Topic: Ceiling Mount Considerations?

[HealthCov Chris]

I am permanently mounting a matched pair of mics to the rafters in one of my local venues.  There is already a pair centered (DIN) about 35' off stage, but due to the low ceilings they get too much chatter.

The venue has low ceilings (approx. 15'), is basic rectangle with capacity of approx. 500, and the rafter to hang the mics is approx. 6' from the speaker.  Recording from the back is not a quality option.  I frequently have onstage pair with sbd, but many bands don't allow sbd, so I want to keep a pair in the rafters directly in front of the speakers to get the cleanest recordings with minimal chatter.  Does anyone have experience and/or specific suggestions regarding the location/position, etc. of the mics before I hang them?  Here is a couple pics of the venue/stage area to hang the mics.  I assume the best area is between the mirror ball and the first light module.

[Gutbucket]

A wide pair with each microphone hanging directly in front of each PA speaker, up at the same height as the PA speakers are above the floor.

Small omnis work great for this for a few reasons: They will be easiest to hang and manage over time as they needn't point directly toward the speakers, they are most likely to sound natural with a flat extended and open response, and from that close but high position they should get a very good balance of clear PA sound dominating over the enthusiastically engaged up-front audience, even with way too much disengaged audience chatter happening pretty much everywhere else.  This will sound very much like a direct SBD feed with a touch of ambiance in it.

The question that remains is which cross-beam to hang them from. The closest one with lights and mirror ball looks to be a bit too close.  The second one back could be perfect but might be a bit far if the room is super chatty even up front.  Ideal is likely halfway between the two, but that's not likely to be practical.  Try both positions if you have the access to do it, which is the only way to really know for sure.

If omnis at the first beam are too close, yet turn out to be too far away at the second beam, subcards (maybe even cardioids) from the second beam could be just right, but then you'd need to keep them oriented correctly, both vertically and horizontally, which is a lot more hassle than simply hanging a pair of omnis from their own cables.  Give the omnis a go first.

[voltronic]

I don't have specific experience doing this, but I have a couple thoughts that may or may not be helpful:

1. Be careful of proximity to the projector, which I imagine gets used during shows. Ones used in large venues often have loud cooling fans. I found that if the hard way once when recording from a balcony.

2. How low can you mount your mics without interfering with said projector, if you're mounting them between there and the stage? Because I'm thinking of avoiding strong early reflections from the ceiling, and you probably don't want your mics behind the projector because of the potential noise. You want that noise source in the mics' rear nulls if possible. Some may recommend using hypers to avoid the ceiling reflections, but the rear null will not be as deep as cardioids so there's a trade-off.

3. Mounting an array this close to the stage means you'll need to aim your mics quite wide to capture the PA properly. Two ideas come to mind for that: a "hybrid" NOS of 30 cm but with a 110° angle, or an array I've had a lot of success with recently (for acoustic recording, mind you) - the Gerzon at 120° with only a 5 cm capsule spacing. This one allows you to easily add more spaciousness in post if you choose.

4. I just saw Gutbucket's reply about omnis. I would not have thought to recommend them because of the aforementioned audience chatter, but they could actually work great here for reasons he details. It would certainly be easier to set up than the near coincident setups I've described.

[Gutbucket]

Yeah, wide omnis in front of each speaker for several of reasons:

It gets the mics closer to the PA speakers.  Each will be directly on-axis and have good close proximity to each speaker.  That makes it like a stack tape, or rather a stereo stack tape of both stacks, and a perfect substitute for a soundboard patch when one is not available.  Depending on the PA speakers, better than a stack tape.  Most of the time I'd take it over a soundboard patch any day.

Excellent balance between direct-PA-and-on-stage-sound versus reverberent-room-and-audience-sound.  Physical location of the microphones on axis and significantly closer to the PA speakers on either side than all other sources of sound are part of this.  But also, as long as each mic is the same distance from the speaker on its side, in addition to being clear and dryish, what is picked up from the PA will retain high phase correlation - much like what one gets from a board feed or on-stage coincident pair, while pickup of room and audience sound will be highly de-corellated.  That means reverberance of the room and any specific audience voices will have significant phase, timing and level  differences between channels.  That makes the room sound better, bigger, more open, even if it doesn't when there in person, and will tend to make the perception of any individual annoying audience members which can still be heard over the music more diffuse, and a lot less direct, clearly understood and in your face.  Projector noise will also be be farther away, and likely to only be significant for quiet performances with a quiet audiences.

Easy to rig.. except for the ladder climbing that needs to be done regardless. Just hang them. no pointing needed, no worries of twisting or changing orientation over time.

Proven to sound great in other similar places.

Will mix well with whatever other mics you may want to use, but you probably don't need those unless you want to include them.  If so this pair should make for an excellent foundation of the mix.

[Chanher]

EDIT: gutbucket posted more while I was writing this, but yes, what he said.

A wide pair with each microphone hanging directly in front of each PA speaker, up at the same height as the PA speakers are above the floor.

Small omnis work great for this for a few reasons

This is something I've always wanted to try, and it's based on numerous recordings I recall that sounded sooo good to me. The closeness to the PA speakers provided an upfront "soundboard" feel and clarity but using the (very widely) spaced omni's simultaneously provided huge soundstage and a wonderful ambience/room feel. It might feel counterintuitive to use omni's since one of your goals is to eliminate chattiness but I think you will be surprised at the results.

I've curiously followed people using spread cardioid's and I will admit I found the results to be better than I expected; I'm sure it's violating numerous stereo recording principles but I personally wouldn't hesitate to at least try cardioid mics mounted directly in front of each PA speaker. Ideally you would mount mics that have interchangeable capsules and you could try both omni's and cards. If anyone wants to provide the reasons spread cardioids are a bad idea I'm certainly open to hearing them.

I don't think you could go wrong with mounting a near-coincident pair in the center BUT as Voltronic states, you could be interfering with the projector and/or picking up the cooling fan of said projector. If you find a way to avoid the projector and it's potential problems, I like Voltronic's suggestion of some kind of NOS. Nice and wide to get the PA speakers but it would still pick up a little of the stage amps/drums which IME is usually (but not always) a good thing. If we're getting greedy then you could do a 3-mic mount with an extra wide set of directional mics aimed at the PA speakers with a center directional mic aimed at the stage and picking up drums and amps directly from the musicians themselves.

If I ever get a chance to permanently mount in a venue, I'm definitely gonna try omni's directly in front of each PA speaker.

[HealthCov Chris]

Ok, so what if I can't get my mics as low as the pa?  The pa is angled slightly downward and inward.  Owner doesn't want anything hanging down that low.  I guess I just angle the mics (if cards) down towards the center of the pa?  Same with omni mics?

