Topic: How split do split omnis need to be?

[lsd2525]

Getting ready to do a few outdoor shows over the next couple of weeks. First trip out for the new DR-60D, so I gots 4 channels to work with. Going to run my AT853's and a pair of omnis I picked up in the yard sale. Was going to run the 853's in a regular DIN/ORTF-ish config, and was thinking about trying to rig up something (yardstick, tent pole, whatever I can come up with) to mount on top of the stand to split the omni's at 3 feet or so. Is 3 feet enough to even matter when you're 50 feet back from the stage? What kind of distance do you need to even call something a "split omni"?. I guess I could run a 2nd stand to get more of a spread, but that would be ton of hassle. Just trying to figure out if this is a stupid idea to try out. Thanks, Dan

[Chuck]

I have experimented with omni spacing a lot and I use 24 - 28" for a pair of Audix Micro omni's I have. But, I have heard excellent recordings with much larger spacings too.

This is a recording I made that I really like the sound of: https://archive.org/details/furthur2012-09-22

That's with 24" spacing at Red Rocks.

[ts]

I have experimented with omni spacing a lot and I use 24 - 28" for a pair of Audix Micro omni's I have. But, I have heard excellent recordings with much larger spacings too.

This is a recording I made that I really like the sound of: https://archive.org/details/furthur2012-09-22

That's with 24" spacing at Red Rocks.

Chuck, what are using for a bar?

[Gutbucket]

From 50' back outdoors, I'd try to space a stero pair of omnis about 3' apart minimum.  If you plan to mix them with the AT853s, double that to 6' if you are able to.  Both wider and narrower will work as well, I just find those distances seem to be more or less optimal most of the time and present few potential problems.  If you have a single mic or stereo pair in the center, or alternately a SBD you will be matrixing in, you can space them significantly wider than a stereo pair of omnis alone, without worries.  It might work fine to go much wider than that with a stereo pair alone and sound great, but it's more of a gamble.

For an improptu, clamp-able 2nd rig setup at a festival, I used a shortened section of a discarded tent pole with a windtech clamp in the center to support miniature omnis (a couple sections of typical light-weight snap-together fiberglass or aluminum pole sections connected with the internal bungee).   Worked well for a sufficiently wide spread with miniature omnis while not being too heavy or overly visually intrusive.  I think it was about 4' overall.

[Chuck]

Chuck, what are using for a bar?

I made a DIY bar using rigid plumbing pipe aluminum tubing that works well. It's light and easy to set-up.

Edit to add:

I got the idea from this thread.

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=161914.msg2040793;topicseen#msg2040793

[chinariderstl]

I have experimented with omni spacing a lot and I use 24 - 28" for a pair of Audix Micro omni's I have. But, I have heard excellent recordings with much larger spacings too.

This is a recording I made that I really like the sound of: https://archive.org/details/furthur2012-09-22

That's with 24" spacing at Red Rocks.

That sounds good as hell!  Nice work!

[lsd2525]

Thanks for the info. Gutbucket, spacing the omnis at 3-4' at that distance, would you run the 853's ORTF, NOS, or X-Y? The omni's are Naiant X-X's; was planning on running them straight ahead or PAS.

[Gutbucket]

Assuming they'll be mixed with the omnis, I'd lean towards runing the cardioids X/Y in the center.  A coincident pattern in the  center cuts down on phase interaction complexities which may or may not sound good when mixing a near-spaced pair with the omnis.  It allows you to adjust the width of the central image cardioids by panning that pair however it sounds best without any comb-filtering between that pair itself, even if they are both panned fully center (mono) letting the omnis do the stereo work.  Without the omnis I usually prefer a typical near-spaced configuration for a cardioid stereo pair.  However, the phase interactions between four seperate physical microphone positions mixed down to two channels over that of three microphone positions mixed down to two channels is significantly more complex as mentioned earlier in the thread Chuck linked. 

The spaced omnis produce plenty of phase difference information which completely counters the tendancy of a coincident X/Y center pair to sound sort of narrow and without spatial dimension when listened to on it's own.

[lsd2525]

For argument's sake, what would happen if I put both cards together (side by side or one on top of each other) and pointed them dead center? Would I get like 2 channels of mono? (or, "stereo" mono?)

[Fried Chicken Boy]

I know the OP is asking about split omnis, but what about using a jecklin disk?  Better results with split omnis?  Are there better circumstances than others to use one (outdoors vs. indoors, etc.)? 

[lsd2525]

If they are split, don't think a Jecklin disk would do much. Think they just act as your noggin if you're going for binaural. That's the way I understand it anyways.......I once used a foam rubber coozie trying to emulate one lol.

[Gutbucket]

I'll mention a few things about baffled omnis next, first to answer the previous question-

For argument's sake, what would happen if I put both cards together (side by side or one on top of each other) and pointed them dead center? Would I get like 2 channels of mono? (or, "stereo" mono?)

To the extent that the two microphones are truly identical, mounted as close to coincident as possible and pointed in the same direction, you'll end up with two channels of identical information.  Call that mono or dual mono or whatever.  The only practical difference between doing that and recording a single channel with one microphone, then duplicating that to get two channels will be the slight real world response differences between the two microphones, the evitable but minor differences due to imperfect coincidence mounting and any differences in the two signal paths (a gain match being the most obvious).  But none of that stuff is likely to be significant enough to make much of an audible difference in regards to what we're talking about here.

If you mix those two identically pointed X/Y cardioids together at equal signal levels, the resulting polar pattern response will resemble a single forward facing cardioid with the same pattern shape as the two individual microphones, and the resulting signal level will be about 3dB higher than the two individual channels.

If you were to point those X/Y cardioids 180 degrees apart so they are facing in opposite directions and either mix them together to a single channel or pan them both to center (which is essentially the same thing), you end up with an omnidirectional polar pattern response. 

If you arrange them in a more typical X/Y angle and either mix them together to a single channel or pan them both to center, the combined response of the two will be a forward facing semi-cardioid. The degree to which it is either more cardioid-like or more omni-like is determined by the angle between microphones.

[Gutbucket]

So the overall combined sensitivity pattern of a pair of X/Y cardioids is always more or less semi-cardioid in shape, specifically to an extent determined by the angle between the two microphones. 

If you place that X/Y pair of cardioids in the center between spaced omnis, and pan both channels of the X/Y pair to center, the practical result is the same as if you had used only three microphones and placed a single semi-cardioid pattern microphone facing directly forward between the two omnis. 

