So I run these things "closed" and give them some spread on the panner, boy it really does the trick !!

I have had this CMXY4V since 1998, I paid under 3K. Come april 1st it might be 5K.  Holy smokes !!