Topic: Experimenting with mic placement

[splumer]

Ideally, I'd like to be able to see the same band in the same venue many times to be able to experiment with different mic placements, but that would get rather expensive in terms of time and money. So, thought I, why not set up in my living room, crank the stereo and experiment there? Despite my low post count I'm not a newbie. More of a lurker. I run Shure Beta Green 4.1's > unmodded PMD660.

Opinions? Suggestions?

[boojum]

You can get a rough, very rough, idea of what you will get in the field.  Better is the slow and patient way of trying the various rigs at the venue you will be working.  If you are under 40 time is not really an issue.   ;o)

[splumer]

You can get a rough, very rough, idea of what you will get in the field.  Better is the slow and patient way of trying the various rigs at the venue you will be working.  If you are under 40 time is not really an issue.   ;o)

Well, then, it's an issue.     By time, I was thinking more of just being able to fit in all those shows when the real world intrudes.

[DSatz]

Unless you are secretly very wealthy, I'm going to assume that your living room isn't as large as most of the spaces that you'll eventually be recording in, and that it's furnished in a more or less typical way as well.

The thing is, the acoustical surroundings in which you make a recording are what makes the major difference among the different recording techniques and microphone choices that are available. Probably the biggest thing that beginners don't realize (present company excluded, of course) is the enormous extent to which we are actually recording the room whenever we record an event.

If sound traveled in a straight line from the source to the nearest microphone, and if it arrived only that one time at that one microphone, then what you hear in your living room would be a generally accurate predictor of what you'd get in a real performance venue, and all our audio choices would be far simpler than they really are. Of course, the recordings would also sound as if they'd been made with spot mikes in anechoic chambers (super-dry "ping-pong" stereo, or what some people call "multiple mono").

Instead, however, the majority of all the sound energy that ever reaches your microphones (at the usual recording distances) in a large space has already bounced off of one or more room boundaries, objects, or people. It has been variously delayed, diffused, and absorbed by different amounts at different frequencies along the way. And nearly all of the sound energy, whether direct or reflected, reaches both your microphones (or all of them, if you're using more than two), although rarely at exactly the same time.

This extremely complex way of gathering sound energy in stereo is then interpreted by our ears and brain during playback. The way that occurs is mainly dependent on the room and how you are working within it. The signals from the very same microphones can "work" on the listeners' ears' very differently in different rooms, as well as with different placements and orientations within the same room.

There are definitely some things that you can learn by trying out a pair of microphones in your living room. But unless you plan to specialize in living room recording, many of the most important qualities of your microphones (or of possible microphone setups) will only become apparent when you use them in acoustical settings that have more in common with typical performance spaces.

--best regards

[spcyrfc]

i record the same band in the same venue almost every week.  the show is a free show, so my only expense is tea and/or beer.  i would recommend finding a free, frequent show, or talking to the band and letting them know that you would like to do could help cut some of your costs.  finding compensation for time spent is an entirely different game. 

record. try new things.  ime, some sound better than others and those are the recordings i try to beat next time out.

[splumer]

I realy appreciate all the insight. I've been taping for almost 10 years, and I've always just pointed my mics at the stacks and leave it at that, or used something approaching ORTF. I always try to improve things, though, so I've been examining new options. Also, I don't really want to risk getting a bad capture of a show by experimenting.

I think what I might try doing is doing the different setups, and then just try listening to the differences, and seeing what they really are. Obviously this doesn't fully translate into a true livetaping experience, but I think it will be helpful.

For background, I do audio and video professionally, originally at a large hotel, and now at a university. I have clients all the time before an event say how great everything sounds, to which I usually reply "Well, things can change once you have 300 bags of water in the room."

Thanks again!

[F.O.Bean]

When I started recording many years ago I used ORTF ALOT. But after years of recording, my fav mic technique is DEFINITELY DIN/DINa. I am just AMAZED at how well the music and soundstage is delivered in awe inspiring 3-D realism. So give DIN or DINa a try and let me know what you think. It just tightens up image lil bit more forgiving than ORTF in a bad sounding room. But if I knew nothing about recording, and was pointing my mics at the stacks every show, then Id be a pretty happy recorder, because to be honest, you'll NEVER get as good a results as running PAS(Pointed At Stacks) most shows. Thats essentially what Im doing when I run DIN/DINa.

Running DIN/DINa does point at the stacks or just outside of them, which is exactly where my mics want to be.

But I honestly think you'll LOVE DIN/DINa if you dig ORTF. Its just a narrower image w/ just as much imagine and realism. I run Hypers/DINa 99.9999% of the time and I am CONSTANTLY AMAZED at how well my recordings sound. And I mean CONSISTENTLY great results! I found out I liked ORTF/DIN/DINa/etc. about 12 years ago sitting in my bedroom recording my stereo. Thats when I found out I hated XY too So experimenting in a decent sized room w/ a decent sized stereo can yield great results and you'll be able to find out which configs youd like to try out live, and which ones you'll never want to use again, like I found out w/ XY many years ago!

