Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: bryonsos on June 02, 2012, 11:47:41 AM
-
I have a love/hate relationship with hypers. I love the directionality, but hate the low end characteristics that most have. Having said that, when I use them PAS in clubs and small venues, I tend to like what I get. The bass seems to be more robust than when using typical patterns like DIN. Is this because in those environments the typical stereo patterns end up pointing the mics outside of the stacks? The room where I use them most, it's because I know the crowd will be chatty. Same room, polite crowd, I run a Blumlein setup to get the directionality while preserving the bass. Interested to hear opinions in particular regarding PAS vs DIN, ORTF etc. with hypers.
-
Try running DINa with Hypers!! That might help give you the sound your looking for.
I have a love/hate relationship with hypers. I love the directionality, but hate the low end characteristics that most have. Having said that, when I use them PAS in clubs and small venues, I tend to like what I get. The bass seems to be more robust than when using typical patterns like DIN. Is this because in those environments the typical stereo patterns end up pointing the mics outside of the stacks? The room where I use them most, it's because I know the crowd will be chatty. Same room, polite crowd, I run a Blumlein setup to get the directionality while preserving the bass. Interested to hear opinions in particular regarding PAS vs DIN, ORTF etc. with hypers.
-
Try running DINa with Hypers!! That might help out give you the sound your looking for.
I have a love/hate relationship with hypers. I love the directionality, but hate the low end characteristics that most have. Having said that, when I use them PAS in clubs and small venues, I tend to like what I get. The bass seems to be more robust than when using typical patterns like DIN. Is this because in those environments the typical stereo patterns end up pointing the mics outside of the stacks? The room where I use them most, it's because I know the crowd will be chatty. Same room, polite crowd, I run a Blumlein setup to get the directionality while preserving the bass. Interested to hear opinions in particular regarding PAS vs DIN, ORTF etc. with hypers.
-
DINa is a thought, thanks.
-
It really depends on the hyper - many of them IMHO sound pretty bad, at least for taping - but if you have one you like, I think PAS or DINa is the way to go. I would not run them wide, like in ORTF; if you want a wider sound field, you may as well be using a different pattern.
I don't hate the sound of my MK41s anywhere, but they are my go-to for anywhere that I'm especially concerned about crowd chatter, distance from the source, or a bad room generally. For instance, I run them in one small club here that actually sounds great, but often has extremely chatty people around and doesn't lend itself to running high. My recordings with the 41s in there are usually some of my favorites of the year.
-
It really depends on the hyper - many of them IMHO sound pretty bad, at least for taping - but if you have one you like, I think PAS or DINa is the way to go. I would not run them wide, like in ORTF; if you want a wider sound field, you may as well be using a different pattern.
I don't hate the sound of my MK41s anywhere, but they are my go-to for anywhere that I'm especially concerned about crowd chatter, distance from the source, or a bad room generally. For instance, I run them in one small club here that actually sounds great, but often has extremely chatty people around and doesn't lend itself to running high. My recordings with the 41s in there are usually some of my favorites of the year.
Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at. FYI, the room I'm referring to is the Cats Cradle. From the normal taping spot near the SBD, with DIN, you're basically pointed outside the stacks, and wider configs point at the walls. They run mono there most of the time, so the stereo image comes from stage bleed and differences in the reflections off of the walls. I'll try DINa next time, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if its an improvement over PAS.
-
It really depends on the hyper - many of them IMHO sound pretty bad, at least for taping - but if you have one you like, I think PAS or DINa is the way to go. I would not run them wide, like in ORTF; if you want a wider sound field, you may as well be using a different pattern.
I don't hate the sound of my MK41s anywhere, but they are my go-to for anywhere that I'm especially concerned about crowd chatter, distance from the source, or a bad room generally. For instance, I run them in one small club here that actually sounds great, but often has extremely chatty people around and doesn't lend itself to running high. My recordings with the 41s in there are usually some of my favorites of the year.
Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at. FYI, the room I'm referring to is the Cats Cradle. From the normal taping spot near the SBD, with DIN, you're basically pointed outside the stacks, and wider configs point at the walls. They run mono there most of the time, so the stereo image comes from stage bleed and differences in the reflections off of the walls. I'll try DINa next time, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if its an improvement over PAS.
I haven't been to the new venue but from what I understand it's much more warehouse-like than the old one. I would also be surprised if DINa was better than straight PAS if that is the case. I generally only run my hypers wider if I'm in a room that actually sounds good but has issues with people talking.
I would not shy from trying cards run in a much tighter pattern - like 70 degrees but with wider distance between mics - either.
-
It really depends on the hyper - many of them IMHO sound pretty bad, at least for taping - but if you have one you like, I think PAS or DINa is the way to go. I would not run them wide, like in ORTF; if you want a wider sound field, you may as well be using a different pattern.
