Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: voltronic on December 06, 2023, 03:45:52 PM
-
This thread is for discussion of configurations, techniques, and theory specific to recording acoustic music.
Discussion of all genres of music are welcome, so long as they are limited to instruments or voices performing without PA reinforcement. Instruments that are part of an ensemble and are played through an amplifier as part of the instrument itself (ex. electrified strings and synths) can certainly be part of this discussion, so long as the recording aspect is generally recording an acoustic ensemble rather than recording a PA system.
-
Jürgen Meyer - Acoustics and the Performance of Music (https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/3037007/mod_resource/content/1/MeyerJ%20%5B2009%5D%20Acoustics%20and%20the%20performance%20of%20music%20manual%20for%20acousticians%2C%20audio.pdf) (PDF book)
Michael Williams Website (https://www.williamsmmad.com/) - Developer of Stereophonic Zoom and surround techniques
Visualization of all stereo microphone systems with two microphones (http://www.sengpielaudio.com/HejiaE.htm) - interactive SRA tool
Hauptmikrofon (https://www.hauptmikrofon.de/) - Website of Helmut Wittek of Schoeps including IMA visualizer and many other useful things
Correlation analysis of various microphone arrays (https://gearspace.com/board/all-things-technical/1386229-correlation-analysis-various-microphone-arrays.html)
How to determine Critical Distance (https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/determine-critical-distance/?irgwc=1)
Comparison of different microphone positions for orchestra instruments (http://soundmedia.jp/nuaudk/)
Mid-Side Recording Basics (https://www.uaudio.com/blog/mid-side-mic-recording)
The Gerzon Array (https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/gerzon-array)
Stereo Masterclass (https://www.audiotechnology.com/features/stereo-masterclass) - Interview with Tony Faulkner
The Use of B&K Omnidirectional Microphones for Modern Recording (https://www.bksv.com/media/doc/BO0101.pdf) - old document with very interesting techniques
The Research On Classical Music Recording (http://kazuyanagae.com/) - AMAZING interactive site. Just go there now. Some comparison examples use over $100,000 worth of mics!
Microphone Arrangement in Grand Piano Recording (http://soundmedia.jp/nuaudktua/) - Similar to above, but incredibly in-depth and piano specific. The most epic recording session ever.
SOS: Piano Recording (https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/piano-recording) - much smaller-scale than the above, but still excellent
-
Here are printed resources:
Classical Recording: A Practical Guide in the Decca Tradition (https://www.routledge.com/Classical-Recording-A-Practical-Guide-in-the-Decca-Tradition/Haigh-Dunkerley-Rogers/p/book/9780367312800) - This is the most amazing book on solo or ensemble acoustic recording out there. Buy it!
-
Related TS Threads:
On-Stage Taping (https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=1625.0)
-
Great idea!
Discussion of all genres of music are welcome, so long as they are limited to instruments or voices performing without PA reinforcement.
Just to clarify, does this allow for performances where an instrumentalist plays through an on-stage amp (a jazz electric guitar player, for example), but without an actual PA system?
-
Great idea!
Discussion of all genres of music are welcome, so long as they are limited to instruments or voices performing without PA reinforcement.
Just to clarify, does this allow for performances where an instrumentalist plays through an on-stage amp (a jazz electric guitar player, for example), but without an actual PA system?
Yes, that qualifies. I will update the OP accordingly. I just wanted to carve out a place here where we could exclusively discuss recording non-PA concerts.
-
Been a long time since I did any recording of this style, and I think we've discussed it before, but a decca tree (or even pair of omnis at the conductor) in a nice big room... :chefskiss:
My personal favorite recording in that style that I've ever made was a youth orchestra at Strathmore in Bethesda, MD. Pair of Telefunken M60s with the TK61 caps either side of the conductor, and then a pair of LDCs in cardioid essentially in the wings pointing in. The main body of the recording was the omnis, but the cards helped to provide some really nice space to the whole thing. I think I've got it on dropbox somewhere, might could dig up a sample...
But in general, in a nice lively room with reasonable performance volume omnis are really beautiful
-
This thread is for discussion of configurations, techniques, and theory specific to recording acoustic music.
Thanks Voltronic. The links you have provided are an excellent reference! I am not an "arena live show taper". My focus is on live acoustic music recording and my self-funded doc and sound design work.
Looking forward to participating more here.
-
Here are a few samples of my choir's dress rehearsal last night to demonstrate the Gerzon array. 4011A's into my F6, with shuffling EQ (see Gerzon article above) and some very slight RX Spectral Denoise in post.
The choir is about 90 singers. Sopranos left, Basses right, Altos center, Tenors behind Altos. Chamber choir is 24 singers.
Lux Arumque (https://mega.nz/file/KjomUBKZ#ZnwQRWSgc0lYDDpR8VKiHLmVdOfyiAqO5l-iTqAtpHw)
Lo, How a Rose E'er Blooming (https://mega.nz/file/SjJTTSyA#Kq5ZsZFgOS6EWHptdtltPTBC9lipSNwUFJuswAIgzYw) (chamber choir)
Happy Holiday (https://mega.nz/file/CiQiWQAD#yaIhxJ2ruXsLzoX_TPXMepmVobz2ixxadWsIi2fNszA)
Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas (https://mega.nz/file/27wylSKb#AXOp6epoZ5kEESDdYq-kS6-3NwUn5SbFREMEW5txVIk) (with alternate ending take)
I also recorded an omni pair, but there was a problem there that I would rather discuss in the F6 thread.
-
OK, I'm in on this thread.
I recorded a duo with no PA once.
There was a guitar amplifier involved, but no vocal reinforcement via mics or PA- just people singing into mostly the air, but also my mics.
https://archive.org/details/VictorKrummenacher2018-12-13/ (https://archive.org/details/VictorKrummenacher2018-12-13/VictorKrummenacher2018-12-13t02.flac)
I've recorded singalongs with voices and acoustic guitars, but not to any great results, due to my ersatz stereo pair placement, and the general event style....
-
Thought I'd post a recording made a few years back, Baroque cello and piano pieces. Cellos are period instruments.
Link to dropbox folder with aiffs:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/jpt6jv6o8dlvkut716zeb/h?rlkey=pxig8ogydc0uly18tg3vncqu0&dl=0
Textfile attached.
I'm still waiting on artist ok to post recent Schubert sonatas recording...
-
Been contacted again about recording a choir that has minimal instrumental accompaniment - an acoustic guitar on a song or two, some hand held doo dads like sleigh bells for a Christmas song not sure they are being kinda vague. Small ensemble of a dozen. A lot of them are in higher education and have access to spaces in the music department so I've been pushing them to find a larger more lively sounding space than a treated rehearsal room.
They are accustomed to their physical arrangement (five in front seven on a riser behind straight line no curve) but I'm curious about what y'all think about where the instruments should be located? I'll put a spot mic on the guitar so it can be panned in the mix later but with the split omnis and wide ORTF subcards I plan to use as the main pairs to choose from later - in addition to two LDC cardioid vocal spots - there's going to be location cues in the main mix already especially if it's all the way to one side. I'm guessing I can just mix the spot mic for instruments and find where the panning works best but curious how any of you have approached this. Also guessing that whoever is jangling the bells and whatnot will just be doing that from their set location in the ensemble so I don't have much to do on those tunes except hope for the best. The guitar is a whole different thing though.
-
Been contacted again about recording a choir that has minimal instrumental accompaniment - an acoustic guitar on a song or two, some hand held doo dads like sleigh bells for a Christmas song not sure they are being kinda vague. Small ensemble of a dozen. A lot of them are in higher education and have access to spaces in the music department so I've been pushing them to find a larger more lively sounding space than a treated rehearsal room.
They are accustomed to their physical arrangement (five in front seven on a riser behind straight line no curve) but I'm curious about what y'all think about where the instruments should be located? I'll put a spot mic on the guitar so it can be panned in the mix later but with the split omnis and wide ORTF subcards I plan to use as the main pairs to choose from later - in addition to two LDC cardioid vocal spots - there's going to be location cues in the main mix already especially if it's all the way to one side. I'm guessing I can just mix the spot mic for instruments and find where the panning works best but curious how any of you have approached this. Also guessing that whoever is jangling the bells and whatnot will just be doing that from their set location in the ensemble so I don't have much to do on those tunes except hope for the best. The guitar is a whole different thing though.
Sounds like you have a good plan already. Definitely push them to perform in the best hall available; a dead rehearsal room will sound like what it is.
A lot depends on the rep they are performing. If you get a good hall, you may not need any spot mics at all and your CM3s might cover everything. Or, your omni's alone. 50 cm is usually my starting point depending on the SRA. You might even try the Tony Faulkner 47/67 phased array of subcards and omnis here, but again a lot depends on the room and the repertoire.
I've done choir with acoustic guitar (in a beautiful sounding church) and didn't need a spot for the guitar. I would also be surprised if you need choir spots for an ensemble this small, unless you wind up in the dead room.
I would locate the guitar in the center. Put aux percussion to either side, but not wider than the side boundaries of the choir. I find it really distracting in a recording when percussion is hard L or R with choir - it keeps pulling my focus off-center, making the whole recording seem off-center.
Any piano involved?
-
^ No piano. They mentioned that when discussing the choice of rooms since they don't need one.
I heard back from the person who reached out to me in the beginning. They definitely want a vocal spot for soloists to "step up to" - guess I'll use an ADK LD for that.
-
I heard back from the person who reached out to me in the beginning. They definitely want a vocal spot for soloists to "step up to" - guess I'll use an ADK LD for that.
This kind of statement makes me think soloists are going to sing to the mic instead of to the hall, as they should. But if that's what makes them comfortable, put up your ADK.
Of course, if your main array captures the soloist well you might not actually use that solo spot at any significant level in the final mix. But don't tell them if they are happy with the sound...
What kind of music is being performed? I'm getting a very pop vibe here.
-
Nothing to add other than to say how much I love the simplicity of a bluegrass band playing/singing acoustically around a single omni mic, then leaning in when their lead comes around. And how often does that recording sound as good as anything anyone can do with a much more elaborate rig. 'Bigger' doesn't always translate to better...guess it all depends on what you're after.
-
Yep. I love this style as well. Sometimes a 2nd lower (instrument) mic comes in handy to make solos a bit easier for the musicians and cleaner for the recording. I have wanted to setup something like this for years backstage at a local bluegrass festival. Grab whoever I can get to play 2-3 songs together throughout the weekend. Thinking single LG for vocals and a lower SD for instruments > into a Zoom F3, so all I need to do is hit Record and Stop.
-
^ and ^^..
The on-stage setup Chatham Co Line uses for their center mic-stand (or at least used to) is a good one for up close taping of blue-grassy stuff with vocals.. you know, bands doing the typical "step up close for solos" and "all lean in for harmonies" thing. That's a LD mic up at face height with a ORTF-ish near-spaced pair at instrument height a foot or so lower. Very doable with taper gear. [Edit- to be clear, CCL uses this setup on stage feeding a PA for reinforcement, however the reason I mention it here is that it works great for recording non-PA reinforced bands playing to just themselves, a handful of people, or whatever in a non-PA reinforced situation using a single mic stand. Easy to setup backstage or at camp or whatever. Best to push the LD vocal mic something like a foot or so forward of the near-spaced pair for easier access to it, gets it closer to the center of a half-circle of singers]
(https://f4.bcbits.com/img/a0973751631_16.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXs28X29tM6SjKCXmRM8XOHnn2Qap2QTcZaU7rK4SMDpWOzOL5k_KWT2B-pDCuYhdOXuA&usqp=CAU)
-
Been contacted again about recording a choir that has minimal instrumental accompaniment - an acoustic guitar on a song or two, some hand held doo dads like sleigh bells for a Christmas song not sure they are being kinda vague. Small ensemble of a dozen. A lot of them are in higher education and have access to spaces in the music department so I've been pushing them to find a larger more lively sounding space than a treated rehearsal room.
They are accustomed to their physical arrangement (five in front seven on a riser behind straight line no curve) but I'm curious about what y'all think about where the instruments should be located? I'll put a spot mic on the guitar so it can be panned in the mix later but with the split omnis and wide ORTF subcards I plan to use as the main pairs to choose from later - in addition to two LDC cardioid vocal spots - there's going to be location cues in the main mix already especially if it's all the way to one side. I'm guessing I can just mix the spot mic for instruments and find where the panning works best but curious how any of you have approached this. Also guessing that whoever is jangling the bells and whatnot will just be doing that from their set location in the ensemble so I don't have much to do on those tunes except hope for the best. The guitar is a whole different thing though.
Sounds like you have a good plan already. Definitely push them to perform in the best hall available; a dead rehearsal room will sound like what it is.
A lot depends on the rep they are performing. If you get a good hall, you may not need any spot mics at all and your CM3s might cover everything. Or, your omni's alone. 50 cm is usually my starting point depending on the SRA. You might even try the Tony Faulkner 47/67 phased array of subcards and omnis here, but again a lot depends on the room and the repertoire.
I've done choir with acoustic guitar (in a beautiful sounding church) and didn't need a spot for the guitar. I would also be surprised if you need choir spots for an ensemble this small, unless you wind up in the dead room.
I would locate the guitar in the center. Put aux percussion to either side, but not wider than the side boundaries of the choir. I find it really distracting in a recording when percussion is hard L or R with choir - it keeps pulling my focus off-center, making the whole recording seem off-center.
How'd this go?
Fully agreed with all points discussed. Particularly about pushing for a good hall, also on percussion or any other supporting instrument being way too far off to the side. Although probably not necessary I'd spot mic the guitar if its not a hassle, as it can be easy for that instrument to get lost at not much of a distance, and its nice to have the option of reinforcing its subtle details and panning that wherever is best.
-
Heads up - an amazing recording techniques book I purchased a couple years ago is on sale:
https://www.routledge.com/Classical-Recording-A-Practical-Guide-in-the-Decca-Tradition/Haigh-Dunkerley-Rogers/p/book/9780367312800
(also added to the Resource List in a post reserved for print resources)
-
Very good book. When it came out I got it for $50 (paperback) at Amazon, it now seems to list for $55. But Amazon is offering it for $41.63, which is even cheaper than this listing.
-
Classical Recording A Practical Guide in the Decca Tradition
https://www.routledge.com/Classical-Recording-A-Practical-Guide-in-the-Decca-Tradition/Haigh-Dunkerley-Rogers/p/book/9780367312800
£31.99 + VAT £1.76 + free shipping to France (from UK).
C'est fait !
Thank you, Voltronic!
-
Classical Recording A Practical Guide in the Decca Tradition
https://www.routledge.com/Classical-Recording-A-Practical-Guide-in-the-Decca-Tradition/Haigh-Dunkerley-Rogers/p/book/9780367312800
£31.99 + VAT £1.76 + free shipping to France (from UK).
C'est fait !
Thank you, Voltronic!
C'est un prix fantastique !
-
Here are samples from a recent concert. I did an experiment with a mic arrangement used for a time by Onno Scholze at Phillips. DPA 4006A with only 32 cm capsule spacing, angled out 90 deg. On paper, this shouldn't work, but I think it came out pretty decently. I'm curious to hear comments on how you perceive the imaging. Not sure if I'll do this again or go back to my usual starting point of 42 to 52 cm spacing, straight ahead or with a slight opening angle.
The third track adds a pair of Line Audio OM1 in a similar arrangement but further back. That one involves over 600 student singers.
Before listening, go to Audio Options at the bottom and enable Lossless.
https://samply.app/p/4T0HHxD3xntJcLu3qYGn
-
Looking forward to giving a listen tonight..