If you pan the X/Y pair outwards away from center, the shape of the overall combined sensitivity pattern of the X/Y pair won’t change, but level differences between the Left and Right channels are introduced.  Because the two X/Y pair microphones are mounted in the same physical location in space, there is no phase difference between them, so the phase relationship doesn’t change regardless of how they are panned. That’s not the case for a near-spaced pair.

Because the phase relationship between the two X/Y channels never changes, regardless of their panning, the phase relationship between the X/Y pair and the omnis doesn’t change either.  It only changes if you physically change the spacing between the microphones.. or if you pan the omnis in towards center but don’t do that.  Just leave them routed hard-left and hard-right.  The X/Y pair will fill-out the center nicely.

If you use a near-coincident pattern in the center instead of X/Y, the phase relationships are considerably more complicated even if you don’t try to pan anything around and simply mix the left cardioid directly with the left omni and the right cardioid with the right omni, both hard-panned left and right.  If you want to adjust the panning of either the central near-spaced cardioid pair or the omnis (not sure why you’d want to pan the omnis), then you’ll introduce comb filtering artifacts similar to what you get when attempting to mix a near-spaced pair down to mono. 

The mono-compatibility of X/Y (or any other coincident configuration) is what makes it a very good choice to use between spaced omnis, not because the end result we want is a  mono compatible mix (it won’t be, because of the spaced omnis), but because the same problems encountered when mixing stereo microphone configurations down to mono are encountered in a multi-channel scenario when mixing more than two physical microphone locations down to two-channels.

With three microphone locations it’s manageable and not that problematic mixing to two channel stereo; with four locations the phase relationships become quite complicated.  In addition to being more potentially problematic to begin with, that limits the degree of freedom you have when mixing it.

[lsd2525]

Sounds like my best bet is going to be trying the X-Y. Hopefully, it that ends up sounding like ass I'll have the omni source to fall back on. Now I just got to figure out some way to mount the AT853's X-Y. Never tried that. Guess I need to figure out some home brew solution. Last question: If it were you, would you X-Y the cards or just use 1 and point it straight at the center and do a 3-track recording? And is this something I can mix down in Audacity?

[Gutbucket]

I suggest trying X/Y in the middle first if you can rig that.   If that's a PITA you can always try just the single forward facing cardioid in the center. But you'll have that extra channel so you may as well use it, and X/Y is pretty much as non-problematic mixing-wise as the single forward facing cardioid (although you could use that 4th channel for a SBD feed).

If it were me, I'd point one cardioid directly forwards and the other one backwards, spaced about 20" front/back between 6' spaced omnis.  But that's another step along the path away from trusted taper setups, through the looking-glass down into the rabbit hole. 

If the X/Y setup or single cardioid works well for you, I'll point you to a few threads explaining why you might want a backwards facing cardioid.

I've been considering adding a coincident figure-8 to the single center facing cardioid of my surround recording setup based upon this same technique, to form a Mid/Side coincident pair in the center providing similar center width adjustment as a pair of coincident X/Y cardioids.  Depending on what you are recording and the situation, the X/Y pair may be more useful to you than the rear facing cardioid.

[Gutbucket]

A baffle (such as a Jecklin disk) is one way of making an omni-microphone behave less omnidirectionally.  The polar behavior of a baffled omni pair is more complicated than either non-baffled omnis or directional microphones.  A baffle can be used as a way to reduce the spacing which would otherwise be needed between two omnis used as a stereo pair. If you use a baffle, you won't want as much spacing between omnis as you would without a baffle.

For physical geometry reasons the omni microphone needs to be relatively close to the baffle for the baffle to be effective in changing the pattern of the omni, unless the baffle is very large (google ISO-mic for a gargantuan example). Think of it as providing a shadowing effect at high frequencies.  The physical size of the baffle also determines how low in frequency the directionality is effective.  Low frequency sound with wavelengths similar to the dimensions of the baffle just wrap around it and aren't "shadowed" like higher frequency sounds.

One way of using smaller baffles with wider microphone spacings could be to two separate baffles, each one relatively close to its own microphone.  Not so practical on a microphone stand though.

[lsd2525]

I suggest trying X/Y in the middle first if you can rig that.   If that's a PITA you can always try just the single forward facing cardioid in the center. But you'll have that extra channel so you may as well use it, and X/Y is pretty much as non-problematic mixing-wise as the single forward facing cardioid (although you could use that 4th channel for a SBD feed).

If it were me, I'd point one cardioid directly forwards and the other one backwards, spaced about 20" front/back between 6' spaced omnis.  But that's another step along the path away from trusted taper setups, through the looking-glass down into the rabbit hole. 

If the X/Y setup or single cardioid works well for you, I'll point you to a few threads explaining why you might want a backwards facing cardioid.

I've been considering adding a coincident figure-8 to the single center facing cardioid of my surround recording setup based upon this same technique, to form a Mid/Side coincident pair in the center providing similar center width adjustment as a pair of coincident X/Y cardioids.  Depending on what you are recording and the situation, the X/Y pair may be more useful to you than the rear facing cardioid.

If I could get a board of who I'll be taping I take that and the omni's and leave the cards at home

[voltronic]

For physical geometry reasons the omni microphone needs to be relatively close to the baffle for the baffle to be effective in changing the pattern of the omni, unless the baffle is very large (google ISO-mic for a gargantuan example). Think of it as providing a shadowing effect at high frequencies.  The physical size of the baffle also determines how low in frequency the directionality is effective.  Low frequency sound with wavelengths similar to the dimensions of the baffle just wrap around it and aren't "shadowed" like higher frequency sounds.

This makes perfect sense.  What doesn't make sense (to me) is Jecklin's revised OSS specs of a 36cm disc with mic spacing of 35cm.  I'm sure Jurg Jecklin knows a hell of a lot more than I do, but it would seem to me that at that spacing the baffle is going to be far less effective, unless you make it enormous like the Kimber Iso-Mike you referenced.  I really wonder if the revised Jecklin would sound that much different than spaced omnis, unless you're very close to the source.  http://www.sengpielaudio.com/JecklinDisk.pdf 

[lsd2525]

I suggest trying X/Y in the middle first if you can rig that.   If that's a PITA you can always try just the single forward facing cardioid in the center. But you'll have that extra channel so you may as well use it, and X/Y is pretty much as non-problematic mixing-wise as the single forward facing cardioid (although you could use that 4th channel for a SBD feed).

