Topic: M-S from a balcony?

[Gutbucket]

Sounds like PAS MK41s will continue to be my tried and true method for this situation.

That's probably the safest bet to get the direct/reberberant ratio up to where you want it from farther back in a potentialy boomy room, which to my way of thinking is the first thing to adress in choosing an appropriate configuration. 

The next question then becomes, "what is the optimal mic spacing?" Which is actually a question I think is more interesting because the more pressing direct/reverberant issue is already addressed and there is somewhat more leaway on subjective preference with spacing.



Looking forward to giving those efforts of Joe's a listen later too.  Cool to have coursework examples linked in the thread.

[Gutbucket]

The last thing I want is a lot of room ambiance when I record music (save maybe one or two exceptional circumstances where the musicians are interacting with and using the space as part of the presentation).  I really dislike the room "boom" in my recordings (or anyone's).  Just enough to feel the music is in a room (as opposed to a sterile board feed sound) is all I want.  It gets back to the direct/reverberant ratio.  I get the feeling I'm a lot more ruthless about that than most.

The optimal balance depends both on the nature of music and the quality of the ambience.  For me, it's not a good recording of live music if it doesn't convey an appropriate (and enjoyable) sense of there.  One can err either way from optimal and drive off either side of a narrow road.

The quality of the room ambience is a big factor in how to best optimize a less than stellar hand dealt in the game, and a bad room sound with boom makes choosing a drier, more direct, sound an easy choice over what would otherwise have been an easy choice for a more ambient weighted balance in a great sounding room.

Direct/reverberant is THE most important factor in my hierarchy of important recording considerations.

Location x 3.

[Gutbucket]

I don't record much music but I do record a lot of sound effects and ambiance.  The one thing I have learned is that none of it really matters until you get in the space, experience trumps theory every single time.  In big open spaces I like spaced omnis at least 25' apart, preferably closer to 50'.   I'm also a huge fan of a jecklin disk setup if the rig doesn't have to move, but it seems to be more placement sensitive than spaced omnis.

You probably like the decorellation of the very widely spaced omnis in the first instance, and the more distrubuted, less-localised pickup in the second, in comparison to Jecklin.

I don't love ORTF or XY setups but that's because my subject matter often is moving (in which case the proximity effect of those techniques really fight me)[..]

I get the ambience part in the following half of this statement, but i'm currious to hear your thoughts on how XY and ORTF differ from the M/S configs you prefer with a moving subject.  I'm ignorant on following moving subjects with effects recording.

[..]or if I'm recording ambiance the ORTF/XY just doesn't pickup the space the way a widely spaced omni pair does.

Spaced omnis are a more optimal for conveying the sense of space and openess of a diffuse/reverberant field, where coincident configs are more optimial for imaging of the direct arriving sound, as are near-spaced configs like ORTF, although those are something of a compromize between the two.

It's interesting you mention that, because it plays directy into an important reason why coincident configs are, in general, less optimal farther away and well into in the diffuse field region.

[bombdiggity]

The last thing I want is a lot of room ambiance when I record music (save maybe one or two exceptional circumstances where the musicians are interacting with and using the space as part of the presentation).  I really dislike the room "boom" in my recordings (or anyone's).  Just enough to feel the music is in a room (as opposed to a sterile board feed sound) is all I want.  It gets back to the direct/reverberant ratio.  I get the feeling I'm a lot more ruthless about that than most.

The optimal balance depends both on the nature of music and the quality of the ambience.  For me, it's not a good recording of live music if it doesn't convey an appropriate (and enjoyable) sense of there.  One can err either way from optimal and drive off either side of a narrow road.

The quality of the room ambience is a big factor in how to best optimize a less than stellar hand dealt in the game, and a bad room sound with boom makes choosing a drier, more direct, sound an easy choice over what would otherwise have been an easy choice for a more ambient weighted balance in a great sounding room.

Direct/reverberant is THE most important factor in my hierarchy of important recording considerations.

Location x 3.

I'd agree though my opinion is that it is hard to get too little "room" with open mics (I may not have used quite the precise term but I mean ambient micing as opposed to instrument micing).  It does of course vary with the type and character of the mic but one can get pretty darn close to the source with a good mic of almost any pattern and have really nice presence.  The "dynamics" or attack and spatial references you can get in near stage placement are to my ear more important than the room ambiance that comes with a little more distance. 

I do like more of the room in a good sounding room (though find those are few) but I'm quite willing to lose that in a suboptimal room.  The 4V's are "richer" at a little bit of a distance but in certain rooms I routinely use them much closer to stage than that distance with better results than if I held the "optimal" distance and introduced a lot of unwanted distractions. 