I did an experiment with a mic arrangement used for a time by Onno Scholze at Phillips. DPA 4006A with only 32 cm capsule spacing, angled out 90 deg. On paper, this shouldn't work, [..snip]
Because on paper the spacing is overly narrow? I suspect it will produce some binaural cues and have a solid center but not sound as open or wide as it would with increased spacing. At that spacing a center baffle is likely to be helpful. The 90° inclusive angle should help provide a bit more stereo interest and openness up top.
I just modeled it in Image Assistant. SRA is somewhat strongly dependent on distance from the source. If placed relatively close, ~2m away, total SRA is 119° (75% SRA = 71°). If relatively far ~10m away, total SRA is 143° (75% SRA = 79°). A difference in SRA of 24°. Perhaps of greater importance than image distribution, DFC (Diffuse field correlation, lower is better) remains high (>0.9) up to around 100hz, then drops off between there and 500Hz where it reaches zero, remaining fully decorrelated above that point.
Not sure if I'll do this again or go back to my usual starting point of 42 to 52 cm spacing, straight ahead or with a slight opening angle.
Modeled that too for comparison- At 42cm, SRA is less strongly dependent on distance from the source than at 32cm. If placed relatively close, ~2m away, total SRA is 86° (75% SRA = 54°). If relatively far ~10m away, total SRA is 93° (75% SRA = 58°). A difference of 7°. DFC improves slightly, remaining highly correlated (>0.9) up to around 70hz, then drops off between there and 400Hz where it reaches zero and remains fully decorrelated above.
And at 52cm with the array ~2m from the source, total SRA is 67° (75% SRA = 44°). 10m away, total SRA is 72° (75% SRA = 46°). A difference of just 5°. DFC is improved somewhat further, remaining high (>0.9) up to around 60hz, dropping off between there and 200Hz where it reaches zero, remaining fully decorrelated above.
I don't think any of those configs are wide enough to have any problem with hole in the middle. Preference for one over the other is likely to come down to 3 things: Image distribution (SRA), the portrayal of reverberance (DFC), and possibly, the alteration of frequency response ripple in the upper bass from the constructive/destructive interaction of wavelength as it relates to the spacing between microphones.
The DFC corner frequencies are somewhat high for all of them IMO, but that can only be improved further by increased spacing. I suspect I would likely prefer your wider 52 cm spacing because of the difference in reverberant portrayal, unless weaker voices in the center of the ensemble needed help from the wider SRA, image-distribution-wise.
-
Classical Recording A Practical Guide in the Decca Tradition
https://www.routledge.com/Classical-Recording-A-Practical-Guide-in-the-Decca-Tradition/Haigh-Dunkerley-Rogers/p/book/9780367312800
£31.99 + VAT £1.76 + free shipping to France (from UK).
C'est fait !
Thank you, Voltronic!
C'est un prix fantastique !
En effet : je n'ai pas hésité une seule seconde !
It arrived a few days after my order, a well-packed new item.
Now I just need a classical orchestra to practice... ;)
-
Here are samples from a recent concert. I did an experiment with a mic arrangement used for a time by Onno Scholze at Phillips. DPA 4006A with only 32 cm capsule spacing, angled out 90 deg. [snip..]
Looking forward to giving a listen tonight..
Wasn't able to do that and listen in full, but was able to give a brief listen to the three files yesterday morning, and quite like the portrayal of the chorus (listening on headphones). Nice even distribution with a good solid center. Also liked the image positioning of the musical accompaniment - over to the sides, yet not excessively hard panned, and didn't feel the increased diffuse field correlation at low frequencies is problematic, at least in my somewhat brief listen over headphones.
Very much like the sound with the inclusion of the OM1's, which to my ear adds a bit of depth and dimension that is attractive (which may be due to increased reverberant decorrelation). Strong 600 student chorus!
Thanks for the listen!
-
Here are samples from a recent concert. I did an experiment with a mic arrangement used for a time by Onno Scholze at Phillips. DPA 4006A with only 32 cm capsule spacing, angled out 90 deg. [snip..]
Looking forward to giving a listen tonight..
Wasn't able to do that and listen in full, but was able to give a brief listen to the three files yesterday morning, and quite like the portrayal of the chorus (listening on headphones). Nice even distribution with a good solid center. Also liked the image positioning of the musical accompaniment - over to the sides, yet not excessively hard panned, and didn't feel the increased diffuse field correlation at low frequencies is problematic, at least in my somewhat brief listen over headphones.
Very much like the sound with the inclusion of the OM1's, which to my ear adds a bit of depth and dimension that is attractive (which may be due to increased reverberant decorrelation). Strong 600 student chorus!
Thanks for the listen!
Thanks for the feedback. I keep listening and sometimes the spread sounds natural to me; other times I think the image is a bit bunched towards the center. Still not sure if I want to do this again, but it worked better than I expected.
-
I reached out to a local graduate student composer who is presenting one of his orchestral pieces at the local convention center/performing arts center https://www.century2.com/plan-your-event/event-spaces/concert-hall (https://www.century2.com/plan-your-event/event-spaces/concert-hall) and he looked into his contract. No recording except through the house contractor unless you pay a $1000 fee. Oddly it's not union just a "our people get first dibs" type situation. Not unusual.
He emailed me tonight and said he would like to record the dress rehearsal the night before the performance. It will be at the concert hall at the local university which will be fair game. I'm kinda excited because I'll be able to have freedom from worrying about audience sightlines.
60 performers many from the conservatory but also students and a few professionals.
-
^ Right on! Very exciting recording a full orchestra in a good hall! Have you heard other orchestral performances in that university hall? How is the room?
I've very much enjoyed a number of new composition works performed at a couple local universities and a post-graduate organization here over the years. I consulted with one graduate composer focused on oceanic themes who was using underwater samples as an additional element in conjunction with the orchestral performance about practical ways of extending the underwater recording techniques used for gathering them from mono to stereo and multichannel, as their hall was capable of supporting that. I think it would have been fitting and the idea was attractive to him as one of his key motifs was oceanic flow, movement and immersion. The primary idea behind it was to use spaced arrays of hydrophones (all of which are natively omnidirectional) with the spacing scaled up such that the time-of-arrival cues though saltwater equated to those of typical stereo/multichannel microphones arrays in air. Underwater acoustic recording techniques! We also talked about using scaled up sphere attachments, filled with water to achieve neutral buoyancy, but those would need to be about the size of basketballs. Increasing the spacing was much simpler.
Unfortunately he graduated and moved on before we got a chance to try those ideas. That hall has a nice but rarely used pipe organ, which I secretively hoped he'd employ to convey deep abyss-ness.
-
Thanks for the feedback. I keep listening and sometimes the spread sounds natural to me; other times I think the image is a bit bunched towards the center. Still not sure if I want to do this again, but it worked better than I expected.
I think of myself as someone who's preference leans toward a wide, open portrayal.. as long as the center is sufficiently solid to support it, and doesn't stick out or otherwise sound "disembodied". I'll try to give a listen with speakers rather than headphones.
-
The composer of the symphonic piece I'd planned to record the dress rehearsal of got back to me finally and the date is while I'll be in NOLA for Jazzfest (the same day I'm recording and live streaming for the Bayou Rendezvous) so that gig isn't going to happen. I thought I'd copy the details he gave me for the sake of discussion. Recording something this size and type is a new thing for me and I'd be interested in how others would approach it.
From the composer - "My performers are going to be set up as an orchestra, I can send you a layout of how the setup is and if we will need any changes for the day if you would like! I will be about the width of 57' and a length of about 25' back give or take. These are very very rough estimates but are close to what it will be. The arrangement will be strings downstage center to the podium, center stage is the woodwinds, then brass directly behind them, and then percussion with timpani up center stage. Piano and Harp will be on stage right behind the violin 1s.
Percussion is a large part of this concert and has some louder moments in the second half of the Symphony and within Stellarium.
To make things easier, I am okay with a single mic for each section (Violins, Viola, Cello/Bass, High Woodwinds, Low woodwinds, High Brass, Low Brass, Piano/Harp/Mallet Percussion, Untuned Percussion, Choral) or how ever you see fit!"
What would you do? Pairs of OM1 omnis, CM3 wide cards, MBHO hypers, ADK LD cards and a AKG C522 cardioid XY stereo mic available to use plus various dynamics. This was to be a dress rehearsal recording so anything goes as far as placement no worry of obstructing sightlines for the audience. Max inputs = 10. I have a Focusrite 18i20 with 8 inputs plus SPDIF that can be run simultaneously to my laptop in Reaper. Neve Portico 5012, W+ and T mod UA5 and Apogee Mini MP available for pres (8 channels total). Since I have to use 2 channels of the Focusrite pres (which are fine but flat and lifeless honestly) I'm not sure where they'd be in use.
-
The composer of the symphonic piece I'd planned to record the dress rehearsal of got back to me finally and the date is while I'll be in NOLA for Jazzfest (the same day I'm recording and live streaming for the Bayou Rendezvous) so that gig isn't going to happen. I thought I'd copy the details he gave me for the sake of discussion. Recording something this size and type is a new thing for me and I'd be interested in how others would approach it.
From the composer - "My performers are going to be set up as an orchestra, I can send you a layout of how the setup is and if we will need any changes for the day if you would like! I will be about the width of 57' and a length of about 25' back give or take. These are very very rough estimates but are close to what it will be. The arrangement will be strings downstage center to the podium, center stage is the woodwinds, then brass directly behind them, and then percussion with timpani up center stage. Piano and Harp will be on stage right behind the violin 1s.
Percussion is a large part of this concert and has some louder moments in the second half of the Symphony and within Stellarium.
To make things easier, I am okay with a single mic for each section (Violins, Viola, Cello/Bass, High Woodwinds, Low woodwinds, High Brass, Low Brass, Piano/Harp/Mallet Percussion, Untuned Percussion, Choral) or how ever you see fit!"
What would you do? Pairs of OM1 omnis, CM3 wide cards, MBHO hypers, ADK LD cards and a AKG C522 cardioid XY stereo mic available to use plus various dynamics. This was to be a dress rehearsal recording so anything goes as far as placement no worry of obstructing sightlines for the audience. Max inputs = 10. I have a Focusrite 18i20 with 8 inputs plus SPDIF that can be run simultaneously to my laptop in Reaper. Neve Portico 5012, W+ and T mod UA5 and Apogee Mini MP available for pres (8 channels total). Since I have to use 2 channels of the Focusrite pres (which are fine but flat and lifeless honestly) I'm not sure where they'd be in use.
I'll respond as if you are actually recording this, even though it seems it's no longer possible.
Focus your efforts on main pickup first. That should be getting you 90%+ of your final mix.
There are a few options that could work, depending on the acoustics of the space and the nature of the music being recorded:
1. OM1 main pair, directly behind and above conductor, 12-15 ft high. I usually start with a lateral spacing of 40 to 50 cm depending on the SRA I need to cover. APE spheres can be helpful in getting more reach, but be careful of introducing too much brightness. Vertical angle also has a big impact in this respect. In this situation I would angle slightly down aimed at the percussion section.
2. Faulkner 47/67 array of central CM3 with flanking OM1, width of inner and outer pairs as those numbers specify (in cm) and each pair with 90° opening angle. The two pairs are not usually at equal level in the final mix, but having them both their gives you a good amount of reach to the back of the ensemble. Same position as 1.
3. CM3 in NOS (or same 30 cm width width 110° opening angle) in same position as 1. OM1 as wide flanks, same height and distance from front of stage, spaced 1/2 to 2/3 the distance from center to outer boundary width of orchestra on either side.
//
For spot mics, I wouldn't consider the dynamics at all. Their lower sensitivity and reduced treble response will run contrary to adding fine detail even when low in the mix, which is what the spots are for.
Your MBHO hypers are closest to what the pros would probably reach for as spot mics (Schoeps MK 41 is a popular choice) but your ADK's could work nice as well. I have seen LDCs used as string and woodwind spots above the section and aimed almost straight down. Those could also work well as bass drum and tympani spots.
It's kind of hard to advise on the spot mics without having a close knowledge of the music and what the space sounds like. Like I said earlier, your main pickup should get you most of the way there unless you're in a problematic space or the composer/producer/whoever has unusual requirements for the recording.
-
So much depends on the acoustics of the hall in which the performance will happen. A great room makes it much easier to keep things simple.
I'd suggest keeping approaching it like you would an on-stage tape, just a lot bigger! Probably just a main and flanking pair. Dealing with spot mics is going to be a pain and a hassle. A good orchestra in a good room is self mixing. Something like Volt's 3rd suggestion would be a good safe bet.
3. CM3 in NOS (or same 30 cm width width 110° opening angle) in same position as 1. OM1 as wide flanks, same height and distance from front of stage, spaced 1/2 to 2/3 the distance from center to outer boundary width of orchestra on either side.
If there is a choral ensemble, maybe mic that as well, but if arranged immediately behind the orchestra its probably not necessary.
If there is a soloist, use a directional spot on that.
Keep it relatively simple and manageable.
-
Schubert B-flat Major Piano Sonata #21. D960-Plaza Performance Space-Berkeley, CA-December 5, 2023
Performer: Eric Zivian
Instrument: 1820s pianoforte
Recording notes:
1 pair of km41s ORTF, 10"" behind the hammers and 12" above.
Also a pair of MK22s A/B 12" split, aligned with the knee and about 20" out. Height was 4" above the opened lid, both pointed about 65º down and at the soundboard/strings.
A couple pics below illustrating.
It was amazing to stand close and at the knee during rehearsal, eyes closed, listening to the incredible image and sound stage. So different w/out the cross strings of a piano. Really informed my subsequent mixing.
Dropbox folder with aiffs:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/b64gh1rm394y1ajjzr0dt/h?rlkey=am1vkbr46pv4h80pfw4is8ri0&dl=0
-
Since I posted this he got back to me and suggested that we record his final rehearsal before the dress rehearsal last week of April before I go out of town. So it's back on.
I very much like the approaches that both you guys suggest - relying on the main pair above and behind the conductors head. I'd go with the Faulkner 47/67 plan and hope that it does the job even with the orchestra at 57' wide. Having two pairs to choose from or mix together is what appeals to me the most. Having the other mics set up and recording can't hurt. If the soup needs a little spice it's available and automation in mixing has gotten super easy. Want the strings or percussion to swell? Move the fader.
I'd likely go with 8 total locating two spot mics somewhere in the strings/woodwinds and the other two near percussion since he says that percussion is a large part of the piece. I guess we'll see after he sends me the stage plot and I find out which hall he's rehearsing in.
Kinda glad now that I bought those ethercon snakes when I did and that I ended up with two of them instead of one.
-
Schubert B-flat Major Piano Sonata #21. D960-Plaza Performance Space-Berkeley, CA-December 5, 2023
Performer: Eric Zivian
Instrument: 1820s pianoforte
Recording notes:
1 pair of km41s ORTF, 10"" behind the hammers and 12" above.
Also a pair of MK22s A/B 12" split, aligned with the knee and about 20" out. Height was 4" above the opened lid, both pointed about 65º down and at the soundboard/strings.
A couple pics below illustrating.
It was amazing to stand close and at the knee during rehearsal, eyes closed, listening to the incredible image and sound stage. So different w/out the cross strings of a piano. Really informed my subsequent mixing.
Dropbox folder with aiffs:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/b64gh1rm394y1ajjzr0dt/h?rlkey=am1vkbr46pv4h80pfw4is8ri0&dl=0
Thanks for posting this again. I'm listening closely.
I usually don't like close-miked perspective for classical piano, but this is something totally different. I think what you've done in capturing this fortepiano is really excellent. Without being there in person I can't fully judge, but to my ears it sounds like I am there, listening to this instrument in this room. Bravo!