If it were me, I'd point one cardioid directly forwards and the other one backwards, spaced about 20" front/back between 6' spaced omnis.  But that's another step along the path away from trusted taper setups, through the looking-glass down into the rabbit hole. 

If the X/Y setup or single cardioid works well for you, I'll point you to a few threads explaining why you might want a backwards facing cardioid.

I've been considering adding a coincident figure-8 to the single center facing cardioid of my surround recording setup based upon this same technique, to form a Mid/Side coincident pair in the center providing similar center width adjustment as a pair of coincident X/Y cardioids.  Depending on what you are recording and the situation, the X/Y pair may be more useful to you than the rear facing cardioid.

So if I used a front and rear facing cardorid, I would want to pan both to center, correct?

[chk]

experiment! while the conventional wisdom is that omni's have to be split by at least a foot or two (and generally for good reason), the "Healy" or "critically spaced omni" technique can yield pretty nice results.  Basically aim the caps outward from each other 180 degrees, spaced approx 7" apart.   Here's a recording I just made using this tactic onstage, and i was reasonably pleased.  https://archive.org/details/nm2014-06-12.flac16.onstageCA11Omni

[Gutbucket]

If I could get a board of who I'll be taping I take that and the omni's and leave the cards at home

That combination works really well.
Upfront clarity and presence and detail filling the center of the image from the SBD.
Open, enveloping stereo immersion and ambience out to either side from the omnis.

So if I used a front and rear facing cardorid, I would want to pan both to center, correct?

Balance the front three channels first, that’s +90% of everything. Start with the omnis, balance them and eq if necessary.  Then bring up the level of the forward facing cardioid until you find a good blend of all three.  You can do some eq on the forward cardioid too if necessary.  Don't worry about the bottom end of the cardioids, the omnis will take care of that completely, what is important in the cardioids is clarity.  Play around with the level of the center forward facing cardioid in the mix.  Sometimes a similar level to the omnis works best, sometimes less, sometimes more.  You will hear it will "click" into place sonically when the balance is right.  Sometimes it works with the center mic at a few significantly different levels it's just a matter of choosing which is best. 

Once the front three channels are balanced, you can season things by bring in a touch of the rear facing microphone.  In a stereo mix it provides some natural openness, ambience and crowd reaction.  Often just enough level to make things sound natural, barely noticeable except in its absence.  For a stereo mix I may automate the level to bring it up higher between songs when the crowd reaction and excitement is strong.  Simplest is just to pan it center, but some pseudo-stereo techniques can spread it out (ideally it is decorellated in the left and right channels so it spreads out to both sides and is not centered in the mix).

In a surround mix the rear facing cardioid forms the surround channel and can be used at a higher level without conflicting with the front.  It’s duplicated and routed to each of the surround speakers (and optionally decorellated between each surround speaker channel like using it with the 2-channel mix, though that is less important).


But I suggest the X/Y cardioid center to start.  Bring the X/Y up after the omnis are balanced, with both cardioids panned to the center (or collapsed to mono using a stereo width panning control, which is the same thing), adjust their level as mentioned above, then play with increased center width by panning each outwards to left and right (or by increasing the stereo width on the panning control, same thing) until you get a nice even image a blend across the playback stage between speakers.

[Gutbucket]

What doesn't make sense (to me) is Jecklin's revised OSS specs of a 36cm disc with mic spacing of 35cm.

There was alot of Jecklin talk around here  6 or 8 years ago.  Everyone was building their own baffles of various configurations.  I always liked more spacing than the original Jecklin specification because that produced more significant stereo information at lower frequencies and just sounded better to me.  The revised specs seem more in-line with my preference at least.  I build a very large oval one but never worked up the cajones to fly it.  Plenty of photos and threads here at TS if you do a search.

I found the Jecklin-disk thing worked best for me up close, like stage-lip or onstage.  Works great in the center of a circle of musicians jamming.

"Healy" or "critically spaced omni" technique

Sort of like Jeklin without the disk.  I think Healy just didn't have a disk.     I've heard he did that for adding on-stage sound to the IEM mix so the band members could commuinicate with each other when the dead first stated using IEMS.  Sort of a quasi-binarual thing without the headbaffle.  Larger diameter diaphram omnis probably work best for that since they get a bit directional at high frequencies and I think that's what he used.

Yes! Experiment.  It's the only way to really figure it all out.

[Ultfris101]

Motivated by Gutbucket's comments in threads like this and some discussion via PM I'm starting to play around with split omni/hypercardiod center combinations when I'm recording outside and like it a lot. For one it's a simple configuration to setup, especially the directly forward and backward facing cards. No angles to measure!!! I also like the way it looks. I should post something in Rig Pics.

I realized during my first attempt that it would have been nice to have a stereo pair that I understand to compare to the omni/hyper mix but that's another two channels, batteries, etc to fuss with. An X/Y pair is an interesting idea for the center to provide both.

This is a timely thread as I'm starting the planning for my next festival outing in mid July.

For a bar I too did exactly what Chuck did based on the same thread: http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=161914.0

Very easy. The fiberglass poles are a good idea if you have mini mics like 853's or 4061's or something which I do but I also wanted to use Schoeps and AKGs so the aluminum made sense. Also, you can slide rapid adapters over the aluminum and get easily adjustable width if you need it for something. I did that so I could pull my mics in under an umbrella if necessary since it was threatening rain.

[Gutbucket]

I realized during my first attempt that it would have been nice to have a stereo pair that I understand to compare to the omni/hyper mix..

Yep, I find the only way I can make reliable decisions on new setups is through comparison.  Please let me know how this stuff works out for you.

[T-90]

Gutbucket has never split any omnis, don't let him fool ya 

[voltronic]

What doesn't make sense (to me) is Jecklin's revised OSS specs of a 36cm disc with mic spacing of 35cm.

There was alot of Jecklin talk around here  6 or 8 years ago.  Everyone was building their own baffles of various configurations.  I always liked more spacing than the original Jecklin specification because that produced more significant stereo information at lower frequencies and just sounded better to me.  The revised specs seem more in-line with my preference at least.  I build a very large oval one but never worked up the cajones to fly it.  Plenty of photos and threads here at TS if you do a search.

I found the Jecklin-disk thing worked best for me up close, like stage-lip or onstage.  Works great in the center of a circle of musicians jamming

So for distant, you only do spaced?  I was going to start using a baffle to make things more compact / less obtrusive but have had great results with wide (probably way too wide) spaced pairs in the past.

