Topic: Loud / Amplified shows: diminishing returns?

[voltronic]

As someone who only records acoustic / classical music, I've been wondering what benefits (perceived or real) tapers of loud / amplified music get from the really high-end gear.  To clarify: I have heard the difference in acoustic music when using Schoeps, DPA, Sound Devices, Nagra and other products of similar quality.  What I don't understand is the improvement in recording amplified music using the top-level stuff, as opposed to "inexpensive but very good" level gear such as AT853s, small portable recorders, etc.  Stereo imaging is one example, as I can hear how nicely Schoeps cards can do that in an acoustic recording, but lots of PAs are mixed in mono.  Full disclosure: I've had really bad PA engineering at almost every amplified concert I've been to in the last 10 years, so that may be influencing my thinking.  I know there are very good FOH people out there, but I haven't been lucky enough to get one.

Is it simply a matter of buying the best gear you can afford, even if you don't "need" it?  Having recently been struck with Gear Acquisition Syndrome, I can relate to that.  Or, does the professional level equipment really give you significant audible benefits?  If so, what are they?

I understand I may be opening a can of worms here, and please know I mean no offense.  It's just something I've been wondering about since I joined up here. I'm also not trying to make sweeping generalizations; just expressing my ignorance on the subject and wanting to learn.

[bombdiggity]

I record mostly unamplified music but do have my run-ins with PA's and even some really loud shows/festivals. 

To me it comes down to a few things:

First and foremost it's the tonal difference.  I have run my SP's and Schoeps side by side enough times to know that the Schoeps are always better regardless of any sorry state of sound at the source.  Nevertheless relative to the diminishing returns: a turd also can't be polished much.  Some shows where either rig is easy enough to run I'm totally fine with just using the SP's since the difference will be too marginal to bother with more weight or trouble or potential damage. 

When one does need to try to correct issues in post the starting point is in a better place with better gear.  There may be some exceptions where it really doesn't matter though (like deliberately distorted or over the top sorts of music).  I will say that when something is really wrong it will seem worse in a raw state from good mics.  Problems in the mix or recording can be more glaring with a raw recording from better mics.  If I know it's a really boomy, cavernous space the SP's have a sort of natural low-end shelf that will at least initially result in a potentially more pleasing sound and I like their overall tone well enough (esp. relative to that sort of ambient space) and just want to kick back and take it easy at the show it can be less work to just use them on something that may not be that important to me. 

Higher end gear can usually handle much louder incoming signals.

In theory I might agree I'd not have bought high end full size gear if I only planned to 007 from the back of arenas, but I bought what I thought sounded best out of the gate and later got the smaller mics for easy use in sensitive situations.  My taping habits have dramatically changed relative to what they were in the past and what I thought they would be when I got back in, but all things equal I want the better mics if anything about the show really matters to me. 

YMMV. 

[Gutbucket]

The core issue is crap in = crap out.  Once the sound is in the air it's all acoustic, regardless of how it was produced.  Placed in an environment with lush beautiful sound, better gear gear can leverage that.  Conversely, better performing gear can also make the best of compromised situations due to improved performance (such as better off-axis pattern behavior, and a smoother more linear response providing the ability to make easier corrections with EQ). 

It's just that it's usually easier to find examples of really great sounding acoustic instrument music in rooms with good sounding acoustics than it is to find really great sounding amplified stuff.

[JimmieC]

Good answers.  Sometimes better designed equipment cost more.  I think some mics and preamps have a tone to them as well, no matter how accurate they are.  I don't know, this tone might come from the off axis response of the mic and definitely stereo configuration.  For the preamps, some want to be neutral and some try to do some tweaking of the amplification of the signal (e.g, transformer, distortion of harmonics or what not, etc.).  I still say not all phantom powers are equal too.  Definitely, a difference in ADC / DAC.  How much are you willing to spend or search for some talented builders.

The other night for an amplified show, I ran ORTF so that I could use a specific mount and bodies but wish I would have ran DINa or PAS.  However, it sounds pretty good but should not have been lazy and ran another set of mics and preamp.

[bombdiggity]

I did forget the off-axis response and rejection of unwanted fields, though that can be influenced by patterns and placement as much or more than the capabilities of mics. 

I think some mics and preamps have a tone to them as well, no matter how accurate they are.  I don't know, this tone might come from the off axis response of the mic and definitely stereo configuration. 

There was another fairly full discussion of a lot of this somewhere around here.  To my ear everything has a signature and a tone (even near flat will seem to have a distinct tone relative to things that are further - or far - from flat). 

I recall one line of thought being that objectively at least in theory one could eq any mic to have the same response as any other (assuming the low end mic can handle the SPL, etc.) but that's a tall and challenging order since even the mic you might want it to be like may not record the result exactly the way you want it in any given circumstance. 

We all hear very differently too, so it's subjective, and playback also matters.  Some don't really hear fine distinctions.  I think that comes with time and experience and that leads into the Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

Presumably we pick the tone we like.  Hopefully we can land on and afford something that more often than not gets us close to how we like to hear things.     

[JimmieC]

Slightly off topic.  Additionally, to me, every mic has it's own sound to it that I get a little disappointed when people show to play with a very nice guitar, pedal board, and amp but rely on the house mic and phantom/battery box to sing through.  The mic normally an old cheap mic that had been dropped how many times.  Then they will ask for more vocals.  If I was a performer, I would have my own mic, phantom, preamp, and compressor for vocals.  I don't know may be over kill but at least you would have control of your vocal sound too.

[voltronic]

^ You'd think this would be common, at least with big-name artists.

