Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: RebelRebel on June 03, 2006, 03:37:10 PM
-
Too much coffee and my mind is wandering...
Ive been wondering this...Stereo Mic techniques were developed around the notion that all of the sound was coming from in front of the microphones, with all the sound being put out by the actual instruments themselves, as opposed to being put out by loudspeakers. So based on that, could someone really discern the advantages of one stereo technique vs another in a "sound reinforced" setting?Not to mention all the various amped distortion issues, foot after foot of wire/compressors/limiters/effects racks carrying the signal, shoddy speakers, and less than stellar acoustics in many clubs, some of those being problems that arent considered in an acoustic enviroment.. I could see pointing the stereo pair at one of the stacks every time, treating the stack as the "instrument", and adjusting stereo configurations based on position relative to that stack, how one, over time, could tell a difference, but if you have a band on stage and then to their extreme right and left you have loudspeakers...doesnt that fly in the face of conventional microphone wisdom(well, what ive read anyway)? I know when I was recording PA music I could hardly ever tell one configuration from another period, much less derive benefits of one vs the other(and mainly pointed at the stacks!) . Even on repeated listens to other peoples recordings, I could never go"hey, he is using a spaced pair" or "she is using ORTF", whereas with Acoustic music , the answer is more obvious..
For example,the correct angle for the ORTF array is twice the angle that produces a sensitivity drop of 3 dB in the particular mic being used. In acoustic music where the source is right in front of you , this is used to prevent overemphasizing the center of the soundstage. In a PA enviroment, the sound is not coming from where it normally would come in an unamped setting, and because of that fact a person cant use the same sort of thinking, correct?? I have to scratch my head and wonder(not refute, just genuinely curious, possibly due to lack of knowledge on my end) when I see a member say "use XY or DIN, itll tighten things up a bit" when those sort of rules were designed with acoustic recording in mind, and not loudspeaker reproduction. I , for example have NEVER had decent results with a jecklin disc in an amplified setting..OSS wasnt designed with all those "amped" factors in mind..(I am mentioning that specifically because I heard someone talk about muddy bass on their jecklin disc recording.. Jecklin recordings are normally some of the most focused, tight recordings I have ever heard,as a matter of fact, a couple of years ago an engineer won a grammy armed with only a jecklin disc and a pair of Schoeps omnis)
Is that why Mark Nutter came up with PAS?? Do stereo techniques in a PA Situation make that much of a difference?My gut says no. ..Maybe new configs should be created for those that record amplified music? Ive found that the conventional wisdom does not apply.Just rambling..curious as to others' thoughts.Maybe I need to cut down on the caffeine :-\ ;D
Teddy
-
I say forget about everything and use your ears :) Nothing is written in stone mic techniques are guild lines not absolutes IMO. The thought that I can just place some mics on a stand and point them, and have that be the 100% perfect solution is NUTS. Any good engineer will try many different approches before he finds the one that works best. The only problem is you guys have to set it and forget it. In most cases you do not get a sound check :) I think that sound systems have come along way and a little knowledge on sound systems will play an important part of mic placement most people do not know the difference between horn loaded, phase plugged, or front loaded or even line array. Every one of these systems requires a different approach IMO. Room acoustics/mic placement (based on available space not most desired location) also hamper this process.
In an ideal world I would have a set of good headphones on :) and move the mics until I heard something nice. Thus XY ORTF stuff is great but in the real world we have things in the way of the sound system like beams and pillars. and we are not always dead center I would like to place my mics not necessarily dead center of the room but dead center of the front of house sound engineer because he is doing panning, eq'ing based on his location. Not the center of the room, Although I have heard it lots of times you should always mix from the perspective of the audience that is rarely the case in the real world.
IMO ears are first, technique a distant second. People that say ORTF OR XY or X works in every situation are pretending to be the captain of Fantasy Island. There is no such thing as the perfect mic technique. There is only what you have to do to make it sound good.. Everything else is bullshit.
Theory is great and is very important you can never get a good recording with out first understanding ORTF ECT. But too many people get hung up on technique and not enough on moving mics around.
In the 50's in the studio they had very simple eq maybe treble and bass, so what you had back then was a whole generation of sound engineers that got off there ass and moved the mics!. Now in the studio or even at home every one of the users here at T.S has access to a graphic or parametric eq (via a plug in) and we can "fix it" back them if it was not right on tape it could not be "fixed" we need to get back to the roots back into moving mics around and using less post and more PRE:) when it comes to taping a show, mixing a show, or studio work.