Did you time-align your two pairs? The reason I ask is I'm not sure if I'm hearing some slight phasiness / comb filtering, or if that's the characteristic inharmonicity of this instrument. Are you able to share a couple samples of just the MK22 pair alone?
-
Great questions! I did time align the 2 pairs; wasn't a lot of difference but enough to make the edit.
I'll post mk22 track later tonight. The instrument was close to a wall to accommodate the audience. We will play with positioning during rehearsal next time.
Glad I didn't blow it. I worked with what I had with me at the end of a rock tour and benefitted from research and good fortune.
-
It was amazing to stand close and at the knee during rehearsal, eyes closed, listening to the incredible image and sound stage. So different w/out the cross strings of a piano. Really informed my subsequent mixing.
That's interesting to read as I've wondered about it myself but have never had the chance to really listen like that.
-
So much depends on the acoustics of the hall in which the performance will happen. A great room makes it much easier to keep things simple.
I'd suggest keeping approaching it like you would an on-stage tape, just a lot bigger! Probably just a main and flanking pair. Dealing with spot mics is going to be a pain and a hassle. A good orchestra in a good room is self mixing. Something like Volt's 3rd suggestion would be a good safe bet.
3. CM3 in NOS (or same 30 cm width width 110° opening angle) in same position as 1. OM1 as wide flanks, same height and distance from front of stage, spaced 1/2 to 2/3 the distance from center to outer boundary width of orchestra on either side.
If there is a choral ensemble, maybe mic that as well, but if arranged immediately behind the orchestra its probably not necessary.
If there is a soloist, use a directional spot on that.
Keep it relatively simple and manageable.
This third suggestion is the same as works best for me for organ recordings. KM143 in NOS position; DPA 4090 as flanks (pointing left and right at the maximum possible practical distance of 150 cm).
It allows flexibility to move from one pair to the other with everything in beween.
-
It was amazing to stand close and at the knee during rehearsal, eyes closed, listening to the incredible image and sound stage. So different w/out the cross strings of a piano. Really informed my subsequent mixing.
That's interesting to read as I've wondered about it myself but have never had the chance to really listen like that.
In initial playback, I noted that the high/low frequencies were reversed on the 2 stereo tracks. The 41s near the hammers had low freqs on the left, as you'd expect. The 22s were the reverse, with the short high freq strings sounding distinctly from the left, and longer low freqs coming from the right. Somewhat disbelievingly, I swapped the 22 channels, and the sound stage appeared. Still not certain about that choice, but sure sounded incoherent the other way...
-
This third suggestion is the same as works best for me for organ recordings. KM143 in NOS position; DPA 4090 as flanks (pointing left and right at the maximum possible practical distance of 150 cm).
It allows flexibility to move from one pair to the other with everything in beween.
^ Thinking similarly.. More thoughts on why I gravitate to #3.. more specifically to the wide flaking omni pair aspect of it-
I very much like the approaches that both you guys suggest - relying on the main pair above and behind the conductors head. I'd go with the Faulkner 47/67 plan and hope that it does the job even with the orchestra at 57' wide. Having two pairs to choose from or mix together is what appeals to me the most. Having the other mics set up and recording can't hurt. If the soup needs a little spice it's available and automation in mixing has gotten super easy. Want the strings or percussion to swell? Move the fader.
Regardless of what you choose to use as the main pair or array in the center just behind the conductor, consider including a wide-spaced flanking pair farther out to either side of the main pair. Wide-spaced meaning like 10-12' or so out from the center to either side. If going with the Faulkner array and using your OM1's in that, maybe use the ADKs in omni for the wide-flanking pair if they are the switchable TLs.
Here's the reasoning- The addition of the wide-spaced flanking pair of omnis to whatever the center main pair happens to be will serve to hedge the bet in a couple ways. First, it's a relatively traditional setup for orchestra recording with a long history of working well and flexibly. Secondly, the wide flanking arrangement will sort of serve in a way similar to spot mics in regard to covering/balancing the breadth of the orchestra, but in a way that is more of an extension of the main array rather than in the manner of individual, isolated spot mics. Its more likely make things more easily managed during recording and in the mix without the typical problems of spot mics, and will preserve more natural stereo and depth cues.
The Faulkner array is not a widely spaced on its own and is really more of a single semi-near-spaced array that uses four channels. It can work very nicely but does not have that same "distributed across the front of the orchestra" aspect to it and is not so much a traditional recording method. Without having used it in this specific situation previously I'd be more comfortable combining it with the wide flanking omnis to increase the odds of everything being covered and working well.
I think it will not only be easier to manage an extended main array type setup than a less-wide main array plus spot mics, I also think its likely to sound better. One advantage of the main array + flanking pair is that the mics are positioned on essentially the same L/R plane, so it's already time-aligned, and it tends to preserve depth cues. I really like hearing the depth cues of the woodwinds being somewhat farther upstage than the string sections and the percussion behind that. Its what sounds real to me and is one of the things I listen for from the audience and in my own recordings. Spot mics tend to flatten the depth cues, which tend to be the first thing to go. It takes a lot of work to get the clarity from the spot but avoid that flattening effect. Also, the wider-spacing of the flanking pair will produce a nice big decorrelated reverberant room sound- making a good hall sound big and dimensional.
If the room isn't great, spot mics might be necessary. You're then in a way reinforcing and recreating things artificially because the room isn't up to it. But if the room is good it will be a lot easier and potentially sound better to rely on a well distributed and flexible main array across the front. There are good reasons for complicating things, but especially as a first orchestral open-recording effort, I'd try an keep things simple without spots except for where they are really be needed.
Any chance you might be able to attend a rehearsal before the recording date? That way you can hear some of the work, determine if anything might really need a spot, listen to how the room sounds, and how the sections interact in terms of depth and clarity.
-
I'm recording a rehearsal instead of the debut performance due to contractual arrangements with the concert hall. Going in blind since this is a debut performance of the piece.
I agree that relying on the main array is the way to go. It's how I record most musical performances but the composer has said "I'm okay with a singe spot mic on each section" meaning his expectation is a dozen mics or more. I think the happy medium is 4 mics as main array and 4 spots.
The spots don't have to be mixed in all the time. A little automation can fix the hiccups of imaging when the spots are located 20 feet in front of the main array. Blend a little in when it's needed for immediacy during a passage then fade it back out.
Thanks for everyone's input here it's given me a lot to think about.
-
Gutbucket - My experience with the Faulkner 47/67 array is that it does very well in preserving the 'depth cues' you cite, because it was designed as a phased array. Tony Faulkner's term is "forward gain" for how the four aligned mics work together for this effect.
You may have noticed I also suggested the very wide flanks as you did, and you're right that's a much more traditional arrangement. I wanted to also share that the great Onno Scholze would often do this with 4 omnis - a central pair very close (<40 cm) and the wide flanks as you describe. That's definitely non-traditional, as a near-coincident cardioid pair is the typical thing to use in the middle.
I agree with you about the spot mics potentially flattening the image, which is why I only recommend using them if really necessary, and as low a level as possible. Typically when I use spot mics, it's for a choir behind an orchestra as well be the case in a concert in doing in a few weeks.
-
I don't doubt the Faulkner array does depth well, and it will l probably work fine for this. I just don't really see it being specifically advantageous for this particular situation if doing so were to require giving up a wider-spaced flaking omni pair. I sort of see the phased array thing as being a way of achieving some additional forward "reach" without using overly directional patterns (your noting that TF refer's to it producing "forward gain" rings true with my understanding of it). However, with the freedom to place the main array directly behind and above the conductor, I don't suspect additional forward reach / forward gain is going to be necessary. But again, a lot depends on the sound of the hall.
I think that Onno S arrangement of a relatively narrow spaced omni center pair placed just above and behind the conductor plus flanking wide omnis may be relatively common these days. At least two different classical venues I frequent here use that as their main array most of the time.
Mostly I think using less directional mics with spacing across the front will make relying primarily on the main mics more forgiving and increase the chances of the main array providing everything needed.
I agree that relying on the main array is the way to go. It's how I record most musical performances but the composer has said "I'm okay with a singe spot mic on each section" meaning his expectation is a dozen mics or more. I think the happy medium is 4 mics as main array and 4 spots.
Yeah, a lot of that might be expectation based on how he's seen it done in the past. In addition to the four omni main array I mentioned in us at those classical venues I frequent, a couple of them additionally spot mic almost everything. Partly that's because they can and it gives them options, in once case because it provides a learning opportunity (a University), in another because is a very "wired" venue that records everything, streams/casts many events and uses the spots in combination with close up robotic camera shots to make relevant auditory zooms that complement the video closeups.
But sure go ahead and do some spot mic'ing too, as long as that doesn't require sacrificing attention to the main array in any way. I just sort of feel it will be a rather futzy and unnecessary distraction, and you will have plenty else to pay attention to doing this for the first time. Satisfying the expectations of the composer is of course advantageous for different reasons, even if it's not particularly helpful for the recording. Part of the composer's job is arranging for the mix of sound as performed by the orchestra, and part of that is the physical arrangement of the instrument sections, which some composers switch around specifically with a specific sound balance in mind. Part of the conductor's job is working the live mix of the orchestra in practice and performance to achieve the composer's vision, and produce a properly balanced sound to the audience. If those things are all working correctly in the hall, the main mics will do the job without the need for spots!
-
I've uploaded flacs of just the mk41s (swapped channel) and mk22s to the same dropbox folder linked above.
-
Here are a few samples of a concert I recorded and sang in this weekend. The choir is made up of volunteers from various local groups and is mostly amateurs. Same for the orchestra except they are all pros. This was a benefit concert where the assembled forces get one rehearsal the day of the concert, and then the performance is after lunch break.
Recording chain was 4006A pair at 50 cm width in the traditional above conductor position, with 4011A pair in Gerzon about 12ft high behind woodwinds for choir supplement. Direct into 788 at 24/96.
It's a very dry room so there's just a touch of reverb added, and RX Spectral Denoise to knock back the HVAC noise.
https://samply.app/player/RwCzXO0aMDv9UKyVW5wS/
Enable Lossless in Audio Options for full quality.
-
That Kyrie!
-
That Kyrie!
That movement was quite fun to perform when that first big crescendo hit. I was standing about 15 ft from the timpani. :headphones:
-
Been inactive on TS for ages mostly due to less live taping and more home recording but I have taped a couple house shows in recent times. Last one, back in the fall, was unamplified.
First up was a rotation of artists including
a Trio: acoustic guitar and vocals, with harmonica player and harmony vocalist
a female singer/guitarist who insisted in sitting off to one side
a male singer/guitarist (me) who sat in the center of the space
Then we had a noise artist running sound through the house stereo (which has a million speakers all over the house and in the garden)
Then another guitarist playing finger style 12-string and Weisenborn guitar.
I setup for the acoustic acts with a m/s setup about knee high in the front, center of the 'stage'. I set levels and left it alone and it came out quite well. The trio, in particular, sounds nice as their placement in the room is clear, especially on headphones.
If you're okay with the post production, it's really a can't miss close-mic setup.
-
Been inactive on TS for ages mostly due to less live taping and more home recording but I have taped a couple house shows in recent times. Last one, back in the fall, was unamplified.
First up was a rotation of artists including
a Trio: acoustic guitar and vocals, with harmonica player and harmony vocalist
a female singer/guitarist who insisted in sitting off to one side
a male singer/guitarist (me) who sat in the center of the space
Then we had a noise artist running sound through the house stereo (which has a million speakers all over the house and in the garden)
Then another guitarist playing finger style 12-string and Weisenborn guitar.
I setup for the acoustic acts with a m/s setup about knee high in the front, center of the 'stage'. I set levels and left it alone and it came out quite well. The trio, in particular, sounds nice as their placement in the room is clear, especially on headphones.
If you're okay with the post production, it's really a can't miss close-mic setup.
Would you be willing to post some samples?
-
Been inactive on TS for ages mostly due to less live taping and more home recording but I have taped a couple house shows in recent times. Last one, back in the fall, was unamplified.
First up was a rotation of artists including
a Trio: acoustic guitar and vocals, with harmonica player and harmony vocalist
a female singer/guitarist who insisted in sitting off to one side
a male singer/guitarist (me) who sat in the center of the space
Then we had a noise artist running sound through the house stereo (which has a million speakers all over the house and in the garden)
Then another guitarist playing finger style 12-string and Weisenborn guitar.
I setup for the acoustic acts with a m/s setup about knee high in the front, center of the 'stage'. I set levels and left it alone and it came out quite well. The trio, in particular, sounds nice as their placement in the room is clear, especially on headphones.
If you're okay with the post production, it's really a can't miss close-mic setup.
Would you be willing to post some samples?
Here's the trio:
https://on.soundcloud.com/8rnAvT41rRN9QY1L7
Here's a clip of myself:
https://on.soundcloud.com/q8JhhAJNazNqpCji6
You can actually hear that I've turned my body a bit to the audience/rig right.
-
rowjimmy- I listened to the trio on headphones, nice soundstage. good clarity of the guitar. vocals present. nice job
-
Listening on speakers, it's a fantastic recording. Depth and width, very natural, I can pick out where everyone is. This is one to be proud of.
-
Thanks!
Still hoping headliner Liam Grant will decide to release his set (or allow me to circulate it).
-
Here's a good example of why critical distance is important.
The choir I perform with is doing the same piece I posted a different ensemble doing back in March (https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=203942.msg2409954#msg2409954), and I was able to record dress rehearsal on Friday. This is in a modern church where we often perform. Upon arriving, I was surprised to learn that the chamber orchestra (smaller than the other performance) would be on the congregation floor forward of the communion rail, rather than in front of the altar as we typically do. This meant that the choir was quite far away.
Since I was not the official recording person for this, I didn't bring all my gear - just my 4006 pair and 788. My friend also brought his 414s.
So I put my omnis very high and boomed out over the conductor's head so they were level with the back row of singers on the altar, and hopefully far enough from the strings. The 414s were a bit lower in M/S. I knew that the choir was going to sound quite far away, because they were. I tried to make the best of the situation, but this was just a rehearsal recording to help the conductor evaluate things. If I was recording the concert, I would definitely add choir spots.
Here are some samples of each array. The default for each is the 4006 track, but if you click the "V2" button to the right you can access the 414 track and A/B on the fly.
https://samply.app/p/BA8P68bBYGlfg0QX0Oja
I added a gentle boost at 12 kHz to the omnis to compensate a little for the loss of articulation at a distance. The 414 pair really have the strings overbalanced to my ears.
Hopefully the "pro" company our board hires is planning to run choir spots, because they will be needed!
-
This isn't particularly interesting in terms of technique, but I just recorded a classical guitar with vocal accompaniment.
First recording in a long time. It's a mix of classic German composers and a small showcase on the Ecuadorian composer Gerardo Guevara.
Mic'd the guitar directly and used a pair of AKG CK61 (naiant actives) > SD MixPre 6 about 10' or so from the performers. You can see the mics in the video. I used the only mic bar I have, which is 25cm spacing with an angle of 50 degrees. I originally bought it for use in the back of a big room.
Schubert - An Die Musik - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jlwcDjWBX8
Gerardo Guevera (ecuadorian composer) - Se Va Con Algo Mio - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8-ruuo2IK8
Full set: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpX9t5WRcnCIXmGxZLDOJZuNUUSOGSFY-
-
Hello folks.
I am hoping to pick your brain on how to approach a taping situation that is new to me. I saw a fantastic jazz trio in a small room last winter, with sax, tuba and drums. I found the arrangements very interesting (no chord and very little harmony with this arrangement) and I reached out for permission to record an upcoming show. They were up for this and they are going to let me know once they have booked their fall shows so I have some options.