A further tangent: I wonder how many big-name (or not-so-big-name) artists are involved in making sure their audience hears them the way they intend to be heard.  I'm thinking of my most frustrating concert experience recently.  Stevie Wonder in Philly last year.  Vocal mix was fine, backing keyboards and strings also fine.  Anything in the bass register so muddy and distorted as to have zero pitch definition, just a rumble.  The absolute worst: Stevie's piano and keyboards were nearly inaudible in the mix.  I wasn't the only person who heard this crime against some of the best music of our time.  I was having many thoughts of violence towards the FOH engineer.  It also was not the venue, having heard Lenny Kravitz and Aerosmith there before and the sound was loud but mixed very well.

[dabbler]

I mainly go to loud rock and metal shows, and often the expectation is the audience and FOH wears hearing protection; so sometimes shows will sound better with highs and upper midrange cut down in the recordings a bit.

Either that or the FOH people have lost so hearing anything that sounds good to them sounds terrible to people with healthy ears

Anyhow, loud shows often have quiet sections, even if it's a few seconds.  That's where gear with low self-noise and large dynamic range makes a difference.  And as other stated: high volume levels will readily find more weaknesses in any chain: the stage amps + PA, room acoustics, mics, battery box, recorder can all fall apart at high volumes.

In fact, I might've even encountered cases were recording with better gear can expose problems in PAs where low-level distortion wasn't audible before.

[voltronic]

The monitor section of the rider is usually longer than the PA section, which shows you the artist's focus:  they want to make sure it sounds good for them.  Making it sound good for the audience is your problem ("the PA shall have sufficient power and number of speakers for all seats to hear the show at loud volume without distortion").

That's very sad to hear, but I guess it explains a lot.

I don't think I've been running into problems with the capabilities of the PA itself, but with the capabilities and/or choices of the engineers.  Another recent example: Aloe Blacc opening for Bruno Mars.  Blacc's set was plenty loud, but the mix was nicely balanced and enjoyable to listen to.  Then Bruno Mars took the stage.  I expect them to jack the levels somewhat for the headliner, but it was an insane level adjustment with massive distortion throughout his entire set, other than the ballad numbers.  Even with my earplugs in it was unbearable.  I spent my time trying to decide if they set the limiters way too aggressively and it clipped everything, or if the voice coils in the speakers were bottoming out from being overdriven.  Clearly, two different engineers for the two acts, but using the same PA, at least the same amps / speakers.

[aaronji]

I recall one line of thought being that objectively at least in theory one could eq any mic to have the same response as any other (assuming the low end mic can handle the SPL, etc.) but that's a tall and challenging order since even the mic you might want it to be like may not record the result exactly the way you want it in any given circumstance. 

I don't know for sure, but the idea that you can EQ any mic to have the frequenxy response of any other mic seems kind of specious to me. As a thought experiment, if you have one mic that is down 2 dB at 100 Hz at 90 degrees off axis and 4 dB at 120 degrees and a second mic that was down 2 dB at 90 and 6 dB at 120, is it possible to EQ that frequency to equivalence? Seems unlikely to me, but maybe I am missing something...

[Gutbucket]

Correct, that aspect can not be made equivalent with EQ adjustments.

However, if the two microphones are well behaved enough, one can use EQ to achieve close frequency response equivalence on one particular axis.

[acidjack]

I think there's some truth to what you say, in this general sense: Obviously, an amplified PA system recorded at a distance does not have much in the way of detail or frequency response (except in the low-bass). So, obviously, a high-end condenser microphone cannot pick up more than what is there. But, as others have already pointed out, there's still the matter of the overall accuracy of the microphone at recording whatever IS there, and I think the preference for certain high-end condenser microphones around here goes beyond just some kind of snobbishness about what they've cost. I've owned and used most of the brands, and I think that the person who originally recommended Schoeps to me was right -- they're "good at recording PA systems." Is there less difference between an amplified rock show recorded with Schoeps vs. AT 853s compared to a symphony orchestra recorded with those two brands? Maybe/probably. But the difference is still there.

I personally think the more steep diminishing returns are experienced in the preamps and A/D stages. First of all, I'm not convinced that the A/D of any prosumer or better machine is really improved upon much by an outboard. Even with preamps, I know we all have preferences for "flavors" of sound, but I think you're really entering speculative territory there. You can run a comp and tell a difference, but it's not clear to me that the "difference" is significant enough to warrant the use of that equipment.

Conversely, it's not hard to tell the difference in a Schoeps recording, a Church Audio recording, and an internal mics recording. That doesn't mean everyone will always prefer the most expensive one (especially without EQ), but the differences in the recordings are very, very obvious.

[2manyrocks]

I have no experience recording loud amped shows.  If I have to wear hearing protection at a concert, I automatically figure the sound is going to be bad.  There is no point in destroying people's hearing just because we can and I don't care who it is that does it, I'm totally against it.

There is a difference between schoeps and at853s on choral recordings in my experience.  Huge difference in cost, however.  If I were recording a bar band amid. A bunch of drunks not sure I'd risk schoeps in that environment. 

My thought is mics and their placement have more to do with results at this point. 

[opsopcopolis]

I'm of the 90% loud shows camp.  I honestly don't think that music sounds great above 90db personally, and anywhere above95 I find it near unbearable without earplugs(I always wear them).  The biggest difference I notice in the loud settings is the rejection of surrounding noise.  Rejection of obnoxious chatter is definitely an on/off axis matter, and sometimes the more expensive mics with better off axis response don't sound as good to me as some slightly cheaper ones that don't have quite as good of a pickup in those areas.

[Gutbucket]

As so commonly stated around here, mic placement is most important.