Chris Church
Too much coffee and my mind is wandering...
Ive been wondering this...Stereo Mic techniques were developed around the notion that all of the sound was coming from in front of the microphones, with all the sound being put out by the actual instruments themselves, as opposed to being put out by loudspeakers. So based on that, could someone really discern the advantages of one stereo technique vs another in a "sound reinforced" setting?Not to mention all the various amped distortion issues, foot after foot of wire/compressors/limiters/effects racks carrying the signal, shoddy speakers, and less than stellar acoustics in many clubs, some of those being problems that arent considered in an acoustic enviroment.. I could see pointing the stereo pair at one of the stacks every time, treating the stack as the "instrument", and adjusting stereo configurations based on position relative to that stack, how one, over time, could tell a difference, but if you have a band on stage and then to their extreme right and left you have loudspeakers...doesnt that fly in the face of conventional microphone wisdom(well, what ive read anyway)? I know when I was recording PA music I could hardly ever tell one configuration from another period, much less derive benefits of one vs the other(and mainly pointed at the stacks!) . Even on repeated listens to other peoples recordings, I could never go"hey, he is using a spaced pair" or "she is using ORTF", whereas with Acoustic music , the answer is more obvious..
For example,the correct angle for the ORTF array is twice the angle that produces a sensitivity drop of 3 dB in the particular mic being used. In acoustic music where the source is right in front of you , this is used to prevent overemphasizing the center of the soundstage. In a PA enviroment, the sound is not coming from where it normally would come in an unamped setting, and because of that fact a person cant use the same sort of thinking, correct?? I have to scratch my head and wonder(not refute, just genuinely curious, possibly due to lack of knowledge on my end) when I see a member say "use XY or DIN, itll tighten things up a bit" when those sort of rules were designed with acoustic recording in mind, and not loudspeaker reproduction. I , for example have NEVER had decent results with a jecklin disc in an amplified setting..OSS wasnt designed with all those "amped" factors in mind..(I am mentioning that specifically because I heard someone talk about muddy bass on their jecklin disc recording.. Jecklin recordings are normally some of the most focused, tight recordings I have ever heard,as a matter of fact, a couple of years ago an engineer won a grammy armed with only a jecklin disc and a pair of Schoeps omnis)
Is that why Mark Nutter came up with PAS?? Do stereo techniques in a PA Situation make that much of a difference?My gut says no. ..Maybe new configs should be created for those that record amplified music? Ive found that the conventional wisdom does not apply.Just rambling..curious as to others' thoughts.Maybe I need to cut down on the caffeine :-\ ;D
Teddy
-
Yes, of course...but what I am asking is werent mic techniques originally created around the fact that sound was coming from an actual instrument in real space..not loudspeakers?? and based on that,,,are "ORTF" or XY or NOS practical in a amplified enviroment?
Now in an acoustic enviroment , differences between the techniques are more easily heard. Ive never heard the difference between one vs. the other in a PA recording.
I say forget about everything and use your ears :) Nothing is written in stone mic techniques are guild lines not absolutes IMO. The thought that I can just place some mics on a stand and point them, and have that be the 100% perfect solution is NUTS. Any good engineer will try many different approches before he finds the one that works best. The only problem is you guys have to set it and forget it. In most cases you do not get a sound check :) I think that sound systems have come along way and a little knowledge on sound systems will play an important part of mic placement most people do not know the difference between horn loaded, phase plugged, or front loaded or even line array. Every one of these systems requires a different approach IMO. Room acoustics/mic placement (based on available space not most desired location) also hamper this process.
In an ideal world I would have a set of good headphones on :) and move the mics until I heard something nice. Thus XY ORTF stuff is great but in the real world we have things in the way of the sound system like beams and pillars. and we are not always dead center I would like to place my mics not necessarily dead center of the room but dead center of the front of house sound engineer because he is doing panning, eq'ing based on his location. Not the center of the room, Although I have heard it lots of times you should always mix from the perspective of the audience that is rarely the case in the real world.
IMO ears are first, technique a distant second. People that say ORTF OR XY or X works in every situation are pretending to be the captain of Fantasy Island. There is no such thing as the perfect mic technique. There is only what you have to do to make it sound good.. Everything else is bullshit.