[admkrk]

Ok, so what if I can't get my mics as low as the pa? 

Go a little farther back. As long as they are above where anyone can reach, there should not be a problem. Using tiny mics helps also, since they will not even be noticed once the lights are down, and maybe not otherwise.

[Chanher]

Ok, so what if I can't get my mics as low as the pa?  The pa is angled slightly downward and inward.  Owner doesn't want anything hanging down that low.  I guess I just angle the mics (if cards) down towards the center of the pa?  Same with omni mics?

Omni’s can be hanging straight down if you want, I would get them as low as the owner will allow. Some Dpa 4060’s seem like a great low-pro option, Dpa aficionados plz chime in which version is best suited for this as I am personally interested in doing this one day.

If you end up trying cardioids then my instinct would be to keep them pointed straight forward, as you still want to keep the off-axis rejection minimizing crowd noise. Maybe poined SLIGHTLY downward if they ask you to keep them pretty high up and out of the way.

Sounds like you’re planning on using the rafter that is 6’ from the speakers to mount the mics; from my limited stack recording experience that seems like a good distance. Stack recording experts chime in.

[Gutbucket]

Ok, so what if I can't get my mics as low as the pa? 

Determine the radiation angle limits of good coverage from the PA speaker.  If you can see the high frequency horn through the grill of the speaker, the good coverage angle is typically the same angle as the angle of the horn walls.  Confirm by listening even if you can't see the high frequency horn by standing on the floor and listening to the PA as house music plays.  Move forward and back near the PA speaker while listening for the point at which the high frequency clarity and level suddenly drops off when moving forward, toward the stage.  Once you determine where that point is, look up at the speaker to get an idea of how far off axis that is from where the speaker is pointing - you'll now have a good idea of the downward angle that defines the edge of good coverage. The upward angle from the speaker where the same high frequency drop off thing happens should be more or less a mirror image of that.  You'll want the microphone somewhere between those two extremes. With the speaker angled down somewhat the upper angle will be different than the lower one with respect to the room, but should be symmetrical with respect to the speaker.  Safer to be a bit inside that good coverage angle rather than right at the edge of it.

From the photos it looks like a mic suspended from the first beam, between the mirror ball and robot light, hanging down so that it's the same height as the bottom of of both of them, is likely to be well placed withing the good coverage angle.  Mic on the other side arranged symmetrically with respect to this one.

Go a little farther back. As long as they are above where anyone can reach, there should not be a problem. Using tiny mics helps also, since they will not even be noticed once the lights are down, and maybe not otherwise.

All that.  I'd think bottom edge of the mirror ball would be okay, but depends on the owner.  If you have to go higher it may help to move back to the second beam to stay within the good coverage angle, but it really depends on what the good coverage angle is and how far down the speakers are pointed.

[Gutbucket]

I've curiously followed people using spread cardioid's and I will admit I found the results to be better than I expected; I'm sure it's violating numerous stereo recording principles but I personally wouldn't hesitate to at least try cardioid mics mounted directly in front of each PA speaker. Ideally you would mount mics that have interchangeable capsules and you could try both omni's and cards. If anyone wants to provide the reasons spread cardioids are a bad idea I'm certainly open to hearing them.

No reason spread cardioids can't work.  Stereo Zoom doesn't apply in this case of pseudo-close mic'ing the PA, but where it does the trade off relationship between angle and spacing translates to a wide-spaced pair of cardioids having very little if any angle between them, more or less like a pair of omnis.  They then behave like a pair of omnis in terms of stereo recording angle and imaging, only with a forward sensitivity bias.  They won't sound quite the same due to that forward bias, mostly the room and audience contribution will be different and not as natural as a pair of omnis.  But when that forward bias is needed it might be a better choice.  That might make sense from the second beam back.  If so, point them forward directly toward the speakers.

[goodcooker]

I took a long look at a similar situation before the owners finally decided not to allow it.

If it was me I'd put two Line Audio CM3/4 mics split AB in line with the inside of the hanging speakers on the Ibeam back from the lights and mirror ball. That looks to be 12-15 feet from the stage lip. If you use some inexpensive crab clamp/ball heads like the Camvate ones https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1369252-REG/camvate_c1465_crab_clamp_5_8_27_ball.html you can switch up later if you don't like your spot and could move them up closer if you aren't getting a good balance.

If you go with omnis get them as close as possible like hanging from that closest spot right in front of the speaker.

Directional mics should work just a little farther back but you are going to get some chatter from underneath no matter what you choose with those low ceilings. If you have access to the house sound person ask them what the coverage of the speakers is. I was surprised to learn that I was running my mics too high at a local spot in an effort to get away from chompers and was above the focus of the hanging line arrays. Just by looking at them I thought the focus would have been higher up in the air but talking to the FOH guy who hung them proved me wrong.

Subcards will be more forgiving about placement and will still give rejection from the rear and sides somewhat.

Good luck with this. I wish my local spot had allowed me to do this. It would have made life a lot easier at a place where I record at least a few times per month.

[Gutbucket]

The mics too high thing can happen with any PA, but is most likely to happen with line-array PAs, which typically consist of an array of separate, close-stacked mid & high frequency modules.  Those are most often "flown arrays" hanging from the ceiling, but not always, and tend to be J-shaped with the top-modules pointing straight out into the room and the bottom-most modules pointing more downward providing coverage close to the stage.  Each of those mid & high frequency modules is designed to have a rather wide horizontal coverage pattern, but a very narrow vertical coverage pattern.  The narrow vertical coverage angle helps the stacked modules hand-off to each other seamlessly without too much overlap.  The desired vertical coverage is then mostly achieved by the J-shaped curvature of the array.  That also means that at top of the array, the vertical coverage pattern cuts off very abruptly not far above horizontal, which is also intentional. The array projects sound more evenly where it is needed, sending significantly less energy toward the ceiling, or up into the sky if outdoors.

This means the sound up above the top of the array will tend to have lower SPL and be significantly less-clear sounding, so putting mics up at that level or higher can be a problem, even though its nice to get them up as high as possible to get them farther away from the audience noise below.

I like to fly my mics high when I can to reduce nearby audience chatter, and when I do I'm always careful to take a good look at the PA to try and figure out what might be too high.  Usually to be safe I go no higher than the top of the PA, and in doing that I've fortunately not had a problem with this for a long time.  Last time I did was over a decade ago at an outdoor amphitheater that was using old-school  point-source boxes stacked on either side of the stage, not a line-array PA.  I just put the mics up too high and it was very dull sounding up there, much like being too close when there isn't any fill speakers up front.  Those point-source PA behave more like a smaller PA speaker, and after that I learned to look at the high frequency horns and keep the mics inside the angle defined by the horn walls.  The mics need a direct "line of sight" into the horn's throat.