I actually like directional mics in settings that are more traditionally viewed as the realm of omnis since one can get a very unique soundstage, particularly if a PA is a minimal or non-factor.  In an appropriate setting the recorded stereo field becomes a very close reproduction of how the instruments are located on stage and gives you the feel of being in the midst of the action.  Location is key (as is the type of music and the players).  Rather than try to build that sort of stereo image with mixing or editing I hope to capture it.  You inevitably lose most of that "hyper directionality" when you go further back to get the room feel.  I think the "front row" feel is more exciting than mid-FOB (assuming you don't lose anything in the mix). 

There are different senses of "there" in play.  I've noticed a number of people (mainly the consumer/downloader crowd) feel it's a good recording if the "there" you feel approximates midway or further back on an arena floor (ie, very boomy).  If one can recreate the "there" of sitting right in an ideal spot in front of the stage hearing the music essentially as the band does (if the onstage mix is right) that's the "there" I hope for.  That rarely has much of the room though it does feel like it has a point of view and some "air" in it.

[milo]

You probably like the decorellation of the very widely spaced omnis in the first instance, and the more distrubuted, less-localised pickup in the second, in comparison to Jecklin.

I get the ambience part in the following half of this statement, but i'm currious to hear your thoughts on how XY and ORTF differ from the M/S configs you prefer with a moving subject.  I'm ignorant on following moving subjects with effects recording.

Spaced omnis are a more optimal for conveying the sense of space and openess of a diffuse/reverberant field, where coincident configs are more optimial for imaging of the direct arriving sound, as are near-spaced configs like ORTF, although those are something of a compromize between the two.

It's interesting you mention that, because it plays directy into an important reason why coincident configs are, in general, less optimal farther away and well into in the diffuse field region.

Well part of the reason I like spaced omnis is because the playback environment has speakers about 20-50'.  It sounds dumb when a speaker 20' to the right and ahead of you has a bird that you also hear in a speaker 20' ahead and to the left.

In terms of XY/ORTF/MS the best example I have is of recording cars driving by.  If the microphone is being panned along with the car (following the car, aimed down the road, then moved with the car passing by and following it down the other end of the road) then an MS with a shotgun center sounds the best, actually a mono shotgun sounds plenty good.  An XY/ORTF setup has a tendency to sound washy and non specific if it is moving along with an approaching then leaving subject.  If the microphone is stationary then the XY/ORTF is fine but it still seems that the car comes out of nowhere.  I think this is because the alternate side microphone doesn't get much subject until it's on top of the record position.  A stationary or moving MS has none of these problem (either moving or stationary), partly because you can dial up the sides in post and partly because the mid shotgun (Card, or HyperC) will reach out and isolate the oncoming and leaving car if it is being moved along with the car.

For this reason, I like the flexibility of an MS rig and perhaps because I use one so often for subject recordings I'm used to how it sound when recording music.  For example I love an MS overhead on drums, well out of the way of sticks.  I'd imagine that a Blumlein Pair of ribbons would work especially well for this sort of setup.

In the beginning I thought I knew what was going on with certain types of microphones and this supposed understanding would inform how I went about recording new subjects.  I quickly learned that assumptions based on incorrect reasoning led me to find some pretty awful ways of recording things.  Now I just don't bother trying to figure out the why, I spend the time playing with different things and seeing what works.  If it sounds good then I use it, I don't care if the theory (as I understand it) agrees or disagrees.

[Gutbucket]

Thanks for the explanation of what you hear with the different configs when recording moving sources.

Well part of the reason I like spaced omnis is because the playback environment has speakers about 20-50'.  It sounds dumb when a speaker 20' to the right and ahead of you has a bird that you also hear in a speaker 20' ahead and to the left.

 
That’s what I was getting at with the less-localised pickup comment on the wide omnis.

In the beginning I thought I knew what was going on with certain types of microphones and this supposed understanding would inform how I went about recording new subjects.  I quickly learned that assumptions based on incorrect reasoning led me to find some pretty awful ways of recording things. 

I hear that!  So many non experiential opinionated ‘experts’ over at GS I rarely visit there.

Now I just don't bother trying to figure out the why, I spend the time playing with different things and seeing what works.  If it sounds good then I use it, I don't care if the theory (as I understand it) agrees or disagrees.

For me this is two sides of the same coin.  Theory isn’t concrete until I can try it myself to really see what’s going on, but the flip side is that figuring out why or why not something works and developing a good understanding of that vastly improves what I thought I knew was going on, makes it far easier to figure out what to do and gives me more control.  If theory doesn’t agree with the empirical experience, then I revise my understanding of the theory (and often find that I was making incorrect assumptions about it to begin with).  It’s a feedback loop that benefits both sides of the coin and my recording experience is richer for it.

[Gutbucket]

I'd agree though my opinion is that it is hard to get too little "room" with open mics (I may not have used quite the precise term but I mean ambient micing as opposed to instrument micing). 