Theory is great and is very important you can never get a good recording with out first understanding ORTF ECT. But too many people get hung up on technique and not enough on moving mics around.
In the 50's in the studio they had very simple eq maybe treble and bass, so what you had back then was a whole generation of sound engineers that got off there ass and moved the mics!. Now in the studio or even at home every one of the users here at T.S has access to a graphic or parametric eq (via a plug in) and we can "fix it" back them if it was not right on tape it could not be "fixed" we need to get back to the roots back into moving mics around and using less post and more PRE:) when it comes to taping a show, mixing a show, or studio work.
Chris Church
Too much coffee and my mind is wandering...
Ive been wondering this...Stereo Mic techniques were developed around the notion that all of the sound was coming from in front of the microphones, with all the sound being put out by the actual instruments themselves, as opposed to being put out by loudspeakers. So based on that, could someone really discern the advantages of one stereo technique vs another in a "sound reinforced" setting?Not to mention all the various amped distortion issues, foot after foot of wire/compressors/limiters/effects racks carrying the signal, shoddy speakers, and less than stellar acoustics in many clubs, some of those being problems that arent considered in an acoustic enviroment.. I could see pointing the stereo pair at one of the stacks every time, treating the stack as the "instrument", and adjusting stereo configurations based on position relative to that stack, how one, over time, could tell a difference, but if you have a band on stage and then to their extreme right and left you have loudspeakers...doesnt that fly in the face of conventional microphone wisdom(well, what ive read anyway)? I know when I was recording PA music I could hardly ever tell one configuration from another period, much less derive benefits of one vs the other(and mainly pointed at the stacks!) . Even on repeated listens to other peoples recordings, I could never go"hey, he is using a spaced pair" or "she is using ORTF", whereas with Acoustic music , the answer is more obvious..
For example,the correct angle for the ORTF array is twice the angle that produces a sensitivity drop of 3 dB in the particular mic being used. In acoustic music where the source is right in front of you , this is used to prevent overemphasizing the center of the soundstage. In a PA enviroment, the sound is not coming from where it normally would come in an unamped setting, and because of that fact a person cant use the same sort of thinking, correct?? I have to scratch my head and wonder(not refute, just genuinely curious, possibly due to lack of knowledge on my end) when I see a member say "use XY or DIN, itll tighten things up a bit" when those sort of rules were designed with acoustic recording in mind, and not loudspeaker reproduction. I , for example have NEVER had decent results with a jecklin disc in an amplified setting..OSS wasnt designed with all those "amped" factors in mind..(I am mentioning that specifically because I heard someone talk about muddy bass on their jecklin disc recording.. Jecklin recordings are normally some of the most focused, tight recordings I have ever heard,as a matter of fact, a couple of years ago an engineer won a grammy armed with only a jecklin disc and a pair of Schoeps omnis)
Is that why Mark Nutter came up with PAS?? Do stereo techniques in a PA Situation make that much of a difference?My gut says no. ..Maybe new configs should be created for those that record amplified music? Ive found that the conventional wisdom does not apply.Just rambling..curious as to others' thoughts.Maybe I need to cut down on the caffeine :-\ ;D
Teddy
-
IMO the only thing that changes with amplified vs. acoustic is sound pressure, thus you might get harder reflections from boundaries with amped music. There is also the directionality of the sound because it’s coming from a point source, but now speakers are designed to give you a solid 120 degree sound field unless the operator is clueless. The sound field is still 120 degrees in front of you + reflections from behind you and beside you on top of you ECT, you get my point.
I think a poorly set up sound system requires a different technique then a well setup one IE: how directional are the speakers where in relation to the mics is the high end transducers, mid transducers, and low end transducers.
People often complain about recordings with a lot of bass (they should realize now things are not like they used to be with sound (we have directional bass speakers now) they can direct very strong waves of energy into a wide focused beam of power. More people need to be aware of what the sound system is in order to make a great amped recording.
So to answer your question IMO the techniques have changed not so much in the fact they are not valid but, more so in the fact that we need to be more aware of the sound field and how it is made up into frequency bands. Do to directional speakers how does that sound front couple it self in the space that we are recording in. For example how does the system couple its frequency sections at what distance does it start to sound "right" again. If mics are placed to close then we have a problem of a recording that might sound mid heavy or bass heavy or top end heavy. There are too many variables to say that one technique is no longer valid or useful because there is no "set way" to set up a concert sound system in a given room.