Here's a counter argument to the bar band PA use thing-
Excellent directional microphones are generally better all around, but are are often more strongly differentiated from less good ones by their good off-axis behavior than by on-axis differences.  How well a directional microphone handles the stuff it picks up but is not pointed at (the stuff you don't want, rather than the stuff you do) may be its most critical characteristic, especially when used in a crappy environment with lots of stuff you don't want, when the direct PA sound isn't all that to begin with.  In a great sounding room with optimal microphone placement and a quiet audience, that advantage is still valuable, but is probably not as critically important to making an acceptable sounding recording.

Rejection of obnoxious chatter is definitely an on/off axis matter, and sometimes the more expensive mics with better off axis response don't sound as good to me as some slightly cheaper ones that don't have quite as good of a pickup in those areas.

You may be comparing apples to oranges if the pickup pattern of one is tighter than the other.  I'd expect that first, but it's of course possible you prefer the particular off-axis coloration of the cheaper mic, even if that was not intended by the mic builder.


I don't like over-loud.  Yet often I'm surprised at how good a recording can sound, made of something which was over-loud and didn't sound very good live, when played back at a reasonable level with appropriate EQ corrections.

[opsopcopolis]

Definitely a possibility of tighter pickup, but I think in general for loud shows with loud talkative crowds that would be my general feeling. 

I'm also often surprised at how good a recording can sound of something that I didn't think sounded very good in the moment.  There's something to be said for capturing a directional sound source (i.e. PA) with direction pickups.  Sometimes the way our ears perceive sound and our HRTF are not quite optimal for the way the sound is presented to us, and the directional mics will pick up a better defined signal

[Gutbucket]

I don't think there is necessarily any direct correlation between using directional microphones for recording a directional PA, except both are used as ways to manage direct/reverberant ratio (music/blather ratio, signal/noise, whatever you want to call it).  They go about doing so from "opposite ends of the problem", even if the basics of directionality and acoustics apply similarly.

But you've hit on something I've been long curious about, a question I've never gotten a good answers for, and a discussion I've raised a few times here without it going anywhere.  What is the most appropriate overall integrated response in comparison to on-axis response for a microphone? Does that change with pickup pattern, by application, and with differences in on-axis verses off-axis signal level?  A polar response that exhibits perfect symmetry across all frequencies and only produces changes in level with changes in angle is one appropriate goal.  It is an easily defined engineering goal, and in general an excellent measure of quality, at least for a small diaphragm directional microphone.  But is that always the most appropriate goal?  It would appear not, given the existence of microphones which at least in some cases have intentionally different on and off-axis frequency responses, the usefulness of various acoustic attachments to vary the polar response of omnis, and the like.

In making surround recordings using microphone arrays which include cardioids and supercardioids with very good symmetrical pattern behavior pointed in the four cardinal directions (front, left, right, back), and adjusting the level and EQ of each to best effect later, it's always interesting to me how and when the most appropriate EQ and level of the stuff in back (or to the sides), differs from the front, from one recording to the next.  In effect, by those EQ and level adjustments made to each cardinal direction independently, I'm changing the global polar response of the array with regards to pickup of sound in the room in a way analogous to changing the polar behaviour a single microphone used for a mono recording in the same position in the same room.

[edit- the Schoeps PolarFlex system has some capability to vary pattern by frequency, and ambisonic microphones have even greater potential to do so.  However I've seen no easily used ambisonic manipulation tools which would allow one to change pattern by frequency, or frequency response by angle of arrival.  I have asked about this on the Sursound mailing list to confirm it can be done]

[2manyrocks]

My nonsophisticated take on this is you're describing a microphone or array that captures what's there, but allows you to selectively  filter out the unwanted. 

[Gutbucket]

Yep.. and your take is also a good description of how and why using more highly directional microphones can be useful for recording in a crappy bar.

But it's more than that too, since I do want the contributions from all directions, only managed appropriately for best result.  It that sense it's not so much selectively filtering out what is unwanted, at least not completely as that's usually not possible, but rather making the best of it- minimizing the worst and making the contribution fo the rest less more desirable or at least less offensive.

[opsopcopolis]

It sounds sort of like you're talking about the effect of EQ on the whole summed signal. I'm I reading that correctly?

I think the degree response absolutely changes on application, not necessarily pickup pattern as much.  If I'm recording an acoustic guitar in isolation I want way more off axis response than if I'm recording the same instrument with the same mic in a live environment. 

[ellaguru]

i love making high quality recordings of shitty p.a. mixes

[bombdiggity]

ways to manage direct/reverberant ratio

^ It's all about that.  Directional microphones always give me as much of the reverberant ratio (and crowd) as I want. 

But you've hit on something I've been long curious about, a question I've never gotten a good answers for, and a discussion I've raised a few times here without it going anywhere.  What is the most appropriate overall integrated response in comparison to on-axis response for a microphone? Does that change with pickup pattern, by application, and with differences in on-axis verses off-axis signal level? 

I think you sort of answered that question (and the directional one) in a different way when you considered that in different settings you want more or less of the directional feel or more or less from different frequencies off-axis. 

My taste is highly directional.  Omnis may give a sense of room when used in isolation (when there is little to no "room" involved and added warmth is desired) but for general use in a crowd at just about any distance omnis open the recorded result up to everything I don't want to hear.   I want to record the music, not the room and certainly not the crowd.  Of course I'm also using two mics and playing things back in two channels. 

Properly placed directional microphones can recreate a very strong and compelling soundstage that is very much how I heard the show (assuming I'm at the mic position). 

Surround is something else with different goals to my mind aiming for a more diffuse result, which probably isn't going to be well represented (if at all) by recording with two mics. 

[Gutbucket]

It sounds sort of like you're talking about the effect of EQ on the whole summed signal. I'm I reading that correctly?

