Topic: Ceiling Mount Considerations?

[vantheman]

Will do, thanks!

[vantheman]

One way to see if that is a problem would be to intentionally pan both to center (or otherwise sum both channels to mono) and listen to determine how it sounds.  If okay without problems - lacking only in stereo width when summed, there is no problem in panning each a little toward center as necessary, but of course doing so is going to make the stereo portrayal sound somewhat less wide.

No obvious issues doing this, but it is definitely a last resort. I'm going to focus for a while on finding problems, then I'll try a few things and share a sample here if I'm still stumped.

[goodcooker]

One way to see if that is a problem would be to intentionally pan both to center (or otherwise sum both channels to mono) and listen to determine how it sounds.  If okay without problems - lacking only in stereo width when summed, there is no problem in panning each a little toward center as necessary, but of course doing so is going to make the stereo portrayal sound somewhat less wide.

No obvious issues doing this, but it is definitely a last resort. I'm going to focus for a while on finding problems, then I'll try a few things and share a sample here if I'm still stumped.

One way to fix the perceived shortcomings of your results in the future would be to use a single forward facing mic in the center instead of a stereo pair. An XY arrangement may seem like it's going to fill the hole in the image but it's a stereo angle even if it's mono compatible.

I wouldn't go too far down a rabbit hole with the stereo image of your recordings if they are fan made and destined for free release to the masses. Stereo image is at the bottom of criteria for 9/10 listeners and doesn't even translate to many playback methods nowadays. Absolutely make your recordings the best you can based on your own standards but some folks here spend WAY too much time sweating about the presentation of the stereo image. So much so that their recordings never see the light of day.

Did you suspend the mics from the ceiling? I'm wondering if this is related to a post I saw in the Taper XLR FB group.

[Gutbucket]

The omnis were suspended from the ceiling grid, similarly to what we've discussed in the threads on permanent installs.

Similar to a single mic in the center but better, I offered my AT short stereo shotgun to him for use in the center as sort of an ultimate Mid/Side center for that particular case, since in this situation the center recording position was considerably farther back in the room than the two omnis, but we weren't able to get together prior to do that.  And since he was able to get both mono SBD and run his CM4 pair in the center, seems he did just fine using the mics he had available to him.

To each his on on how to go about taping and how much effort to put into it.  Good image and depth is the icing on the cake, and each taper can decide where their own point of diminishing returns lies.  Vantheman was recording an indoor festival with good prior contact and support of the organizers, in part recording some acoustic acts that would likely benefit from making the extra effort.  Sounded like a great opportunity to do a bit more than normal, at least in comparison to the effort one might make for something less compelling.  Anyway he was fully up for making the best recording possible within the constraints allowed by the venue and the gear he has available.

Using a single mic in the center between a decently wide split is always a good idea and most certainly better than not having anything in the center.   But either a Mid/Side pair or an X/Y pair angled as PAS in the center will support the wide split pair far better than a single mic will.  It isn't much more hassle, and allows for as much stereo center content as is helpful in the mix with the wide pair.  If no stereo content in the center is needed, just pan to center / sum to mono / mute the Side channel. There is no drawback in doing so because the X/Y pair is PAS, and after muting the Side channel the Mid alone is the same as using a single mic. But in my experience using mono center when coincident stereo center is available just never happens.  Most often at least a touch of stereo from that center position will blend better and make for a better recording, and most often I use considerably more.   

Yes, a wide X/Y angle of more than 90 degrees that is appropriate when that pair is to be used by itself is probably not going to be the best choice for this.  But X/Y in PAS is not going to be very wide, as it will usually end up being narrower than 90 degrees. I wouldn't usually recommend X/Y in PAS for use on its own.  But it is a super safe bet in combination with a wide-spaced pair.  It essentially like a single mic but better.  If limited to only one available channel or mic, then sure, use one.  Have a pair and two channels available?  Then PAS X/Y or M/S is usually going to be the better option.

[goodcooker]

^
I disagree about XY in the center but that's what's great about having discussions - we can disagree.

