Topic: Mic config question from a newbie

[wharfrat48]

I have done a fair amount of research on different mic configurations and now have some understanding of the set-up and terminology.  One thing I have not been able to find is a description of when to use what config.  I will be recording mainly festivals and small venues (rock/bluegrass/etc) with carotid mics (CA-11's).  I realize that trial and error as well as how the recording sounds to me are big factors, but how do I determine at least a starting point for my mic config?  For example, if I am outside, center stage, 40' back, should I use DIN, ORTF, or X-Y?  Would I change that config if I was 20' closer to the stage or further back?  It seems to me (and I might be totally wrong) that where the mic axis line is compared to the stacks would be a major factor on mic placement?  In other words, do I want to adjust my config based on where my mics are pointed?  If X-Y (90deg) has my mics pointed right at the stacks, should I go with that?  How about near-coincident configs, do I chose the config (and angle) that gets my mics pointed at the stacks?  Just outside or inside?  Thanks for your help.

[ScoobieKW]

different patterns will give you different stereo pictures. to understand how changing distance and angle between capsules check out this thread.

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=165023.0

The Stereophonic Zoom paper lays the groundwork, and the links to applications will give you interactive tools to see how changing these variables will affect your recording's stereo picture.

[acidjack]

1. "Patterns", as used to record PA systems at a distance, are a fairly ridiculous concept. Those PA systems are mostly mixed in mono. While there is a different stereo image inherent in those patterns, the only real "image" you're getting most of the time is room reflections and maybe 10-15% channel panning at most. People like patterns because they're consistent -- if you always run DIN or whatever, you know what that sounds like. But prior to this (rather recent) obsession, people just pointed at/outside the stacks, and the tapes were probably better for it more than half the time. Like a lot of things on here, this pattern thing is something that is valid in the studio that hobbyists are taking to be applicable to "taping", which is kind of the opposite of the studio.

That said, the "DIN" or "DINa" patterns, if one insists on them, seem most effective for recording PA systems, all other things held equal. ORTF is way too wide except for up very close, ditto NOS. Really, all of them are too wide; a better PA system recording pattern would have greater distance between the microphones but a narrower angle of 70 degrees or so (as opposed to 90 or 110 as the patterns provide)

2. If you're up close (onstage) then it makes more difference. That's about the only place where I'd ever consider XY.

[voltronic]

2. If you're up close (onstage) then it makes more difference. That's about the only place where I'd ever consider XY.

I agree 100% with this - avoid XY in any kind of distant situation.  But if you are doing any acoustic (non-PA) recording, then you want to use DIN / ORTF / whatever the SZ graphs tell you. 

[ScoobieKW]

1. "Patterns", as used to record PA systems at a distance, are a fairly ridiculous concept. Those PA systems are mostly mixed in mono. While there is a different stereo image inherent in those patterns, the only real "image" you're getting most of the time is room reflections and maybe 10-15% channel panning at most. People like patterns because they're consistent -- if you always run DIN or whatever, you know what that sounds like. But prior to this (rather recent) obsession, people just pointed at/outside the stacks, and the tapes were probably better for it more than half the time. Like a lot of things on here, this pattern thing is something that is valid in the studio that hobbyists are taking to be applicable to "taping", which is kind of the opposite of the studio.

That said, the "DIN" or "DINa" patterns, if one insists on them, seem most effective for recording PA systems, all other things held equal. ORTF is way too wide except for up very close, ditto NOS. Really, all of them are too wide; a better PA system recording pattern would have greater distance between the microphones but a narrower angle of 70 degrees or so (as opposed to 90 or 110 as the patterns provide)



2. If you're up close (onstage) then it makes more difference. That's about the only place where I'd ever consider XY.

I still recommend understanding the Stereo Zoom concept. I've learned approximate patterns I use in different situations, but I don't measure as much as eyeball it.
True the PA is mixed in mono, but the instruments placement onstage is noticeable in a stereo recording. More noticeable in smaller venues. Most of my recording is done in 100-300 capacity clubs.
I'll concede that wide and narrower angles are better due to more direct sound, that reminds me, I need to get a wider stereo bar.