Well, that's what happens when you EQ the resulting stereo recording.   You adjust everything together, all by the same amount.  In a polar sense, the difference in frequency and level differences with direction remain unchanged.

What I'm talking about is EQing the direct on-axis response differently from the collective off-axis response.  In the case of a directional microphone, the difference in on-axis response and the overall integrated response from all directions is 'baked-in" by the manufacturer, often dictated by engineering and manufacturing cost issues..  In the case of my surround recordings, I can tweak the the forward, left, right, and backwards responses differently if necessary.  The analogy breaks down in the sense that a single microphone response is mono, and what I'm doing is multichannel, but the overall effect of recording a sound in a room is the same.  The Schoeps PolarFlex system mentioned previously is a more direct analogy.  It allows one to modify the polar response of a single virtual microphone, and do so by frequency (across three different ranges if I recall correctly), although it does not allow for changing EQ by direction.. at least not directly.

I think the degree response absolutely changes on application, not necessarily pickup pattern as much.  If I'm recording an acoustic guitar in isolation I want way more off axis response than if I'm recording the same instrument with the same mic in a live environment. 

Not sure what you mean by "degree response" there. Sounds like you may be mixing up the reverberant sound of a room, with the off-axis behavior of a microphone.  They are related, but not the same thing.  You can most easily adjust the direct/reverberant pickup ratio (in other words "how much room you hear along with the direct sound from the guitar") by changing the distance of the microphone from the source, or by moving to a room with different reverberant qualities, or both.  You can also adjust the direct/reverberant ratio by changing the polar pattern of the microphone, but to a much less greater extent, and within a far smaller possible range of adjustment.

When you say "If I'm recording an acoustic guitar in isolation I want way more off axis response than if I'm recording the same instrument with the same mic in a live environment." that over simplifies things too much, in several ways.  If you are recording a guitar in isolation, you might be "isolating" it partly by using a tighter polar pattern, and/or by moving it away or blocking it from other sound sources, and/or by placing it in a room by itself.  Either way, that says nothing about the direct/reverberant balance or how "live" or reverberant the sound is from the isolated guitar.  Could be super dry, or super reverberant, but still isolated.  The appropriate microphone polar response and mic'ing distance is going to depend on the sound you're after.

Likewise, recording an ensemble in a live environment, it all depends on multiple things: the sound of the room, the distance of the ensemble from the microphones, the type of music, the presence of a PA or not, the intended use of that particular microphone channel or pair, and what type of sound you are trying to achieve in the recording.  Since all polar patterns can be and are used for recording in "live environments", there is no hard fast rule as to which will alway be most appropriate.

[Gutbucket]

But you've hit on something I've been long curious about, a question I've never gotten a good answers for, and a discussion I've raised a few times here without it going anywhere.  What is the most appropriate overall integrated response in comparison to on-axis response for a microphone? Does that change with pickup pattern, by application, and with differences in on-axis verses off-axis signal level? 

I think you sort of answered that question (and the directional one) in a different way when you considered that in different settings you want more or less of the directional feel or more or less from different frequencies off-axis. 

No, I'm talking above about making things sound good and natural in a timbral sense, completely separate from stereo imaging or envelopment or "directional feel".  Just frequency balance and level varying with direction, and none of the other things which are also co-dependant on those aspects.

My taste is highly directional.  Omnis may give a sense of room when used in isolation (when there is little to no "room" involved and added warmth is desired) but for general use in a crowd at just about any distance omnis open the recorded result up to everything I don't want to hear.   I want to record the music, not the room and certainly not the crowd.  Of course I'm also using two mics and playing things back in two channels.

Do you find that you always prefer a good straight-soundboard recording over a well done matrix?

Properly placed directional microphones can recreate a very strong and compelling soundstage that is very much how I heard the show (assuming I'm at the mic position). 

Surround is something else with different goals to my mind aiming for a more diffuse result, which probably isn't going to be well represented (if at all) by recording with two mics.

Soundstage issues are really an entirely different discussion.  I'll only add two comments- 1) I can create a compelling soundstage with omnis- but it's harder to do, partly because it requires more freedom for mic placement.  2) The basic goal for me with surround recording is identical to stereo recording.  I'm certainly not aiming for a diffuse result, but better imaging than I can usually achieve with just two mics and two playback channels.  In addition there are other more specific things I can achieve through surround recording which are more difficult or impossible to achieve with only two microphones.  But partly it makes producing good two channel stereo easier and more consistent, if more complicated during the recording part of things.

[voltronic]

Thanks for all of the great responses here - I'm certainly learning a lot about the amplified side of things.

[bombdiggity]

Do you find that you always prefer a good straight-soundboard recording over a well done matrix?

Not sure I can answer that.  Generally I prefer an audience to a soundboard.  The exceptions being if there are ambient factors that essentially ruin the audience (obnoxious crowd, horrid mix, distortion in the PA speakers).  Relative to SBD I would probably prefer a well done mix-down from a multi-track, which likely would include some ambient mics in it.  I don't have the equipment to record a true multitrack (and most of what I see there's no board or PA involved to start with) but nearly all the SBD's I've tried to run at larger events (which essentially come down to a PA feed or an on the fly mix) I've tossed as inferior to my audience pair.  Most soundboards I've heard (other than multi-tracks mixed in post) are not to my ear a good representation of the music. 

Soundstage issues are really an entirely different discussion.  I'll only add two comments- 1) I can create a compelling soundstage with omnis- but it's harder to do, partly because it requires more freedom for mic placement.  2) The basic goal for me with surround recording is identical to stereo recording.  I'm certainly not aiming for a diffuse result, but better imaging than I can usually achieve with just two mics and two playback channels.  In addition there are other more specific things I can achieve through surround recording which are more difficult or impossible to achieve with only two microphones.  But partly it makes producing good two channel stereo easier and more consistent, if more complicated during the recording part of things.