As you state - every performance, recording and desired outcome is different. The need for effective post work to simplify the process for a multiple performance recording that is intended for distribution may outweigh the need to dial in a stereo center pair depending on what's needed for the desired outcome. Your preferred process may not suit every scenario. Getting lost in the minutae of dialing in multiple stereo pairs may hinder the process of getting the rest of the work finished.

Since you don't distribute your recordings you may not be aware of how much more work that entails which would decrease the amount of time available to someone else who has more tasks to complete after the mix is done.

As usual I'm just providing an alternate perspective.

[Gutbucket]

^ That's reasonable. I welcome alternate perspectives and have no problem with honest disagreements. But not the gate-keeping. I bristled a bit upon reading your jibes in the earlier post.  Its petty and inappropriate, not positive nor conductive.  No need push one's personally held judgement about that kind of stuff off on others.  Let the open discussion of the pro's and con's stand on its own. Each taper here is more than capable of making their own decisions about how much effort to put into it and the best way to go about it themself. 

[goodcooker]

^ That's reasonable. I welcome alternate perspectives and have no problem with honest disagreements. But not the gate-keeping. I bristled a bit upon reading your jibes in the earlier post.  Its petty and inappropriate, not positive nor conductive.  No need push one's personally held judgement about that kind of stuff off on others.  Let the open discussion of the pro's and con's stand on its own. Each taper here is more than capable of making their own decisions about how much effort to put into it and the best way to go about it themself.

quoting for posterity

There's no "jibes" in my earlier post and there's no need for you to "bristle". If you resemble the remark I made then that's what it is. I didn't even mention your name.

People get over burdened by complicated post processing that involves the mixing of multiple stereo pairs. Maybe that's why you used the word "problem" in one post 5 times. It's a problem. Some so much so that it presents a hurdle to the next phase of the process - distribution - which you don't take part in but almost all the rest of us do.

If you are to be afforded the opportunity to say whatever you want (and you do - you are the most prolific poster on this forum) then everyone else should be afforded the same courtesy even if it runs counter to your long held and often shared opinion. No one should have to feel like they have to justify having a different opinion than you but that's exactly what it feels like trying to participate here. You make it that way.

[Gutbucket]

"some folks here spend WAY too much time sweating about the presentation of the stereo image. So much so that their recordings never see the light of day."

That one.  I'll let it go.

If tapers want to do complex things that's fully their choice. If they want to keep it as simple as possible that's fully their choice as well. Either way I enjoy helping them, and I make no judgment here about which path they should take.  Its their choice.  I bristle a bit when others do make such a judgment.  From my perspective, that's the essence of primary disagreement between us.

Complex things are complex.  Along with that complexity comes potential problems. I enjoy helping others get a handle on that.  We are here do discuss those things, as well as discuss the easy and simple taping methods that are more attractive to others. You like and promote simpler streamlined methods.  I get it, I get why, and I think that's great. I have no problem with that. And I usually agree with you on the posts about the methods you use.  Its your choice and the right way for you.  But its not universally right for everyone.

I don't "say whatever I want" here, nor do I wish that. My entire point in engaging you about this is to encourage everyone here to treat each other with respect, despite different viewpoints and disagreements about which taping methods to use. 

Make great tapes, your own way.  Allow others do the same.

[capnhook]

Make great tapes, your own way.  Allow others do the same.

There are so many cooler ways than elaborate bars and spacings to achieve the imaging you want, using good software and headphones


That's where i disagree with each of you guys a little bit


Roger, I disagree with your assertion that stereo image is at the bottom of criteria for 9/10 listeners.  The great big universe of earbud users demands it. Mono and narrow stereo angles sound less interesting than well-imaged stereo sources do, and people shut it down.  And I don't know what playback systems you listen to man, but it's very easy to hear good imaging on a good home stereo system.

Lee, I don't get to hear any of your stuff, can't make any opinion on any of your work, whether any of these theories you have really translate into a well-produced recording...