I have recorded a couple of amplified shows, and lots of acoustic jams of myself with various friends (typically two acoustic guitars, unamplified voices and occasionally an amplified bass), but the need to be conscious of the sight lines of the audience in a small space like this is new to me. Additionally, I am concerned about being too close to any one sound source to the detriment of the overall mix.
I am running a Mixpre 6 so I'm able to run two pairs of mics to provide options after the fact, as long as I can keep the mics, and stand/cables, from being in the way.
I have CM4s, OM1s, AKG 461s, KSM 141s and, if necessary, 414s available for the recording. I would prefer to not use the 414s if possible as these shows will be in tight spaces in bars and I am concerned about the potential for the mic stand getting knocked over.
I currently have a simple rode stereo bar, which is adequate for simple 2 microphone techniques with spacing up to ~4cm, but I am open to getting a better bar that allows for more microphones if it would be helpful. The reason I am asking in advance of the venue being finalized is the lead time to get stereo bars, etc., in Canada can be quite long and I would like to be prepared with as many options as possible when the venue is finalized.
My initial thought would be CM4s or AKG 461s in NOS or ORTF up close (<3') from the stage to reduce the crowd noise (there WILL be talking during the music) but I am concerned about the proximity to one instrument (sax or drums in the image below) drowning out the tuba if my placement is too close. I'm also curious on using a Faulkner array (46, 67) with the CM4s and OM1s and whether that may add any advantage in this type of situation. If so, is there a stereo bar that folks would recommend that would allow for mounting the 4 mics on one mic stand?
Please see below for the instruments on stage at the show last winter and another picture with the overall room for context. This is a common room for shows in the area and, even if the actual venue differs, this represents a typical size and type of venue for local jazz shows that I encounter frequently.
Thank you in advance for any thoughts/suggestions on the best approach.
-
So many options/choices, a lot of this depends on what you are aiming for. Close mics on the 3 instruments will allow you to adjust balance in post. Farther out will likely be best with mics paired.
For close, I like these little tripods that don't have a sightline issue:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CKYWY5PH/?coliid=I1WPU6CUWMJN1A&colid=1QG81AFMEZEBS&psc=1&ref_=list_c_wl_lv_ov_lig_dp_it
For further back, how about hang from the ceiling? No sightline issue and minimizes crowd noise.
IMO, you need to choose your desired sound, then mics and configs and placement will follow.
How fun!
-
Cool joint. Looks like a fun one for sure.
If you are able to listen while they warm up you, stick your head were the mics will be and move around to find the best balance and best angular orientation of the microphone array. Doing that will be your best guide in making placement and configuration choices. Can you find a place where all the instruments sound well balanced?
I'd probably setup at stage-lip / on-stage between the sax and tuba, with the mic-array centered on the tuba.. and would keep everything low, like just above stage height, with the mics angled upward toward the instruments. That will avoid any problem with sightlines while also increasing distance to nearby audience mouths somewhat. ORTF would probably work well. NOS will focus on the tuba and angle the mics away from the audience a bit more.
Alternate options:
Might run the OM1 omnis or CM4 cardioids as a second pair A-B spaced out a couple feet to either side of the center stereo pair. If you choose to do that you might switch the center pair to a 90-deg X/Y configuration which will combine nicely with the wide spaced pair. Without that additional wide-spaced pair I'd use a near-spaced configuration for the center rather than X/Y.
Might use a three microphone stereo configuration (Left/Center/Right), which will provide some ability to adjust level of the center (tuba) afterward if needed. That works great on stage and is especially well suited to a thee piece. Easiest way to configure that is to first envision it as two standard near-spaced configurations placed adjacent to each other, sharing the center microphone between them. Using two NOS pairs that would angle the Left and Right mics 180 degrees apart. That's a good LCR stereo configuration, yet is likely to be angled overly wide for that situation and susceptible to picking up more audience and sidewall reflection, so it will be better to reduce the angle between the outer L/R mics back down to 120 or less, while increasing the spacing between the 3 mics to compensate for that reduction in angle. It will also be good to push the center mic forward of the other two a somewhat, which occurs automatically if you think of it as the combination of two near-spaced microphone pairs sharing the same mic in the center. Angle them up toward the instruments, and angle the right channel mic that is facing the drumkit toward the snare drum, ideally with a clear line of sight to the snare around the kick drum. Often best to setup the mics so as to be slightly off-axis to the head of the kick drum rather than directly in front of / perpendicular to it.
Edit-
The aforementioned 3 and 4 channel techniques are fun and useful, but I suspect you'd be able to make a good simple, straight, two-channel recording by listening carefully for the best place to put the mic array on stage.
If the tuba is weak you might run a single spot mic in back peering down into the tuba over the shoulder of the player. I'd rather do it without any spots though, and suspect you will be able to.
-
Thanks gents, this is exactly the feedback I was looking for.
I have two follow up questions:
1) If I choose to go with three microphones (two adjacent NOS setup with slightly reduced angle and increased spacing, sharing a center) how important is microphone matching? As I don't have three identical mics the closest I could get would probably be the 461s for L/R with a 414 center (I'm assuming I would use the cardioid polar pattern for the 414).
2) Is there a single mic bar that you would recommend that would accomplish this or do I need to run my normal stereo bar with an additional mic stand for the center mic?
Thanks again!
-
Thanks gents, this is exactly the feedback I was looking for.
I have two follow up questions:
1) If I choose to go with three microphones (two adjacent NOS setup with slightly reduced angle and increased spacing, sharing a center) how important is microphone matching? As I don't have three identical mics the closest I could get would probably be the 461s for L/R with a 414 center (I'm assuming I would use the cardioid polar pattern for the 414).
2) Is there a single mic bar that you would recommend that would accomplish this or do I need to run my normal stereo bar with an additional mic stand for the center mic?
Thanks again!
2 ideas from me.
1] Manfrotto triple bar- is a bit heavy and probably too much ( money) for this one gig you describe https://www.manfrotto.com/us-en/black-aluminum-triple-microphone-support-154b/
2] (NOT JUST a mic bar) but Smallrig rods and clamps- kindms bought and we use for most OMT we run. https://www.smallrig.com/15mm-carbon-fiber-rod-30cm-12inch-2pcs-851.html
https://www.smallrig.com/list/Rod-Clamp.html
https://www.smallrig.com/smallrig-single-railblock-860.html (the mic mount)
smallrig is lightweight, modular, and awesome imo. kindms has 4 12" rods with connectors and we have enough mic mounts and pass through clamps to attach to a mic stand.
-
Thank you for the ideas. The manfrotto bar on a mini tripod at the stage lip is a great option (whether2 or 3 mics). Thank you again for the ideas, they are very helpful!
-
Thank you for the ideas. The manfrotto bar on a mini tripod at the stage lip is a great option (whether2 or 3 mics). Thank you again for the ideas, they are very helpful!
welcome. the triple bar
is LARGE and heavy.
-
If I choose to go with three microphones (two adjacent NOS setup with slightly reduced angle and increased spacing, sharing a center) how important is microphone matching? As I don't have three identical mics the closest I could get would probably be the 461s for L/R with a 414 center (I'm assuming I would use the cardioid polar pattern for the 414).
Not critical. Decent matching is arguably a more important when recording in a more uniform soundfield. On-stage and relatively close to the instruments you are sort of in a zone that lies between mic'ing the full ensemble with a single stereo array (where matching is somewhat more important) and individually spot mic'ing the three instruments (where it isn't). Sort of a blend of both approaches, which is one reason I think it works well.
That said, always nice to use the same mics across the primary stereo array, as the identical response helps with consistency of image, smoothness across the soundstage, and the sense of depth. I'll usually put the different mic in the center to maintain L/R symmetry, so any difference in timbre, which may be most apparent in the ambient/reverberant part of the recording, will manifest symmetrically across the center verses the sides, rather than one side verses the other. Consistency of response/timbre is the general goal. Polar pattern not so much. You can use a completely different polar pattern in the center without a problem. In your situation where the L/R angle can be somewhat wide without problems it might help to use a somewhat wider polar pattern in the center than the sides, but should work fine using three cardioids.
In my OMT arrays I go back and forth between using identical mics across the L/C/R triplet to using a different pattern in the center. I usually like using three identical mics, but have recently been switching to a more directional shotgun mic in the center when I want to nail a clear and distinct center from somewhat more of a distance. Which is in a way, sort of the opposite of your on-stage situation. Horses for courses.
Years ago, I did a lot of on-stage acoustic jazz trio recordings over the course of a couple years, and settled on using three AKD TL's set to supercardioid pattern, placed as low as possible to the stage floor, arranged in a triangle with about a 90degree angle between the L/R pairs, angled up at the players positioned to either side of a central drum kit, with the center mic pointed up at the snare, just off center of the kick to avoid the direct "whump". The supercardioid pattern helped with the narrow 90deg overall angle between L and R mics, and provided a bit more separation from the audience, which was being picked up by another dedicated pair facing out into the room. The room/audience facing pair was very nice to have but not strictly necessary, but that three mic arrangement worked so well it became my go to for on-stage recording, and was later worked it into most of my recording arrays. I like the three mic' stereo thing for taping.
-
This makes a lot of sense. I’m now thinking that the 3 mic PAS approach, with the c461a at 120 degree and 13 cm spacing with one 414 in supercardioid in the centre, allowing me to dial in the tuba a bit if required, may be a good starting point. Setting up about 12” off the stage floor and ensuring that the microphone on the right is off axis to the kick drum could be an excellent starting point.
I am always happy to record further back, in the sweet spot, for these types of shows but this approach seems to manage the crowd noise more effectively while providing an opportunity to balance the levels a bit if required.
Thanks again, this is extremely helpful.
-
[/quote]
welcome. the triple bar
is LARGE and heavy.
[/quote]
Thanks again, I have ordered one and will plan for mounting it on something sturdy!
-
welcome. the triple bar
is LARGE and heavy.
====================
Thanks again, I have ordered one and will plan for mounting it on something sturdy!
welcome to the triple bar club. I was speaking with Noah at Phish and looking at his bar mentioned I own one too, and he said, I own two! 8) >:D
BTW Gut- "did a lot of on-stage acoustic jazz trio recordings over the course of a couple years, and settled on using three AKD TL's set to supercardioid pattern, placed as low as possible to the stage floor"
I recall a nice thread with photos. Does that still exist to show thelonius?
-
Can you find a place where all the instruments sound well balanced?
I don't know how many similiar recording I've "ruined" by not following this advice. I would get so excited at the opportunity, I'd fail to realize certain instruments (usually the drums) would dominate a stage lip recording and not adjust accordingly. Yes, there was a wonderful upfront sound that you don't have with pure audience recordings, but with the mix of instruments being off (and usually unfixable), it's essentially unlistenable.
I think gut mentioned possibly setting up between the sax and tuba (further away from drums), and it's something to think about. Obviously the tuba is a great candidate to be low in the mix, and getting a supercardioid directly in front of and pointed at it (like you mentioned) could allow you to boost that mic in post and balance the mix. I apologize if I'm repeating anyone's advice, I'm slammed at work and haven't had time to read thoroughly but I wish you luck, sometimes you get these right and they're such wonderful recordings!
-
BTW Gut- "did a lot of on-stage acoustic jazz trio recordings over the course of a couple years, and settled on using three AKD TL's set to supercardioid pattern, placed as low as possible to the stage floor"
I recall a nice thread with photos. Does that still exist to show thelonius?
Yes! Was just coming back to post a link to the long-running on-stage taping (https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=1625.0) tread where all that was going on, and it dovetails nicely with this one. Voltronic, if you are reading, can you add a link to that thread along with your others at the start of this one? Lots of good stuff in there.
Couple photos from that thread-
(https://taperssection.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1625.0;attach=109856;image)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8440/7851552412_571258ebf7_b.jpg)
^
That second photo also includes another taper's rig on the slightly taller stand (AKG > Naiant little box > M10 and DVD battery visible on-stage), and an additional MG ORTF pair I was running for comparison in the Shure vert bar. The LCR ADKs beat out the MG ORTF, but both were great.
(https://taperssection.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1625.0;attach=109864;image)
-
Thank you for linking that stage recording thread. I’m working through it and it is indeed very relevant for acoustic recordings.
-
I had recently posted on GS Remote wondering about the recommended Shuffling EQ settings for Alan Blumlein's close AB omnis:
https://gearspace.com/board/all-things-technical/1441717-blumlein-delta-shuffler-settings.html
As you will read, the thread got into a number of things, and today I posted samples of a concert I recorded last week where I used both the Blumlein close AB and the Gerzon/Faulkner 5 cm / 120 deg cardioid array, both which employ shuffling in post. You'll find those samples in this post (https://gearspace.com/board/all-things-technical/1441717-blumlein-delta-shuffler-settings-2.html#post17334734), but I am also copying it below for convenience.
///
Ladies and Gentlemen, start your shufflers! As promised, here are samples done with Blumlein-style 22 cm AB omnis and Gerzon array cardioids.
This was my school district strings festival where the main purpose is for elementary, middle, and high school students to perform for each other. The younger students get to perform on the big stage, and to see/hear where they are headed in a few years, etc. We had a similar concert a few weeks before for our choirs.
The excerpts I am including are two pieces from a high school ensemble, and one each from two different middle school ensembles.
Mics were as you see in the photo. Preamps for the 4006 pair are Rens Heijnis modified; 4011 pair has stock preamps. Direct into my 788. There are almost a dozen different groups and only one stand location is possible, at the traditional behind the podium spot. I would have chosen different locations and heights for each of these arrays had I the freedom to do so. Mics were about 3 m high, and angled only very slightly down to aim above the heads of the last row of players in the largest group.
There are 3 versions of each excerpt for each array. DRY is self-explanatory, but still has a peak limiter on the master. Shuffle Only adds EQ according to the attached screenshots. MIX adds some reverb and compression but it is preliminary. All versions include RX Spectral Denoise to banish most of the HVAC noise.
I have a definite preference between the two setups, although there are some problems with each that cannot be shuffled away. I'll wait to share my opinions until others have listened.
https://samply.app/p/jcNlUgG3PFm7B8BGnxR6 (http://"https://samply.app/p/jcNlUgG3PFm7B8BGnxR6")
I've found that Samply sometimes won't play at all in Firefox unless you manually disable Lossless in Audio Options, but it works fine in Chromium browsers. Either way, downloads are enabled for you to tinker with these. If Samply doesn't cooperate, here is a share that will be up for 7 days:
https://send.monks.tools/download/5edb36b17d1ba3bd/#EHZNI_MIKL9neFleIE1IIQ (https://send.monks.tools/download/5edb36b17d1ba3bd/#EHZNI_MIKL9neFleIE1IIQ)
EDIT: I made new versions of the 22 cm AB tracks, lowering the corner frequency and increasing the boost of the LF side channel shelf. As before, I rendered versions with only shuffling EQ and then "mix" versions with compression and reverb.
I didn't bother to do anything further with the Gerzon tracks, since they sound really awful for some reason I can't explain.
https://send.monks.tools/download/b3aca3bf3e95cbc0/#SVw6Pqvfc2Dnxq2g3vEkxA
-
Thanks! Will take a listen..
To clarify for everyone, the "Shuffling EQ" Voltronic is talking about is a low frequency shelf boost applied to the stereo difference channel. It is doing two things- increasing low frequency response and increasing the stereo difference content in the effected range.