[wharfrat48]

So, if I understand, in general- simply pointing at the stacks may be just as good as any of the other (DIM, ORTF, etc) configs under normal circumstances (center stage, back from the stacks).  I realize different configs will result in different sounding recordings, but not necesarily one being any "better" than the other.  Sort of a personal choice thing.  I have only recorded a few indoor shows so far, but festival season is here and I wanted to make sure I get the best recording I can.  I'm thinking that I will just start with my mics about 17cm apart and point at the stacks (unless someone talks me out of it).  Hopefully it wont suck   Thanks

Edit:  If I were to try DIN, should I be concerned where the mics axis lines cross?  In other words is the "best" NOS situation when the mics are pointed at center stage, or should the mics "cross" somewhere in front of the stage to where the mics are pointed near the stacks (although that would have the left mic pointed at the right stack)--- now I am just confusing myself

[acidjack]

So, if I understand, in general- simply pointing at the stacks may be just as good as any of the other (DIM, ORTF, etc) configs under normal circumstances (center stage, back from the stacks).

No, I contend it is better than most other options, in the situation you describe.

I realize different configs will result in different sounding recordings, but not necesarily one being any "better" than the other.  Sort of a personal choice thing. 

No, I would say (again, only when talking about typical "taping" meaning some spot that isn't onstage) the wider the included angle the worse your recordings will be, unless your goal is to obtain a lot of the information being reflected off of the venue's walls.

Usually this is about the point that someone chimes in and says they love to record 100-200ft back at outdoor festivals in ORTF or NOS. I would say (from experience) that they may enjoy that, but that is just because they like hearing a very high proportion of off-axis information (i.e., the audience, dead air) to the on-axis information (i.e., the music) which I think is crazy.

I have only recorded a few indoor shows so far, but festival season is here and I wanted to make sure I get the best recording I can.  I'm thinking that I will just start with my mics about 17cm apart and point at the stacks (unless someone talks me out of it).  Hopefully it wont suck   Thanks

If you're at an outdoor festival, and your goal is to record the music being played, then I would spread the distance between the capsules reasonably far (even up to 30cm) but point the mics at the stacks.

Edit:  If I were to try DIN, should I be concerned where the mics axis lines cross?  In other words is the "best" NOS situation when the mics are pointed at center stage, or should the mics "cross" somewhere in front of the stage to where the mics are pointed near the stacks (although that would have the left mic pointed at the right stack)--- now I am just confusing myself

I think this partially illustrates why patterns are nonsensical for PA taping, because PA taping is not the situation the patterns were designed for.  Also, in most taping situations, you won't have a choice in this matter.

All this said, I agree w/ ScoobieKW re: learning how the patterns work, as it's informative. And you may tape onstage sometimes, and then it will matter.

[stevetoney]

My 2 cents.

My best sounding recordings happen when I maximize direct sound and minimize reverberant sound.  Since 99% of the shows I attend are amplified and routed through a PA, that means setting up with my mics in PAS/POS configuration.

In rare instances, I might be interested in stereo image more than sound quality (for example, if I'm going to be stage lip and confident that I'll get a great recording AND great imaging).  If stereo imaging is my primary concern, I use standard configurations. 

Note that just because a recording has good imaging, doesn't mean it sounds good.  For example, even though mid-side technique is great for creating a stereo image, most of my M/S recordings sound like sh** since the side component is basically a recording of the sound bouncing off the side walls unless you're right up front, and then it's almost impossible to get a good instrument balance (one instrument is always too loud and vocals are too distant when you're up close). 

[wharfrat48]

Great info--- thanks very much-- now I dont need to bring my protractor and compass to the shows 

[Gutbucket]

Like tonedeaf says, the most important single factor in setting up to make a good recording is managing the ratio of direct sound to reverberant sound.  Managing the ratio of direct sound to reverberant sound is primarily about the type of room and your recording position in it more than the stereo configuration of your microphones.  Learing about how and why different stereo microphone setups work, via understanding the basic Stereo Zoom relationship ScoobieKW mentions on one hand, and the practical situation taper stuff acidjack mentions on the other, is the next step.  Once you begin to understand how it works you can get a good handle on optimizing the direct/reverberant thing while also thinking about manipulating less important things like stereo image and other less important details at the same time.

The intricacy, options and rewards all grow along with experience- your recordings will improve and your expectations of them will increase, but as long as you are having fun making them along the way it's all good.