Remember your still dealing with the same sound field just stronger reflections, due to amplification of the sound. I would say more attention needs to be placed on preventing reflections from bouncing off the floor beneath the mics by using a moving blanket. That’s my two cents.
Chris Church
Yes, of course...but what I am asking is werent mic techniques originally created around the fact that sound was coming from an actual instrument in real space..not loudspeakers?? and based on that,,,are "ORTF" or XY or NOS practical in a amplified enviroment?
Now in an acoustic enviroment , differences between the techniques are more easily heard. Ive never heard the difference between one vs. the other in a PA recording.
I say forget about everything and use your ears :) Nothing is written in stone mic techniques are guild lines not absolutes IMO. The thought that I can just place some mics on a stand and point them, and have that be the 100% perfect solution is NUTS. Any good engineer will try many different approches before he finds the one that works best. The only problem is you guys have to set it and forget it. In most cases you do not get a sound check :) I think that sound systems have come along way and a little knowledge on sound systems will play an important part of mic placement most people do not know the difference between horn loaded, phase plugged, or front loaded or even line array. Every one of these systems requires a different approach IMO. Room acoustics/mic placement (based on available space not most desired location) also hamper this process.
In an ideal world I would have a set of good headphones on :) and move the mics until I heard something nice. Thus XY ORTF stuff is great but in the real world we have things in the way of the sound system like beams and pillars. and we are not always dead center I would like to place my mics not necessarily dead center of the room but dead center of the front of house sound engineer because he is doing panning, eq'ing based on his location. Not the center of the room, Although I have heard it lots of times you should always mix from the perspective of the audience that is rarely the case in the real world.
IMO ears are first, technique a distant second. People that say ORTF OR XY or X works in every situation are pretending to be the captain of Fantasy Island. There is no such thing as the perfect mic technique. There is only what you have to do to make it sound good.. Everything else is bullshit.
Theory is great and is very important you can never get a good recording with out first understanding ORTF ECT. But too many people get hung up on technique and not enough on moving mics around.
In the 50's in the studio they had very simple eq maybe treble and bass, so what you had back then was a whole generation of sound engineers that got off there ass and moved the mics!. Now in the studio or even at home every one of the users here at T.S has access to a graphic or parametric eq (via a plug in) and we can "fix it" back them if it was not right on tape it could not be "fixed" we need to get back to the roots back into moving mics around and using less post and more PRE:) when it comes to taping a show, mixing a show, or studio work.
Chris Church
Too much coffee and my mind is wandering...
Ive been wondering this...Stereo Mic techniques were developed around the notion that all of the sound was coming from in front of the microphones, with all the sound being put out by the actual instruments themselves, as opposed to being put out by loudspeakers. So based on that, could someone really discern the advantages of one stereo technique vs another in a "sound reinforced" setting?Not to mention all the various amped distortion issues, foot after foot of wire/compressors/limiters/effects racks carrying the signal, shoddy speakers, and less than stellar acoustics in many clubs, some of those being problems that arent considered in an acoustic enviroment.. I could see pointing the stereo pair at one of the stacks every time, treating the stack as the "instrument", and adjusting stereo configurations based on position relative to that stack, how one, over time, could tell a difference, but if you have a band on stage and then to their extreme right and left you have loudspeakers...doesnt that fly in the face of conventional microphone wisdom(well, what ive read anyway)? I know when I was recording PA music I could hardly ever tell one configuration from another period, much less derive benefits of one vs the other(and mainly pointed at the stacks!) . Even on repeated listens to other peoples recordings, I could never go"hey, he is using a spaced pair" or "she is using ORTF", whereas with Acoustic music , the answer is more obvious..