The steps to do so are:
1) Convert the L/R stereo to Sum/Difference (Mid/Side)
2) Apply the low frequency EQ boost to the Difference (Side) channel
3) Convert back to L/R
That can all be done in one step with a parametric EQ set or operate in Sum/Difference mode.
If you wish to make a more honest assessment about what this is doing just in spatial terms alone without the low frequency EQ enhancement, you can apply a matching inverse EQ cut to the Sum (Mid) channel at the same time as the boost to the Difference (Side) [Edit- Easiest to just apply that inverse matching correction afterward to the L/R stereo output. But if applying it to the Sum (Mid) you'll want to apply half as much gain to both curves, which together add up to the amount of gain originally applied to just the Difference channel alone]. In that case the overall stereo frequency response will remain about the same as was recorded with only the sum/difference ratio of the stereo content being effected.
For our purposes, the optimal choice of corner frequency, boost amount and whether to compensate the Sum (Mid) channel or not can be decided upon by ear, along with any additional EQ choices and any other post processing stuff (which might similarly be applied in L/R or M/S). Whatever sounds best is right.
-
More on "suffling"-
Alan Blumlein himself was an electrical engineer firmly rooted in mathematics, doing pioneering investigations into two channel stereo recording and playback at EMI back in the 1930s. His goal was a bit different than than ours as he sought to create a recording/playback system that would be as accurate as possible at that time. He based his determination of specific corner frequency and amount of boost on the spacing he was using between the pair of microphones and the mathematical relationship between that distance and its relationship to acoustic wavelength.
Most folks here will be familiar with Blumlein's pioneering use of a coincident fig-8 stereo microphone pair, which is the configuration with which his name is associated, but figure-8 mics weren't yet available to him early on, so his earliest experiments used a pair of omnis instead.
In order to produce a "stereo" output a pair of omnidirectional mics require spacing and/or baffling between them in order to produce a pathlength difference between the two. Blumlein separated two omnis by the approximate distance between a listener's ears and used baffle between them in order to derive useful stereo difference information. The problem is that the amount of spacing required to produce useful stereo difference information varies with frequency. Head-spacing with a baffle produces effective stereo difference information starting at midrange frequencies and higher, where the sonic wavelength is "acoustically long" in comparison to the path length around the baffle from one microphone to the other. But the wavelength of low frequencies is long in comparison to that short path length. The mic array becomes progressively more insensitive to stereo difference information at lower frequencies.
Blumlien compensated for that by boosting the stereo difference signal at low frequencies, and as a good engineer determined the parameters required to make that compensation based on the spacing/path-length between the two microphones. I don't know if he states this outright anywhere, but we can infer that his intention was that the corner frequency of the EQ compensation made to the difference channel should be linked to the distance between the two microphones, tying it to the frequency/wavelength relationship as is made clear by the mathematics. He was making the best of a messy situation and simply accepted the complex phase relationships that were happening at higher frequency ranges. I imagine Blumlien was very happy when usable fig-8 mics became available to him and at that point was happy to leave baffled omnis behind. Having the stereo pair of microphones produce stereo information while occupying a single point in space greatly simplifies the phase relationships and mathematics.
Even though Blumlein quickly moved beyond using a near-spaced stereo pair of omnis at the time, and even though it took another couple decades for interest in stereo to really catch on, stereo shuffling remained and still remains a thing. Provision for it was built into early "Stereosonic" stereo mixing consoles built in the UK where its use was somewhat ironically intended to enhance the stereo output of coincident stereo microphone pairs rather than spaced pairs. The presumed future of stereo recording there at the time was based on addition of a Side channel microphone placed coincidently with the mono main microphone already in use. There is a great paper on this from around the birth of commercial stereo in 1957 or so that I posted a link to at TS long ago.. I'll look for that to link here.
This is really no different than increasing the stereo width of a recording by altering its Sum/Difference (Mid/Side) ratio, except for being restricted to just the low frequencies. We've discussed the details in various threads about Mid/Side processing here at TS, in which we've talked about making a low frequency EQ boost to the Side channel of an X/Y or M/S pair in order to make it sound more involving. That's the application of "shuffling" same as in these examples. And as used by Voltronic on these examples and as discussed in those threads, it can be applied to near-spaced microphone configurations as well as coincident ones. The primary difference is that in non-coincident stereo mic'ing configurations it may be more important limit the enhancement to just the low frequencies where it is desired, where the phase difference between channels remains minimal.
Since our goal is more about creating an involving and good sounding recording than about accurate reproduction in its own right, we can play around with it and choose what to do or not by ear. The low frequency boost this is providing is likely to sound good in its own right even if it isn't "accurate", since as mentioned above, "more accurate" would require a compensating cut to made to Sum (Mid) channel. For example, the secret sauce in mixing my multichannel OMT recordings down to stereo is often the addition of some Center Side channel (otherwise not required because there are other L/R mic pairs providing stereo difference information) which often works out best with significant EQ applied to it - sort of bow-tie shaped curve - that serves to enhance stereo difference information at low and high frequencies while keeping everything tight and clean in the midrange. If I want "more accurate" I mute it. When I feel the recording is best served by a bit of enhancement that's honestly likely more "real-sounding" than actually real, I keep it in.
Have fun EQing your difference channel!
-
For example, the secret sauce in mixing my multichannel OMT recordings down to stereo is often the addition of some Center Side channel (otherwise not required because there are other L/R mic pairs providing stereo difference information) which often works out best with significant EQ applied to it - sort of bow-tie shaped curve - that serves to enhance stereo difference information at low and high frequencies while keeping everything tight and clean in the midrange. If I want "more accurate" I mute it. When I feel the recording is best served by a bit of enhancement that's honestly likely more "real-sounding" than actually real, I keep it in.
Is the Bow Tie shape similar to the "Smiley Face" EQ that drunken sound mixers use to beef up excitement in the bass and treble range towards the end of a raging night at the rock club?
Really wanna mess up that center side channel? duplicate it and apply radically different eq to left and right... see image of what I imagine the Bow Tie to resemble?!?!?
-
Drunk smiley face! Better described as a "V" than a bowtie I suppose.
I'm not applying that curve to affect the tonal response and contribution of that channel per say. To the degree that it does effect overall frequency response I just correct for that with EQ on the masterbus, but its level contribution to the mix in terms of tone is relatively small. The "V"-shaped EQ is instead being to used to effect how the additional difference information being provided by the fig-8 Side channel is being distributed across the frequency range. In relation to the rest of the mix, the fig-8 side channel is 100% difference signal. By fully attenuating what it is contributing at the low point cusp of the "V" around 1kHz it adds no additional difference signal in the mid-range, but adds gradually increasing difference signal as the frequency range extends either way above and below that point.
I arrived at that curve empirically by ear by listening to what it does to the spatial imaging presentation. Started by playing around with a low frequency boost or cut to that channel and quickly extended that to a loudness-compensation shaped curve, then ended up modifying that to a "V" and liking what that did the most. When I playback directly off the recorder that channel similarly goes through a Mid/Side to L/R conversion, but in that case there is no EQ applied, which makes deciding how much of it to include more difficult. With the "V" shape I can add more of it which improves the perception of the low bass and airy atmospheric highs without the midrange information getting blurred, cluttered or overly busy.
I only mention that as one interesting example of EQing the Difference channel info. It may not be applicable to any other stereo microphone arrangements, but it works great on the few OMT8 recordings I've actually gotten around to mixing down on the computer.
I mostly want to encourage folks who may be interested to play around with EQing the difference channel! It's a very cool and powerful spatial tool.
Hope this aside on that didn't take thing too OT.
-
I made new versions of the 22 cm AB tracks linked earlier with different EQ settings. I think these are better. That post from Feb 2 is now updated with the new files.
-
Thanks. Just grabbed both zipped file sets. Will try to listen tonight.
Is there a copy of each without any shuffling applied in there that can be listed to for comparison? If not can you share that as well? Thanks.
-
Thanks. Just grabbed both zipped file sets. Will try to listen tonight.
Is there a copy of each without any shuffling applied in there that can be listed to for comparison? If not can you share that as well? Thanks.
Yes, those are the tracks marked 'DRY' in the Samply and Send links from my original post.
https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=203942.msg2423527#msg2423527
https://samply.app/player/jcNlUgG3PFm7B8BGnxR6
https://send.monks.tools/download/5edb36b17d1ba3bd/#EHZNI_MIKL9neFleIE1IIQ
-
Thanks for posting these samples.
I very much like what the shuffling is doing in these examples, which to my perception increases the sense of dimension, openness, and naturalness, particularly in the low frequency range where it is being specifically targeted. The effective increase of the ratio of difference (Side) signal to sum (Mid) signal at low frequencies also serves to bring out more natural reverberation of the room that was already present in the recording but just not as apparent as with the shuffling applied.
Comparing the two mic configs, I also greatly prefer the 22cm AB omnis to the Gerzon cardioids. The AB omnis with the shuffling are just lovely. The Gerzon pair seems to act too much like section mics overly highlighting the violin section on the left and the cello and bass sections on the right, with too much separation between them and not enough of all the other instrumentation to properly glue those two halves together. Still, the shuffling improves the Gerzon configuration as well and in a similar way.
What the shuffling is doing here is exactly what I like to hear in my recordings, and why I gravitate to using larger omni spacings which in part naturally achieve what the shuffling is doing here. More specifically, that is achieving sufficiently minimal diffuse-field correlation or DFC at low frequencies. Shuffling decreases the inevitable low frequency correlation of diffuse field pickup inherent to a narrow mic spacing, while a wider mic spacing produces less diffuse-field low frequency correlation as a result of the additional spacing.
That the shuffling is working equally well for both of the configurations in Voltroni's examples reinforces my conception of shuffling being a potentially useful tool for most coincident and near-spaced mic configs, as it serves to "perceptually correct" for the overly high DFC of a near-spaced pair as frequency decreases, and for the lack of phase differences in a coincident pair.
The cavat in my using larger spacings is that is I then end up mixing in additional near-spaced or coincident channels to essentially "correct for" other less desirable stuff that is a result of using those wider spacings by themselves. The application of shuffling to recordings made using narrower spacings such as these achieves something similar by instead "correcting" the less desirable low frequency aspects that naturally result from a narrower spacing. Sort of opposite approaches which produce similar results in regards to the low frequency difference information in the recording.
If up for playing around with stuff, you might try adding a bit of shuffling at high frequencies and see if you like what that does in opening up the sense of "air" in the recording, while leaving the midrange alone to keep it dry, tight and perceptually closer.
-
More thoughts on the shuffling samples, specifically on adding reverb-
I sometimes liked the added reverb and sometimes found it a bit too much- of course that's just my personal taste. In some places I found it very helpful and just right.
Listening specifically to how the shuffling alone brought out more of the natural reverberance got me thinking about a potentially interesting way to add artificial reverb to a recording- We might add it just to the difference (side) channel, while adding none to the sum (mid) channel. That would keep the center of the playback image drier and perceptually closer, while the reverb would add depth that progressively increases out to either side. That may be useful way to add sufficient 'verb without obscuring the details or making the perspective overly distant. Alternately as a more advanced take on this, one might add different amounts of 'verb perhaps with different parameters to the sum (mid) channel verses the difference (side) channel - say just a touch in the center and more to the sides, and maybe a smaller room / shorter-tail to the center but a larger room / longer-tail to the sides.
-
I did some listening and the shuffle EQ definitely has a desirable effect to my ears. The instruments, the "room", and the overall sound just pops a little more. The stereo sound is increased. It's certainly pleasing.
Also, like Gut says, there seems to be an increase in reverb. In a good way.
Pretty crazy that a low end shelf, or EQing itself, has an effect on the stereo qualities of the recording.
Also the gerzon samples sound ok at first listen but when I switched to the AB omni's, I immediately preffered the omni's. I would guess it's because of the off-axis response you get from a 120 degree angle.
-
Pretty crazy that a low end shelf, or EQing itself, has an effect on the stereo qualities of the recording.
Also the gerzon samples sound ok at first listen but when I switched to the AB omni's, I immediately preferred the omni's. I would guess it's because of the off-axis response you get from a 120 degree angle.
Keep in mind it's not just the EQ filtering in a tonal sense that we're hearing, but the change of stereo width in the affected EQ region. Arguably the stereo width changes are perceived more strongly than the tonal change.
The omnis sound better for a number of reasons I think. One is the off-axis response, but the smoothness and placement of the image distribution is a bigger factor for me. Also the lovely smoothness of response of those 4006's. Love that omni sound when it works.
-
Pretty crazy that a low end shelf, or EQing itself, has an effect on the stereo qualities of the recording.
Also the gerzon samples sound ok at first listen but when I switched to the AB omni's, I immediately preferred the omni's. I would guess it's because of the off-axis response you get from a 120 degree angle.
Keep in mind it's not just the EQ filtering in a tonal sense that we're hearing, but the change of stereo width in the affected EQ region. Arguably the stereo width changes are perceived more strongly than the tonal change.
The omnis sound better for a number of reasons I think. One is the off-axis response, but the smoothness and placement of the image distribution is a bigger factor for me. Also the lovely smoothness of response of those 4006's. Love that omni sound when it works.
It should also be noted that the 4006 pair are using preamps with a full PCB replacement by Rens Heijnis, which smooths out the HF glare of the stock preamps in a subtle but noticeable way. This was my first concert recording after getting them back.
http://www.sonodore.com/DPA.htm
-
They do sound great! Particularly so with the shuffling applied when used at that kind of narrow AB spacing. Tapers take note! The technique makes for a very reasonable A-B omni setup that is broadly applicable to the use of omnis in general, regardless of which particular microphones and amplifiers are used - good in both practical and sonic terms. The near-spacing is both practical and keeps the midrange imaging in check by minimizing the tendency toward a weaker center that a wider spacing can cause, while the shuffling helps correct for the inherent drawbacks of near-spaced omnis.
-
They do sound great! Particularly so with the shuffling applied when used at that kind of narrow AB spacing. Tapers take note! The technique makes for a very reasonable A-B omni setup that is broadly applicable to the use of omnis in general, regardless of which particular microphones and amplifiers are used - good in both practical and sonic terms. The near-spacing is both practical and keeps the midrange imaging in check by minimizing the tendency toward a weaker center that a wider spacing can cause, while the shuffling helps correct for the inherent drawbacks of near-spaced omnis.
The biggest drawback of this close spacing (to my ears) is the double-imaging of close, off-center sources. In my samples, this is most apparent in the violin solo in Overture to the Wind.
-
^Made better by placing a baffle between the mics.. which makes it even truer to Alan Blumlein's original work. Except doing that is problematic in terms of practically.
-
^Made better by placing a baffle between the mics.. which makes it even truer to Alan Blumlein's original work. Except doing that is problematic in terms of practically.
If you use a baffle, you would narrow the spacing a bit to 20 cm to match Blumlein's original patent. From what I understand, Michael Gerzon and other researchers proposed 22 cm without a baffle as having similar overall characteristics.
But yes, the baffle is practical and more visually obtrusive. Fine for a recording session; less so for a live concert.
-
I don't recall specifically, but am pretty sure that Blumlein, along with his ideological heir Gerzon, calculate the parameters of the shuffle-filtering based upon the spacing between microphones. In that way they are applying it as a specific correction for the microphone configuration, in sort of a mathematical/engineering based approach. And it's my impression that is the primary modality you are using thinking about. All good.
I appreciate that mode of approach, but personally tend to approach it from more of a perceptual point of view. Homing in on adjusting the parameters in search of whatever sounds best being right. I approach it from a point of view that is closer to David Griesinger's thoughts on diffuse field correlation and spatiality. Essentially the same thing, but a quite different modality and approach.
In the end hopefully all roads lead to Rome.