[Chanher]

Thanks to everyone who posted, lots of good info here. Please keep us updated on your progress with audio samples if you're able to!

[grawk]

if you’re friendly with the manager, have something playing loud through the pa when you’re flying the mics and tune the placement by ear

[HealthCov Chris]

Here’s my first attempt.  Not bad for a $200 matched pair. 
https://archive.org/details/rb2024-01-10.InsideOut_s7

[rocksuitcase]

Here’s my first attempt.  Not bad for a $200 matched pair. 
https://archive.org/details/rb2024-01-10.InsideOut_s7

cool. +T
Question:what pattern are the sElectronics 7's?

[al w.]

Not bad at all! I believe they're cards.

[HealthCov Chris]

Not bad at all! I believe they're cards.

Yep, cardioid.  Would probably prefer wide card or maybe omni, but wanted to try these first since I could get them for $3/month at Sweetwater.  Was looking for a second hand pair of Line Audio CM3. 

[wehideandseek]

Sounds good HCC. Can you please take a pic of how you mounted the mics (or circle area in first pix)?
After 30 years recording in local rooms this'll be the year for me to mount in at least four of 'em so this & the other thread from last year (https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=203180.0) are of great benefit.
Thank you!
r

[Gutbucket]

Just circled around to listen..

Very nice.  Sounds really good.

If refining further.. Maybe angle the mics inward, pointing them toward the center rear of the stage, but only to the extent that the PA speakers remain fully within the good smooth-response front coverage angle of the pattern.  That should help with a touch more drum transient clarity without making the drums significantly louder. And might otherwise beef up the acoustic center a bit.  I imagine the line audios may be able to do all that even better, with a bit more openness, and a more evenly distributed ambience.

[Top Hat]

Not bad at all! I believe they're cards.

Yep, cardioid.  Would probably prefer wide card or maybe omni, but wanted to try these first since I could get them for $3/month at Sweetwater.  Was looking for a second hand pair of Line Audio CM3.

Did you leave the mounts there? When i go visit my brother in Dallas i frequent DEARTCO and know John is a stand up guy for tapers.

[Chanher]

I am just seeing the update to this, listening now and that's very cool. Makes me want to mount some mics in a venue! Really upfront sound, good mix of instruments and then when the crowd kicks you can hear the room as well. When you get a chance, let us know how low you were able to get them (in relation to the PA speakers). According to your info file, looks like 25 ft apart, 15 ft off the ground, and 6 ft from the speakers.

[HealthCov Chris]

Sounds good HCC. Can you please take a pic of how you mounted the mics (or circle area in first pix)?
After 30 years recording in local rooms this'll be the year for me to mount in at least four of 'em so this & the other thread from last year (https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=203180.0) are of great benefit.
Thank you!
r

Here are 2 pics with doodles to help answer your question.  The blue lines (circled in yellow) are where I hung the mics from the rafter (15' high).  The rafter is approx. 6' from the speakers.  I ran the cables down the rafter to the wall and back a metal beam that goes down the wall.  Have a couple heavy duty magnetic hooks on the beam.  Hang my coat and bag (other yellow circle).  Plug in the F3, hit record, walk away until show is over. 

[HealthCov Chris]

Not bad at all! I believe they're cards.

Yep, cardioid.  Would probably prefer wide card or maybe omni, but wanted to try these first since I could get them for $3/month at Sweetwater.  Was looking for a second hand pair of Line Audio CM3.

Did you leave the mounts there? When i go visit my brother in Dallas i frequent DEARTCO and know John is a stand up guy for tapers.

Yes, they will stay up there as long as the venue is open.  The cables hanging on the side wall between the cabinent and the steel beam on the wall.  Blue tape in on the right channel xlr.  There should be some metal hooks there to hang your bag and coat.  See the 3 yellow circles in this photo.  The top 2 are obviously where the mics are hanging, and the 3rd lower one is where the cables are hanging.  Feel free to hit me up if/when your coming to a show there.  May want to bring a set of splitters, just in case.

[HealthCov Chris]

I am just seeing the update to this, listening now and that's very cool. Makes me want to mount some mics in a venue! Really upfront sound, good mix of instruments and then when the crowd kicks you can hear the room as well. When you get a chance, let us know how low you were able to get them (in relation to the PA speakers). According to your info file, looks like 25 ft apart, 15 ft off the ground, and 6 ft from the speakers.

That is pretty much it.  In a perfect world the mics would be hanging a bit lower, buy I'm trying to keep them tucked out of the way from everything and everyone. 

[HealthCov Chris]

Just circled around to listen..

Very nice.  Sounds really good.

If refining further.. Maybe angle the mics inward, pointing them toward the center rear of the stage, but only to the extent that the PA speakers remain fully within the good smooth-response front coverage angle of the pattern.  That should help with a touch more drum transient clarity without making the drums significantly louder. And might otherwise beef up the acoustic center a bit.  I imagine the line audios may be able to do all that even better, with a bit more openness, and a more evenly distributed ambience.

I thought about angling them from "outside-in" a bit like you suggest.  I'll give it a try next time I'm up there.  With the low ceilings and a fun-lovin crowd, my goal is to cut out as much crowd as possible.  The room sound in this venue adds little bucause of the size and low ceilings.  It would include mucho chatter and such. That is also the reason I have started with cards.  I may add a center omni to see how that works, but then I need to bring my MixPre-6, with sort of defeats the purpose of the small, compact setup of the F3. 

[HealthCov Chris]

Alright, so I have now recorded 3 different shows with this room setup.  I'm pretty dang happy, and to be honest, I may not do another thing to it.  It is just simple as it gets.  Two matched budget SD mics, cables running down the side wall along a steel beam, and magnetic hooks for my coat and bag with a Zoom F3 to plug in and walk away from. 

Dopapod
https://archive.org/details/dopapod2024-01-25.InsideOut_sE7_

Kitchen Dwellers
https://archive.org/details/KD2024-01-26.InsideOut_sE7

Rosebud (Tribute to Jerry Garcia Band)
https://archive.org/details/rb2024-01-10.InsideOut_sE7

[wehideandseek]

Thanks for the edited images. Looking forward to the actual clamp & mic pics in the RigPix thread 

[Gutbucket]

Nice setup!  Clean, easy and effective.

Thanks for posting the photos. Will give the other recordings a listen.