[Gutbucket]

I found the Jecklin-disk thing worked best for me up close, like stage-lip or onstage.  Works great in the center of a circle of musicians jamming.

So for distant, you only do spaced?  I was going to start using a baffle to make things more compact / less obtrusive but have had great results with wide (probably way too wide) spaced pairs in the past.

Pretty much.  From farther away more spacing on the omnis works well, as long as you can rig it practically and block it, without blocking the sightlines of everyone behind you.  It's only too wide if the middle gets weak and wishy-washy, but the single microphone or pair in the center takes care of that.  An omni works in the middle too, but a directional sort of zooms in on the forward facing direction, seemingly decreasing the apparent sonic distance.     

A Jecklin is pretty big and obvious up there, especially from slightly off to the side.  Easier to get away with on stage than up on a stand in my experience, but of course it depends on how bulky the A-B omni spacing setup is.  Jecklin also sort of eats highs, requiring a healthy eq correction at a distance to balance that.  Its more mono-ish bass quality doesn't work for me from farther back, its quite different sounding than wide omnis.       

[Gutbucket]

Gutbucket has never split any omnis, don't let him fool ya 

T-90 has never left idle message bomb surprises on recordings during set breaks. 

T's one of the few who was there the first time I stuck a pole in the air at an outdoor amphitheater, changing spacings and scribbling notes between sets (3' was best ) with two 4060s on a telescoping TV antenna gaff taped to a painter pole stuck into the back of my chair.  And also one of the few I know who has taken up the miniature omnis on a TV antenna idea.  Smells like validation.

[lsd2525]

My dream of having the most ghetto rig at the show is about to become a reality.......

[hoppedup]

My dream of having the most ghetto rig at the show is about to become a reality.......

Only because I am now out of the ghetto rig game. I was the king.

FWIW I've run omnis at 12" apart at many shows either on-stage or directly in front of an acoustic duo, trio  or full band. Outdoors at greater distances from the stage I run a 3' split. I've been pleased with the results in both cases.

ETA: The first time I ran mics, I ran CA-14 loaner omnis on a 3' split on a homemade bar attached to a painter's pole. I cut the end off of a paint roller handle to use as a nut to secure the bar to the top of the paint pole. Then I just duct taped the pole to my camp chair and had my nephew sit in it to weigh it down.

[lsd2525]

I might make a trip to Home Depot at lunch today looking for some parts to pretty this up a bit. Going to see Alejandro Escovedo tomorrow night and then leaving early Friday to go to Black Mountain for Hornsby, so if it ain't ready by tonight, it ain't ready lol. I just MacGyver'ed my ass off last night just to make sure I'd have something functional. 70" split for the omnis, X-Y on the 853s. Hoping to pull some heat.......Tent poles, pipe insulation, velcro......check. I'm just hoping that big-ass Shure stand is as wookie-proof as I think it is.........Oh yeah, got that 50,000 mha charger Monday, got it fully charged up. Will be interesting to see how good that thing works. You run your DR-60 plugged into the 1 amp or 2 amp USB port?

[hoppedup]

I've been using the 1 amp with no issues.

[lsd2525]

Cool. Build quality on my box seems nice; just hoping it actually is a 50000 unit. If it is, should power the 60 till Chrismas lol. Got those omnis from Doodie this weekend. Hope to see him tomorrow for Alejandro. FWIW, if any of you ever need couch space for a Charlotte show, let me know......

[Gutbucket]

I should to add a public service announcement as a reminder for everyone building elaborate super-cool erector-set contraptions to support wide spacings off a central stand-

When designing an implementing these setups, always aim to keep the profile of the rig as stealthy as possible.  When running them, set up in a location which won't block the view of everyone behind you.  Sometimes two stands, or clamping a microphone to another taper's stand is a better option than hoisting the equivalent of a highway bridge I-beam.

I'm editing technical instruction manuals today with lots of similar warnings and notes, and that mindset is spilling over here I suppose.  I did smile to myself this morning when adding explanatory instructions for "deadheading" a hydraulic system to purge trapped air. 

[Len Moskowitz (Core Sound)]

...to split the omni's at 3 feet or so. Is 3 feet enough to even matter when you're 50 feet back from the stage? What kind of distance do you need to even call something a "split omni"?.

Since both omnis are going to pick up essentially the same sounds, the spacing is primarily going to affect the phase effects you hear in the playback. Spaced omnis can sound spacious due to the phase effects, but there'll be no real imaging.

I suggest that you consider mounting the two omnis on a Jecklin or Schneider Disk. The disk will preserve all the good features that omnis offer (extended and flat frequency response, resistance to wind and handling noise, off-axis pattern consistency) and also add good imaging cues.

Please see our Web site for more details about the two disks.

[ts]

Did anyone ever not space omnis at a distant and technically speaking what would the result be? My widest bar is only 12 inches. If I just pointed the caps straight out with no angle what would I get?

[Chuck]

Here's a recording I made with 8" A/B spaced omnis: http://www.timebetweenthenotes.com/audio.html#hwc2012-08-04

[Gutbucket]

Sorry Len, but I simply disagree on several counts.

First off, spaced omnis have a long history of making outstanding recordings both around here and in the professional classical world.  That record speaks for itself.  I needn't defend the technique.

Level based imaging isn't the only 'real' imaging.  It is different, more pin-point with less depth, and mix-pan like. Time of arrival imaging is more diffuse, but arguably far more 'real' in terms of the live music experience.  At a distance, pin-point imaging of a distant near-mono mixed PA is pretty much pointless.  And with the addition of the coincident pair in the center like we've been discussing recently in the thread, we get both types anyway.

Spaced omnis often provide valuable level difference information.  When used on stage close to the sound sources, significant level differences from to proximity of sources to one microphone or the other are produced.  One of the technique's advantages on-stage is that the 'sampling points' are spread out in space, and the recording is less likely to highlight whatever source happens to be closest to a near-spaced microphone pair (which can only be placed in one spot).  That's a different situation than from farther back in the audience outdoors, but even then there are important level differences.  In that situation with a wide spread of 6' (or more), I've found that very nearby audience noise sources will have a larger level difference between channels and a higher degree of decorellation than they do with near-spaced configurations.  On playback, the audience reaction and (hopefully minimal) distracted conversations tend to image diffusely off to one side or the other, rather than in the same position towards the center of the playback stage as the primary music sources.  I find that makes the audience noise much less distracting in the resulting recording even if it isn't lower in level.  It competes less with the music because of the way it images differently.