Thanks for the clarification.  I'd probably know what you're aiming for if I heard them (on the optimal playback system for them).  Despite your many helpful descriptions I sort of think words won't really do it all justice. 

[opsopcopolis]

It sounds sort of like you're talking about the effect of EQ on the whole summed signal. I'm I reading that correctly?

Well, that's what happens when you EQ the resulting stereo recording.   You adjust everything together, all by the same amount.  In a polar sense, the difference in frequency and level differences with direction remain unchanged.

What I'm talking about is EQing the direct on-axis response differently from the collective off-axis response.  In the case of a directional microphone, the difference in on-axis response and the overall integrated response from all directions is 'baked-in" by the manufacturer, often dictated by engineering and manufacturing cost issues..  In the case of my surround recordings, I can tweak the the forward, left, right, and backwards responses differently if necessary.  The analogy breaks down in the sense that a single microphone response is mono, and what I'm doing is multichannel, but the overall effect of recording a sound in a room is the same.  The Schoeps PolarFlex system mentioned previously is a more direct analogy.  It allows one to modify the polar response of a single virtual microphone, and do so by frequency (across three different ranges if I recall correctly), although it does not allow for changing EQ by direction.. at least not directly.

I think the degree response absolutely changes on application, not necessarily pickup pattern as much.  If I'm recording an acoustic guitar in isolation I want way more off axis response than if I'm recording the same instrument with the same mic in a live environment. 

Not sure what you mean by "degree response" there. Sounds like you may be mixing up the reverberant sound of a room, with the off-axis behavior of a microphone.  They are related, but not the same thing.  You can most easily adjust the direct/reverberant pickup ratio (in other words "how much room you hear along with the direct sound from the guitar") by changing the distance of the microphone from the source, or by moving to a room with different reverberant qualities, or both.  You can also adjust the direct/reverberant ratio by changing the polar pattern of the microphone, but to a much less greater extent, and within a far smaller possible range of adjustment.

When you say "If I'm recording an acoustic guitar in isolation I want way more off axis response than if I'm recording the same instrument with the same mic in a live environment." that over simplifies things too much, in several ways.  If you are recording a guitar in isolation, you might be "isolating" it partly by using a tighter polar pattern, and/or by moving it away or blocking it from other sound sources, and/or by placing it in a room by itself.  Either way, that says nothing about the direct/reverberant balance or how "live" or reverberant the sound is from the isolated guitar.  Could be super dry, or super reverberant, but still isolated.  The appropriate microphone polar response and mic'ing distance is going to depend on the sound you're after.

Likewise, recording an ensemble in a live environment, it all depends on multiple things: the sound of the room, the distance of the ensemble from the microphones, the type of music, the presence of a PA or not, the intended use of that particular microphone channel or pair, and what type of sound you are trying to achieve in the recording.  Since all polar patterns can be and are used for recording in "live environments", there is no hard fast rule as to which will alway be most appropriate.

Yeah, I understand that. The way I wrote that portrayed it in an over simplified way. Obviously the majority of reverberant response is based on the polar pattern. What I meant to say was essentially that the setting/environment of the recording determines how acceptable/desired good off axis response is. In the case of live recording, I personally want a less defined off axis respons. If I want a wider imagine I will use a mic with a wider polar pattern

[Gutbucket]

Boltman said (where'd his post go?)  "The biggest difference is that I could get lost in the music rather than being distracted by the flaws of the recording."

Which basically sums up my recording goals quite concisely.


bomdiggitty- your response to my question about your preference of straight SBD or good matrix, tells me that you do prefer some degree of ambience in a live recording.  In other words, it establishes that your preference is not for a recording with a direct/reverberant ratio of 100:0.  The next question then becomes what is the preferred ratio?  ..and that answer is going to be different depending on a number of things.  What I'm taking about above is partly making that ambient/reverberant stuff sound as good and natural as possible, regardless of it's most appropriate level.  By making that stuff sound as natural as possible the undesirable stuff actually becomes slightly less offensive to my ear, at least in the sense of getting lost in the recording rather than hearing it's flaws.  A natural sounding recording of crap (idiots talking) is at least natural sounding and the recording itself doesn't also distract me.  If it's unnatural and muffled I still hear the idiots talking AND the recording of it sounds like crap, and destroys the illusion for me.  Since I can't totally eliminate the crap I don't want, I can at least make it natural and that actually allows me to tolerate a somewhat higher ratio of it.  I know the pain, I know it all too well, believe that.

[Gutbucket]

Yeah, I understand that. The way I wrote that portrayed it in an over simplified way. Obviously the majority of reverberant response is based on the polar pattern. What I meant to say was essentially that the setting/environment of the recording determines how acceptable/desired good off axis response is. In the case of live recording, I personally want a less defined off axis respons. If I want a wider imagine I will use a mic with a wider polar pattern

Don't mean to pound this too hard into the ground.  But..

What you state as "obvious" ("Obviously the majority of reverberant response is based on the polar pattern") is not the case.  The ratio of direct sound to reverberant sound in a recording is not primarily due to the polar pattern of the microphone used. It is predominantly a factor of the distance of the microphone(s) from the sound source, regardless of polar pattern.  Polar pattern is only a secondary factor.   