Maybe angle the mics inward, pointing them toward the center rear of the stage, but only to the extent that the PA speakers remain fully within the good smooth-response front coverage angle of the pattern.  That should help with a touch more drum transient clarity without making the drums significantly louder. And might otherwise beef up the acoustic center a bit.

I thought about angling them from "outside-in" a bit like you suggest.  I'll give it a try next time I'm up there.  With the low ceilings and a fun-lovin crowd, my goal is to cut out as much crowd as possible.  The room sound in this venue adds little bucause of the size and low ceilings.  It would include mucho chatter and such. That is also the reason I have started with cards.  I may add a center omni to see how that works, but then I need to bring my MixPre-6, with sort of defeats the purpose of the small, compact setup of the F3.

As long as you have easy access to do it, I'd definitely try some inward angling as that may make for a nice refinement without dramatically changing things.  Simple enough and may add just enough on-stage direct sound in a way similar to what a center mic would be intended to do.

The center omni is an interesting idea and will be an interesting thing to try, even if you ultimately decide against it (keeping things simple in using the F3 is a perfectly good practical reason to do so).  If you find you really like what it does you could leave it up and then have the option to use it or not, depending on who's playing and what you want to carry in.

If you do try it, I'd hang it closer to the stage than the cardioid pair - probably from the same ceiling truss that the PA speakers are hung from which places it directly over the front of the stage, or maybe further in over center stage.  Which position is better may depend on the performance.  Over center stage will get it a bit farther away from the audience and act more like a drum overhead, while over the front of stage may a better option for things like acoustic instruments up front, solo singer songwriter type stuff.  If you like what it does but find it adds too much audience, a cardioid from the truss with the PA on angled pointed down toward the back of stage should reduce audience contribution by ~6dB or so.  Only one way to really know. 

Either way (angling the cardioid pair, adding a center mic) the intent is reinforcement of the center of the image with increased pickup of on-stage sound - in particular dynamic transients which never really translate through the PA and make it feel like being on stage or right up front.

[cd2go]

It's my dream to hang mics at a venue I frequent. There is something so appealing about the ease of plugging in and relaxing knowing that room mics are doing their thing in the best spot. I often get a soundboard feed and onstage when allowed, but omnis in front of the PA would really fill it out, and would be a great primary source when required. Cool to see it worked out for you, congrats! Lots of good info here to refer to if I ever work up the courage to give it a go. Recordings sound fantastic 

[wehideandseek]

Please humour my thrift-store mindset: Would any of these be sufficient to mount in two rooms that i don't often frequent, pull listenable tapes & wouldn't really be bummed if they got thrashed?
They'd be most likely run by two road-weary Zoom H4Ns.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/174723487155

https://retrogearshop.com/products/shure-570s-pair

https://www.ebay.com/itm/126383203158

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/135000125517


ETA: Small capacity (150-300) shoebox like venues with hanging PAs (approx 25' apart with base of speakers approx 10' high). Plenty of mount options along weight-bearing beams approx 10' high running parallel to stage, approx 15' to 20' from stage)

Venue 1 (usually run ortf clamped upon on the curtain conduit directly above stage-lip, angled downwards; was thinking of centre-mounting at the second beam back from stage near disco ball, but could also mic the stacks):







Venue 2 (usually run just below the stuffed buffalo head, but thinking of mounting above it or again, at each side of PA):

[if_then_else]

Venue 2 (usually run just below the stuffed buffalo head, but thinking of mounting above it or again, at each side of PA):

It would be fun to abuse it for a binaural recording (as a dummy head).

[wehideandseek]

BiSon of a gun, that's a great idea!

Venue 2 (usually run just below the stuffed buffalo head, but thinking of mounting above it or again, at each side of PA):

It would be fun to abuse it for a binaural recording (as a dummy head).

[Gutbucket]

Ha! Love the binaural bison idea!  It already looks like it's listening intently.

Careful going above the bison head. Looks like that may be right around where high-frequency vertical coverage from the PA speakers is likely to drop off. 

As mentioned in the other recent thread about installed ceiling-hung mics, I feel a pair of spaced omnis, each placed in-line with the primary listening axis of the PA speaker on each side and hung something like 4'-10' out into room is the ideal setup for this type of installed arrangement.  You get excellent clarity by being on-axis and directly in front of each PA, and that PA content will be clear, SBD-like and perceptually centered.  You get as much or as little room ambiance as you want by adjusting how far out into the room the mics are from the PA (this is the main thing you may want to go back and tweak after the first few recordings).  The wide split will provide a big, open portrayal of the room sound along with a wide, diffuse portrayal of the audience, rendering specific audience contributions less intrusive.  And the mics will be close enough to the stage to capture some of the on-stage sound and live percussion transients.

You can run a typical near-spaced stereo pair most anywhere, but not this kind of setup.  To my way of thinking that make it a good situation to take advantage of the opportunity.

[wehideandseek]

+T/hanks Gut!

I'd love to read your opinion on the omnis linked above:


https://www.ebay.com/itm/174723487155

https://retrogearshop.com/products/shure-570s-pair

https://www.ebay.com/itm/126383203158

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/135000125517

Ha! Love the binaural bison idea!  It already looks like it's listening intently.

Careful going above the bison head. Looks like that may be right around where high-frequency vertical coverage from the PA speakers is likely to drop off. 

As mentioned in the other recent thread about installed ceiling-hung mics, I feel a pair of spaced omnis, each placed in-line with the primary listening axis of the PA speaker on each side and hung something like 4'-10' out into room is the ideal setup for this type of installed arrangement.  You get excellent clarity by being on-axis and directly in front of each PA, and that PA content will be clear, SBD-like and perceptually centered.  You get as much or as little room ambiance as you want by adjusting how far out into the room the mics are from the PA (this is the main thing you may want to go back and tweak after the first few recordings).  The wide split will provide a big, open portrayal of the room sound along with a wide, diffuse portrayal of the audience, rendering specific audience contributions less intrusive.  And the mics will be close enough to the stage to capture some of the on-stage sound and live percussion transients.

You can run a typical near-spaced stereo pair most anywhere, but you can't get away with that kind of setup everywhere.  Good situation to take advantage of this opportunity.

[Gutbucket]

^ I've not used or can recall hearing any of those specifically. 

