Topic: Lavalier mic: Single vs Pair

[smat]

I was thinking about getting something like a countryman or a dpa4061.  I can swing the cash for one but getting 2 is a bit much.  How much of a difference is there if a single just splits the signal in 2 thus becoming stereo anyway?

[LikeASong]

I have recorded full rock shows in Mono due to a failure in the mics' cable (the failure is still there by the way, the cable needs to be held in a specific position to retain its dual channel abilities) and nobody noticed it was mono when I converted it to Stereo in post-proccesing. Unless the band uses a very strong stereo separation in their PA, the stereo will be useless in the music itself, and will only add to the "live feel" of the recording - meaning that audience sounds will be more natural if they come separately from each one of the sides, etc. That can be achieved in post anyway. For example, I recorded a show in mono being back at the sound desk; stereo imaging on the PA was unexistant. I got home and only one channel had signal; I splitted the stereo, deleted the empty channel, doubled the other one, separated the right and left channels a few miliseconds (5 ms I think) and added a slight amount of hall reverb to the delayed channel. The resulting "fake stereo" recording kicked ass (IMO).

[Ultfris101]

Yes, as LikeASong states stereo can be faked, but it's not a preferred way to run unless you end up with a mono recording accidentally. Not recommended to do on a regular basis on purpose.

Have you considered Church Audio CA-14's or Naiant X-X's? They're about half the price of the B3's and pretty darn good. I've been very happy with CA-14's. Only adding other mics for fun and experimentation. They are a terrific place to start.

Do you have other gear or just starting out?

Or did you just want to start a thread of craziness?    You might want to ask next whether there's value in recording to wav vs mp3....

Joking aside, you really want to try for two mics. Results with one just won't be very good and there are very reasonably priced two mic alternatives.

[Ultfris101]

Yes, as LikeASong states stereo can be faked, but it's not a preferred way to run unless you end up with a mono recording accidentally. Not recommended to do on a regular basis on purpose.

Have you considered Church Audio CA-14's or Naiant X-X's? They're about half the price of the B3's and pretty darn good. I've been very happy with CA-14's. Only adding other mics for fun and experimentation. They are a terrific place to start.

Do you have other gear or just starting out?

Or did you just want to start a thread of craziness?    You might want to ask next whether there's value in recording to wav vs mp3....

Joking aside, you really want to try for two mics. Results with one just won't be very good and there are very reasonably priced two mic alternatives.

I just looked through some of you're old posts and it looks like you might be using CA-11's or Core Sound mics now. Honestly, save up until you can afford two B3's or DPAs, and watch Ebay for deals. Running with one is a waste of time if you're looking to upgrade. But also pay a lot of attention on how they are terminated or you'll need to get a new preamp/battery box to run them. DPAs are typically not terminated to miniplug unless they've been modified. You could get them modified but figure that in your cost.

[F.O.Bean]

I cant recommend this enuf! CA-14 Pair [Cardioids/Omnis]>Battery Box/Preamp>recorder in 24-Bit

[rastasean]

What are you wanting to record? Music or spoken word? IMO, it doesn't make too much sense to have someone wear two omni mics for spoken word.

[LikeASong]

Running with one is a waste of time if you're looking to upgrade.

I agreed with you in everything except that. A mono recording made with a superb mic will be miles better than a stereo recording made with a pair of $50 mics... IMO of course

[Ultfris101]

Well, we've heard nothing from the original poster yet on what is actually being recorded which is a very relevant point as rastasean points out. If we're talking recording a single instrument, an interview, or somebody doing the evening news then stereo recording isn't very important.

If your goal is to capture the sound of the performance in the room and all of the various characteristics results seem like they'd be less than optimal with a single mic. To me there's a bit of a philosophical question too, after what degree of processing is it no longer a snapshot of the event and more of a processed product. Personally and subjectively, I place high value on as faithful a reproduction of the event with as little processing in post as possible. Others may not be so concerned with that.

I'm assuming nobody here is going to advocate leaving one of their mics at home and recording shows with a single mic as standard practice, right?

So, my subjective recommendation would stand, use two microphones if you're hoping to capture a live performance of multiple instruments/vocalists.