I've alreay stated why I don't think near-spaced baffled omnis are an optimal choice for recording outdoor performances at a big distance.  Of course it can be done, it's just not optimal.  I can garantee that near-spaced baffled omnis will also produce zero level difference from a distant stage source or PA anyway.  The level diffences the baffle introduces will only be produced for sources that lie outside the central region where both mics can 'see' the source without one or the other being blocked by the baffle.  Just looking at the physical geometry of the mics placed on either side of the baffle makes it pretty obvious that isn't going to happen from 50' away and level differences will only occur for resonably wide recording angles appropriate when the recording position is pretty close.  Perhaps the biggest sonic drawback in trying to use it at a distance is that the techique provides very little low frequency differentiation, which is something we can use to our advantage from farther back and can only be accomplished with large spacings.

I don't consider Jecklin or Scheider baffled omnis as split omnis configurations, but rather as near-spaced omni configurations.  They can make exellent recordings in appropriate situations, but recording from far back isn't one of them IME.

[Gutbucket]

Did anyone ever not space omnis at a distant and technically speaking what would the result be? My widest bar is only 12 inches. If I just pointed the caps straight out with no angle what would I get?

It may sound great (or it may not  ). People do that all the time because it's what they can manage with what they have. It may be nice and natural sounding due to the positive omni attributes Len mentioned (extended and flat frequency response, resistance to wind and handling noise, off-axis pattern consistency). If you point them directly outwards instead of ahead you basically have the Healy technique which leverages a small bit of level difference at the highest frequencies from the inherent directionality of most real-world omnis.  It probably won't sound very spacious with wide imaging that fills the audio playback scene though.

In technical terms, you’ll get a recording that is more or less monophonic for the lower half of the audible frequency spectrum, with acoustic comb-filtering effects coming into play above that range. 

Adjusting the distance of the spacing re-tunes the comb-filter interaction and you'll hear that response difference as a sort of eq boost/cut sweep at higher frequencies if you were to listen as the narrow spacing distance is being changed.  The greater the spacing, the lower in frequency that comb-filtering begins to takes place and at the highest frequencies it becomes so complex that it is no longer heard as a sort of eq boost/cut but as random diffuse phase differences (the spaced omni 'air' and 'openness').  The acoustic comb-filtering is not 'bad' in itself, it is part of 'the sound' of near-spaced microphones and how they work.  This type of acoustic comb filtering is far more complex than the electrical comb-filtering of two mixed signals and varies with the angle of arrival of the sounds to the microphone pair.

For sounds arriving from far enough off-axis to have the right amount of phase difference between them to comb at high frequencies, a baffle creates enough level difference to limit the combing and some of it’s effects.  Sounds arriving on the medial plane (directly in front, above, behind) don't comb with or without a baffle because the arrival times (and phase) of the signals are identical at the two microphones.  The lack of random phase interaction at the highest frequencies for sources off the medial plane is probably what reduces the perception of ‘air’ up top in a J-disk recordings and why they’ll often benefit from more high frequency eq boost than spaced omni recording made from the same location.

I recommend anyone who wants to really get a feeling for what this sounds like to put on some well isolating headphones or IEMs and listen while changing the microphone spacing.  Even if that means just holding one omni in your hand up next to one mounted on the stand and listening while you move them together and farther apart (during sound check, while the opening band plays, listening to the FOH music or whatever).  You'll quickly get a much more valuable seat of the pants feel (errr, lobe of the ear understanding?) for this stuff which you won't get from us talking abstractly about it here for days on end.. although I'll probably do that anyway.

[voltronic]

I was digging through some old recordings last night, and found what I think is a nice example of a wide-spaced omni recording I did several years back.  Please keep in mind that this is before I found this forum, which means it was before I really knew what I was doing.   It's a middle-school concert band occupying the full width of about a 30'-40' stage.  Mics were set in the first row of house seats, about 20' or so from the stage, and on stands about 10' up.  They were spaced all the way to the extreme left and right of the center seating area for visual purposes, making them way too wide by normal standards - I think at least 25' apart.  I still think it sounds pretty great though.  Please also excuse the obvious limiter squashing in a couple places.  I would like to point out though that mics used (Naiant X-Q omnis) only cost me about $65 for the pair at the time, but I think they hold up against some far more expensive choices.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/khd7fbct9d5ogqh/AAAwddYHrQT1rRLD33-DGRyca

Regarding the level-difference discussion, tools and graphs like the one linked below show NO level-difference information for omnis of any spacing, just time-arrival information.  Click on AB60, AB90, AB120 and you'll see what I mean.  In practice, I have to agree with Gutbucket that this doesn't tell the whole story, especially when you are dealing with musicians located in different places.
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/SRAflash.swf

[Gutbucket]

Here's the practical take away of the technial stuff I posted above-

When the omni spacing is relativley narrow, slight differences in spacing distance have relatively large sonic effects upon the mid and upper frequency range.  The "critically-spaced omni" Oade Dead AUD's from the 80's sound great for a number of reasons but the key phrase, "critically-spaced" isn't meaningless but.. largely critical to the result.

When the omni spacing is wider, like around 2-4' the obvious sonic effects of adusting spacing tend to manifest in the lower-mid and bass range.

There is other stuff going on too but those timbral effects are the most obvious things I hear when adjusting omni spacing while listening.

[Gutbucket]

Regarding the level-difference discussion, tools and graphs like the one linked below show NO level-difference information for omnis of any spacing, just time-arrival information.  Click on AB60, AB90, AB120 and you'll see what I mean.  In practice, I have to agree with Gutbucket that this doesn't tell the whole story, especially when you are dealing with musicians located in different places.
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/SRAflash.swf

Level differences only come into play for sources significantly closer to one microphone than the other, such as when used on-stage close to the sources, or for the audience immediately adjacent to the microphones from a distance.  Sengiel's visualization applet doesn't model those situations.

The microphones in your example were outside of the 'critical-distance' from the concert band in the hall, which means the largest portion of sound being picked up is indirect room sound rather than direct from each source.  So even the musicians well off to one side or the other will produce similar levels at each microphone.