I don't hate the sound of my MK41s anywhere, but they are my go-to for anywhere that I'm especially concerned about crowd chatter, distance from the source, or a bad room generally. For instance, I run them in one small club here that actually sounds great, but often has extremely chatty people around and doesn't lend itself to running high. My recordings with the 41s in there are usually some of my favorites of the year.
Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at. FYI, the room I'm referring to is the Cats Cradle. From the normal taping spot near the SBD, with DIN, you're basically pointed outside the stacks, and wider configs point at the walls. They run mono there most of the time, so the stereo image comes from stage bleed and differences in the reflections off of the walls. I'll try DINa next time, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if its an improvement over PAS.
I haven't been to the new venue but from what I understand it's much more warehouse-like than the old one. I would also be surprised if DINa was better than straight PAS if that is the case. I generally only run my hypers wider if I'm in a room that actually sounds good but has issues with people talking.
I would not shy from trying cards run in a much tighter pattern - like 70 degrees but with wider distance between mics - either.
Yep, they really changed it for the worse from a taper's perspective. No risers etc to absorb reflections, it's basically a concrete and steel box now. Cards DIN or DINa can work, but it better be a full crowd that listens rather than chat.
-
It really depends on the hyper - many of them IMHO sound pretty bad, at least for taping - but if you have one you like, I think PAS or DINa is the way to go. I would not run them wide, like in ORTF; if you want a wider sound field, you may as well be using a different pattern.
I don't hate the sound of my MK41s anywhere, but they are my go-to for anywhere that I'm especially concerned about crowd chatter, distance from the source, or a bad room generally. For instance, I run them in one small club here that actually sounds great, but often has extremely chatty people around and doesn't lend itself to running high. My recordings with the 41s in there are usually some of my favorites of the year.
Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at. FYI, the room I'm referring to is the Cats Cradle. From the normal taping spot near the SBD, with DIN, you're basically pointed outside the stacks, and wider configs point at the walls. They run mono there most of the time, so the stereo image comes from stage bleed and differences in the reflections off of the walls. I'll try DINa next time, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if its an improvement over PAS.
I haven't been to the new venue but from what I understand it's much more warehouse-like than the old one. I would also be surprised if DINa was better than straight PAS if that is the case. I generally only run my hypers wider if I'm in a room that actually sounds good but has issues with people talking.
I would not shy from trying cards run in a much tighter pattern - like 70 degrees but with wider distance between mics - either.
Yep, they really changed it for the worse from a taper's perspective. No risers etc to absorb reflections, it's basically a concrete and steel box now. Cards DIN or DINa can work, but it better be a full crowd that listens rather than chat.
I've taped dozens of shows at the Cat's Cradle and DINa with hypers is definitely the way to go. The PA system there varies so much from night to night depending on whomever is running sound and there can be a ton of low end rumble in there from the reverberations from the walls. Also, most people there are there for social hour, not to see a concert so crowd noise is an issue.
I prefer DINa to PAS because it gives me improved stereo imaging and soundstaging. If you want just the music as clearly as possible and view soundstage as a secondary issue, then PAS may be more to your liking.
-
It really depends on the hyper - many of them IMHO sound pretty bad, at least for taping - but if you have one you like, I think PAS or DINa is the way to go. I would not run them wide, like in ORTF; if you want a wider sound field, you may as well be using a different pattern.
I don't hate the sound of my MK41s anywhere, but they are my go-to for anywhere that I'm especially concerned about crowd chatter, distance from the source, or a bad room generally. For instance, I run them in one small club here that actually sounds great, but often has extremely chatty people around and doesn't lend itself to running high. My recordings with the 41s in there are usually some of my favorites of the year.
Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at. FYI, the room I'm referring to is the Cats Cradle. From the normal taping spot near the SBD, with DIN, you're basically pointed outside the stacks, and wider configs point at the walls. They run mono there most of the time, so the stereo image comes from stage bleed and differences in the reflections off of the walls. I'll try DINa next time, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if its an improvement over PAS.
I haven't been to the new venue but from what I understand it's much more warehouse-like than the old one. I would also be surprised if DINa was better than straight PAS if that is the case. I generally only run my hypers wider if I'm in a room that actually sounds good but has issues with people talking.
I would not shy from trying cards run in a much tighter pattern - like 70 degrees but with wider distance between mics - either.
Yep, they really changed it for the worse from a taper's perspective. No risers etc to absorb reflections, it's basically a concrete and steel box now. Cards DIN or DINa can work, but it better be a full crowd that listens rather than chat.
I've taped dozens of shows at the Cat's Cradle and DINa with hypers is definitely the way to go. The PA system there varies so much from night to night depending on whomever is running sound and there can be a ton of low end rumble in there from the reverberations from the walls. Also, most people there are there for social hour, not to see a concert so crowd noise is an issue.
