Topic: Oddball microphone technique (OMT) - part 4

[Thelonious]

…I try to think of each situation as running a main pair and a support pair, and then putting them in a position to play to their strengths. So generally speaking, if I'm outdoors or up close then the widecards will be the main pair spread wide and if I'm in a bad room or far away (or even just potentially being indoors - I’m still working on this one) then the supercards will play the main role spread wide. The one thing I have felt most strongly about is PAS (or more accurately really narrow spreads of 0 or 30* given my fixed angle clips) and the main pair I'm running on the outside

So I listened to the clip from the recent Goose show. Wonderful sense of space and none of the boominess that I would worry about from recording at the back of an arena. I have been thinking about how to apply OMT for up front at acoustic shows where the sources are spread across an area. Your method of thinking about PAS is both 2 pairs is helpful. When I recorded the brothers at MSG, I used hypers and tried to get them as on axis as possible (don’t have sufficient spacing to get the angle I wanted). That worked out well, but, your recording has a more open sense of space and the bass you got from adding the sub cards in the centre sounds more natural than the EQ I added to my recording. This is a really good recording from MSG, like shockingly good imo. Thanks again!

[rocksuitcase]

…I try to think of each situation as running a main pair and a support pair, and then putting them in a position to play to their strengths. So generally speaking, if I'm outdoors or up close then the widecards will be the main pair spread wide and if I'm in a bad room or far away (or even just potentially being indoors - I’m still working on this one) then the supercards will play the main role spread wide. The one thing I have felt most strongly about is PAS (or more accurately really narrow spreads of 0 or 30* given my fixed angle clips) and the main pair I'm running on the outside

So I listened to the clip from the recent Goose show. Wonderful sense of space and none of the boominess that I would worry about from recording at the back of an arena. I have been thinking about how to apply OMT for up front at acoustic shows where the sources are spread across an area. Your method of thinking about PAS is both 2 pairs is helpful. When I recorded the brothers at MSG, I used hypers and tried to get them as on axis as possible (don’t have sufficient spacing to get the angle I wanted). That worked out well, but, your recording has a more open sense of space and the bass you got from adding the sub cards in the centre sounds more natural than the EQ I added to my recording. This is a really good recording from MSG, like shockingly good imo. Thanks again!

Also agree- REALLY GOOD recording
Focker can comment, but at Goose they were at the back of the GA floor, which, IMO, is possibly the best place to record AUD from. The arena is so large, that at that spot, you are basically in the center, possibly only 100 feet from the stacks.

[F0CKER]

Focker can comment, but at Goose they were at the back of the GA floor, which, IMO, is possibly the best place to record AUD from. The arena is so large, that at that spot, you are basically in the center, possibly only 100 feet from the stacks.

Yes, we were about 3/4s of the way back on the floor. Sound was superb imo and I'm really happy with the tapes. Thanks for the compliments!

Same to you Thelonius!

I'm still reeling from the show to be honest, its easily a top 5 ever show in my book, from any band, and I like to think I've got some mileage under my belt.

Here is Jon Pasternaks source from MSG for some comps. Neumann shotguns -> 248, also sounds really good

https://archive.org/details/goose2025-06-28.Pasternak.NeumannKMR82i.Flac24

[Gutbucket]

Right on!  Looking forward to giving that MSG Goose a listen.  FOCKER, fully agreed with your comment about "..putting them in a position to play to their strengths". Seems like good choices and a logical path forward to me. 

Here's my take on the key aspects you are juggling:

Baseline setup when not constrained by acoustics such as when recording outdoors: X/Y hypers in the center + subcards as the spaced pair.  Inherent advantages of using the more open-pattern pattern in a spaced configuration are improved low frequency / off-axis / reverberant qualities, combined with the tighter-pattern X/Y pair providing clear and distinct imaging across the center of the playback image.  This combination has each pair playing to its inherent strengths, resulting in the best of both worlds.  A great combination and one I'm very familiar with.

Question then becomes, what about in a less ideal acoustic situation?  In a more constrained acoustic, flipping that arrangement "inside out" like you are doing may prove useful.  Why that might be so is interesting for me to think about, out loud as it were..