"In the case of live recording, I personally want a less defined off axis respons. If I want a wider imagine I will use a mic with a wider polar pattern" 

I'm not sure what you mean by "less defined off axis response".  Less defined would seem to mean not well controlled, or erratic, which I can't see as ever being advantageous.  I can understand wanting different polar responses for different situations, and even non-uniform but well controlled responses, like that of large diaphragm mics or omnis with sphere attachments, or using the PolarFlex to achieve, say, one polar response at low frequencies and another at higher frequencies, things like that.

The final part about using a mic with a wider polar pattern to achieve a wider-image is simply incorrect and makes no sense.  At least if by "image" you are referring to stereo imaging, or the apparent placement of the sound sources on playback.  That's completely determined by the interplay of two or more microphones and how they interact with each other.  The polar response of the microphones used play a critical roll in stereo imaging, but only in combination with other aspects such as angle and spacing between microphones.  One can produce a recording with 'wide imaging' using microphones that have a 'narrow' supercardioid polar response, or a recording with 'narrow imaging' using omnidirectional microphones quite easily.

[opsopcopolis]

Yeah, I understand that. The way I wrote that portrayed it in an over simplified way. Obviously the majority of reverberant response is based on the polar pattern. What I meant to say was essentially that the setting/environment of the recording determines how acceptable/desired good off axis response is. In the case of live recording, I personally want a less defined off axis respons. If I want a wider imagine I will use a mic with a wider polar pattern

Don't mean to pound this too hard into the ground.  But..

What you state as "obvious" ("Obviously the majority of reverberant response is based on the polar pattern") is not the case.  The ratio of direct sound to reverberant sound in a recording is not primarily due to the polar pattern of the microphone used. It is predominantly a factor of the distance of the microphone(s) from the sound source, regardless of polar pattern.  Polar pattern is only a secondary factor.   

"In the case of live recording, I personally want a less defined off axis respons. If I want a wider imagine I will use a mic with a wider polar pattern" 

I'm not sure what you mean by "less defined off axis response".  Less defined would seem to mean not well controlled, or erratic, which I can't see as ever being advantageous.  I can understand wanting different polar responses for different situations, and even non-uniform but well controlled responses, like that of large diaphragm mics or omnis with sphere attachments, or using the PolarFlex to achieve, say, one polar response at low frequencies and another at higher frequencies, things like that.

The final part about using a mic with a wider polar pattern to achieve a wider-image is simply incorrect and makes no sense.  At least if by "image" you are referring to stereo imaging, or the apparent placement of the sound sources on playback.  That's completely determined by the interplay of two or more microphones and how they interact with each other.  The polar response of the microphones used play a critical roll in stereo imaging, but only in combination with other aspects such as angle and spacing between microphones.  One can produce a recording with 'wide imaging' using microphones that have a 'narrow' supercardioid polar response, or a recording with 'narrow imaging' using omnidirectional microphones quite easily.

I'm clearly poorly wording all of this and not giving enough info because you're just saying what I meant to say.  I'm speaking of with an assumed given of a similar stereo micing configuration in a concert/PA recording scenario, we're talking with too many variables and that's where the disagreements are coming from. My use of acoustic guitar as an example set everything off track, so I apologize for that.

First point and last point are stemming from the same misunderstanding. Taping a PA from front of house in an ORTF style or similar config, with mics spaced and angled reasonably and consistently (or the same) in all situations, sub cards or omnis will give you more reverberant response than supercards will. That was my point. Bringing close micing into the discussion sent everything spiraling into a different realm.  It's definitely possible to get a wide imagine with a pair of narrow polar microphones, but wouldn't you start to lose your center at a point?  The point I was trying to get across was that cards or sub cards at a 90 degree angle from each other will have a wider perceived image than super cards at 90 degrees. There's not much of a point in recording a PA with supers or hypers facing 180 degrees away from each other.

As for the "less defined" question, that was again poor wording on my part. What I meant to say was just less off axis response, (per the discussion earlier in the thread) not less controlled or uneven. When I think of response like that the word defined pops into my head because while there may be less overall off axis response, I was thinking of it as less perceived definition in the off axis sounds rather than them just not be picked up at all.

I hope that better conveys what I was thinking and I apologize for coming off like an idiot 
I thought we were discussing live PA recording and took that as an apparently un agreed upon given

[Gutbucket]

No worries, its a good conversation.


"Taping a PA from front of house in an ORTF style or similar config, with mics spaced and angled reasonably and consistently (or the same) in all situations, sub cards or omnis will give you more reverberant response than supercards will."

That's right.  In that case, if constrained to that recording position and that microphone spacing and angle, by changing the microphones to a more directional response such as cardioid or supercardioid, you will increase the direct/reverberant ratio in the resulting recording and get more direct sound and less ambient room sound..  And you will also change the stereo imaging at the same time.

Do you really want to change both the direct/reveb ratio and imaging in that way? Simultaneously? Probably not.  It's far more likely that the choice is sort of made for you by your gear.  Perhaps you only have one mounting bar that provides an ORTF setup of 110 degrees at 17cm, and you can change to mics with a different polar pattern but not change the angle and spacing of them.  That kind of thing is common around TS. 

What would be more appropriate would be to also change the angle between microphones, or spacing between them, or both, when changing to a different polar pattern microphone.  That would allow you to maintain similar imaging, or adjust it independently.  That was my motivation for working up the "Improved PAS table" I posted here a number of years ago to help tapers who didn't care for figuring out all this theory stuff and just wanted to make a decent recording in a crappy situation.  It makes managing that spacing/angle/pattern relationship simple by reducing the variables to simply pointing supercardioids at the PA speakers and then determining what the appropriate spacing between microphone should be base on the resulting angle between them.


"It's definitely possible to get a wide imagine with a pair of narrow polar microphones, but wouldn't you start to lose your center at a point?"