However, getting back to the imaging thing, there is probably a lot more going on imaging wise in that recording than just "phase effects".  Even though the levels are the same, the microphone on one side will record different sounding versions of the instuments close and more distant to it than the microphone on the other side- primarily differences in timbre and reverberant depth which contribute strongly to a sense of imaging in the sonic scene on playback.

[jefflester]

The Dead's '93 Cal Expo run was recorded FOB with MK2s spaced 7 to 8 feet apart. I always thought these were some pretty cool recordings:
https://archive.org/details/gd1993-05-25.schoeps.evans.florek.34849.sbeok.flac16
https://archive.org/details/gd1993-05-26.fob.schoeps.evans.GEMS.84031.flac16
https://archive.org/details/gd1993-05-27.fob.schoeps.gems.100800.flac16

[Gutbucket]

Just made time to listen to some of the sample links in the thread tonight. 

Chuck, those Audix Micro omnis sound nice, I haven't heard much from those before.  That 24"@RR Further recording is a really enjoyable AUD, nice job.  The 8" one you posted above is a good example of the same microphones sounding quite similar in many ways despite the very different recording scenario but with a much more monophonic presentation from the narrow spacing.  With that spacing, I think that one that would benefit from a baffle in the middle.  Great examples.

voltronic, quite enjoyable recording with that super-wide 25' spread too. I do hear a 'hole in the middle' which could be fixed either by placing the mics closer together, which I understand couldn't be done, or by leaving them where they were and putting a third one in the middle even if it couldn't be anywhere close to the same height, down beneath the audience line of sight. Personally the errors of over-wide usually bother me less when listening than those of over-narrow but I'm sure that's a subjective thing.

There are definite level differences happening between channels apparent by watching the level meters, or by muting one channel or the other during the same passage and hearing not only the difference in level for the instruments off to one side or the other, but also large difference in timbre and reverb, none of which have anything to do with 'phase effects' substituting for 'real imaging'.


lsd2525, way to rig it up man. That should do just fine. Please let me know how it goes!

[Chuck]

Just made time to listen to some of the sample links in the thread tonight. 

Chuck, those Audix Micro omnis sound nice, I haven't heard much from those before.  That 24"@RR Further recording is a really enjoyable AUD, nice job.  The 8" one you posted above is a good example of the same microphones sounding quite similar in many ways despite the very different recording scenario but with a much more monophonic presentation from the narrow spacing.  With that spacing, I think that one that would benefit from a baffle in the middle.  Great examples.

voltronic, quite enjoyable recording with that super-wide 25' spread too. I do hear a 'hole in the middle' which could be fixed either by placing the mics closer together, which I understand couldn't be done, or by leaving them where they were and putting a third one in the middle even if it couldn't be anywhere close to the same height, down beneath the audience line of sight. Personally the errors of over-wide usually bother me less when listening than those of over-narrow but I'm sure that's a subjective thing.

Thanks Gutbucket. Yeah, I'm happy with those omni's. The 8" spacing was the first recording i made with them. I ended up deciding that 26" is the best compromise between sound and reasonable set-up, as I can carry a lightweight separator that size. Any longer than that becomes somewhat unwieldy for me to implement.

[T-90]

Gutbucket has never split any omnis, don't let him fool ya 

T-90 has never left idle message bomb surprises on recordings during set breaks. 

T's one of the few who was there the first time I stuck a pole in the air at an outdoor amphitheater, changing spacings and scribbling notes between sets (3' was best ) with two 4060s on a telescoping TV antenna gaff taped to a painter pole stuck into the back of my chair. And also one of the few I know who has taken up the miniature omnis on a TV antenna idea.  Smells like validation.

2007 springfest - spirit of the suwanee music park.....this guy comes out of nowhere, opens his camp chair and attaches a painters pole, mounts these two little mics and in no time at all is up and running....then before i can even make my way over to check it out hes gone, like a thief in the night.....i was amazed at the compact and easy set up.....over the past 7 years i have been even more amazed by the imagination and engineering that the mind of lee has produced.

pics that contain images of 2 different configs from his initial test run......in retrospect i should have taken some better pics of the maiden voyage, but how was i to know? in pic 1 he is to the left, in pic 2 his rig is to the right

[T-90]

those 2 setups pale in comparison with his current festi rig, from springfest 2014

[Gutbucket]

Thanks for the documentory photos, T.  After 8 years at that fest it was time to join the tapers. 

That first picture shows a diy Jecklin-like baffle.  In an attempt to make it slightly less visually conspicuous without overly compromising the baffle properties, it's in the shape of an oval  You can see the telescopic TV antennas angling up on either side of it with the miniature omnis mounted on the ends, which illustrates how that arrangement made it very easy to experiment with various microphone spacing options with or without the baffle in the middle.  The second one is unbaffled omnis with a 3' spacing or so.  Those are straight 2-channel omni recordings.

The 6-channel setup from springfest 2014 earlier this year uses a 6' omni spacing with the front and back facing cardioids.  It also adds two supercardioids mounted about halfway out the TV antennas facing directly to the sides, forming a three channel Optimum Cardioid Triangle arrangement with the front cardioid.

[ts]

Here's the practical take away of the technial stuff I posted above-

When the omni spacing is relativley narrow, slight differences in spacing distance have relatively large sonic effects upon the mid and upper frequency range.  The "critically-spaced omni" Oade Dead AUD's from the 80's sound great for a number of reasons but the key phrase, "critically-spaced" isn't meaningless but.. largely critical to the result.

When the omni spacing is wider, like around 2-4' the obvious sonic effects of adusting spacing tend to manifest in the lower-mid and bass range.

There is other stuff going on too but those timbral effects are the most obvious things I hear when adjusting omni spacing while listening.

Thanks for the very detailed responses. I'm going to see if I can rig up at least a 3 foot spread. I'll be using full body mics, so I need something sturdy. Next trick will be rain protection for split mics. Two mini umbrellas?

[ScoobieKW]

Decided to check AB spacing of omni microphones with the Sengpiel Visualizer

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Visualization-Blumlein-E.htm

Change the type from blumlein to AB
Change the mic type to omni

Notice how the Stereo Recording Angle doesn't change until you get to 5. meters apart.

[lsd2525]

Thanks for the documentory photos, T.  After 8 years at that fest it was time to join the tapers. 

That first picture shows a diy Jecklin-like baffle.  In an attempt to make it slightly less visually conspicuous without overly compromising the baffle properties, it's in the shape of an oval  You can see the telescopic TV antennas angling up on either side of it with the miniature omnis mounted on the ends, which illustrates how that arrangement made it very easy to experiment with various microphone spacing options with or without the baffle in the middle.  The second one is unbaffled omnis with a 3' spacing or so.  Those are straight 2-channel omni recordings.