If we are talking the optimal balance, and not simply the most acceptable one given the constraints, it’s not that hard to do in my opinion, although that is far less common around here than having too much room.  A good exception the other way are AUD/SBD matricies which are sometimes mixed overly dry with too much SBD, but maybe that's because the AUD was weak.

It does of course vary with the type and character of the mic but one can get pretty darn close to the source with a good mic of almost any pattern and have really nice presence.  The "dynamics" or attack and spatial references you can get in near stage placement are to my ear more important than the room ambiance that comes with a little more distance.

Yes but by using a near stage placement you are achieving a threshold level of a high enough direct/reverberant ratio first, which makes those other things possible, even if that ratio is balanced too strongly towards the direct sound to really be ‘optimal’ in itself.  You may make a wise decision to juggle things and choose a position that’s less ambient than what would be ideal in a perfect situation and trade some ambiance against the other things it makes possible, but you still need to first have enough direct sound to be able do that.

The logical extreme of that is this: A SBD recording alone is over dry, but could be fixed with some well done reverb.  A distant AUD cannot be made more present, outside a few relatively minor adjustments in EQ, compression, etc.  That difference doesn't make the straight SBD optimal, it just means it provides a better oppotunity to get other important things right as well.

I do like more of the room in a good sounding room (though find those are few) but I'm quite willing to lose that in a suboptimal room.  The 4V's are "richer" at a little bit of a distance but in certain rooms I routinely use them much closer to stage than that distance with better results than if I held the "optimal" distance and introduced a lot of unwanted distractions.

I actually like directional mics in settings that are more traditionally viewed as the realm of omnis since one can get a very unique soundstage, particularly if a PA is a minimal or non-factor.  In an appropriate setting the recorded stereo field becomes a very close reproduction of how the instruments are located on stage and gives you the feel of being in the midst of the action.  Location is key (as is the type of music and the players).  Rather than try to build that sort of stereo image with mixing or editing I hope to capture it.  You inevitably lose most of that "hyper directionality" when you go further back to get the room feel.  i think the "front row" feel is more exciting than mid-FOB (assuming you don't lose anything in the mix). 

There are different senses of "there" in play.  I've noticed a number of people (mainly the consumer/downloader crowd) feel it's a good recording if the "there" you feel approximates midway or further back on an arena floor (ie, very boomy).  If one can recreate the "there" of sitting right in an ideal spot in front of the stage hearing the music essentially as the band does (if the onstage mix is right) that's the "there" I hope for.

This is extending the definition of ‘there-ness’ to include other aspect such as imaging, presence, and dynamics, rather than simply the room ambience in a direct/reverberant sense.  All important stuff I agree, yet each of those are dependent on getting at least a useable if not entirely optimal direct/reverberant ratio first.

[Gutbucket]

One last comment on the nature of the direct/reverberant thing-

In my experience, I've noticed that both the optimal direct/reverberant ratio and it's acceptable range depends strongly on the playback format.

Mono needs to be drier than 2-channel stereo to not sound confused, and over-reveberant.
Three channel L/C/R can support more ambience than 2-channel without problems.
Multichannel surround can benefit from far more room ambience than 2-channel stereo without problems.

As I move up that hierarchy, my recordings don't need to have additional ambience to sound good, but each step beceomes more robust in allowing for additional ambience without problems.  That's part of the magic which makes good surround playback so immersive when everything is somewhat close to optimal.  You can get all the up-front dynamics, presence and imaging along with an incredibly immersive room and audience ambience without as much conflict between things as with only 2-channels.  It doesn't require more ambience, but allows for the possibility when the room sound is good and IME makes it ultimately easier to juggle things to achieve an optimal balance of all those things.

[milo]

One last comment on the nature of the direct/reverberant thing-

In my experience, I've noticed that both the optimal direct/reverberant ratio and it's acceptable range depends strongly on the playback format.

Mono needs to be drier than 2-channel stereo to not sound confused, and over-reveberant.
Three channel L/C/R can support more ambience than 2-channel without problems.
Multichannel surround can benefit from far more room ambience than 2-channel stereo without problems.

As I move up that hierarchy, my recordings don't need to have additional ambience to sound good, but each step beceomes more robust in allowing for additional ambience without problems.  That's part of the magic which makes good surround playback so immersive when everything is somewhat close to optimal.  You can get all the up-front dynamics, presence and imaging along with an incredibly immersive room and audience ambience without as much conflict between things as with only 2-channels.  It doesn't require more ambience, but allows for the possibility when the room sound is good and IME makes it ultimately easier to juggle things to achieve an optimal balance of all those things.

I assumed that's what you were getting at regarding the omnis, and this explanation of reverberance interests me very much.  I've traditionally avoided multi channel recording techniques (2+) partly because I figured that they would be more reverberant.  I'll need to do some tests.  I do like using multiple stereo techniques from the same position and mixing them together.