For example,the correct angle for the ORTF array is twice the angle that produces a sensitivity drop of 3 dB in the particular mic being used. In acoustic music where the source is right in front of you , this is used to prevent overemphasizing the center of the soundstage. In a PA enviroment, the sound is not coming from where it normally would come in an unamped setting, and because of that fact a person cant use the same sort of thinking, correct?? I have to scratch my head and wonder(not refute, just genuinely curious, possibly due to lack of knowledge on my end) when I see a member say "use XY or DIN, itll tighten things up a bit" when those sort of rules were designed with acoustic recording in mind, and not loudspeaker reproduction. I , for example have NEVER had decent results with a jecklin disc in an amplified setting..OSS wasnt designed with all those "amped" factors in mind..(I am mentioning that specifically because I heard someone talk about muddy bass on their jecklin disc recording.. Jecklin recordings are normally some of the most focused, tight recordings I have ever heard,as a matter of fact, a couple of years ago an engineer won a grammy armed with only a jecklin disc and a pair of Schoeps omnis)
Is that why Mark Nutter came up with PAS?? Do stereo techniques in a PA Situation make that much of a difference?My gut says no. ..Maybe new configs should be created for those that record amplified music? Ive found that the conventional wisdom does not apply.Just rambling..curious as to others' thoughts.Maybe I need to cut down on the caffeine :-\ ;D
Teddy
-
People that say ORTF OR XY or X works in every situation are pretending to be the captain of Fantasy Island.
:lol:
+t
-
I never liked X myself. Loved making fun of the silly rave kids/heads that used to ingest it daily. X+Whippets+Potl= Instant moron
People that say ORTF OR XY or X works in every situation are pretending to be the captain of Fantasy Island.
:lol:
+t
-
LSD+Whippets+Potl= Instant Messiah
-
Great discussion Teddy...and you're right. Mic configurations WERE implemented for micing instruments, not the sources that carry sound.
Personally, I have not heard a difference in any of the techniques withn taping in the audience/taper's section. When you're that far away from the sound source, the wave pattern emitted from the sound source is so open, at that point, that a few centimeters will make NO difference. Think about it...if you're 30 feet from a source, what is the difference between 7 centimeters and 19 centimeters (or whatevery your spacing is)? Sonically, this is negligent. The caps will make a difference, and significant spread MAY make a difference, but it's ambient sound. The wave focus is not applicable to the originally developed micing configurations. That being said, you can DEFINITELY set the mics up incorrectly, so the arguement could be made that following certain patterns improves sound, but not in the contect of a few centimeters or inches. Bottom line, IMO, is that stack taping from any distance cannot improve too much based on the physics of sound waves. Everybody knows WHY the sweetspot is the sweetspot. But I would defy anyone to set up 3 pairs of mics in 3 different configurations, in the sweetspot and hear a difference.
Acoustically, the difference will improve the closer a mic is to the instrument...a la on-stage taping. Doing a wide pattern on-stage will definitely yield different results than a tight pattern for the simple reason of the sound waves' development between the source and the mic capsule. This necessitates greater attention to where the capsule is in relation to the source, but will vary even less when the music is amplified due to the distance needed for the wave to develop fully. This goes BACK to Teddy's original point...acoustic instruments produce waves that need less distance to develop than amplified music. As a result, the "sweetspot" will be much closer to the source (even within 6 inches at times) and will yield dramatic affects based on capsule placement. But just the same as an amplified source, the further back from the source, the less affect configuration has.
So, all in all, it goes back to what both you guys said...let your ears do the walking. When taping stacks/PAs, it's simply not going to matter (as much) as result of wave development...period. That may be the sound you want though. Choral music, for instance, you wouldn't want to mic too close or you wouldn't get a fully developed sound source and combination of various voices.
Then again, what do I know.
-
Great discussion Teddy. Keep talkin' guys.....I'm learning.
Speaking of the Jecklin, I taped a renaissance group this weekend, T, and thought of you. I'm seriously researching the Archive route to share. I was really excited how the tape turned out w/ the Jecklin 8 ft away from 4 singers in this french gothic cathedral. Really fun to listen to.
-
I like using the standard configurations (ORTF, DIN, DINA, Blumlein, XY) as a starting point. And much of the time, I stick with them, because I've found they work pretty well given my usual location (15' - 60' from the stage/stacks in small venues, no real "section" to speak of). About the only config I've not run is A-B, mainly because I haven't run into a good situation (often because I want to try something else), nor had the appropriate cables to do so (until now). Generally speaking, I usually stick to standard configs, even though they were designed for different purposes. Why? Because I like the way they sound. I've found spreading the mics too far results in sonic characteristics for which I do not care, as does closing the included angle too much (haven't opend the angle all that much since usually my intent in adjusting the angle is to minimize room acoustics).