That's all a bit of handwaving before saying that without checking specifically (its been a long time since I read it) Blumlein's original patent outlining a 20cm spacing between omnis on either side of baffle along with the application of shuffle-filtering calculated specifically for that spacing seems reasonable. However I cannot accept that arrangement will behave similarly to a 22cm spacing without a baffle, except at low frequencies. The mid and high frequency imaging and spatial qualities will be quite different. 2cm of addition spacing does not and cannot equate to what a barrier between the mics does. As a quick thought experiment, consider how the two arrangements would be expected to compare with regards to your "double image" observation.
[edit- Blumlein and Gerzon may very well have been primarily considering the low frequency region where there the phase relationship of these arrangements remain mathematically "simple and predictable", and not so much the higher frequency regions where things become highly complex for any spaced pair. Similarly the math for coincident ambisonics which represents the ultimate expression of their work isn't exactly simple yet remains reasonable, while mathematical modeling of the behavior of a spaced pairs is neither]
-
I am also a bit suspicious about 22 cm without a baffle sounding more or less like 20 cm with a baffle, but I'm just passing along what I was told.
As for the shuffling formula, in the discussions on GS it was posted the following:
2.1 / d where d is the capsule spacing in inches
5.4 / d where d is the capsule spacing in cm
The result is in kHz, and should be used for the lower corner frequency of the Side channel low-shelf. So for 22 cm, that comes out to about 245 Hz.
-
^ Must be a mistype. For the two to equate the metric measurement would be in cm not mm.
2.1 / d where d is the capsule spacing in inches
5.4 / d where d is the capsule spacing in mm cm
Now thinking about what that's based upon..
Here are a few data points:
22 cm spacing equates to a frequency of 245Hz using the formula above.
245hz equates to a wavelength of 140cm.
140cm / 22cm = 6.36.. cm
I'm assuming it's based on the phase coherence/correlation associated with that spacing, which for any spaced pair is high at low frequencies and low at high frequencies, connected by a curve that shifts downward in frequency as the spacing is increased. Below is the coherency curve for a pair of omnis AB spaced 22cm apart as indicated by the Schoeps Image Assistant. Looks to me that 245Hz is the approximate center point of the curve.
[Edit to update the screenshot of the coherency curve to include the scale on the right side of the graph, consistent with the screenshots in the following post]
-
From my perceptual point of view..
In spacing the omni mic pair in my multichannel setups - where the omnis can be spaced relatively widely without incurring a "hole in the middle problem" because there are additional directional microphone channels placed in the centered between the omnis - I find I most prefer the omnis spaced around 2 meters apart, and that's what I usually do.. because that's about the maximum by setup can support from a single stand. More spacing can work nicely but doesn't seem to be necessary and is more difficult to arrange because it requires additional stands or clamp positions along a horizontal railing to support them.
Looking at the coherency curve for a pair of omnis spaced 2m apart in Image Assistant, the approximate center point of the curve lies around 40Hz. Ok, that makes sense to me perceptually. With a 2m spacing no shuffling is needed to achieve a nice very low DFC (diffuse field correlation) all the way down to a sufficiently low frequency.
Now, the spacing I generally recommend in my posts here at TS for a pair of omnis used in typical taper situations is about 1m. The qualities I listen for from a spaced omni pair suffer rapidly as the spacing is made narrower than that, at least without the application of shuffling. More up to 2m is better but more difficult to setup for most tapers. So 1m ends up being the practical recommendation.
Looking at the coherency curve for a pair of omnis spaced 1m apart in Image Assistant, the approximate center point of the curve lies around 80Hz. Which also makes sense to me perceptually. Low enough to to achieve a sufficiently low DFC even though in perceptual terms it could be improved on with a bit more spacing.
However, it seems to me that most tapers have a hard time achieving a 1m spacing unless using miniature omnis. Most are using narrower spacingings, so let's assume half that. A 50cm omni spacing will place the center of the curve at about 160Hz, so most of the low bass information will have relatively high DFC.
The tentative conclusion is that shuffling may perceptually improve any recording made with an omni spacing of around 1m or smaller, and the corner frequency of the shuffling filter can be set lower the wider the spacing. The corner frequency may be determined by using the formula above or might just be set it by ear.
Here are screen shots of the coherency curves for 2m, 1m and 50cm:
-
Thanks for catching my typo, and for reminding me about Schoeps IMA which is such a handy tool. Your conclusions about the DFC seem very logical.
-
Thanks for starting the conversation on shuffling with your examples. Super interesting stuff. Hope I haven't gone too deep into this for the others following.
A few of my conclusions-
- I'm now convinced that a not overly wide spacing in combination with shuffling is an optimal arrangement for a stereo pair of omnis when used on their own.. in most cases - there are always exceptions and I think those tend to arise in taper situations more so than typical recording scenarios. The oddity of superwide 20-30 foot omnis splits sometimes working great for PA amplified stuff without suffering a "hole in the middle" is an example of that.
- This is great news for tapers! Less wide spacings are far, far, far more practical, achievable, and less-imposing.
- Application of shuffling may make for an improvement of any taper recordings made with a coincident or near-spaced pair. That's most of them.
- Thinking about how it might apply or not to multi-microphone arrays, meaning those which include a microphone, pair, or more mics placed in the center between a wider spaced pair.
Forgive one additional indulgence in thought experiment about that before I let this go.. actually, strike that. Probably best if I take that over to the OMT thread. (https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=204186.msg2424119#msg2424119)
-
Gut, you should check out this thread on GS. Heva gets amazing results recording pipe organs using just a Sennheiser Amebo headset and iPhone. Some discussion of shuffling / widening begins in post #5.
https://gearspace.com/board/remote-possibilities-in-recording-amp-production/1364259-binaural-pipeorgan.html
-
Thanks, will do.
-
Hello folks, I hope everyone is doing well! I have the opportunity to record a "big band" next week in a very small club and I was hoping to ask a couple of questions. Please see the pictures below for the layout on stage. Although everything is mic'd (at least to some extent) the volume of direct acoustic sound from the horns is pretty substantial relative to the PA and this dynamic is new to me.
First a bit of context. The band includes a keyboard, guitar, bass, drums and ~8 horns. At least some instruments are fed directly to the board (guitar is going through a helix straight to FOH) so I need to be back far enough to have some PA in the mix but don't want to lose the organic sound coming from the stage. The room is tiny for a band this size (25' across?) but quite deep. Last week I sat second table back from the stage dead centre and the sound was good and very loud. I am thinking no more than 3' back from there as towards the back of the bar there is another room and I don't want any chatting to compete with the music.
I am thinking of using cardioids (184s?) in somewhere between DIN and NOS, depending on the stereo angle I have from the point I want to mount the mics. My plan is to run into a zoom F3. There is a lip that runs along the ceiling (like the frame between 2 rooms in a house) about 10' back from the stage and I believe one option is to clamp from somewhere on that lip and to have the mics hang down. The other option would be to clamp to a table and have the mics raised above the head height of the patrons, who will be seated.
My questions are:
1) If I hang mics from the ceiling, how far do they need to be to not be negatively affected by the reflections?
2) Do cardioids make sense in this case? I prefer the bass response of more open mics, and could use open cardioids instead, but I am a little worried about reflections.
3) Is there anything else I should be thinking about that I may not have considered?
The good news is that the band is loud enough (where I was last week, just forward of where I may mount the mics) that I am going to bring proper hearing protection so I'm not particularly worried about crowd noise if I need to mount to the table. It would not be reasonably possible to talk over the music at that volume.
Thank you in advance for any advice on this. As always it is greatly appreciated.
-
1] I would say 2 feet below is fine. I've had to run them closer, but the room makes the call for you usually on this variable.
2] With all those horns and a loud PA, Cards may be a wise choice. Compared with omnis that would tend to reduce the bass or low frequency room reflections.
3] horns are LOUD. Try not to be on axis with the trombone or trumpets.
-
The table from which those photos were taken looks ideal to me, assuming there is sufficient PA coverage at that position to get sufficient guitar and keys. I'd use the open cardioids from there. The slightly more open pattern is likely to work well with a big band, should help the horns sound a bit more rounded out and less "strident", and make for a bit softer more blended stereo image. Looks close enough to avoid problems of too much room or sidewall reflections.
If hanging the mics, make sure they remain within the good radiation pattern of the PA speakers. Keeping them low enough that they are not above the vertical cutoff of the high-frequency horn would likely be my main concern, other than the general challenge of hanging mics and routing cables in support of that. Clamping to a table will be a lot easier, yet blocks view from behind more.
Try to recall from the previous performance how the trumpet players in particular tend to point their horns. If they tend to angle them upward toward the ceiling over the audience's heads during the loudest stabs and passages, maybe best not to hang the mics from the ceiling if that will place them directly on-axis for the loudest blares.
Whatever the height, in regard to vertical angle I'd point the pair so as to be in-line with the drums. I awleays like to get a clear and direct line of sight to the snare if I can.
-
yep lots of good advice above. fortunately, i believe cards or wide cards would sound good, but my instinct says to go with wide cards if people talking (during the actual music) isn't an issue. the only issue with cards is the extra directionality(?) could result in too much PA or too much onstage horns if you get the angle/mic position slightly off (which I have personally done, multiple times, in similar situations). wide cards would be a little more forgiving imo and (usually) sound great when working with actual onstage sound.
I always love clamping from the ceiling as it's less clutter/interference on the floor. around 2 ft from the ceiling, as advised by rock, is similiar to my own findings. gut is also correct that the PA speakers should determine the vertical positioning. getting them as close to the center of the PA would be ideal IMO.
All of my trumpet/ trombone encounters have generally pointed their horns downward, but I have seen video of some that play upward. I also like to point the mics to drums like gut. but like rock, I have recorded things similar to this and the horns were very loud and kind of dominated the recording. because of this my instinct says to angle mics SLIGHTLY towards PA (instead of stage) but I COULD DEFINITELY BE WRONG and I highly encourage you to use your knowledge of the band and room to make the final call. Better yet, if you're able to be there for soundcheck, you could get a better sense of how to angle the mics. If the soundguy is blasting non-horns through the PA, then a 50/50 blend of onstage and PA is a safe bet.
These kinds of recordings are so fun to me. I think being in the actual room, walking around and gaining a 3D perspective of where everything is helps a bunch.
-
Thank you all very much, this exactly the feedback I needed. The trumpets play facing ever so slightly down towards the mic when soloing (see pic) and the Pa speakers are mounted quite high at more or less at the same height (pic 2). Based on your responses my plan A will be to mount open cards about 2’ below the main ceiling (slightly less below the part than hangs down to which I will be clamped) and ensure that I am below the high frequency section of the PA speakers. The open cards should be more forging of sound arriving off axis (most of the horns in the centre of the stage) and hopefully that off axis will help with the fact that the trumpet is roughly in line with the mics vertically. I can angle them down from there to be aimed (vertically) closer to the drums.
There isn’t much of a sound check as these folks are pros and they roll in within half an hour of start time and there are just a few level checks of individual instruments before the show and then they start. Luckily, I was there last month and was able to scope out the situation. The sheer volume of the horns had me intimidated. I think the key will be getting there very early to mount to the ceiling and route the cables etc as I’m concerned mounting to the table, while much easier, would be too visually obtrusive.
Again, I really appreciate the feedback. The leader of this band has a lot of interesting projects in town and if I produce a good recording this could lead to a lot of opportunities for interesting recordings in the future.
-
Thanks for the advice on this show. It really turned out very well (probably my best recording?) so thanks again. I have permission to share samples so I have put a song up if anyone is interested (no pressure at all). I welcome any feedback.
https://we.tl/t-5UNlC4KiRt (https://we.tl/t-5UNlC4KiRt)
Link is good for 7 days...
While there were mics for all instruments, there was significant direct sound from both the drums and horns and I can, at times, here the imaging of both the actual horn and PA location.
mk22/cmc6 (modified ORTF) ~6.5' high, ~6' back from front of stage, 2' LOC>Zoom F3 (96/24)
SD>Audacity (levels only, no EQ)
-
Just listened to the sample track, sounds great man. I've seen many many comments here professing love for the mk22 capsule, and this recording just confirms it. Sooo natural and even sounding, but NOT flat at all. It's lively, but not unnaturally hyped. I think I'm a Schoeps guy even though I don't own any (yet).
Anyone else hear that little bit of imaging when the first horn licks start off the song? Very cool. That's what acoustic recording is all about.
Also the small amount of crowd reaction starting around the 2:45 mark, that's what audience recording is all about.
I particularly love the quieter sax solo's (both musically and recording-wise) starting around 4:30. In the louder parts the horns tend to be stronger BUT I don't think that's your fault, it is a Big Band after all and I guarantee you if you asked any of the horn players they'd probably want to be turned up even more ;D
-
Just listened to the sample track, sounds great man. I've seen many many comments here professing love for the mk22 capsule, and this recording just confirms it. Sooo natural and even sounding, but NOT flat at all. It's lively, but not unnaturally hyped. I think I'm a Schoeps guy even though I don't own any (yet).
and...
I particularly love the quieter sax solo's (both musically and recording-wise) starting around 4:30. In the louder parts the horns tend to be stronger BUT I don't think that's your fault, it is a Big Band after all and I guarantee you if you asked any of the horn players they'd probably want to be turned up even more ;D
Thanks for the kind words Bill.
I am extremely happy with the mk22 for all the reasons you mentioned. I recorded 4 shows previously with them and was equally delighted, however, I used a modified NOS for those as the music was all being amplified and the SRA required to capture the PA was very narrow.
I would say that the advice to use wide cardioid for this application was very helpful. When I got into position, I needed a 110' angle to capture the PA sounds, which meant that the trumpets were almost dead in front of the mic or 55' off axis of the capsule. The MK22s did a really good job capturing the acoustic signal that far off axis. I suspect CM4s would have performed well in this instance as well.
I think the increase in loudness between the trumpets and the saxophones was due to the acoustics involved. The bell of the trumpet was pointed almost directly at the mic position and, as a result, was providing a lot of energy even ~12' away. My ears are still ringing. :) I assume that is why they are positioned in the back row and the saxophones, which radiate sound from the keys as well as the bell which is facing upward, are up front.
Another approach might have been to move 10' back but that was not possible as there was no fixture from which to mount the mics and would also have resulted in much more noise from the back room relative to the music. I was very happy with the audience to music mix at this distance.
-
Thanks for the advice on this show. It really turned out very well (probably my best recording?) so thanks again. I have permission to share samples so I have put a song up if anyone is interested (no pressure at all). I welcome any feedback.
https://we.tl/t-5UNlC4KiRt (https://we.tl/t-5UNlC4KiRt)
Link is good for 7 days...
^
Just came back to hear this but missed the x-fer window, may I beg a re-up?
-
^Absolutely. Travelling right now and my personal hotspot seems inadequate for we transfer but will upload and share a fresh link on Friday when back on wifi…
-
Here is a fresh link to the big band file as requested. It should be good for 3 days. I will investigate an alternative to WT over the next couple of weeks as I saw a good thread with options.
https://we.tl/t-1GiantHcme
I also added a file from two nights later (Pastor T) as this was an all acoustic show, no PA whatsoever, in a tiny venue. Trumpet, sax, drums bass and guitar. For this one I hadn't arranged in advance and used CSHEB (DPA4060) into my R07. I mounted the mics on my glasses at my temple to use my head as a baffle. I was very happy with the outcome for such a simple set up. Very immersive image on headphones. I have added a picture to give a sense of the band/room. Note my feet in the foreground of one of the pics for a sense of my location. :)
-
^ Love that.