Like every Math teacher ever told me, "Show Me Your Work" 

[vantheman]

Absolutely make your recordings the best you can based on your own standards but some folks here spend WAY too much time sweating about the presentation of the stereo image. So much so that their recordings never see the light of day.

Did you suspend the mics from the ceiling? I'm wondering if this is related to a post I saw in the Taper XLR FB group.

Catching up now on all that was discussed. Yes, that was me who posted the photo on Facebook. Like Gutbucket mentions below, I had full support of the organizers and venue staff. Prior to setting foot in the room for the first time last week, it was all just a giant guess as what the setup options might be because I didn't yet know what level of support I would get from the staff. I walked in only with a notion that suspending some omnis in front of Meyer PA would be a fun thing to do. Come to find out the staff were absolutely incredible, and completely on the same page with what I was trying to achieve.

I spent about 3 hours just sitting in the room watching dress rehearsals and getting a since of the sound and the space before deciding how to set up. It's interesting sitting in front of a Meyer system. It basically sounds like the performers are playing unamplified, just louder. It's not obvious where the PA is coming from. There were actually 3 PA points - left, right, and center - and the sound person said that the mix was 3 channels as well. I spent time trying to hear that, but it was pretty hard to discern because of the nature of the PA system. It's interesting to note that the left and right PA is situated to the left and right of the audience with the audience in between. You can see that in the Facebook photo.

I recorded 3 2-hour shows over a 2 day period. Omnis on the left and right, and a modified center SBD. Modified because there was a big percussive dance component, and the floor itself was miked, but the sound person wagered that I didn't need much floor in my center channel, and she was right. So with that context, we still have mono-ish musical content but the omnis and SBD are more complementary than if the omnis were picking up the SBD feed 1:1.

So I taped the first show with just 3 channels, and evaluating on headphones, thought I may have detected a hole in the middle effect with the audience. And here with the access and equipment that I had,I threw up the CM4s in XY to try to fill that hole. It wasn't ideal because they were in the back of the room maybe 18 feet behind the omnis, but they were directly FOB and I was doing this "for kicks". At the following show I actually pointed the CM4s at the center of the audience, figuring I'd mix in some crowd in between songs. At the final show I decided why not point them at the center PA figuring it'll still give me what I wanted in terms of crowd noise if the rest was no good. Since nothing was lost by trying this, I decided that it was better to capture it now than to regret not capturing it later, and yes, I would like to see if I can make 10/10 stereo recording. I'm not sure if the CM4s will stay in the mix, but their stereo presentation is actually very narrow and seems to complement the audience nicely, I think the jury is still out on whether they complement the overall mix.

So we can actually have data to aid in this discussion. I am happy to post some brief samples of various parts of the program, and you guys can try it out. I can post the mono SBD, stereo omni and stereo XY as separate tracks and you can play with them. There are quieter parts that are heavy on the percussive dance that would rely more on the mics, and there are louder parts that would rely more on the SBD. We could look at both and maybe we could all learn a little more. I am not at liberty to share the entire recording, and while I don't believe the organizers would take issue with posting some anonymous partial samples to aid in making them a better tape, I'm avoiding being specific about the artists, time, and place because I don't want this discussion to be taken out of context by them if they happen to see it since google indexes these threads.

If you guys want them, PM me or reply here and I'll send them to whoever asks.

[Gutbucket]

If you guys want them, PM me or reply here and I'll send them to whoever asks.

Thanks.  I played around with it a bit over the weekend and figured I'd share my thoughts here with the group rather than privately via PM.  Hope that's cool. Happy to take this to PM if preferred.

Using the omni pair as a baseline, I ended up delaying the mono SBD a further 34ms and the X/Y CM4 pair by 2 to 3ms beyond the native alignment of the sample files.  Getting the alignment right was somewhat tricky as the optimal offset differs for audience clapping verses on-stage clapping and stomping, since the distance between those different source locations and the three different mic positions (sbd mics onstage, omnis over audience out in front of PA, CM4 cardioids closer to back of room) differs depending on which source position is more acoustically active.  But that's the alignment that ended up sounding best for me.