To be honest, I've not tried a direct comp, but I doubt I can tell the difference between DIN and DINA (all of ~3 cm). But XY and DIN - yeah. Even when recording PA/bar-ish venues, I still think it's fairly easy to hear the difference in angles, e.g. ORTF 110º v. DIN 90º. Keep in mind, though, that this comes after spending many hours recording in and listening to sources with gear I know well, venues I know well, and playback gear I know well. Change any one of those factors, and it becomes more difficult to differentiate between configs, venue, gear differences, etc. So I'm not necessarily saying I could listen to source X and say "ORTF!". But compare it to a DIN or XY recording, and the differences become more apparent.
I think Chris makes a great point: we're still working with the same sound field of the mics, even if the environment is different. IME, the PA environment isn't so god-awful that the configuration makes no difference. For example, you mention others suggesting that DIN or XY will "tighten things up a bit". This makes sense to me in either the acoustic/unamplified or amplified space: DIN's 90ºs definitely has a distinct "tightening" effect on the soundfield v. ORTF's 110º in that it's effectively the same change to the mics' soundfield. I think XY (assuming 90º) also helps tightens things up by modifying the soundfield the same way in either environment, namely removing or reducing the difference-in-time spatial cues which may otherwise contribute to a muddier, thicker sound.
Even if you're at such a great distance from the source that the configs don't result in a coherent image for the music (e.g. if the source appears to come from a single point), there are loads of spatial cues the mics will pick up (mainly crowd noise) that go a long way towards creating a sense of space and ambience in audience recordings (and IMO make them more enjoyable, usually). Move up a little bit so the source isn't a single point, and those sound field changes due to different configs contribute to the imaging/soundstage, as well.
Based on my fairly limited acoustic/unamplified recording, I think you're right, Teddy, that the acoustic/unamplified performance space makes it easier to hear these changes. But I still think they're apparent in a PA environment, if to a lesser degree.
-
Interesting, folks, keep discussing. Love to hear what other people think
-
jeesh Teddy, opening up a can of worms here. ;D >:D
I can't write all that I want to as it would be a text book, but here goes. First to answer the direct questions and suppositions:
Yes, most standard mic techniques were DEVELOPED for recording large ensembles or orchestras as in the 1920's and 1930's when recording mediums were becoming tape instead of wire they started to "hear" differences in the way microphones were picking up the sound of live instruments as opposed to just vocal performances. Many of these techniques are actually named because they became the standard of the recording company that used them most often ( NORTF/ORTF was the French Broadcasting standard, DIN and DIN A the Deutsche standard, and the BBC used one that was different than those two!) I am seeking the link for the textbook we used in RTV class at SU in the early 1980's. John Eargle worked for JBL for many years:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0240519612/qid=1149559209/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-2485010-5169753?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Some mic techniques were actually invented for use with PA systems ( Healy, Ambisonics, Soundfield), and others are most useful for live recording such as Binaural or M-S.
That said, as Chris mentioned, recording live PA music mainly comes with limitations based on room acoustics, PA design, and simply the physical charcteristics of the PA. Many modern PA's have been designed to emulate a "Single Point Source" which can be defined as trying to create an amolified sound with siimilar output characteristics to an unamplified performance ( where the "point source" could be an orchestra or ensemble). Since this discussion is to be about mic techniques I will leave the theory and design elements of PA systems for another thread or for someone else.
IMO, you can certainly tell the difference between microphone techniques in an amplified environment when properly set up and using proper comparison methods ( Blind A-B). Of course, the difference in techniques can appear to have more impact with acoustic-only sources because the change in soundstage (width and depth) and impact ( proximity to source), and arrival times (phase response) can be quite remarkable with those type of sources. However, the same differences can be heard in amplified situations.
the limitations to hearing said differences in mic techniques in amplified situations are all of those Teddy mentioned ( miles of cable, impedance factors, electrical/electronic design factors etc) and also those that have to do with room acoustics ( PA systems "couple" to the room they are placed in, especially indoors)[ "coupling" is an engineeering term that correlates to the way a speaker system's frequency and phase output "combines" with the physical nature of the room ( building materials, room geometry, physical vs acoustic space, etc) ]. The PA then "loads" the room and the combination of room acoustics and PA design start fighting as soon as the soundcheck starts! ( and this is before any people ( read body mass= physical impedance) enter the environment)
This in essence is why proper mic technique can save you in live PA situations. An understanding of the commonly used techniques is like a building block in the recordists toolkit. Is it the only block of knowledge needed? No. Practical experience with recording gear and with different set ups and using different techniques also comes in to play.