Not necessarily, and not any more than using some other polar pattern instead.  It all depends on the other variables of the setup.  Could also get a weak center from an over-wide omni recording, which is probably more common.


.."cards or sub cards at a 90 degree angle from each other will have a wider perceived image than super cards at 90 degrees. There's not much of a point in recording a PA with supers or hypers facing 180 degrees away from each other"

Actually the opposite.  In terms of stereo imaging, with identical spacing between microphones, a pair of supercards at 90 degrees, will produce a wider playback image than a pair of cardioids or subcardioids.  If the recording position in the room is reasonably close enough, they will also pickup less room reverberance, which could possibly be described as sounding "narrower" but that's something different and mixing up two different aspects.

Some may find this hard to believe, but I record using supers and hypers facing 180 degrees from each other all the time.  Granted I also have another microphone in the center between them facing forward (and usually a fourth facing backwards), and that arrangement is which is what allows me to adjust the EQ and level of sound from each of those directions somewhat independently from each other.  They are still highly interdependent, but the degree of freedom it gives me is invaluable and a big part of what I was describing previously. 

And here's something about that which I found very interesting, which is totally relevant to this thread-
Even though I would never record with just a single pair of super/hypercards facing 180 degrees apart, and certainly not with the 2' to 3' spacing between them that I'm using when I also have the other mics combined with them in the same array, I found that when using excellent quality microphones with very well behaved polar responses in a good ambient position where the direct/reverberant ratio is correct for a pair of spaced omnis (outside in an amphitheater, FOB), when muting all the other channels and just listening to the pair of sideways facing super/hypers alone over a stereo pair of speakers it sounded very good.  Amazingly good.  I fully expected a huge hole in the middle.  I fully expected mostly ambience and muddy direct sound.  But instead it sounded totally acceptable.  I attribute that to two, maybe three things: The environment (the outdoor amphitheater and the direct/reverberant ratio at my recording position in it); the very well behaved polar response of the excellent microphones I was using, even far off-axis; and perhaps the nature of recording a large PA (I was centered, and as is typical much of the mix was mono, and that probably allowed the over-wide spacing to work without too much 'hole in the middle' similarly to how very wide spaced omnis can work in the same situation without too much 'hole', even when that would not work in other situations.  Recording a mono-ish mix produced over a wide spaced pair of PA speakers, from the distances we are commonly doing it, is not a normal recording situation in any acoustic situation other than live concert tapers.  Yeah I know that doing that is typical around here, but it's a totally freak oddity in the recording world really).

[opsopcopolis]

Interesting.  Thanks for the info!  Only thing I would clarify is that with the 180 degrees comment I did in fact mean only those two mics. I totally understand the use of that spacing with a middle and backwards facing mic, just not something I would ever think to try on it's own. 

With that last scenario, my question then becomes, is that a good aspect for a mic to have?  Do you want supers to have such good off-axis response that it almost sounds on-axis or does that sort of defeat the purpose of having such a narrow polar pattern.  (please excuse if that's a dumb question)  I guess it would depend on the setting

[chk]

I think there's some truth to what you say, in this general sense: Obviously, an amplified PA system recorded at a distance does not have much in the way of detail or frequency response (except in the low-bass). So, obviously, a high-end condenser microphone cannot pick up more than what is there. But, as others have already pointed out, there's still the matter of the overall accuracy of the microphone at recording whatever IS there, and I think the preference for certain high-end condenser microphones around here goes beyond just some kind of snobbishness about what they've cost. I've owned and used most of the brands, and I think that the person who originally recommended Schoeps to me was right -- they're "good at recording PA systems." Is there less difference between an amplified rock show recorded with Schoeps vs. AT 853s compared to a symphony orchestra recorded with those two brands? Maybe/probably. But the difference is still there.

I personally think the more steep diminishing returns are experienced in the preamps and A/D stages. First of all, I'm not convinced that the A/D of any prosumer or better machine is really improved upon much by an outboard. Even with preamps, I know we all have preferences for "flavors" of sound, but I think you're really entering speculative territory there. You can run a comp and tell a difference, but it's not clear to me that the "difference" is significant enough to warrant the use of that equipment.

Conversely, it's not hard to tell the difference in a Schoeps recording, a Church Audio recording, and an internal mics recording. That doesn't mean everyone will always prefer the most expensive one (especially without EQ), but the differences in the recordings are very, very obvious.

What he said!

[Gutbucket]

Do you want supers to have such good off-axis response that it almost sounds on-axis or does that sort of defeat the purpose of having such a narrow polar pattern.  (please excuse if that's a dumb question)  I guess it would depend on the setting

Not a dumb question at all.  I've also wondered if an identical frequency response both on and far off-axis, with only a difference in level, is always the appropriate ideal. My thought is that in some cases a "loudness-shaped" frequency response may be appropriate as the level drops off axis.  And that's what I've never gotten a good answer for.

But the same frequency response in all directions, only differing in level is the traditional goal, and probably the most appropriate one in most cases.  It's difficult to achieve though, and only a few high quality manufacturers can really approach that ideal for super/hypercardioids.  It's somewhat easier to find at the polar extremes with figure-8's and miniature omnis.   It's one reason the Schoeps MK41 supercardioid is highly revered. 