I prefer DINa to PAS because it gives me improved stereo imaging and soundstaging. If you want just the music as clearly as possible and view soundstage as a secondary issue, then PAS may be more to your liking.
Where were you jlykos....FOB or back at the sound board
-
Where were you jlykos....FOB or back at the sound board
Usually just in front and to the right of the SBD, near the risers. Going FOB in that place is asking for trouble with people kicking your stand and talking all over everything.
-
I've taped dozens of shows at the Cat's Cradle and DINa with hypers is definitely the way to go.
Jamie, not sure if you knew, but the Cradle has re-done the inside... No more elevated areas, more cavernous/warehouse-like...
Terry
-
I've taped dozens of shows at the Cat's Cradle and DINa with hypers is definitely the way to go.
Jamie, not sure if you knew, but the Cradle has re-done the inside... No more elevated areas, more cavernous/warehouse-like...
Terry
More cavernous / warehouse-like? How? The risers were the only decent thing about that place. Did they knock down the back wall that used to separate the main floor from the bar area or something?
-
Risers gone. Wall gone. They hung a curtain from the ceiling behind the board, that's all that separates the bar from the music area.
-
I don't hate the sound of my MK41s anywhere, but they are my go-to for anywhere that I'm especially concerned about crowd chatter, distance from the source, or a bad room generally. For instance, I run them in one small club here that actually sounds great, but often has extremely chatty people around and doesn't lend itself to running high. My recordings with the 41s in there are usually some of my favorites of the year.
amen to that comment. i like the sound of the MK41s quite a bit. i bought Sennheiser MKH8050s for exactly the same reasons you use your 41s, and the 8050s work great. the 8050s pull a considerable amount of bass like the MKH8000 series in general, and they have great overall fullness and balance. to my ears the Schoeps MK41s and the Sennheiser MKH8050s are the best sounding hypers. just my personal opinion.
-
I've taped dozens of shows at the Cat's Cradle and DINa with hypers is definitely the way to go.
Jamie, not sure if you knew, but the Cradle has re-done the inside... No more elevated areas, more cavernous/warehouse-like...
Terry
More cavernous / warehouse-like? How? The risers were the only decent thing about that place. Did they knock down the back wall that used to separate the main floor from the bar area or something?
I haven't been there yet, but from what I've heard, all the risers are gone... I don't think they got rid of the back wall, but I think they got rid of that side "hallway" that cut from the front to the mid/back...
Someone else should chine in...
Terry
-
I don't hate the sound of my MK41s anywhere, but they are my go-to for anywhere that I'm especially concerned about crowd chatter, distance from the source, or a bad room generally. For instance, I run them in one small club here that actually sounds great, but often has extremely chatty people around and doesn't lend itself to running high. My recordings with the 41s in there are usually some of my favorites of the year.
amen to that comment. i like the sound of the MK41s quite a bit. i bought Sennheiser MKH8050s for exactly the same reasons you use your 41s, and the 8050s work great. the 8050s pull a considerable amount of bass like the MKH8000 series in general, and they have great overall fullness and balance. to my ears the Schoeps MK41s and the Sennheiser MKH8050s are the best sounding hypers. just my personal opinion.
Do you have any recordings of the 8050s posted anywhere? I'd be curious to hear them..
-
I don't hate the sound of my MK41s anywhere, but they are my go-to for anywhere that I'm especially concerned about crowd chatter, distance from the source, or a bad room generally. For instance, I run them in one small club here that actually sounds great, but often has extremely chatty people around and doesn't lend itself to running high. My recordings with the 41s in there are usually some of my favorites of the year.
amen to that comment. i like the sound of the MK41s quite a bit. i bought Sennheiser MKH8050s for exactly the same reasons you use your 41s, and the 8050s work great. the 8050s pull a considerable amount of bass like the MKH8000 series in general, and they have great overall fullness and balance. to my ears the Schoeps MK41s and the Sennheiser MKH8050s are the best sounding hypers. just my personal opinion.
Do you have any recordings of the 8050s posted anywhere? I'd be curious to hear them..
I would LOVE to hear some tasty 8050 sources too :)
-
If the Cradle was remodeled as described, the original poster may want to try cards XY. That will give your recordings some focus while retaining the bass. The bass may not be as clean as running hypers but it will give you a mix of directionality, sound staging, and quantity of bass.
-
It makes sense that hypers would be "light on the bass" when aimed up at the stacks- just as overall they tend to have lower output because they reject so much more. I was recently reading another thread where someone was talking about using EQ in post judiciously, where most tapers tend towards a pure, unequalized approach. With hypercards you have a natural rejection of bass because you are focused on the mids and highs with your pattern, assuming a standard PA setup. Adding this back in with post-EQ will not add any chatter back so while it isn't the "pristine" original, I say why not bump it up in post or playback. I also save my EQ presets in Foobar in the folder with different recordings. There are tons of craptastic recordings out there that turn to gold with a few slider maneuvers.