I can say with certainty that over the years in both scientific and non scientific environments I have experimented with same location/stand set ups of 2 or 3 mic techniques in to identical recorders using identical mediums etc) and have heard astounding differences between say X-Y and Blumlein, or Binaural vs Hyper cardiod.
While it is obvious that what one person hears another may not; especially with live sound and subjective phrases such as, " muddy", "crisp", "clean". "boomy", "focused/unfocused", "soundstage" etc. It is also most obvious to me after all these years of "location recording" that the "location"- meaning room design, PA system design/set up, and configuration of instrument amplifiers and stage microphones- all determine how sweet my recordings sound more than any variation in microphone technique.
Once those factors are evened out ( with say a John Meyer designed PA, or a V-Dosc array) then the differences in microphone techniques for recording amplified sound CAN and do provide dramatically different listening experiences.
http://www.josephson.com/mictech.html
excellent index of other resources for stereo microphone techniques. I recommend anything written by Ron Streicher as he is one of the leading Audio Engineeriing Society experts on stereo soundfields.
-
Ok, now I just feel plain dumm. Rocksuitcase, now I feel REALLY intimidated in uploading the Rose Hill Drive I taped, just sticking my dpa4060's on a j-disc. Seems one really ought to learn what one is doing, thanks for showing me how much I have to learn.
+t
T
-
Ok, now I just feel plain dumm. Rocksuitcase, now I feel REALLY intimidated in uploading the Rose Hill Drive I taped, just sticking my dpa4060's on a j-disc. Seems one really ought to learn what one is doing, thanks for showing me how much I have to learn.
+t
T
i have no practical experience or measuremnt experience with the J Disc.
I DO believe in the J-Discs basic concept: bringing the omnis caps as close to physical phase alignment but providing the baffle to obtain "stereo" or arrival time differences. the baffle acts as a head might with 2 mics hanging from each ear. IMO, this will result in a "cleaner" sound with less phase issues than spaced or split omnis.
-
Yes, and the jdisc is more flexible than spaced omnis too, in my experience. I do like 3 omnis , but spaced omnis can have that hole in the middle..JDisc doesnt have that..
Ok, now I just feel plain dumm. Rocksuitcase, now I feel REALLY intimidated in uploading the Rose Hill Drive I taped, just sticking my dpa4060's on a j-disc. Seems one really ought to learn what one is doing, thanks for showing me how much I have to learn.
+t
T
i have no practical experience or measuremnt experience with the J Disc.
I DO believe in the J-Discs basic concept: bringing the omnis caps as close to physical phase alignment but providing the baffle to obtain "stereo" or arrival time differences. the baffle acts as a head might with 2 mics hanging from each ear. IMO, this will result in a "cleaner" sound with less phase issues than spaced or split omnis.
-
As somewhat of a wook who has been mostly focused on small acoustic jazz ensembles, but who has dabbled with a bit of large venue major act boom rooms, this thread covers a lot a really good thinking that made me think of something that is a little off-topic. Lately, I've been getting better and better at making my acoustic recordings, and it has to do with how close I am to the source. This was something I didn't worry about as much until more recently because I was still getting the hang of setting up, getting good levels, etc. (the basics). So, that brings me to a discussion about the direct-to-indirect ratio of sound. I've found the equalateral thing to obviously be a good starting point with acoustic performances, but I've also found there is more to it than that. See, I've had the luxury of getting a lot of stage-lip or on-stage placements lately, and a few of them have suffered from two problems.
Let's say you are recording a single acoustic guitar. You could use an XY and put the mics like an inch from the guitar itself. This is going to sound pretty dry and very up-front because of the close micing (not as dry as a dynamic SMxx mic into a board, but bear with me here). Now, if you moved your mic way, way back in a big room with loads of wood everywhere, you'd get a ton of reverb and echo in the recorded sound. This is a continueum from very close to very far away, which results in very different sounds. If you got the mics close enough with XY, it might even sound mono with no reverb (the direct sound is so loud that you can't even hear the indirect sound). As you move just a little bit back you'll start hearing more of the room's acoustics which will start giving a sense of space and a little bit more of a stereo image (remember I only have one instrument as the source). And, when you go way back, the direct sound becomes overwhelmed by the indirect sound, such that you hear much more space, reverb, and boominess. This suggests another "sweet spot," which doesn't have anything to do with the seperation/image per se, but the ratio of direct to indirect sound.