-------------------------------
The odd array I'm using with 180 degree opposed supercardioids is a variation on Günther Theile's 3-channel OCT array (Optimum Cardioid Triangle) which uses one forward facing cardioid as a center microphone and two supercardioids facing directly to either side as left and right microphones.  The idea is good imaging via ideal overlap between each side and center, yet with minimum possible cross-talk between left and right channels since the null of the left supercardioid points at the right edge of the stage and vice versa.  Since those mics are oriented 90-degrees away from the stage, the quality of the pattern from about 30-degrees across to the supercarioid null at around 130-degress off-axis is where all the "main stuff" is happening up front, and he specifically calls for using Schoeps MK41 supercards for those left/right channels because of their excellent pattern behavior that far off-axis.  I'm primarily using Microtech Gefell supercards for this which are in a similar class and also have very good pattern behavior, and mostly use this outdoors.  (image below is from the Schoeps site, at the page linked above)

[opsopcopolis]

Thanks for the info. It's an interesting setup and the use of supers like that makes total sense when you see it in context

[bombdiggity]

Come back a bit later and we're way far along but:

bomdiggitty- your response to my question about your preference of straight SBD or good matrix, tells me that you do prefer some degree of ambience in a live recording.  In other words, it establishes that your preference is not for a recording with a direct/reverberant ratio of 100:0.  The next question then becomes what is the preferred ratio?  ..and that answer is going to be different depending on a number of things.  What I'm taking about above is partly making that ambient/reverberant stuff sound as good and natural as possible, regardless of it's most appropriate level.  By making that stuff sound as natural as possible the undesirable stuff actually becomes slightly less offensive to my ear, at least in the sense of getting lost in the recording rather than hearing it's flaws.  A natural sounding recording of crap (idiots talking) is at least natural sounding and the recording itself doesn't also distract me.  If it's unnatural and muffled I still hear the idiots talking AND the recording of it sounds like crap, and destroys the illusion for me.  Since I can't totally eliminate the crap I don't want, I can at least make it natural and that actually allows me to tolerate a somewhat higher ratio of it.  I know the pain, I know it all too well, believe that.

I like some degree of ambiance but suspect I like less than many people desire.  Obviously from a scientific perspective reverberance is a great deal of what provides ambiance but IMO it doesn't take much reverberance to provide ample ambiance.  Frankly I've never tried the far more ambitious multi-mic ideas mixing various patterns and working off the nulls or mixing multiple mics in post, etc.  I don't think I have enough gear or opportunities to experiment (where if it abjectly failed it wouldn't matter to me). 

I like a higher proportion of direct than reverberant sound.  I don't think that most people realize how short the distance is in most rooms where that ratio favors reverberant.  A PA places one at a distinct disadvantage in this calculus since one tends to need some distance to capture a balanced representation of the output, especially where the room sound is a mix of stage and PA point sources.  House imposed limitations on placement (such as open pits, fronts of - or worse under - balconies, around the board, back of room) may put one even further back.  1:1 direct:reverberant happens very quickly.  Mid to back of room is going to be weighted far toward reverberant, though bodies will soak some of the reflections up. 

Outdoors is much better in terms of limiting reflections but that tends to add the "idiots in the crowd" factor since people tend to feel much less compulsion to be attentive to the music in those settings. 

Either way I like a directional mic that will pick up more of the direct sound I want (which seems the simplest approach to it, though it could also be simplistic I suppose), though I do see your point about getting a more natural ambiance when one has no choice but to capture said ambiance.  Thankfully I rarely go to shows where that sort of thing is the norm.  There are a few instances where clubs are chatty.  In those I strongly prefer stagelip where most of that chatter is well behind the mics and with good mics therefore at a very low level relative to the music than I do having the distractions recorded fully and naturally.  A few places or particular shows where the distracting elements are too intrusive I just don't go in the future and/or the recording winds up mothballed unedited. 

Contrary to either of our preferences (with the above said) some people do like a more extreme sense of being in the crowd and actually seem to like the muddy internal mic back of the hall sound since that's what it always sounds like to them when they see something (on the far upper deck of their local arena with a bunch of screaming idiots).  They know no different...  That's not the TS crowd, though may be the oft-maligned run of the mill at certain torrent sites... 

[bombdiggity]

The ratio of direct sound to reverberant sound in a recording is not primarily due to the polar pattern of the microphone used. It is predominantly a factor of the distance of the microphone(s) from the sound source, regardless of polar pattern.  Polar pattern is only a secondary factor.   

This. 

Though IMO choice of polar pattern can emphasize or minimize some aspects that accompany the distance. 

[Gutbucket]

..distractions recorded fully and naturally. A few places or particular shows where the distracting elements are too intrusive I just don't go in the future and/or the recording winds up mothballed unedited.

What I'm advocating for isn't those distractions recorded fully AND naturally, but rather achieving as much minimization of those distractions as possible within the limits of them still sounding natural.  If I can only reduce that stuff further by making it sound less transparent and natural, that's where I draw the line.  When it get to balancing the good ambience against the bad ambience, therein lies some of the art of the craft.  I hear you on the places and shows where it is really bad, and just don't record that stuff or in those places anymore.  Yeah, I've become even more of a quality snob over time, but life is short and shitty recordings numerous. 

And yeah, the critical distance (where the D/R ratio in the room is 50/50) is usually absurdly close to the on-stage source.  Stage-lip may be close enough to achieve that in a large room.  PA's can actually help move the critical distance a bit farther away that since they are intentionally directional, and don't illuminate the room equally, as long as you don't care about getting the actual stage-sound too.  That's one reason I like small front audience fills, either along the front of the stage, or cross-firing from either side of the stage to a point at the stagelip, both of which can provide some good, direct PA-mix to a stage-lip mic arrangement, without swamping the on-stage sound due the lower-level of those fills vs the big PA stacks.

Given your preferences, when you find you can't setup stagelip, you should strongly consider PAS with supers/hypers to maximize your D/R ratio as much as possible, with enough spacing between mics to make up for the minimal PAS angle which will otherwise produce a mono-ich, collapsed, center heavy soundstage.