Also, these standard patterns were likely not developed with speaker stacks and hypercardioid capsules in mind. As always, experimentation is encouraged. I'd agree with the comments that a tighter pattern would make sense considering you are naturally going to get more stereo separation than cards or omnis for whatever angle you run at.
I've always liked hypers. As an example, in a situation like Rockygrass the conventional wisdom is to run split omnis "because you can"- there are no room reflections to worry about. But I feel that you end up sounding like you are in the middle of a field with a stage off in the distance, which you are. The hypers, to me, make you sound about half again as close to the stage (which is where the OTS in a just world would be located). And when you are up close, generally you don't have a tall stand so its nice to be able to point your mics up over people's heads if you are short like me.
-
I don't know the venue at all, but if trying X/Y, considering using hypers instead of cardioids for better sound stage.
YMMV, but my personal X/Y continuum goes something like this:
X/Y figure-8's = delicious
X/Y hypers/supers = tasty
X/Y cards = meh
X/Y omnis = pointless
-
I don't know the venue at all, but if trying X/Y, considering using hypers instead of cardioids for better sound stage.
YMMV, but my personal X/Y continuum goes something like this:
X/Y figure-8's = delicious
X/Y hypers/supers = tasty
X/Y cards = meh
X/Y omnis = pointless
100% agreed!
-
Thes last two nights from jones beach provide an interesting example of when to use hypers.
Night one I ran the mk22 as a mid, figuring that the bass response would be better and that without walls, I wouldn't need a narrower pattern.
night two I ran the mk41, and while the bass is still there, everything sounds more focused and cleaner. What do you think?
7/3: http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=556472
7/4: http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=556511
-
Four reasons why "hypercardioids" and "supercardioids"--most microphones which claim to be either one are actually somewhere in between--give you less bass than, say, most general-purpose cardioids or (especially) omnis:
(1) Starting with the simplest: Many manufacturers assume that the main application for these microphones (and thus the biggest market) will be speech pickup in unfavorable acoustical surroundings, so they deliberately roll off the low end of the frequency spectrum.
(2) Maybe even simpler: Good-sounding, highly directional microphones are much more difficult to manufacture than good less-directional or non-directional microphones; specifically, for now at least they're still beyond the capabilities of the high-volume, low-cost Chinese factories. By "good" I especially mean "having smooth, natural-sounding frequency response, and maintaining the same frequency response off-axis as on-axis as far as physically possible" although low distortion, low noise, consistency between samples and high reliability are important, too, of course.
(3) Highly directional microphones have a high degree of velocity (pressure gradient) sensitivity relative to their pressure sensitivity, and the physical force generated by the pressure gradient (the force that moves the diaphragm of a condenser microphone) inherently rolls off at low frequencies. In other words there's an inherent tradeoff between overall sensitivity and extended low-frequency response.
(4) The most complicated, but it's pretty important subjectively: In any enclosed space with rigid boundaries (floor, ceiling, walls), an acoustical phenomenon called "standing waves" causes resonant frequencies to be reinforced depending on the exact dimensions and shape of that space. Not only is the amplitude increased but the "hangover" time of sounds at those frequencies will increase considerably. This phenomenon is most noticeable at low frequencies if the space is large enough and the boundaries rigid enough. If there's a lot of low-frequency stimulus in a moderate- to large-sized room, much of the low frequency sound energy that listeners experience in that room will be the energy from standing waves. However, standing waves occur along particular directional axes, and highly directional microphones tend to reject sound energy which arrives along any axis other than the one containing their own 0-degree direction. So they simply don't pick up the majority of the energy that is due to standing waves.
(5) (which just occurred to me while I was writing this): Most manufacturers, including the ones who are sincerely trying to publish accurate and reliable frequency response graphs, "correct" their published frequency response curves so that they show how the microphone would respond to sound at a distance of one meter. At one meter, proximity effect (which boosts the low- and low-mid frequency response) still has some effect for cardioids, and even more of an effect with supercardioids, hypercardioids and figure-8s. This isn't quite kosher. but almost everybody does it--and the one well-known company that doesn't use a one meter effective measuring distance "corrects" its published curves to an even _shorter_ measuring distance, so that their directional microphones look as if they have even better low-frequency response relative to other brands.
Anyway, given that, if you had a hypothetical company whose published frequency response graphs all looked flat at low frequencies, in actual fact, to the extent that proximity effect was involved in those graphs, then the closer you'd get to the figure-8 (= pure velocity) end of the directional spectrum, there would be less and less actual low-frequency pickup for distant and semi-distant sound sources.
--best regards