Topic: Best mic specs for recording distant PA?

[lyle]

Some say a boost in the high frequency range is better for recording at a distance. Any comments? I believe recording in a studio would ideally warrant a very flat frequency but maybe not for most of my live concert recording from a PA. I'd appreciate any knowledge here. How about mics (frequency) that helps control boomy bass as often encountered. Thanks,

Lyle
drlylelove@aol.com

[Craig T]

Looking at it from the "other end", on playback there's nothing worse to my ears than a bright or harsh sounding recording.  You can definitely use a mic with some HF presence/boost to overcome the HF loss that occurs to differing degrees depending on the PA, room, and distance.  Its just very tricky to use the mics frequency curve to try to overcome room acoustics.  You may get a perfect HF adjustment in one room, but take that same mic to another venue with a different mix and PA and that HF boost might be too much.  If you use a flat mic, you'll get some recordings that sound a bit dull or lifeless due to the HF loss, but sometimes when the PA/room sound good, or even when the mix is on the bright side to begin with, the mics won't overexaggerate the HF.  That said, most of the mics I've owned have a bit of HF presence boost, and I've made plenty of recordings I've enjoyed, even from a distance (I prefer to record from the sweet spot), but I've put together a playback system that is definitely on the warm side and I find a tube preamp does wonders to "soften" bright recordings.

Bottom line, no mic is "perfect" for all situations.  It comes down to personal preference.

Oh, and boomy bass can be helped by using a high quailty mic preamp.  Another option is to use a high-pass filter, -6db/octave at 100Hz is a good place to start.

[eric.B]

distant pa?   I/and friends  had good results with a pair of akg568's ..   

[creekfreak]

far field....cut down on the boom...mk41's, easy decision

[Chuck]

Distant? It's all relative.  How far back? Go "old School" and use shot guns if it's boomy and far away.

[ts]

Shit, the past 4 outings with my 41's have been dark and boomy. One far field outdoors, one acoustic indoors, one hard rock indoors and Mule at Roseland. Next time the HPF is gettin' switched on. All have been DIN 90 and 17. Maybe I'll really tame it and run them X/Y too.

[hexyjones]

Positioning can help too  - at a distance, I'm more tempted just to A/B and point the things right at the PA - no pattern...

A lot of the angle patterns - xy, ortf... use the side-edge of the mic pickup pattern where the reponse tends to be a bit flatter. If you point them right at the source you get a bit more bite/peak...take a look at the mic specs and see if this is true for your mics...

...or go shotgun...

[creekfreak]

Shit, the past 4 outings with my 41's have been dark and boomy. One far field outdoors, one acoustic indoors, one hard rock indoors and Mule at Roseland. Next time the HPF is gettin' switched on. All have been DIN 90 and 17. Maybe I'll really tame it and run them X/Y too.

that is very strange to hear coming from 41's. I have tone 100's of recordings using them and have never once considered it boomy, even when Mule is pounding away. XY would help, but I hate XY with the 41's, way too bright....you using a V3 or V2?

[ts]

Maybe calling them boomy is the wrong description. I too have a ton of recordings with 41's, 4's, etc., but only started making my own this past summer. Right now I only have the 41 caps to use. I should pick up another pair of caps, MK5's?
Another part of the problem is my ears are used to a certain sound from my old mics, which I've used for a very long time. Mostly CM300's and more recently CM1000's. Getting my ears to adjust to the Schoeps sound has not been as easy as I thought it would be. Although, like I said, I do have many recordings done with Schoeps by others. Which is why I bought them. I like the sound that others have achieved.
DIN with hypers is the choice of many if not all. Or just pointing. My other option is to just use the 41's in what I know are poor sounding venues, never use them outdoors or on acoustic stuff.
I use a V3 and will try one of the HPF's next time. I like alot of high end in my recordings, along with the lowend. My CM1000's provide a nice balanced amount of both.
The darkside is being difficult to get used to.

[creekfreak]

do you eq at all on your playback? I do some EQ to balance it out....adjust to their sound could be it if you are use to a very different mic....

[ts]

Yes, but it's just knocking the bass way down and kicking the treble way up. Don't have an EQ. Never had a need to EQ my Nak recordings, they are always just right.

[eric.B]

never underestimate the power of an akg568..  a hyper mini shotgun that can make the TS seem way closer, can cut out the "boomy", and give you some nice highs as they are more directional in the HF...

of course..  ymmv

[ts]

I used to use the short Neumann guns, KMR81's, but they were too expensive for how little I used them. I replaced them with MK41's.

[creekfreak]

Yes, but it's just knocking the bass way down and kicking the treble way up. Don't have an EQ. Never had a need to EQ my Nak recordings, they are always just right.

sounds like the nak's to your ears are more neutral, something the schoeps are not. I eq my mk41's recording some, kick the bass down a little, tweak the mid range and boost the higher frequencies....then it sounds great

[jk labs]

Some say a boost in the high frequency range is better for recording at a distance. Any comments? I believe recording in a studio would ideally warrant a very flat frequency but maybe not for most of my live concert recording from a PA. I'd appreciate any knowledge here. How about mics (frequency) that helps control boomy bass as often encountered. Thanks,

Lyle
drlylelove@aol.com

High frequency energy is lost to the viscous soup we call air at a far greater rate per yard travelled than the low frequencies.

Some mics are built so as to counter this loss somewhat. With omni mics you can use a baffle (say a ball like structure like DPA use) to boost the highs.

The other challenge with distant miking is getting acceptable signal / (noise + unwanted signals) ratio. A directional or highly directional mic might quickly becomes a necessity
 

[ts]

Thanks creekfreak. I guess my old ears are pretty use to the Nak sound. But they need to change. I have another post going about fixing some noise problems. I have CE2K. Can I do the EQing in that program? Or was that a plugin? I need to warn you, as I did with the kind folks in my other post. I am not real good with computer programs.

[muj]

taping shows is practically the same as tracking in a studio.both scenarios ,requires  using your ears and the tools,to nail the proper and desirable tone,texture and sound.

just my 0.02$

[creekfreak]

Thanks creekfreak. I guess my old ears are pretty use to the Nak sound. But they need to change. I have another post going about fixing some noise problems. I have CE2K. Can I do the EQing in that program? Or was that a plugin? I need to warn you, as I did with the kind folks in my other post. I am not real good with computer programs.

I have an EQ plugged into my playback system that I use to change as I listened to different sources. I never edit the master, not real good at doing it anyways 

[ts]

That's an idea, but rather than further hijacking this thread, maybe I'll open another or do a search on EQing or DSPing. But damn, this V3 should be able to get it right without post processing. I'm hoping playing with the mic config and using HPF will do it.

[creekfreak]

it's not the V3, its the mics, the V3 is about as clean as it gets.

[creekfreak]

it's not the V3, its the mics, the V3 is about as clean as it gets.

a schoeps burn?

not a burn...I love my mk41's, but I also know that schoeps is more of an acquired taste...more making the point that if he doesn't like the sound, its the mics, not the V3 causing the issue for him.