Thanks for the link. Will grab it this weekend.
-
^ Enjoyed them both - sounded like I was sitting there. Love recording music that doesn't need PA amplification. So much more real when hearing the sound generated directly from the instruments themselves. Makes getting a "good and real sounding" recording easier in a few ways as long as we can position the rig in the right location, which becomes even more important than when most of the content is through the PA
-
Thank you for the feedback on the previous recording.
I have the opportunity to record this same band (Ed Lister Group, not the Big Band) this Friday at the same venue. The only difference in instruments will that there will also be a keyboard which I am assuming will be amplified directly as there was nothing going through a PA at the previous show other than a SM58 for stage announcements.
My last recording was from the front row, in a large padded chair that went up above my head height drastically reducing the audience from directly behind me. The only crowd noise I had was from the other side of the room parallel to the stage from my seating position, which was only noticeable during the quiet passages.
In case you are interested as a frame of reference, and didn't hear those samples, please find 2 tracks below. These are different tracks than shared last time but the recording.
https://samply.app/p/Ga5WbtzNargjM4rqsvTD
I believe it is possible to scroll down and stream lossless but not sure as this is my first samply share. It is definitely possible to download them lossless.
I have gotten permission in advance to record on Friday and am looking to take my recording up a level.
What I liked about my previous recording was:
- Very good sense of immersion and soundstage with headphones (in particular the audience behind me vs. the band in front and all instruments seemed to be in the "correct" placement relative to my experience at the show
Solid bass extension, mix was a little bass light at the show, and overall tonality. I do listen with a bass boost on certain headphones to fill in the bass and midrange a bit which I find sits beneath the highs with the 4060s with (small) grills.
What I'm hoping to improve with the recording this week is:
More full lower midrange
Increased direct to reverberant (and audience) sound
Better imaging on stereo speakers. I recognize/expect this will come at the expense of the headphone imaging.
I have reviewed the on stage thread again and would like to take my first step towards that style of recording by going to stage lip.
My current plan is to:
Set the (table top) mic stand just off stage such that the mic capsules themselves would be just over the stage lip ~8-12" above the stage surface, angled upwards (I will use the snare as an approximate height target). I may also be able to clamp to stage lip but not sure based on the lip itself being rounded.
My thinking is either a modified NOS or modified ORTF, dependent on the stereo angle I establish when I get there, with mk22s as I really like the sound of these up close. I tend to change the spacing slightly to optimize the SRA based on the fixed angle using an SRS mount for either of the two standard mic configurations.
I am not planning on adding additional mics this time as I want to be able to mount this all on a single stand, F3 clamped to the stand's base, so I can move it into and out of position before/between sets. This is a tiny space and cramped stage and I am very conscious not be in the musician's, or audience's, way. It is my goal, however, to add DPA 4060s mounted to the stage once the boundaries I ordered arrive in ~1-2 months. At that point I would switch the centre mics to hypers in X/Y but, again, that's next time out.
I will also probably record with the binauralish configuration with my 4060s and R07, as used last time, to have the option for a headphone mix should I have the same seating opportunity again and to mitigate risk (drums overloading analog inputs, though I suspect this is unlikely given the nature of the gig).
I have two questions that I am hoping to get perspective on.
1) Is there a minimum distance from the stage I need these capsules to be located to avoid any issues with reflection and
2) Are there any other considerations that could significantly influence the success of my approach that I may not have thought of here.
Thank you as always for any advice.
-
1) Is there a minimum distance from the stage I need these capsules to be located to avoid any issues with reflection and
Not really. The difference in path length between the direct line from source to microphone verses a secondary path of a strong reflection off the floor surface arriving momentarily later can manifest as a timbral shift, due to the first notch of the comb-filtering that occurs between the two shift shifting in frequency as the height is changed, but that's unlikely to be noticed as such unless listening while actively moving the microphone. If you get a chance, play around with height while monitoring on headphones prior to starting recording, or call out height while actively changing it while recording soundcheck or whatever so that you'll be able to associate any change in sound with the change in height while listening later. Decreasing or increasing height will shift the first cancelation notch up or down in frequency and may land somewhere within the low mid region. Same applies to the spacing between two omnis as well as their distance away from a reflective surface. That timbral shift is much more perceptually apparent when moving the mics while listening. With the mics fixed in position the response remains constant and is not likely to be noticed.
The only distance at which there is no pathlength difference between the direct sound arrival and a reflection off a surface is with the microphone mounted right up against the surface itself. At all other heights the paths are somewhat different lengths and will interact to various degrees causing some shift in timbre. That's not necessarily a bad thing if it works to advantage.
I generally like my on-stage mics positioned low. Directional mics placed low and angled upward toward the sources reduces pickup of the reflection somewhat. You can place the 4060s directly on the stage surface without using the boundary mounts if you like, just make sure they won't get stepped upon. I've sort of stuck them down in a crack between floor boards for trample protection a few times. Some stuff does need the mics up higher just to get them closer to the source. But with standing musicians playing loud horns you may achieve a better balance of them and the less loud instruments when the mics are low to the stage.
Unlike a studio recording, as concert tapers we typically don't get the chance to play around with these setup tweaking subtleties since we usually need to just get setup and roll without the ability to make careful listening tests and adjust things based on what we hear.
2) Are there any other considerations that could significantly influence the success of my approach that I may not have thought of here.
We may have talked about this, but aim for a clean line of sight to the mics from instruments that are featured, or play in a more staccato way and thus do best when cleanly articulated- drums, percussion, vocals.. More legato instruments such as the horns wont won't suffer as much from a higher ratio of reverberant sound. Sometimes its more about what instrumentation will be best translated as sounding "out in front" verses playing a more supporting roll. Piano and drums can be that way, sometimes they need to be clear and upfront, other times its okay for them to be more buried in back in a supporting role.
What I'm hoping to improve with the recording this week is:
More full lower midrange
Increased direct to reverberant (and audience) sound
Better imaging on stereo speakers. I recognize/expect this will come at the expense of the headphone imaging.
Lower midrange- Influenced primarily by mic choice, mic placement, EQ.
Increased ratio of direct sound to reverberant pickup- Get the mics closer, Use a more directional mic pattern angled toward the source, Use things like that chair back as a baffle to favor sound arrival from the desired source. (Note- playback over headphones can support a somewhat higher level of reverberance than playback over speakers)
Better imaging on stereo speakers- Try a bit more spacing or angle between mics than whatever is optimal for headphones. Playback over speakers involves some crosstalk between channels occurring in the space between the speakers and your head (each ear hear both speakers) which isn't present in headphone listening where each ear hears only one channel. So reducing the stereo cross-talk in the recording by altering the mic configuration somewhat may optimize a bit more for speaker playback. I find speaker playback is improved while headphone playback doesn't suffer when using dummy head recording techniques with mic spacings greater than typical ear spacing. A coincident pair of X/Y hypercardioids in the center + a pair of wide spaced omnis will help provide good imaging over both speakers and headphones IME.
-
Thank you very much for the thoughtful and detailed response. In terms of takeaways for this week:
The height of the mics from the floor can impact timbre. As there isn't a sound check, for this week I'll focus on making sure that the mics are equidistant from the floor to ensure they sound similar. One of the things I am considering is angling the mics and one outcome could be that one mic is over the stage floor and the other is off stage, resulting in about an additional 8" in distance to the main floor. I will definitely try to avoid this and can experiment in the future with optimal height when able to manually adjust during a sound check or performance.
I will use the mk22s this week, positioned low and angled up as they help me to achieve both the better overall frequency response (the mics themselves) and the distance to the music vs. audience and directionality should improve my direct sound to audience ratio.
I am going to wait for the boundary mounts before putting the 4060s on stage. The stage is small and this week there will be another person on it (with a keyboard) and I am concerned about them being stepped on in the locations that I would like to use them. That said, I will have the boundary mounts and my hypers ready for a recording in the next couple of months and can graduate to that. It also allows me to run the 4060s binaural on Friday as a backup recording in case I run into a challenge with the main pair.
I should be good for direct line of sight to the sources, except the horns where you mention it may be least important. The drums being stage left will have a mic pointed just to their left and the amps are positioned around the outside of the stage so line of sight should be ideal for those sources. What I am learning is that, unlike recording from a PA, with acoustic sources it's more difficult to keep that line of sight as people move around the stage etc. whereas, with a PA, you can just get your mics up high to avoid any obstructions.
Thank you again for the advice, I will report back with results.
-
Don't worry about height too much. Mic height is most important with regard to pickup of nearby audience members, and how close and on-axis or not the mics are to the sources. Place the mics where you want them but not where they will be in the way, managing pickup of nearby audience, respecting sight-lines. The effect on response from reflections off the floor is likely to be subtle and secondary to all that, most likely heard on more steady state sounds, bass lines bass drum. Mostly know that keeping them low to the stage surface can work nicely when the situation calls for it.
-
Don't worry about height too much. Mic height is most important with regard to pickup of nearby audience members, and how close and on-axis or not the mics are to the sources. Place the mics where you want them but not where they will be in the way, managing pickup of nearby audience, respecting sight-lines. The effect on response from reflections off the floor is likely to be subtle and secondary to all that, most likely heard on more steady state sounds, bass lines bass drum. Mostly know that keeping them low to the stage surface can work nicely when the situation calls for it.
Remember, people are water bags which absorb sound.
Nearby reflections will be sucked up by their flesh and clothing, at the cost of the noises they make!
-
Remember, people are water bags which absorb sound.
Nearby reflections will be sucked up by their flesh and clothing, at the cost of the noises they make!
A useful new acoustics measurement index! AAE = The ratio of an Audience's sound Absorption / sound Emission. Colloquially known as the Fonz index. "Ayyy"
"Hey, keep it down over there!" can now be used in reference to an unruly audience member's effect on the AAE index.
-
I've heard there are party favors that help that ratio quite a bit.
-
Don't worry about height too much. Mic height is most important with regard to pickup of nearby audience members, and how close and on-axis or not the mics are to the sources. Place the mics where you want them but not where they will be in the way, managing pickup of nearby audience, respecting sight-lines. The effect on response from reflections off the floor is likely to be subtle and secondary to all that, most likely heard on more steady state sounds, bass lines bass drum. Mostly know that keeping them low to the stage surface can work nicely when the situation calls for it.
Remember, people are water bags which absorb sound.
Nearby reflections will be sucked up by their flesh and clothing, at the cost of the noises they make!
You must have taken "physics of acoustics" from the same professor I did. This was his EXACT phraseology when starting the discussion about room acoustics and "physical dampening".
+T for water bags, as we all mostly are. >:D
-
Remember, people are water bags which absorb sound.
Nearby reflections will be sucked up by their flesh and clothing, at the cost of the noises they make!
You must have taken "physics of acoustics" from the same professor I did. This was his EXACT phraseology when starting the discussion about room acoustics and "physical dampening".
+T for water bags, as we all mostly are. >:D
I learned it in the field... FoH / audio dept knowledge base...
^-^
-
Remember, people are water bags which absorb sound.
Nearby reflections will be sucked up by their flesh and clothing, at the cost of the noises they make!
You must have taken "physics of acoustics" from the same professor I did. This was his EXACT phraseology when starting the discussion about room acoustics and "physical dampening".
+T for water bags, as we all mostly are. >:D
I learned it in the field... FoH / audio dept knowledge base...
^-^
My great Uncle, Merchant Marine, would say: "We went to the same school together, the school of life".
Rock On brother morst!
-
I recorded the band on Friday using the advice here as a guide. I ended up running the following mics.
1) CMC122 @+/-55°, 24"
2) CMC641 @+/-45°, XY
3) DPA 4060 @24" taped to stage
My thinking is that this would give me the option to mix supers/open cards or super/omnis depending on the recording.
Unfortunately, the audience absorption factor is very low on stage, and the 4060 recording had an excess of treble which had an edge to it. Even after EQing the omni pair (~-5db above 2khz) there was still a quality to the sound I found "hard" for lack of a better term.
Luckily, I was very happy with the 22/41 mix. The only thing I would probably do differently, other than having the band set up with the drummer in the centre if I was formally recording, would be to raise the angle on the far right mk22 to bring the trumpet up in the mix as it moves around the right side of the stage. I don't think the music stand helped here either as it was often between the trumpet bell and the mics. Still, as GB pointed out, the horns work quite well with reverberant sound making this less of an issue than it would have been with guitar or drums for example.
I was really happy with the outcome overall. Direct to reverberant sound, music to audience ratio and soundstage were all greatly improved over my ~binaural set up. Obviously this came at the expense of set up time and work in post which, it appears, scales exponentially with the addition of mics. I had 3 distinct mixes I went back and forth on before selecting the one I thought sounded best overall.
The advice on pointing the XY at the level of the snare was super helpful and I think the drum sound anchors the recording quite well, even if the drums are slightly loud in the mix which seems kind of unavoidable on such a small stage.
I put a couple of samples up here if anyone is interested.
https://samply.app/p/FqcMuOjiLELXeu9AHMPo (https://samply.app/p/FqcMuOjiLELXeu9AHMPo)
-
I put a couple of samples up here if anyone is interested.
https://samply.app/p/FqcMuOjiLELXeu9AHMPo (https://samply.app/p/FqcMuOjiLELXeu9AHMPo)
Looking forward to listening, but right now it looks like the player is set to private :)
-
Should be fixed. My bad, technology is not a personal strength. ::)
-
^ Taping might help you with that (to some extent, at least)! Lots of software, hardware, and technical stuff to ponder...
-
Nice! Will give a listen later.
In general, to tame DPA 4060s when necessary try a parametric EQ centered around 12kHz with Q and cut adjusted to suit. That tends to correct for the peak in response without throwing as much of a blanket over everything. Might need to do that in combination with a shelf filter further adjusting general treble response. Other thing you can do is to use them without any grid installed in situations where you think they might sound bright.
I suspect you probably don't need the omnis in the mix, but you never know for sure until afterward, and having them there makes for a good for comparison. Setup like that with the same spacing as the CMC112 pair, the 4060's look to be nicely protected, and it provides a good opportunity to compare those two pairs in isolation, as well as compare X/Y center + omnis against X/Y center + CMC122 pair.
Ordinarily if I were intending to use the omnis in the mix with the other two other pairs I'd either space the omnis considerably farther apart - say 60" or so, which helps when sources are widely distributed across the stage or moving around like the trumpet - or I'd tape them to the vertical surface just under the stage-lip facing out at the audience so that they stage lip acts as a baffle between them and the sound coming from on stage. The second option provides a greater degree of mixdown control over direct/reverberant balance and some control over the band/audience balance, due to the directional mics above the lip providing maximal pickup of the band and reduced pickup of the audience and room, while the omnis under the lip do the opposite. Also, when used that way under the lip the omnis don't need to be spaced as far apart as they do when up on stage with the other mics.
-
^ Taping might help you with that (to some extent, at least)! Lots of software, hardware, and technical stuff to ponder...
One can only hope. :) But seriously, I'm pretty good with hardware, it's apps I tend to need to spend more time learning.
Nice! Will give a listen later.
In general, to tame DPA 4060s when necessary try a parametric EQ centered around 12kHz with Q and cut adjusted to suit. That tends to correct for the peak in response without throwing as much of a blanket over everything. Might need to do that in combination with a shelf filter further adjusting general treble response. Other thing you can do is to use them without any grid installed in situations where you think they might sound bright.
I suspect you probably don't need the omnis in the mix, but you never know for sure until afterward, and having them there makes for a good for comparison. Setup like that with the same spacing as the CMC112 pair, the 4060's look to be nicely protected, and it provides a good opportunity to compare those two pairs in isolation, as well as compare X/Y center + omnis against X/Y center + CMC122 pair.
