Topic: Mic configuration during stealth - Schoeps MK41

[Jonas Karlsson]

Please PM me for any advice (strictly your own point of view) of "best" mic configuration during stealth, using the MK41's.

Thanks

/Jonas

[cashandkerouac]

mic configuration options for stealth?  the question is a bit confusing.  can you elaborate?   

[Jonas Karlsson]

Well, I've been told not to discuss too much in detail about these things before.

I mean ORTF or A+B etc...

Please PM for info of my stealth setup 

/Jonas

[page]

so why do you think it would be different than stealthing with the mics you have now?

The biggest changes will be any type of disguise or hiding method more so than what configuration you run due to the size change in the caps, but even that's not drastic depending on what you do now. It's that info that is generally frowned upon being spoken of publicly.

[Jonas Karlsson]

OK

I hear some use their Schoeps with the ORTF-option when stealthing, and some just over each ear pointing forward.

MK41 is a supercardioid - will any of the two options suit this mic better or worse?

EDIT Nevermind - my head is too big for any kind of ORTF-option. Over each ear it is.

Thread can be locked and thrown away 

/Jonas

[cashandkerouac]

if your stealth setup allows for different mic configutarions then more power to ya.  in most cases the method by which you choose to conceal the mics will largely dictate the mic configuration, and it rarely adds up to ORTF, DIN, NOS, etc.  more like ORTF-ish, DIN-ish, NOS-ish at best.  that's why i thought the question was confusing.

[page]

If you're stack taping, I'm not sure it will matter. I guess I'd probably stay with AB just because you'll catch open air on one side and wall reverb on the other and from experience I can say that doesn't sound natural. I mean, you're stack taping for clarity of the stacks as the primary goal, not stereo-ness or other factors. As I see it, you might as well maximize the signal and point the caps at the stacks directly (regardless of what cap you're using, it's where you're taping from that dictates that response).

[BusDriver]

When all is said and done, what really is the benefit of stereo~2mic  stealth~stack recording when there is no real separation or sense of spaciousness? Why not a simple, well placed MONO mic. Less to worry about provides greater focus. Count me in the minority. Direct and clear MONO.

[MJ]

if your stealth setup allows for different mic configutarions then more power to ya.

Where there is a will, there is a way. 

[stevetoney]

When all is said and done, what really is the benefit of stereo~2mic  stealth~stack recording when there is no real separation or sense of spaciousness? Why not a simple, well placed MONO mic. Less to worry about provides greater focus. Count me in the minority. Direct and clear MONO.

As long as you mix your mono recording to simulate a stereo, then fine.  But if all you're doing is dual'ing the mono recording to both channels, you won't win many converts there.

Two mics are usually better than one even for stack taping.  Even if you can't put the mic pair into a standard configuration, you can still get a sense of spaciousness with two mics closely spaced, as long as they're directional mics pointed in somewhat of an XY configuration (say if they're pigeon toed on your forhead).  In XY or near XY configurations, channel separation is created by difference in sound pressure, not difference in time.  Obviously you're not going to get any stereo separation when you stack tape because you're only recording one PA monitor.  However, even when recording the PA, the 'ish' configurations provides a sense of having two ears in front of the stack instead of listening to a show, say with one earplug in and one out.  There's a better sense of dimension, liveness, spaciousness, whatever-you-wanna-call it, in a stereo pair that's recorded even when you're in front of the stacks.  That said, if you're say 5 feet in front a 110db coming from one stack, no I don't thin you'll get any separateion or dynamic difference even betweeen two directional mics in AB, XY or whatever have you.

[edtyre]

Dude, you are asking way too many questions in advance of even owning these mics.

As i told you i have made hundreds of stealth recordings with the MK-41's. Most of the time
the config was dina-ish, but every single venue is different as is every single PA setup and there
is no set in stone pattern that you can follow. My caps are held in place by a velcro system that
allows on-the-fly changes.

I can tell you right now if you are going to run the caps near your ears with your head separating them
don't even bother getting the schoeps 41's, stick with your church omni's.

[Gutbucket]

Ha!
Ed is right.. and so is everyone else.  I'll still throw in my 2 cents given the discussion involving all these guys who understand all this stuff from doing it, if only because my interpretation of what we've all come to understand from experience is somewhat different and I think it may be interesting to these other guys, but listen to Ed.

My take-
Microphone pair configurations can be significant for stack taping, but for different reasons than 'normal' taping situations which deal with more distantly located sources. In stack taping situations the important aspect is the resulting channel differences that create "pseudo stereo" effects, which are different than 'real stereo' effects.  Recording PA reinforced sources from a distance isn't a 'normal' recording situation either for a number of different reasons, yet it is pretty much a normal 'taping' situation around here. 

These are important questions-

When all is said and done, what really is the benefit of stereo~2mic  stealth~stack recording when there is no real separation or sense of spaciousness? Why not a simple, well placed MONO mic. Less to worry about provides greater focus. Count me in the minority. Direct and clear MONO.

In some ways I think you are right Busdriver, and my suggestion to you is to follow that line of reasoning and use one well placed and pointed mono mic.  ..then, since you have another mic anyway and your recorder is 2-channel, go ahead and place the other so that you maximize the difference between the two channels while still getting something useful with the second mic.  In other words, do something like place it behind you, baffled from the stack by your body, pointing directly away and at the crowd behind you (maximally different while being useful, rather than just maximally different by say, pointing it at the ground).

Then you have your well placed mono channel, and if mixing in some of the different material helps, either in a mono mix by bringing in some added degree of naturalness of the crowd reaction or depth of room sound when playing with the mix level, or alternately by trying pseudo-stereo post production tricks and mixing a two channel output, then great.  If it doesn't help, nothing is lost.

There are other reasons to use two mics which have already been mentioned- redundancy, some degree of pseudo-stereo spaciousness based on smaller but not insignificant interchannel differences, maximizing the chance of getting good signal in at least one of the two mics, and getting a degree of stereo width to the crowd and room sound despite an almost totally mono signal from the stack.

[sparkey]

test it before gametime

[ArchivalAudio]

I think if you are slightly in front of the sweet spot:
and have pseudo-binaural configuration, you can make some super sweet recordings.

Of course I favor cardioids... but the mk41's make some very nice recordings.
a similar method would be used