But looking at the images and seeing their size I imagine the're likely to be somewhat directional in the highest frequency range, so you may want to make some effort to point them directly at the PA or toward the drum kit if possible.  However, don't let that stop you from trying hanging them from their own cables pointing straight down first, which will be the simplest to arrange and to manage.  If you decide you want to point them at the PA or drum kit, you then might play around with some coat hanger wire to bend up some little hangers to change the orientation of the mics if they are being hung from their own cables.  Same idea as the hangers for the little AT 853 mics which look like this -



The key to pointing the mic sideways using something like that is positioning the vertical cable part if it directly over the center of gravity of the mic. Biggest problem in using those is keeping the mic from rotating away from the direction you want it pointed as the cable relaxes with the mic hanging on it.  Might need to re-orient them a few times until the cables stretches out and relaxes sufficiently.  An alternative is securing the orientation using a monofilament fishing line guy wire to the rear or side but that's a PITA.  Another is hanging them from a rigid rod or tube rather than relying on the cable.

Whatever you do, make sure they're well secured and won't fall on someone below.  Keep in mind the effect of vibration over time.

[wehideandseek]

Thanks so very much for the time & consideration let alone wisdom & experience behind each of your replies Gut!

[wehideandseek]

Getting close to installing a stereo pair of AKG SE300B / CK91 in the first room pictured (run as PAS or ORTF).
I'd prefer the mount be as close to the underside of the beam as possible.
Is there such a thing as a 5/8" mic thread adapter or spigot that has, for lack of a better term, an elongated self-tapping screw / thread end?

Envisioning a longer version of this: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/284333-REG/Manfrotto_MIBA_Female_3_8_to_5_8.html
Or this w/ a screw end: https://www.manfrotto.com/us-en/double-end-stud-1-4-20-3-8-adapter-spigot-013/

I could always slap one of these on to a large screw, but i want it to be more flush: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/546494-REG/Manfrotto_014_14_014_14_Rapid_Adapter.html

Here are the two bars i could sacrifice for such venue mounts:

[admkrk]

I might be misunderstanding, but wouldn't a simple ratchet strap work with the second mount?

[wehideandseek]

That's a good suggestion for something temp until i figure this out. Thanks!

ETA: perhaps even better for the Atlas bar as the shockmount screws off & would leave a natural recession for the strap...

[admkrk]

I did not look that close, but yea that one might be a better choice.

[illconditioned]

Here’s my first attempt.  Not bad for a $200 matched pair. 
https://archive.org/details/rb2024-01-10.InsideOut_s7

Great work! The main thing is get the mics up there, and keep recording.  People will thank you later when you can produce great tapes of memorable shows. I had the great fortune of having installed setups in two clubs in the past.  I didn't run them enough but always smile at the great tapes I got.

[wehideandseek]

Ill, can you kindly share the details of what / how you mounted & ran?

[vantheman]

I hung some omnis at an indoor festival this past weekend. The venue was a small 60x70 room with a 3 point Meyer PA system. I was able to hang 2 Line Audio OM1s about 8 feet in front of the left and right speakers. The venue folks knew where the sweet spots were, and they put them right there for me, in direct line with each PA. I was also able to get a mono direct output feed from the console.

I did some quick messing around with the first show using 3 tracks - omni left, omni right, and direct feed - hard panned to the left, right, and center. It sounded pretty good just like that but I thought I detected a little hole in the middle in terms of the audience noise. So for kicks at the last show I threw up my CM4s in XY at FOB pointed directly at the center PA. The CM4s were set back maybe 18 feet behind the omnis.

If you are interested I have 3 short samples - all 5 tracks mixed together, 3 tracks (just the sbd and omnis), and then just the omnis. I'm curious what you all have to say about the different mixes. As I am actively mixing this, the multitrack mixdowns have the different sources mixed to different levels. You may not detect much difference with and without the CM4s as they are not very strong in this mix, just a little bit to boost the center audience noise and play with the center SBD feed a little. I may not even need them at all. I would rather not post the samples openly here, so PM me and I will send you links to the samples.

I'm wondering how you all think about panning with the OM1s. Should they be hard panned, or can I bring them in a little if they need to play nicer with the SBD feed? Reason I ask is I've done some recording with the OM1s before using a mono SBD feed in the middle, and there's an occasional effect that's a little hard to describe in which what I think is happening is the SBD source becomes lower in volume than the omnis, so it sounds like the musical content in the center is getting wider, or bigger, but I think that's just the omnis taking over the mix at that moment in time. I wonder if there's anything to be done about that. I am on the lookout for an example of that in this mix and can produce a sample when I find one because I've heard it in passing.

[Gutbucket]

Was fun consulting with you on doing this and and I'm pleased to hear it worked out nicely for you.  I definitely would like to give it a listen, and will be able to say more once I do, but generally you'll want to keep wide spaced omnis hard panned unless there is no other good alternative to correcting an image distribution or a hole in the middle problem.  The reason why not is potential mono-compatibly problems.  Granted you are producing a stereo output not mono, but what panning the omnis toward center does is mix the two channels together somewhat.  If there is any audible mono compatibility problem, it will become increasingly apparent as the panning of both channels approaches center.  Both panned fully center produces a mono sum of the two channels.

One way to see if that is a problem would be to intentionally pan both to center (or otherwise sum both channels to mono) and listen to determine how it sounds.  If okay without problems - lacking only in stereo width when summed, there is no problem in panning each a little toward center as necessary, but of course doing so is going to make the stereo portrayal sound somewhat less wide.

If you can, send me a sample of all 5 sources (omnis, mono SBD, CM4 pair) and I'll play around with it a bit and get back to you.

[vantheman]

Will do, thanks!

[vantheman]

One way to see if that is a problem would be to intentionally pan both to center (or otherwise sum both channels to mono) and listen to determine how it sounds.  If okay without problems - lacking only in stereo width when summed, there is no problem in panning each a little toward center as necessary, but of course doing so is going to make the stereo portrayal sound somewhat less wide.

No obvious issues doing this, but it is definitely a last resort. I'm going to focus for a while on finding problems, then I'll try a few things and share a sample here if I'm still stumped.

[goodcooker]

One way to see if that is a problem would be to intentionally pan both to center (or otherwise sum both channels to mono) and listen to determine how it sounds.  If okay without problems - lacking only in stereo width when summed, there is no problem in panning each a little toward center as necessary, but of course doing so is going to make the stereo portrayal sound somewhat less wide.

No obvious issues doing this, but it is definitely a last resort. I'm going to focus for a while on finding problems, then I'll try a few things and share a sample here if I'm still stumped.

One way to fix the perceived shortcomings of your results in the future would be to use a single forward facing mic in the center instead of a stereo pair. An XY arrangement may seem like it's going to fill the hole in the image but it's a stereo angle even if it's mono compatible.

I wouldn't go too far down a rabbit hole with the stereo image of your recordings if they are fan made and destined for free release to the masses. Stereo image is at the bottom of criteria for 9/10 listeners and doesn't even translate to many playback methods nowadays. Absolutely make your recordings the best you can based on your own standards but some folks here spend WAY too much time sweating about the presentation of the stereo image. So much so that their recordings never see the light of day.

