I'd agree though my opinion is that it is hard to get too little "room" with open mics (I may not have used quite the precise term but I mean ambient micing as opposed to instrument micing).
If we are talking the
optimal balance, and not simply the most acceptable one given the constraints, it’s not that hard to do in my opinion, although that is far less common around here than having too much room. A good exception the other way are AUD/SBD matricies which are sometimes mixed overly dry with too much SBD, but maybe that's because the AUD was weak.
It does of course vary with the type and character of the mic but one can get pretty darn close to the source with a good mic of almost any pattern and have really nice presence. The "dynamics" or attack and spatial references you can get in near stage placement are to my ear more important than the room ambiance that comes with a little more distance.
Yes but by using a near stage placement you are achieving a threshold level of a high enough direct/reverberant ratio first, which makes those other things possible, even if that ratio is balanced too strongly towards the direct sound to really be ‘optimal’ in itself. You may make a wise decision to juggle things and choose a position that’s less ambient than what would be ideal in a perfect situation and trade some ambiance against the other things it makes possible, but you still need to first have enough direct sound to be able do that.
The logical extreme of that is this: A SBD recording alone is over dry, but could be fixed with some well done reverb. A distant AUD cannot be made more present, outside a few relatively minor adjustments in EQ, compression, etc. That difference doesn't make the straight SBD optimal, it just means it provides a better oppotunity to get other important things right as well.
I do like more of the room in a good sounding room (though find those are few) but I'm quite willing to lose that in a suboptimal room. The 4V's are "richer" at a little bit of a distance but in certain rooms I routinely use them much closer to stage than that distance with better results than if I held the "optimal" distance and introduced a lot of unwanted distractions.
I actually like directional mics in settings that are more traditionally viewed as the realm of omnis since one can get a very unique soundstage, particularly if a PA is a minimal or non-factor. In an appropriate setting the recorded stereo field becomes a very close reproduction of how the instruments are located on stage and gives you the feel of being in the midst of the action. Location is key (as is the type of music and the players). Rather than try to build that sort of stereo image with mixing or editing I hope to capture it. You inevitably lose most of that "hyper directionality" when you go further back to get the room feel. i think the "front row" feel is more exciting than mid-FOB (assuming you don't lose anything in the mix).
There are different senses of "there" in play. I've noticed a number of people (mainly the consumer/downloader crowd) feel it's a good recording if the "there" you feel approximates midway or further back on an arena floor (ie, very boomy). If one can recreate the "there" of sitting right in an ideal spot in front of the stage hearing the music essentially as the band does (if the onstage mix is right) that's the "there" I hope for.
This is extending the definition of ‘there-ness’ to include other aspect such as imaging, presence, and dynamics, rather than simply the room ambience in a direct/reverberant sense. All important stuff I agree, yet each of those are dependent on getting at least a useable if not entirely optimal direct/reverberant ratio first.