The 6-channel setup from springfest 2014 earlier this year uses a 6' omni spacing with the front and back facing cardioids.  It also adds two supercardioids mounted about halfway out the TV antennas facing directly to the sides, forming a three channel Optimum Cardioid Triangle arrangement with the front cardioid.

Out of curiosity, what kind of mini-omnis do you run? I'm still trying to track down some rabbit ears so I can do away with that tent-pole setup lol. My X-X omnis are about the size of a jelly bean:)

[T-90]

 I'm still trying to track down some rabbit ears so I can do away with that tent-pole setup lol.

i could only find them on ebay, not even walmart carries such basic antennas anymore

[Gutbucket]

Decided to check AB spacing of omni microphones with the Sengpiel Visualizer

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Visualization-Blumlein-E.htm

Change the type from blumlein to AB
Change the mic type to omni

Notice how the orchestra angle doesn't change until you get to 5. meters apart.

Interesting. I think you mean the Stereo Recording Angle.  The Orchestra Angle always remains at whatever angle you set it.

Looks like the SRA maxes out at 180 degrees total, equating to an omni spacing of about half a meter or 20".  Any spacing narrower than that shows the same 180 degree SRA.  All the other stuff other than the Stereo Zoom imaging still changes of course.  Subjectively that seems about right to me, 2' is about where I feel the spacing becomes sufficient and not over-narrow.

26" is the best compromise between sound and reasonable set-up, as I can carry a lightweight separator that size. Any longer than that becomes somewhat unwieldy for me to implement.

Sounds like a good practical compromise to me.  This stuff has to be reasonable to rig first and foremost.

[Gutbucket]

Out of curiosity, what kind of mini-omnis do you run? I'm still trying to track down some rabbit ears so I can do away with that tent-pole setup lol. My X-X omnis are about the size of a jelly bean:)

DPA 4060 or 4061. The Niaint omnis are probably very well suited and not that much larger or heavier.

I bought the antennas at RadioShack, which still had them last I looked about a year ago.  They are still used for OTA digital broadcast TV.  I couldn't find individual black finished ones instead of chrome except by buying the entire set-top thing with the base and UHF antenna loop and dismantaling them for the telescopic arials.  Those were about $15-$20.  If they are getting harder to source I should buy some extras.

Next trick will be rain protection for split mics. Two mini umbrellas?

That is a problem.  I worried about that with my new-bought matched 4060s.  With the telescoping antennas I can retract them and angle them up to narrow the spread down to were they are under the edges of a stand umbrella covering the center mics.  I had a funny image of minature cocktail garnish umbrellas popped up over them with the arms fully extended.  I experimented with protecting them with finger cots or unlubed condoms over the miniature windscreens, but rain drops hitting them was like little reverb-less firecrackers going off.  Recently in these outdoor rigs, I'm using a pair of less valuable 4061s (bought a cheap ebay batch of used ones, tested and found a close match of two of them) an now don't worry about those getting wet.  If they get rained on they'll keep working fine until the small windscreens eventually fully saturate. Dry them and they work fine again.  If that happens I rinse them with disilled water that night and dry them.  Fortunately it rarely rains long and hard enough with them setup out there for that to happen.  I either retract them under the umbrella or just break down when the major squalls hit.  It's a pretty strong testiment to the hardiness of the miniature DPAs, but I still wouldn't want to subject the more valuable 4060 pairs to that kind of treatment.

[ScoobieKW]

Decided to check AB spacing of omni microphones with the Sengpiel Visualizer

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Visualization-Blumlein-E.htm

Change the type from blumlein to AB
Change the mic type to omni

Notice how the orchestra angle doesn't change until you get to 5. meters apart.

Interesting. I think you mean the Stereo Recording Angle.  The Orchestra Angle always remains at whatever angle you set it.

Looks like the SRA maxes out at 180 degrees total, equating to an omni spacing of about half a meter or 20".  Any spacing narrower than that shows the same 180 degree SRA.  All the other stuff other than the Stereo Zoom imaging still changes of course.  Subjectively that seems about right to me, 2' is about where I feel the spacing becomes sufficient and not over-narrow.

26" is the best compromise between sound and reasonable set-up, as I can carry a lightweight separator that size. Any longer than that becomes somewhat unwieldy for me to implement.

Sounds like a good practical compromise to me.  This stuff has to be reasonable to rig first and foremost.

you are correct, SRA was my intended phrase. Will revise my post for clarity.

[aaronji]

A little off topic, maybe, but I have been doing a lot of spaced omni recordings lately using a two Super Clamp set-up with two 122B extension poles.  Usually from a balcony rail, where I can space the mics as far (or near) as I want.  At a moe. show a few months ago, for example, I had a nearly three meter spacing with no problems.  I generally go with about a meter, though, as it is easier to deal with the cables (and, like Gutbucket, I find that to be a good distance).  I have also clamped to a vertical rail in a wide V, which can easily get me a meter or more of spacing (a little trickier to get the mics in the same horizontal and vertical planes, but do-able).  I started doing this because it is hard to find sufficiently wide bars and those that are out there are either heavy, bulky, or pricey...

[Colin Liston]

the bad part of gutbucket's set up is that no matter where you are in the ampitheatre you are always under his microphones and if you start talking he gives you the death stare. Not that anyone ever gets the chance to listen to any of his recordings though....

[Len Moskowitz (Core Sound)]

First off, spaced omnis have a long history of making outstanding recordings both around here and in the professional classical world.  That record speaks for itself.  I needn't defend the technique.

You'll get no argument from me on that. If you like the results, that's all that matters.

When used on stage close to the sound sources, significant level differences from to proximity of sources to one microphone or the other are produced.

That's true. But at a distance you don't get level differences.

I've already stated why I don't think near-spaced baffled omnis are an optimal choice for recording outdoor performances at a big distance.

Again, we agree. I wouldn't use a baffled omni setup at a distance more than roughly twice the width of the sound source. Anything more than that and the location cues are not sharp.

[Gutbucket]

Thanks for the clarification, Len.

Colin, it's the loud conversational tapers who are preferentially targeted with the stare.

[lsd2525]

Bruce Hornsby 06/27/14

[Chuck]

If all goes well, I'll be making a split omnis recording of Umphrey's McGee this Saturday at Red Rocks.