Ordinarily if I were intending to use the omnis in the mix with the other two other pairs I'd either space the omnis considerably farther apart - say 60" or so, which helps when sources are widely distributed across the stage or moving around like the trumpet - or I'd tape them to the vertical surface just under the stage-lip facing out at the audience so that they stage lip acts as a baffle between them and the sound coming from on stage. The second option provides a greater degree of mixdown control over direct/reverberant balance and some control over the band/audience balance, due to the directional mics above the lip providing maximal pickup of the band and reduced pickup of the audience and room, while the omnis under the lip do the opposite. Also, when used that way under the lip the omnis don't need to be spaced as far apart as they do when up on stage with the other mics.
Thank you for the tips, I will investigate the EQ suggestions. It's the next frontier of learning for me.
The reason the DPAs were located directly under the other mics was protection. The pic doesn't show it but there were chairs in the audience all the way up to the right side of the mic bar and I had to move the chairs on the left side so the band could load around it. This place holds like 30 people and that was pretty much the full footprint I could afford and I still worried every time someone went on or off stage.
I did, in fact, listen to the all the pair individually and tried a mix with the DPAs and the centre pair and one with all 3. The DPAs had the horns more prominent in the mix and I may go back and re-EQ the DPA pair and try that again both alone and with the MK22s. Between the difficult treble and what I assume are phase issues, the 22/41 pair won but only after listening to each mix on multiple systems. The treble issue is funny because I didn't notice it on the bass tilted headphones I used to mix and they sound great on a bluetooth speaker but the second I played it on something with more treble it made me fill slightly ill and I abandoned that pair from the mix for now.
Thanks again to everyone for the help, I'm super happy with how this turned out in what I consider to be a somewhat challenging environment.
-
I recorded another acoustic show and thought I'd share samples. As this was a Jazz Vespers show (part of a service) I only set up a single set of mics, off centre, but was happy with the outcome given the circumstances. For perspective, it was about 40C (104F) here yesterday so the church had a portable AC unit and a moving fan going. I was also set up to one side to allow the reverend to come out between songs and do his thing. I'm happy with the output, however, it would have been great to get another mic up to cover the other side of the church as the band covered the width of the building.
I have a lot of respect for those who record in a church now. The acoustics are not that easy to work with given the extreme reverb if you move too far from the source.
MK22s (21cm, 110 degrees)>Nbob>riotbox>zoomF3(96/24). Dithered to 48/24 normalized, compressed two very loud trumpet peaks but otherwise no post processing.
https://samply.app/p/37iClYfaU7HrQ4fsXpA2
-
Nice work! Sounds lovely! I feel like I'm there.
-
Thanks Al. I am very happy with the recording given the constraints.
-
Returning to this thread feeling a bit philosophical today..
I have a lot of respect for those who record in a church now. The acoustics are not that easy to work with given the extreme reverb if you move too far from the source.
Challenging yet rewarding. The combination of clean dynamic sound directly from the instruments, supported by a deep lush reverberance can be really fantastic. Recording acoustic instruments in that kind of environment really makes the differentiation between direct and reverberant sound clearly apparent, and very much rewards thinking in terms of that relationship. It takes both those things working well in combination for the magic to really happen. Attention to how both are handled and combined in the resulting recording becomes especially rewarding IME. Especially since really optimizing for both can sometimes place things at odds. Makes for a fun challenge.
While arranging the recoding setup in such a way to achieve good clean direct sound pickup with a properly balanced representation of sources involves all the things we tend to discuss at TS such as stereo mic setup, stereo recording angle, the resulting image distribution and all that, details about how the reverberant sound is picked up and translated into the recording is right up there with it in these situations. I think valuing and really optimizing for that part is often a bit foreign to tapers simply because so much of practical PA-reinforced concert taping rewards maximizing good quality pickup of direct sound and minimizing pickup of audience and reverberant room sound to the greatest practical extent. "Direct good, reverberant bad". That's a gross simplification but I think rings true. Of course tapers recognize and value a good reverberant qualities and "know it when they hear it" in a well made recording, but its easy to not be actively concerned with optimizing the quality of reverberant pickup other than simply minimizing it. Even when mixing in an AUD to add bit of live feel to a dry SBD recording, that AUD was usually recorded in a way that primarily optimized for direct sound pickup (even though that's what the SBD is doing a better job of providing) and is rarely optimized specifically to provide the elements the SBD feed lacks. It pretty much contains and provides the reverberant/room/audience-reaction qualities simply because its an AUD. I'm not casting shade on taper methods here, it works, the priorities are not misplaced - it all makes sense given the challenges of PA-reinforced concert recording. It's just that this style of acoustic recording really rewards nuanced ways of thinking about and approaching how everything other than the direct sound emanating from the instruments and PA is handled as well.
I find recording non PA-reinforced acoustic music in these kind of situations is a good reminder of what PA-reinforcement can and can't do well. It's amazing how far a good PA is able to push the critical radius of reverberation out into the audience. But also amazing how much it radically changes the nature of the sound in doing so, forcing it to be less dimensional with considerably less dynamic extension, both in terms of micro and macro dynamics, even when the PA is exceptional and has been setup and tuned outstandingly well. Much of that is easily overlooked when one has never or rarely records in these environments.
In addition to making great recordings of exceptional performances, recording in these types of scenarios makes for a great opportunity to think about all this for those so inclined. Big thanks to all the folks contributing to this thread and sharing their experiences. Make the most of it.
-
I recorded another acoustic show and thought I'd share samples. As this was a Jazz Vespers show (part of a service) I only set up a single set of mics, off centre, but was happy with the outcome given the circumstances. For perspective, it was about 40C (104F) here yesterday so the church had a portable AC unit and a moving fan going. I was also set up to one side to allow the reverend to come out between songs and do his thing. I'm happy with the output, however, it would have been great to get another mic up to cover the other side of the church as the band covered the width of the building.
I have a lot of respect for those who record in a church now. The acoustics are not that easy to work with given the extreme reverb if you move too far from the source.
MK22s (21cm, 110 degrees)>Nbob>riotbox>zoomF3(96/24). Dithered to 48/24 normalized, compressed two very loud trumpet peaks but otherwise no post processing.
https://samply.app/p/37iClYfaU7HrQ4fsXpA2
I'm getting to this really late, but this sounds really nice and unhyped, just like the chill playing.
-
Went back to listen to Thelonious's jazz in church recording again this morning..
I agree with Voltronic. That church reverberance is handled nicely, suiting the horns the and relatively sparce mid-tempo arrangements. I think the reverberance helps the horns imaging far left and piano on the right to sound less disconnected and off to the edge by themselves, particularly the sax - the extra verb and its more distant sounding placement works fine. Like'n the nicely centered drums and bass. Good translation of the acoustic bass and piano, both of which can be tricky at times in a reverberant space. I see a GK amp behind the bassist facing the recording position which makes that one easier. Without an amp, it can be difficult to get sufficient level and detail from the bass compared to the other instruments, in which case it helps to position the rig somewhat close to the bass. Piano is the Roland through an amp I assume, which can make recording that instrument in good balance somewhat easier too. Standard non-upright acoustic piano in an ensemble setup in this kind of reverberant space can be challenging since the soundboard is horizontal and radiates up/down. When the mics are in about the same plane as the soundboard, almost all sound picked up from the piano will to be early reflections off the floor and lid along with reverberant sound, rather than direct sound. Yes that's how pianos naturally sound for folks in the audience and players on the other side of the stage, but getting clear piano that's well balanced with the other instruments radiating more directly toward the recording position can sometimes be tricky.
The size of the ensemble and repertoire strikes me as an appropriate for that space. A jazz ensemble that's larger or more amplified might not work as well in that room, particularly if playing energetically. If things were to get much louder and denser, the reverb that sounds quite nice on this recording might instead get swamped, cluttered, muddy and over dense. That happens frequently in a local music college hall here which features acoustics appropriate for classical music when used for jazz ensemble performances. Small "mostly acoustic" jazz ensembles work better in that rather live room than larger ensembles due to the long reverb time, especially in the bass region. At some point as the ensemble gets larger and louder, they need to shift to close mic'ing through the PA and stage monitors to better manage the acoustics. The PA then pushes the critical radius of reverberation out much farther so it doesn't just sound like mud.
-
Thank you for all the feedback and suggestions to my earlier posts. They are really helpful as I try to hone my approach to non PA recording.
I recorded the Ed Lister Group again, as part of their monthly residency, at a small bar last night. The group had a local 15 year old piano player sitting in, which was a change from having a second horn as a lead instrument.
I thought I would share some samples of this one as it builds on the learning from my previous matrix attempt a few months back (last month they were shooting a promo video in the bar so I reverted to a small two channel set up for that occasion).
Building on the previous matrix approach, and some of the feedback, I created a matrix using:
1) Mk122s - 90 degrees, ~60cm
2) MK641s - XY, 90 degrees (brough in to ~+/-30% spread in post)
3) 4060s - ~60 cm, boundary mounts (Just enough to fill out the bass and bring in some room
Sources 1 and 2 are roughly equal in the mix while source 3 was brought in just enough to fill out the bass and add a bit of room to the sound. My sense is this makes the imaging slightly less precise, but also makes it more cohesive and less dry as you can hear a bit more of the audience.
I think the overall sense of space is improved (potentially with a slight reduction in image precision). I had no issues with the treble "glare", which I had in the previous recording, after a 3db roll off above 12Khz to attenuate the extra highs (I had short grids on the mics). This may be due to the use of the boundary mounts as last time I had them mounted in the mounts I use to mount to clothing which had them slightly off the floor.
I am very pleased with the recording overall, and really appreciate the extra "depth" the introduction of the omnis brings.
Samples can be found here. https://samply.app/p/YQ8XlA8i0zl92iZtequX
-
I look forward to listening. Without doing so yet I'll say that what you describe very much reflects my thoughts when balancing a mix made with that kind of 3-part microphone arrangement - so advantageous to gain the luxury of being able to balance "sharp dry imaging precision" against "open atmosphere audience and room" afterward without having to compromise more fundamental balance concerns. And just feels really good to work the balance and blend of a lush engaging sense of "being there" against clear placement details.
An advanced mixing technique which is probably not required for this recording yet is an cool option to be aware of, is to vary the level of the "roomier" microphone channels along with the loudness of the program. Between pieces and during quieter portions and slower movements, more level from those channels opens things up nicely. Conversely, when things get loud and energetic, reducing the contribution from those channels can help clean things up. That's is a general trend that applies broadly to pretty much all recording situations, but tends to apply especially strongly to performances in smaller reverberant spaces where the acoustics can get over dense and somewhat muddled when it really gets going.
In this case that would entail varying the level of the omni pair somewhat, you just can't vary it so much that it becomes obvious. I most often do that on a rear-facing mic pair that's primarily dedicated to the pick of room and audience, or sometimes just the Side channel of the center Mid/Side pair that I use instead of an X/Y pair, sometimes both, since I can vary those more than the omni pair without upsetting the overall mix. Can do that manually using level automation points in the DAW which provides the most control although it takes more time to do, or can arrange carefully tuned compression on those channels so that their relative contribution compared to the "sharp dry imaging precision" channels decreases as the overall SPL increases. A cool tweak that helps when doing it with compression is to trigger the compression on those channels via a sidechain input from the "sharp dry imaging precision" channels. That way the contribution from the more ambient channels is being managed by what is happening in the dry direct sound channels, and the audience reaction between songs isn't squashed just because it happens gets energetic, but only gets reduced when the level in the"clear and direct" channels becomes more energetic. It serves as sort of a form of more advanced parallel compression - the direct sound portion retains its full dynamics and automatically effects how much compression is applied to the reverberant/ambient/audience contribution to the mix.
It's a subtle but rather cool option that further leverages the use of more than one pair arranged so as to work together, with each contributing something slightly different to the mix.
-
Thinking a bit more on this, if you ever find yourself so inclined you might also try what I'm sometimes doing with my M/S center-pair Side channel, but with your X/Y center-pair instead. Would be as an alternate to, or in addition to varying the level of the omni pair described above. Several ways to do it, each effectively altering the "~+/-30% spread" of the X/Y pair as the overall SPL level rises and falls.
One is to convert the X/Y pair to Mid/Side and vary the level of Side. Another would be to automate the panning-width of the X/Y pair directly. Because of the presence of the other stereo pairs also contributing to the mix, doing this tends to be less about simply altering stereo image width than it would be if listening to that pair in isolation and instead somewhat more about altering the sense of "openness and fore-aft depth" - at least to my ear and for lack of a better description. Just seeks to improve things by allowing the depth and ambience to open up a bit more when the recording is able to support it, while tightening and flattening up more when things get loud, dense and more messy.
Applied generally, any straight 2-channel stereo recording or already mixed multi-pair recording which suffers from becoming overly dense and reverberant during the louder sections might also by be improved by converting to Mid/Side and subtlety tying M/S ratio to SPL in this way. However, since it will then be affecting the width of the entire stereo recording, its likely less will be able to be applied without the altercation of stereo width becoming apparent. As SPL increases the sense of stereo width will be slowly reduced in addition to the recording sounding less reverberant and dimensionally deep.
-
Thank you very much for the suggestion on compression of the omni channels linked to SPL of the "main channels". In this case the recording is quite sparse, and the mics are quite close to all of the sources so I don't find it gets too congested, but I can imagine many cases where this will be useful so I will investigate the use of automation in my DAW, which I have never explored to date. I can certainly picture that in one of Ed's other bands where there can be up to 12 musicians, including 8 horns, in a relatively small space.
I kept the omnis at ~2' spacing due to the proximity to the audience (there is a couch stage left and the chatter is already more audible than I would prefer during the quiet sections). A +/- 3' spacing would put my left mic almost at their table.
I should have mounted below the stage lip, however, leaving the omnis up top at this distance provides a safety net in case I screw something up with one of the other channels. That would leave me with a pair of ~2' spaced omni pair that is very listenable in the worst case scenario.
Thanks again for the tips. If you had told me 13 months ago, when I first asked on TS about suggestions for setting up my pair of CM4s to record Julian Lage in what was my first time open recording a live concert that I would make a recording like this and be looking at further optimizing it, I wouldn't have believed it. A very fun journey and I am super grateful for all of the learnings from the group.
-
Starting with Julian Lage immediately optimizes the talent factor!
Mounting the omnis under the stage lip essentially turns that pair into dedicated audience/room-facing mics (they'll still provide low frequency reinforcement in either position). That can be good for providing more isolation of that stuff from the direct stage sound, which allows for mixing in more of it when appropriate and is where the level riding / compression of it described above can be best applied, or it can be a not so good thing if you are relying on the omni channels for pickup of some of the on-stage sound as you describe.
Regarding the level riding of that content, either done manually or automated, as described above- I tend to simplify thinking about it to essentially targeting 3 different levels: An increased level of ambient / audience / room content between songs and during quiet passages, the standard amount you'd typically use in a mix if you weren't making further adjustments or automation of it, which probably gets applied to the bulk of the performance made at intermediate SPLs, and a reduced amount whenever things get loud enough to begin "overloading" the reverberant room acoustics, thus lessening the tendency for things to start sounding overly crowded and muddy.
No doubt that's rather advanced mixing strategy. I'm sure some TS members reading this are rolling their eyes. Certainly no need to go that far unless you want to play around with taking things further to see how far you can optimizing a recording made in this way. There are plenty of other things you might optimize without doing this kind of post work. I really only mention it because recording in the way you are doing makes it possible, its a cool thing to be aware of, and it can influence how you think about recording things moving forward.