But, maybe get one 4061 and give it a shot and see if the results are good enough. I've only done this once myself and it was to deal with a bad channel. The result wasn't overly pleasing (DBT 10/26 Richmond) but so far it's also the only recording of that night that's been shared. I think I actually used some notes from one of your posts, LikeASong, in an attempt to approximate two channels.

Is there a stereo mic in this price range?

[LikeASong]

I said I have recorded shows (and still do it sometimes) in mono due to a bad connection in my CAFS mics (not something that I like, but not something I can get fixed anytime soon either), and the doubled fake stereo, while obviously isn't as good as a real stereo, is more than acceptable. I would love to have two recorders and another pair of good mics in order to make the ABX test that Jon suggested. I may do it when I receive my new CA14s, maybe I record in mono CAFS>minidisc and CA14s>Roland R05 some show so we can compare

[Gutbucket]

If we're talking recording a single instrument, an interview, or somebody doing the evening news then stereo recording isn't very important.

 
I would only include a certain subset of 'single instrument' situations in that statement. Even isolated some (many?) instruments benefit from stereo mic'ing if a realistic portrayal is the goal. A solo performance of a single instrument in a hall with an audience is by no means a mono event, nor a stereo, or a 5 channel event, but something far more acoustically complex.

If your goal is to capture the sound of the performance in the room and all of the various characteristics results seem like they'd be less than optimal with a single mic. To me there's a bit of a philosophical question too, after what degree of processing is it no longer a snapshot of the event and more of a processed product. Personally and subjectively, I place high value on as faithful a reproduction of the event with as little processing in post as possible. Others may not be so concerned with that.

You should record in surround!  It too is 'less than optimal' but far more so than stereo, and way, way more than mono.  And though it is more complex to record, I argue that it requires less processing to effectively achieve the illusion you are talking about.  It's certainly not very practical compared to 2-channel stereo though.

Apologies to the OP for my off-topic tangential philosophical musings!

I may do it when I receive my new CA14s, maybe I record in mono CAFS>minidisc and CA14s>Roland R05 some show so we can compare

For a less biased comparison, do it the other way, with your better microphone and signal-chain used for the mono 'underdog' recording.  That’s the whole point of the comp, right?

Actually if you are recording with spaced omnis (not baffled) not too close to the source, each mic identically arranged and spaced reasonably (spaced less than say 3’, not a huge 15’ split or something, all mics pointing directly ahead). You can just record both chains in stereo and simply discard one or the other channel of each pair to get a pure non-mixed mono source.  You could then compare stereo vs mono, mono vs mono and stereo vs stereo for both chains. A virtual comp fiesta!

[Ultfris101]

You should record in surround!  It too is 'less than optimal' but far more so than stereo, and way, way more than mono.  And though it is more complex to record, I argue that it requires less processing to effectively achieve the illusion you are talking about.  It's certainly not very practical compared to 2-channel stereo though.

Your recording contraptions caught my eye some time ago. This is definitely something I want to experiment with.

Apologies to the OP for my off-topic tangential philosophical musings!

I think the original poster was just trolling to start something up 

[fmaderjr]

You should record in surround!  It too is 'less than optimal' but far more so than stereo, and way, way more than mono.  And though it is more complex to record, I argue that it requires less processing to effectively achieve the illusion you are talking about.  It's certainly not very practical compared to 2-channel stereo though.

I'm sure that's true, but that would be too much work for me to the point of me not enjoying being able to enjoy the show. It's all a matter of personal priorities, I guess.

I love a good 2 channel stereo recording, but wouldn't dream of intentionally recording in mono. Even if the PA is mono, I like a stereo recording of it so the noises from the crowd are in stereo.  Even if you can synthesize room ambiance for fake stereo, I don't think you can get crowd cheering to the right of you sounding as if it was coming from the right.

[Gutbucket]

Even if the PA is mono, I like a 2ch stereo surround stereo recording of it so the room sound is enveloping and noises from the crowd are in 2ch stereo all around in the correct places.  Even if you can synthesize room ambiance for fake 2ch stereo surround stereo, I don't think you can get crowd cheering to the right of you sounding as if it was coming from the right.. and forward and back and diagonal and over there and right here.

FTFY