[lsd2525]

Bruce Hornsby 06/27/14

Ashevillain's rig to the right

[Gutbucket]

Bruce Hornsby 06/27/14

Ashevillain's rig to the right

Get a chance to listen and play around with the recording enough to form an opinion on the techniqe yet?  From the photos it looks like a good opportunity to compare overall differences in presentation between the spaced omnis + center pair setup and Ashevillian's near-spaced pair recording.

[lsd2525]

Bruce Hornsby 06/27/14

Ashevillain's rig to the right

Get a chance to listen and play around with the recording enough to form an opinion on the techniqe yet?  From the photos it looks like a good opportunity to compare overall differences in presentation between the spaced omnis + center pair setup and Ashevillian's near-spaced pair recording.

Haven't had a chance to listen to either one of my sources (AT853's or omnis). But I did get to check on my FOB recording (pictured here with opener, ran way higher for Hornsby due to yakking "fans"). CK91 caps>homebrew 9v box>M10. Came out pretty good, just been able to listen to the M10 playback via earbuds. And of course, first 3 songs have the one random clapper that can't keep time for shit lol

[hoppedup]

Having seen your rig pics, I'm still the king of ghetto. You're gonna have to get ugly to beat me.

[hoppedup]

.......Oh yeah, got that 50,000 mha charger Monday, got it fully charged up. Will be interesting to see how good that thing works.

How did the battery do?

[lsd2525]

.......Oh yeah, got that 50,000 mha charger Monday, got it fully charged up. Will be interesting to see how good that thing works.

How did the battery do?

Fine so far, used it for Alejandro Escovedo and opener Thursday night w/o P48, and then Friday at Pisgah for Hornsby and opener with P48, and 3 of the 4 LED's are still working. Probably powered it 7 hours or so. I'm going to give it a real workout at USNWC Thursday and Friday.

I'm also trying to make a shock mount out of a 24 oz. PBR can. I can't be out-ghettoed lol

[lsd2525]

One thing that classes my rig up it the Crown Royal bag clamped to the pole that holds the power supplies for the 853's lol. I really need some female mini-xlr to male mini-xlr's so I can cut that out. Or better yet, a 9 volt battery box, and then I could actually use the 4.7 mod cable I have

[Hypnocracy]

I tried the WIDE (12ft) omni spread with a Card in Center...not bad...the only comment is Bass is (almost) to the point of needing a EQ....and I never EQ

https://archive.org/details/bdl2014-06-28.Avenson_Gefell

[Ultfris101]

I tried the WIDE (12ft) omni spread with a Card in Center...not bad...the only comment is Bass is (almost) to the point of needing a EQ....and I never EQ

https://archive.org/details/bdl2014-06-28.Avenson_Gefell

Listening now Actually listening to the TAUK set you just uploaded and it sounds pretty good to me through my DT-880s. But I also take that as a key to run hpf since these phones are very flat and most other systems have a bit of bass boost. Anyway, I like it and this is getting me in the mood for my festival trip next weekend these guys are playing. Planning to run some standard cardioid pairs and a four channel split omni/front back hyper setup.

How high were your mics?

[Hypnocracy]

This was a smaller festival the and PA was stacked up on stage...the two omni stands were at 7 1/2 feet for this run...the center Card got in the way of the lighting personnel (he is the one you hear talking on the left channel btw  ) so it was a foot or so higher because my buddy was running a standard 3ft split omni bar no center channel on his rig

[Chuck]

Mic tree for Umphrey's McGee at Red Rocks 07-05-2014 w/my split (26.5") Audix micro omnis.

Recordings here:

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=168890.0

[lsd2525]

Mic tree for Umphrey's McGee at Red Rocks 07-05-2014 w/my split (26.5") Audix micro omnis.

Recordings here:

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=168890.0

Nice!

[Gutbucket]

Nice recordings, guys.

I just dug up a close-up showing adjustment of the omni spacing on either side of that baffle back in the spring of '07.  The same painter pole was used as a stand with or without the baffle between the microphones, the baffle attached to the pole by sliding a square wooden peg into the square hole through the painter pole's plastic handle on top.  The pink things holding the mics are pencil erasers slotted to hold the mic cables, which was M0k3's 4060 mounting technique idea.

[Chuck]

I just recorded a band at noon today where I should have chosen to run omni's instead of a second pair of cardioids because of the wind. I get into a pattern of always running omnis and liking my cardioid source better and not using the omni recording. So, this morning while I was packing up, I thought I'd leave the omnis at home. Bad move. It was way windier than I anticipated.

[johnnyrockstar]

trying out a new setup for some serious split on my CA14 omnis.   using a telescopic antenna - its really compact and i can extend to 42" wide.   probably will run around 36".....

[Gutbucket]

Nice.

If you set things up at the venue by attaching the microphones to the antenna before attaching the antenna to the stand, then after attaching the mics you can simply spin the antenna around it's own axis to wrap and un-wrap the mic cable around the ariels as shown in your photo.  I started out using the TV antennas that way.

Alternately, you can pre-attach the mics to the antenna, extending the ariels as wide as you plan to use them, and instead of wraping the cables, pull each wire straight and snug and place a small wrap of a gaff tape (like a 1/4" wide strip) just inboard of the end of each telescopic section.  That works well for keeping it pre-rigged, yet easily collapsable for stowage and transport.  When retracted, the cable will form loose loops at each telescoping section.  Extended, the cable will be straight and snug.  I do it so the cable is in the horizontal plane of the antenna, rather than suspended underneath it, which minimizes the visual profile.  From in front or behind, one cannot really see the cable at all.  It's only really visible in profile from underneath looking up.

[TSNéa]

The pink things holding the mics are pencil erasers slotted to hold the mic cables, which was M0k3's 4060 mounting technique idea.

Thanks, Gutbucket and M0k3 for the idea! I was just wondering how to mount this kind of mic on an antenna without tie-clip, clamp, etc. Now I need to get two of those pre-backspace key era accessories. And a prehistoric antenna...  I'm old enough to remember though!

[Gutbucket]

Meh, they never worked that well for me.   Can't just cut a slot with a razor and have it retain the cable and microphone securely.  Maybe if you made an effort to drill a hole the diameter of the cable then make a razor slot to the hole.  I just use gaffer tape.

[TSNéa]

Thanks for the tip, Gutbucket.

I never thought I will ever search the Internet for different shapes of erasers...