Now, I have found that as I get better judging this direct-indirect sweet spot with the left-to-right imaging sweet spot, at times it may not actually be an equilateral triangle for purely acoustic gigs -- it depends on the room to some extent. This realization has helped my acoustic recordings get even better lately. You need to find the right mix of room and direct source. This plays a major role in how dry or wet the recording is, and also plays a role in how spacious the recording sounds too. The second thing I've had some problems with onstage is how upfront the closer instruments are, which causes me to lower the gain, and to lose the balance with the rythm section in the back. By backing up a bit, the sounds have a chance to mix a little more before hitting the mics, and maybe even more importantly, the height of my mics can make a huge difference at attenuating the front-row performers, which helps to even the balance with the performers in the back row. Although, raising the mics real high stage lip usually isn't doable. These things have really helped me find the sweet spots for acoustic jazz recordings lately.
Anyway, back to Teddy's conversation... So, I think even with respect to acoustic environments, where there it is no doubt easier to tell the difference between stereo configs, I think the distance to the source plays a large role like previously said, but only up until a point where you can actually get in too close, where a close micing situation has its own problems for the imaging and reverb and spaciousness. Which makes me think that recording off the PA or stacks or whatever in many ways is really NO DIFFERENT than an acoustic recording. You have sources of sound that you are recording from pretty far back in the room. Sometimes the PA is reinforcing stage sound (smaller venue maybe), sometimes the PA is pretty much the entire sound you'll get. If you close mic'ed the PA, you wouldn't get any of the room at all (stack recording), and as you pull back from the stack, more indirect sound comes into play (more verb, more boom, more spaciousness). I agree with Brian, that the choice of setup still does make an audible difference, but I think that audible difference comes mainly from the way the indirect sound relates to the direct sound. Teddy might be right inasmuch as the direct sound might not be that different between pattern, but Brian might be right inasmuch that the spaciousness of the room, the verb, the boom, the "feeling" of space, might be changed by the config. When then mix together and get recorded, it makes it a little more subtle that the difference is there, but you may not find the difference when focusing on the direct sound, you may only really "hear" the difference with respect to the indirect sound. Does that make sense? Or am I talking jibberish? LOL!
-
Ive never found the equilateral thing to be pertinant really. At least not with what I record, which is all orchestras, string quartets, etc. Some people like to back off and get more of the room in there, but I am much more concerned with getting all the instrumental nuances with the main mics,captured up close(relatively, not "close micing" but definitely nearfield) and then add a pair of Ambience mics that are nowhere near the main pairs. That way I can completely control how much room I have in the mix. Sometimes I dont want ANY room in there.
Interesting reading and seeing what people think. I wasnt a bonafide taper for very long before I got swept off my feet by the acoustic thing, so I know my experience with Amped music is lacking. Discussion is good!! I would like to see more of these types of discussions going on, amazing at the level of intelligence here. It is a nice respite from the pissing matches.
-
Learning about the different techniques is very important but what’s more important is using your ears. Something some tapers do not do. And never be comfortable with just one method, Always experiment there are no absolutes in audio because there are no standards with mics, every mic has a different polar pattern even omni mics differ from manufacturer to manufacturer so try, look at what others are doing and have fun.
And when ever anyone says this is the "way to do it" when it comes to mic placement well, anyone that can say how to place mics with out ever being in the room on the night your recording with out having your exact gear, is a knob. And that’s all I have to say about that.
Ok, now I just feel plain dumm. Rocksuitcase, now I feel REALLY intimidated in uploading the Rose Hill Drive I taped, just sticking my dpa4060's on a j-disc. Seems one really ought to learn what one is doing, thanks for showing me how much I have to learn.
+t
T
i have no practical experience or measuremnt experience with the J Disc.
I DO believe in the J-Discs basic concept: bringing the omnis caps as close to physical phase alignment but providing the baffle to obtain "stereo" or arrival time differences. the baffle acts as a head might with 2 mics hanging from each ear. IMO, this will result in a "cleaner" sound with less phase issues than spaced or split omnis.