Did you suspend the mics from the ceiling? I'm wondering if this is related to a post I saw in the Taper XLR FB group.

[Gutbucket]

The omnis were suspended from the ceiling grid, similarly to what we've discussed in the threads on permanent installs.

Similar to a single mic in the center but better, I offered my AT short stereo shotgun to him for use in the center as sort of an ultimate Mid/Side center for that particular case, since in this situation the center recording position was considerably farther back in the room than the two omnis, but we weren't able to get together prior to do that.  And since he was able to get both mono SBD and run his CM4 pair in the center, seems he did just fine using the mics he had available to him.

To each his on on how to go about taping and how much effort to put into it.  Good image and depth is the icing on the cake, and each taper can decide where their own point of diminishing returns lies.  Vantheman was recording an indoor festival with good prior contact and support of the organizers, in part recording some acoustic acts that would likely benefit from making the extra effort.  Sounded like a great opportunity to do a bit more than normal, at least in comparison to the effort one might make for something less compelling.  Anyway he was fully up for making the best recording possible within the constraints allowed by the venue and the gear he has available.

Using a single mic in the center between a decently wide split is always a good idea and most certainly better than not having anything in the center.   But either a Mid/Side pair or an X/Y pair angled as PAS in the center will support the wide split pair far better than a single mic will.  It isn't much more hassle, and allows for as much stereo center content as is helpful in the mix with the wide pair.  If no stereo content in the center is needed, just pan to center / sum to mono / mute the Side channel. There is no drawback in doing so because the X/Y pair is PAS, and after muting the Side channel the Mid alone is the same as using a single mic. But in my experience using mono center when coincident stereo center is available just never happens.  Most often at least a touch of stereo from that center position will blend better and make for a better recording, and most often I use considerably more.   

Yes, a wide X/Y angle of more than 90 degrees that is appropriate when that pair is to be used by itself is probably not going to be the best choice for this.  But X/Y in PAS is not going to be very wide, as it will usually end up being narrower than 90 degrees. I wouldn't usually recommend X/Y in PAS for use on its own.  But it is a super safe bet in combination with a wide-spaced pair.  It essentially like a single mic but better.  If limited to only one available channel or mic, then sure, use one.  Have a pair and two channels available?  Then PAS X/Y or M/S is usually going to be the better option.

[goodcooker]

^
I disagree about XY in the center but that's what's great about having discussions - we can disagree.

As you state - every performance, recording and desired outcome is different. The need for effective post work to simplify the process for a multiple performance recording that is intended for distribution may outweigh the need to dial in a stereo center pair depending on what's needed for the desired outcome. Your preferred process may not suit every scenario. Getting lost in the minutae of dialing in multiple stereo pairs may hinder the process of getting the rest of the work finished.

Since you don't distribute your recordings you may not be aware of how much more work that entails which would decrease the amount of time available to someone else who has more tasks to complete after the mix is done.

As usual I'm just providing an alternate perspective.

[Gutbucket]

^ That's reasonable. I welcome alternate perspectives and have no problem with honest disagreements. But not the gate-keeping. I bristled a bit upon reading your jibes in the earlier post.  Its petty and inappropriate, not positive nor conductive.  No need push one's personally held judgement about that kind of stuff off on others.  Let the open discussion of the pro's and con's stand on its own. Each taper here is more than capable of making their own decisions about how much effort to put into it and the best way to go about it themself. 

[goodcooker]

^ That's reasonable. I welcome alternate perspectives and have no problem with honest disagreements. But not the gate-keeping. I bristled a bit upon reading your jibes in the earlier post.  Its petty and inappropriate, not positive nor conductive.  No need push one's personally held judgement about that kind of stuff off on others.  Let the open discussion of the pro's and con's stand on its own. Each taper here is more than capable of making their own decisions about how much effort to put into it and the best way to go about it themself.

quoting for posterity

There's no "jibes" in my earlier post and there's no need for you to "bristle". If you resemble the remark I made then that's what it is. I didn't even mention your name.

People get over burdened by complicated post processing that involves the mixing of multiple stereo pairs. Maybe that's why you used the word "problem" in one post 5 times. It's a problem. Some so much so that it presents a hurdle to the next phase of the process - distribution - which you don't take part in but almost all the rest of us do.

If you are to be afforded the opportunity to say whatever you want (and you do - you are the most prolific poster on this forum) then everyone else should be afforded the same courtesy even if it runs counter to your long held and often shared opinion. No one should have to feel like they have to justify having a different opinion than you but that's exactly what it feels like trying to participate here. You make it that way.

[Gutbucket]

"some folks here spend WAY too much time sweating about the presentation of the stereo image. So much so that their recordings never see the light of day."

That one.  I'll let it go.

If tapers want to do complex things that's fully their choice. If they want to keep it as simple as possible that's fully their choice as well. Either way I enjoy helping them, and I make no judgment here about which path they should take.  Its their choice.  I bristle a bit when others do make such a judgment.  From my perspective, that's the essence of primary disagreement between us.

Complex things are complex.  Along with that complexity comes potential problems. I enjoy helping others get a handle on that.  We are here do discuss those things, as well as discuss the easy and simple taping methods that are more attractive to others. You like and promote simpler streamlined methods.  I get it, I get why, and I think that's great. I have no problem with that. And I usually agree with you on the posts about the methods you use.  Its your choice and the right way for you.  But its not universally right for everyone.

I don't "say whatever I want" here, nor do I wish that. My entire point in engaging you about this is to encourage everyone here to treat each other with respect, despite different viewpoints and disagreements about which taping methods to use. 

Make great tapes, your own way.  Allow others do the same.

[capnhook]

Make great tapes, your own way.  Allow others do the same.

There are so many cooler ways than elaborate bars and spacings to achieve the imaging you want, using good software and headphones


That's where i disagree with each of you guys a little bit


Roger, I disagree with your assertion that stereo image is at the bottom of criteria for 9/10 listeners.  The great big universe of earbud users demands it. Mono and narrow stereo angles sound less interesting than well-imaged stereo sources do, and people shut it down.  And I don't know what playback systems you listen to man, but it's very easy to hear good imaging on a good home stereo system.

Lee, I don't get to hear any of your stuff, can't make any opinion on any of your work, whether any of these theories you have really translate into a well-produced recording...


Like every Math teacher ever told me, "Show Me Your Work" 

[vantheman]

Absolutely make your recordings the best you can based on your own standards but some folks here spend WAY too much time sweating about the presentation of the stereo image. So much so that their recordings never see the light of day.