Level-wise I ended up using a touch more SBD than omnis, although not much, and a bit less from the CM4 pair, although less still from that pair would also work.  I did prefer using all three sources in combination once aligned and EQ'd.

I EQ'd each source separately first, and later applied additional EQ at the master bus.  Getting the low-end under control was a bit tricky. There is some low frequency noise that sounds like handling noise maybe from mic stands being moved around on stage or something, somewhat constant but most noticeable at the start.  One EQ challenge involved finding a good balance of reducing that without making the stomps and guitar sound overly anemic or wiping out the good low frequency ambience.

I also panned the CM4 pair somewhat toward center, which helped achieve a more even audience distribution and sense of dimension.  Panning it fully center (mono) didn't cause an audible problem, so I didn't worry about narrowing the panning of that pair somewhat.

After mixdown I applied some parallel compression, with a scooped, loudness-like curve applied to the parallel compressed copy, which helped glue everything together and bring up the details. Also applied some mastering limiting, which better managed loudness and brought out some additional presence in the vocal.

It ended up sounding quite engaging, although I don't trust my EQ choices to translate elsewhere since I was doing this over uncalibrated headphones, and I noticed something odd happening EQ wise when exporting from Samplitude and playing the file back via VLC which I still need to chase down.

[capnhook]

If you guys want them, PM me or reply here and I'll send them to whoever asks.

Thanks.  I played around with it a bit over the weekend and figured I'd share my thoughts here with the group rather than privately via PM.  Hope that's cool. Happy to take this to PM if preferred.

Using the omni pair as a baseline, I ended up delaying the mono SBD a further 34ms and the X/Y CM4 pair by 2 to 3ms beyond the native alignment of the sample files.  Getting the alignment right was somewhat tricky as the optimal offset differs for audience clapping verses on-stage clapping and stomping, since the distance between those different source locations and the three different mic positions (sbd mics onstage, omnis over audience out in front of PA, CM4 cardioids closer to back of room) differs depending on which source position is more acoustically active.  But that's the alignment that ended up sounding best for me.

Level-wise I ended up using a touch more SBD than omnis, although not much, and a bit less from the CM4 pair, although less still from that pair would also work.  I did prefer using all three sources in combination once aligned and EQ'd.

I EQ'd each source separately first, and later applied additional EQ at the master bus.  Getting the low-end under control was a bit tricky. There is some low frequency noise that sounds like handling noise maybe from mic stands being moved around on stage or something, somewhat constant but most noticeable at the start.  One EQ challenge involved finding a good balance of reducing that without making the stomps and guitar sound overly anemic or wiping out the good low frequency ambience.

I also panned the CM4 pair somewhat toward center, which helped achieve a more even audience distribution and sense of dimension.  Panning it fully center (mono) didn't cause an audible problem, so I didn't worry about narrowing the panning of that pair somewhat.

After mixdown I applied some parallel compression, with a scooped, loudness-like curve applied to the parallel compressed copy, which helped glue everything together and bring up the details. Also applied some mastering limiting, which better managed loudness and brought out some additional presence in the vocal.

It ended up sounding quite engaging, although I don't trust my EQ choices to translate elsewhere since I was doing this over uncalibrated headphones, and I noticed something odd happening EQ wise when exporting from Samplitude and playing the file back via VLC which I still need to chase down.

Nice essay again Lee


Post some samples after you get done fucking around, so that we might evaluate what you did.

[Gutbucket]

Nice essay again Lee


Post some samples after you get done fucking around, so that we might evaluate what you did.

Not sure if that's intended to be snarky or not, Kevin, but you're welcome.  In deference to Vantheman I won't post samples openly since his samples were not shared that way.  But as long as it's okay with him I can share the quick exploratory mix I did upon PM request.  Ideally would like to figure out what is causing the odd EQ change to the output file, but at least that anomaly should be able to be either compensated for or listened around by you guys.