Bean

[stevetoney]

I think what I might try doing is doing the different setups, and then just try listening to the differences, and seeing what they really are. Obviously this doesn't fully translate into a true livetaping experience, but I think it will be helpful.

I think if this was something that I was really dead set to figure out for myself, I'd take my gear to the venue of choice and experiment by obtaining a controlled set of samples.  Make it a sacrificial night of recording...one that you know you're not gonna worry about the results but you're chalking it up to the future.  Or if two bands are playing, do the experiment while the backup band is playing.

Anyway, while the music is playing, record five minutes of music or so with each configuration, but keeping everything but the configuration unchanged.  I'd speak the configurations directly into the mics so that it's documented on tape and can't be lost, say if you wrote it on a piece of paper instead.

Then take them home and don't do any post processing, except perhaps to make all of the levels the same on all of the samples. 

Finally, load every sample simultaneously onto a separate track of your audio software and listen to the differences with tracks laid side-by-side.

The reason I like to do it this way is that the differences in sound can be subtle and might be a little hard to pick out.  Separating the samples by even 5 seconds of time while you're swapping from one sample to another can cause you to miss some of the intimate and subtle differences between two sources.  I like to have them all laid side-by-side so I can go back and forth with absolutely no delay at all between the two sources.  It's the best way to really hone in on sound differences.

Finally, when I'm analyzing the differences between two sound sources, I go through a sort of mental checklist.  Rather than just listening holistically and saying to myself...yeah this sounds better or worse, I consciously work through the various characteristics of sound.  For example, I'll first key in on the low frequencies, then mids, then highs.  Then contemplate how the soundstage might change from sample to sample.  And so on.  I used to just listen holistically and I found that when I started segregating my listening this way, I was able to start to get better at analyzing sound sources.

Most of what I've suggested is probably sound 101, so I hope I haven't insulted your intel...but at the same time, I hope this has contributed something value.

[Gutbucket]

^^^
Good suggestions.


record > listen > revise technique  

Part of the nature of this craft is the delay between the act of recording and the experience of hearing it played back.  The itterative process of record > listen > revise technique takes time and means that leaning which adjustment does what (and how much it takes to do it) takes a while. That lengthy feedback loop between action and response can be frustrating. In that way it's similar to film photography where the film must be processed and printed before the photographer can check her work, and not at all like other things where the feedback is immediate and makes the learning curve faster such as painting, learning to play and instrument, sports, driving a car, etc.

IME, it can be very informative to monitor through some highly isolating headphones or in-ears while tweaking mic configurations to get immediate feedback on which positional changes do what to the sound.  Although probably not the best way to choose a specific configuration due to sound source leakage and the nature of headphone monitoring itself, doing so can really help to develop a good understanding and seat-of-the-pants feel for what those changes do sonically and by what degree.

[F.O.Bean]

Goddamn do I LOVE my MBHO Hypers. I was in the SWEET SPOT last SUnday about 20-25' from the stage, DFC/FOB, and my hypers/DINa pulled an amazing recordinmg as usual. I couldnt be happier running hypers as often as I do. I JUST LOVE# the results Here s to yet another stellar hypers/DINa recording. SO consistently good I love it so much Of course its all about location, and I mostly find myself in the ideal spot DFC/FOB here in the 'Burgh so my tapes are pretty consistently good IMO

Anyway sorry if Im tooting my own horn but I never understood why running hypers so close to the stage got weird looks for awhile, but IMO its the way to go. Now dont get me wrong, if I had run my KA200N Cards instead of the KA500HN Hypers, I would've gotten a SMOKIN' recording too, but I just love the focus factor of hypers, and I also LOVE that my tapes don't have ANY CHATTER on them Chatter is a HUGE BUZZKILL for me so that's why I mainly run the hypers. MBHO makes a damn fine card too tho. thats why Soundfiled had them make the card caps for their Tetra mic or whatever the hell that crazy contraption is called

But I am really sitting here in AMAZEMENT at how good this moe recording came out. It was the 1st time I recorded in over 2 months and it felt GREAT This recording is just so focused and deadly accurate at how good it sounded. I just cant believe that I pulled this tape. It really smokes if anyone wants to check it out. Its on the LMA for moe on 1/31 under the 'Beats By Bean' name

****Done patting self on back now****

EDIT: Heres the link for anyone that cares....Please check ouyt the 'Deep This Time', its definitely one of my new faves and they just nailed the hell out of it. Peace out yo!

http://www.archive.org/details/moe2010-01-31.ka500.flac16