Did you suspend the mics from the ceiling? I'm wondering if this is related to a post I saw in the Taper XLR FB group.

Catching up now on all that was discussed. Yes, that was me who posted the photo on Facebook. Like Gutbucket mentions below, I had full support of the organizers and venue staff. Prior to setting foot in the room for the first time last week, it was all just a giant guess as what the setup options might be because I didn't yet know what level of support I would get from the staff. I walked in only with a notion that suspending some omnis in front of Meyer PA would be a fun thing to do. Come to find out the staff were absolutely incredible, and completely on the same page with what I was trying to achieve.

I spent about 3 hours just sitting in the room watching dress rehearsals and getting a since of the sound and the space before deciding how to set up. It's interesting sitting in front of a Meyer system. It basically sounds like the performers are playing unamplified, just louder. It's not obvious where the PA is coming from. There were actually 3 PA points - left, right, and center - and the sound person said that the mix was 3 channels as well. I spent time trying to hear that, but it was pretty hard to discern because of the nature of the PA system. It's interesting to note that the left and right PA is situated to the left and right of the audience with the audience in between. You can see that in the Facebook photo.

I recorded 3 2-hour shows over a 2 day period. Omnis on the left and right, and a modified center SBD. Modified because there was a big percussive dance component, and the floor itself was miked, but the sound person wagered that I didn't need much floor in my center channel, and she was right. So with that context, we still have mono-ish musical content but the omnis and SBD are more complementary than if the omnis were picking up the SBD feed 1:1.

So I taped the first show with just 3 channels, and evaluating on headphones, thought I may have detected a hole in the middle effect with the audience. And here with the access and equipment that I had,I threw up the CM4s in XY to try to fill that hole. It wasn't ideal because they were in the back of the room maybe 18 feet behind the omnis, but they were directly FOB and I was doing this "for kicks". At the following show I actually pointed the CM4s at the center of the audience, figuring I'd mix in some crowd in between songs. At the final show I decided why not point them at the center PA figuring it'll still give me what I wanted in terms of crowd noise if the rest was no good. Since nothing was lost by trying this, I decided that it was better to capture it now than to regret not capturing it later, and yes, I would like to see if I can make 10/10 stereo recording. I'm not sure if the CM4s will stay in the mix, but their stereo presentation is actually very narrow and seems to complement the audience nicely, I think the jury is still out on whether they complement the overall mix.

So we can actually have data to aid in this discussion. I am happy to post some brief samples of various parts of the program, and you guys can try it out. I can post the mono SBD, stereo omni and stereo XY as separate tracks and you can play with them. There are quieter parts that are heavy on the percussive dance that would rely more on the mics, and there are louder parts that would rely more on the SBD. We could look at both and maybe we could all learn a little more. I am not at liberty to share the entire recording, and while I don't believe the organizers would take issue with posting some anonymous partial samples to aid in making them a better tape, I'm avoiding being specific about the artists, time, and place because I don't want this discussion to be taken out of context by them if they happen to see it since google indexes these threads.

If you guys want them, PM me or reply here and I'll send them to whoever asks.

[Gutbucket]

If you guys want them, PM me or reply here and I'll send them to whoever asks.

Thanks.  I played around with it a bit over the weekend and figured I'd share my thoughts here with the group rather than privately via PM.  Hope that's cool. Happy to take this to PM if preferred.

Using the omni pair as a baseline, I ended up delaying the mono SBD a further 34ms and the X/Y CM4 pair by 2 to 3ms beyond the native alignment of the sample files.  Getting the alignment right was somewhat tricky as the optimal offset differs for audience clapping verses on-stage clapping and stomping, since the distance between those different source locations and the three different mic positions (sbd mics onstage, omnis over audience out in front of PA, CM4 cardioids closer to back of room) differs depending on which source position is more acoustically active.  But that's the alignment that ended up sounding best for me.

Level-wise I ended up using a touch more SBD than omnis, although not much, and a bit less from the CM4 pair, although less still from that pair would also work.  I did prefer using all three sources in combination once aligned and EQ'd.

I EQ'd each source separately first, and later applied additional EQ at the master bus.  Getting the low-end under control was a bit tricky. There is some low frequency noise that sounds like handling noise maybe from mic stands being moved around on stage or something, somewhat constant but most noticeable at the start.  One EQ challenge involved finding a good balance of reducing that without making the stomps and guitar sound overly anemic or wiping out the good low frequency ambience.

I also panned the CM4 pair somewhat toward center, which helped achieve a more even audience distribution and sense of dimension.  Panning it fully center (mono) didn't cause an audible problem, so I didn't worry about narrowing the panning of that pair somewhat.

After mixdown I applied some parallel compression, with a scooped, loudness-like curve applied to the parallel compressed copy, which helped glue everything together and bring up the details. Also applied some mastering limiting, which better managed loudness and brought out some additional presence in the vocal.

It ended up sounding quite engaging, although I don't trust my EQ choices to translate elsewhere since I was doing this over uncalibrated headphones, and I noticed something odd happening EQ wise when exporting from Samplitude and playing the file back via VLC which I still need to chase down.

[capnhook]

If you guys want them, PM me or reply here and I'll send them to whoever asks.

Thanks.  I played around with it a bit over the weekend and figured I'd share my thoughts here with the group rather than privately via PM.  Hope that's cool. Happy to take this to PM if preferred.

Using the omni pair as a baseline, I ended up delaying the mono SBD a further 34ms and the X/Y CM4 pair by 2 to 3ms beyond the native alignment of the sample files.  Getting the alignment right was somewhat tricky as the optimal offset differs for audience clapping verses on-stage clapping and stomping, since the distance between those different source locations and the three different mic positions (sbd mics onstage, omnis over audience out in front of PA, CM4 cardioids closer to back of room) differs depending on which source position is more acoustically active.  But that's the alignment that ended up sounding best for me.

Level-wise I ended up using a touch more SBD than omnis, although not much, and a bit less from the CM4 pair, although less still from that pair would also work.  I did prefer using all three sources in combination once aligned and EQ'd.

I EQ'd each source separately first, and later applied additional EQ at the master bus.  Getting the low-end under control was a bit tricky. There is some low frequency noise that sounds like handling noise maybe from mic stands being moved around on stage or something, somewhat constant but most noticeable at the start.  One EQ challenge involved finding a good balance of reducing that without making the stomps and guitar sound overly anemic or wiping out the good low frequency ambience.

I also panned the CM4 pair somewhat toward center, which helped achieve a more even audience distribution and sense of dimension.  Panning it fully center (mono) didn't cause an audible problem, so I didn't worry about narrowing the panning of that pair somewhat.