[capnhook]

Nice essay again Lee


Post some samples after you get done fucking around, so that we might evaluate what you did.

Not sure if that's intended to be snarky or not, Kevin, but you're welcome.  In deference to Vantheman I won't post samples openly since his samples were not shared that way.  But as long as it's okay with him I can share the quick exploratory mix I did upon PM request.  Ideally would like to figure out what is causing the odd EQ change to the output file, but at least that anomaly should be able to be either compensated for or listened around by you guys.

Was not intending to be snarky Lee, I am serious.

Did not catch on to the part where vantheman wanted to keep these under wraps, please excuse me




I'll wait verrrrrrry patiently for ANY examples of your work that can be freely shared with this group


I am not learning anything about your theories without examples 

[vantheman]

If you guys want them, PM me or reply here and I'll send them to whoever asks.

Thanks.  I played around with it a bit over the weekend and figured I'd share my thoughts here with the group rather than privately via PM.  Hope that's cool. Happy to take this to PM if preferred.

Using the omni pair as a baseline, I ended up delaying the mono SBD a further 34ms and the X/Y CM4 pair by 2 to 3ms beyond the native alignment of the sample files.  Getting the alignment right was somewhat tricky as the optimal offset differs for audience clapping verses on-stage clapping and stomping, since the distance between those different source locations and the three different mic positions (sbd mics onstage, omnis over audience out in front of PA, CM4 cardioids closer to back of room) differs depending on which source position is more acoustically active.  But that's the alignment that ended up sounding best for me.

Level-wise I ended up using a touch more SBD than omnis, although not much, and a bit less from the CM4 pair, although less still from that pair would also work.  I did prefer using all three sources in combination once aligned and EQ'd.

I EQ'd each source separately first, and later applied additional EQ at the master bus.  Getting the low-end under control was a bit tricky. There is some low frequency noise that sounds like handling noise maybe from mic stands being moved around on stage or something, somewhat constant but most noticeable at the start.  One EQ challenge involved finding a good balance of reducing that without making the stomps and guitar sound overly anemic or wiping out the good low frequency ambience.

I also panned the CM4 pair somewhat toward center, which helped achieve a more even audience distribution and sense of dimension.  Panning it fully center (mono) didn't cause an audible problem, so I didn't worry about narrowing the panning of that pair somewhat.

After mixdown I applied some parallel compression, with a scooped, loudness-like curve applied to the parallel compressed copy, which helped glue everything together and bring up the details. Also applied some mastering limiting, which better managed loudness and brought out some additional presence in the vocal.

It ended up sounding quite engaging, although I don't trust my EQ choices to translate elsewhere since I was doing this over uncalibrated headphones, and I noticed something odd happening EQ wise when exporting from Samplitude and playing the file back via VLC which I still need to chase down.

Thank you so much for taking a look at that, and yes feel free to PM my originals and your edits to whomever wants them. We’re on similar pages with the levels, and the parallel compression on the mix bus. If the mic stand effect you heard was on the sbd track, not sure what that is, except the floors were miked so it could be anything. The CM4s were back by the sbd and there were 2 videographers recording video and much earlier in the show they were whispering to each other and the sound person must have waved them off or something.

I’m curious about the EQ and especially how you heard it differently between the 2 mic pairs. The sound person reeled off about 7 ranges where there was a natural bump - 100, 230, then I lost her after that. I’m still developing my ear for EQ so it needs to be a really obvious EQ defect for me to hear it. Also interesting to hear how you treated the sbd by delaying it. In my mind I had looked at that track as “zero” and the mics in the room would all be behind that. So for anyone else who might play with these, realize that my source files have the omnis “pre-delayed” by 8ms, and the CM4s by 24ms. But then again I’m still very much learning, and realize I’m probably better at identifying interesting opportunities to record than I am at the actual craft at this point. I’m ok with that.

If anyone else cares to play around PM me (or gutbucket). I’d be interested in hearing thoughts on the mix minus the CM4s. I appreciate you all.