After mixdown I applied some parallel compression, with a scooped, loudness-like curve applied to the parallel compressed copy, which helped glue everything together and bring up the details. Also applied some mastering limiting, which better managed loudness and brought out some additional presence in the vocal.

It ended up sounding quite engaging, although I don't trust my EQ choices to translate elsewhere since I was doing this over uncalibrated headphones, and I noticed something odd happening EQ wise when exporting from Samplitude and playing the file back via VLC which I still need to chase down.

Nice essay again Lee


Post some samples after you get done fucking around, so that we might evaluate what you did.

[Gutbucket]

Nice essay again Lee


Post some samples after you get done fucking around, so that we might evaluate what you did.

Not sure if that's intended to be snarky or not, Kevin, but you're welcome.  In deference to Vantheman I won't post samples openly since his samples were not shared that way.  But as long as it's okay with him I can share the quick exploratory mix I did upon PM request.  Ideally would like to figure out what is causing the odd EQ change to the output file, but at least that anomaly should be able to be either compensated for or listened around by you guys.

[capnhook]

Nice essay again Lee


Post some samples after you get done fucking around, so that we might evaluate what you did.

Not sure if that's intended to be snarky or not, Kevin, but you're welcome.  In deference to Vantheman I won't post samples openly since his samples were not shared that way.  But as long as it's okay with him I can share the quick exploratory mix I did upon PM request.  Ideally would like to figure out what is causing the odd EQ change to the output file, but at least that anomaly should be able to be either compensated for or listened around by you guys.

Was not intending to be snarky Lee, I am serious.

Did not catch on to the part where vantheman wanted to keep these under wraps, please excuse me




I'll wait verrrrrrry patiently for ANY examples of your work that can be freely shared with this group


I am not learning anything about your theories without examples 

[vantheman]

If you guys want them, PM me or reply here and I'll send them to whoever asks.

Thanks.  I played around with it a bit over the weekend and figured I'd share my thoughts here with the group rather than privately via PM.  Hope that's cool. Happy to take this to PM if preferred.

Using the omni pair as a baseline, I ended up delaying the mono SBD a further 34ms and the X/Y CM4 pair by 2 to 3ms beyond the native alignment of the sample files.  Getting the alignment right was somewhat tricky as the optimal offset differs for audience clapping verses on-stage clapping and stomping, since the distance between those different source locations and the three different mic positions (sbd mics onstage, omnis over audience out in front of PA, CM4 cardioids closer to back of room) differs depending on which source position is more acoustically active.  But that's the alignment that ended up sounding best for me.

Level-wise I ended up using a touch more SBD than omnis, although not much, and a bit less from the CM4 pair, although less still from that pair would also work.  I did prefer using all three sources in combination once aligned and EQ'd.

I EQ'd each source separately first, and later applied additional EQ at the master bus.  Getting the low-end under control was a bit tricky. There is some low frequency noise that sounds like handling noise maybe from mic stands being moved around on stage or something, somewhat constant but most noticeable at the start.  One EQ challenge involved finding a good balance of reducing that without making the stomps and guitar sound overly anemic or wiping out the good low frequency ambience.

I also panned the CM4 pair somewhat toward center, which helped achieve a more even audience distribution and sense of dimension.  Panning it fully center (mono) didn't cause an audible problem, so I didn't worry about narrowing the panning of that pair somewhat.

After mixdown I applied some parallel compression, with a scooped, loudness-like curve applied to the parallel compressed copy, which helped glue everything together and bring up the details. Also applied some mastering limiting, which better managed loudness and brought out some additional presence in the vocal.

It ended up sounding quite engaging, although I don't trust my EQ choices to translate elsewhere since I was doing this over uncalibrated headphones, and I noticed something odd happening EQ wise when exporting from Samplitude and playing the file back via VLC which I still need to chase down.

Thank you so much for taking a look at that, and yes feel free to PM my originals and your edits to whomever wants them. We’re on similar pages with the levels, and the parallel compression on the mix bus. If the mic stand effect you heard was on the sbd track, not sure what that is, except the floors were miked so it could be anything. The CM4s were back by the sbd and there were 2 videographers recording video and much earlier in the show they were whispering to each other and the sound person must have waved them off or something.

I’m curious about the EQ and especially how you heard it differently between the 2 mic pairs. The sound person reeled off about 7 ranges where there was a natural bump - 100, 230, then I lost her after that. I’m still developing my ear for EQ so it needs to be a really obvious EQ defect for me to hear it. Also interesting to hear how you treated the sbd by delaying it. In my mind I had looked at that track as “zero” and the mics in the room would all be behind that. So for anyone else who might play with these, realize that my source files have the omnis “pre-delayed” by 8ms, and the CM4s by 24ms. But then again I’m still very much learning, and realize I’m probably better at identifying interesting opportunities to record than I am at the actual craft at this point. I’m ok with that.

If anyone else cares to play around PM me (or gutbucket). I’d be interested in hearing thoughts on the mix minus the CM4s. I appreciate you all.

[Gutbucket]

I just sent to vantheman via PM a link to the exploratory test mix I did over the weekend, with the following note..

The low frequency handling noise during lead in which may be from the mic'd floor settles down at some point. As mentioned the final EQ may be off on other playback systems as I was just doing this using uncorrected headphones and didn't check it elsewhere, so just EQ it as needed to get it sounding right to you.  After doing that listen for how the timing, mix levels and and relative EQing of each source works together in combination.  I think we are generally on the same page here.. the stuff you mention that the sound-person said about resonances at lower frequency points, the addition of the CM4 pair providing an extra sense of dimension of the audience reaction, all that..

PM me or vantheman for the links to his sources and my quick stereo mix.

[kuba e]

It should be interesting to hear what kind of mix made Goodcooker, Capnhook or Gutbucket  from Vantheman's recordings. But for me the most important thing is not what mix is the best. For me, the most important thing is to play around with it and try to hear what each change does in the mix. Then Gutbucket's tutorial for the mix makes good sense. We have here a slightly different motivations, but that's shouldn't be an obstacle.

[capnhook]

I'm out gents, until there are some publicly shareable files to work on, I'm not into your privates..

[vantheman]

Catching up a bit after just getting over covid. For reasons already stated I apologize that I can’t make any of the samples public, but given the interest over on facebook I tried to find a workable compromise via an anonymous sample. I realize that it makes for a difficult public conversation. I appreciate the input especially from Gutbucket who took time to look at the files. The insight caused me to go back and see what I missed the first time. Folding down the CM4s just enough is something I definitely would have missed but it was spot on.

The one other person who requested the samples has them, and they’ll continue to be available, if anyone wants to play around just PM me.