Doing that switches the more-directional hyper pair out to the spaced position, where they can be angled more narrowly / on-axis / PAS for good clarity while still achieving decent stereo separation due to the wider spacing. The same would not occur when using that pair in the center coincident X/Y position at the same narrow angle (at least without any post-production mid/side ratio adjustment being made to increase stereo width).  At the same time, the subcards are moved from the spaced position to the center X/Y position, and I presume remain relatively widely angled. < not sure if that's the case or if you also angle the X/Y 4015's more narrowly so as to be more on-axis / PAS.  Either way, this sort of turns the previous arrangement inside out so we're getting most of the direct clarity from the wider spaced position, and more of the immersive ambience and depth from the center pair.  In either case, the spaced pair is the one that ends up being the primary pair in the mix.  Does that accurately describe what you're doing? 

That's somewhat different than what happens in my OMT8 arrangement where there are always wide-spaced omnis in use which just end up contributing a lot less to the mix when in more challenging acoustics, while the central part of the array (think of that as the OMT4 part) consisting of the coincident center pair and flanking near-spaced pair, are both highly directional.  In my case when indoors and when farther back I also angle the near-spaced pair more narrowly / more on-axis / more PAS (and would also increase the spacing of that pair to compensate for the more narrow angle if my setup allowed for doing that).  So in that way its very similar to what you are doing.  What is different is the center pair remains highly directional, its just that a different amount of the wide-spaced omnis end up being used.

There are times when I think I might like to change the directivity of my center Mid, but interestingly by going in the opposite way - shifting to a wider pattern when up close or on stage.  So this is one of the things that's very thought provoking for me.

Thanks for sharing these great recordings!  More comments after I can give a listen.

[Gutbucket]

Thelonious, I've some thoughts on your post I'll also get to later. Good stuff.

[F0CKER]

Doing that switches the more-directional hyper pair out to the spaced position, where they can be angled more narrowly / on-axis / PAS for good clarity while still achieving decent stereo separation due to the wider spacing. The same would not occur when using that pair in the center coincident X/Y position at the same narrow angle (at least without any post-production mid/side ratio adjustment being made to increase stereo width).  At the same time, the subcards are moved from the spaced position to the center X/Y position, and I presume remain relatively widely angled. < not sure if that's the case or if you also angle the X/Y 4015's more narrowly so as to be more on-axis / PAS.  Either way, this sort of turns the previous arrangement inside out so we're getting most of the direct clarity from the wider spaced position, and more of the immersive ambience and depth from the center pair.  In either case, the spaced pair is the one that ends up being the primary pair in the mix.  Does that accurately describe what you're doing? 

Thats exactly what I'm describing yes. I love the spaced supercards on the outside when the room / position dictates it and I'm more or less trying to figure out how I can add the widecards into the mix. I've only run the widecards XY at 90* in the center position so far. The results have been positive. They are adding the low end and giving a sense of depth but have been so minor in the final mix the difference is subtle but there when you listen for it. I've been giving thought to other ways to add them in in that center position and play with angles, spacing but to be honest I don't know if any changes would be significantly different..but half the fun is in trying different things out.

I will say the spaced widecards and supercards XY in the center have been wonderful.

[Gutbucket]

A list of FOCKER's OMT4 options for use indoors. The ones I feel are worth consideration are bolded:

(A) Options using the widecardioids in the spaced position (in order of increasing foreword sensitivity)

A1) Same as the outdoors baseline setup.

A2) Widecards spaced ~24" and angled 90º (+/-45º) + hypercards X/Y in the center, using a narrow X/Y angle that places the hypers in PAS (the angle which achieves PAS is going be significantly less than 90º, so pointing just outside of stacks is a reasonable target).
^
I suspect this may work very nicely indoors. A narrow X/Y angle that achieves PAS won't produce much stereo separation, but having that pair on-axis with the PA will produce maximum image clarity and detail in the center part of the mix. The stereo width, room feel, and solid bottom will be contributed by the spaced widecards angled 90º.

Taking it further if you want... when doing the mix afterwards you might play around with adjusting the stereo width of the center X/Y pair.  The straight starting point is with the X/Y pair hard-panned fully Left/Right.  If you want more dry upfront clarity / less reverberance at the cost of some stereo width, you can pan both of the X/Y hyper channels toward center.  Panning them fully center will roughly equate to a single cardioid pointed directly foreword.  If you want more stereo width at the cost of increased reverberance and room, you can push the X/Y pair past fully hard-panned into "super stereo" (which is the same as decreasing the ratio of Mid verses Side).  Pushed to the full extreme of no Mid at all / 100% Side equates to a single sideways facing fig-8 in the center.

A3) Same as above but with the widecards also in PAS.
^ This angles both pairs narrowly in PAS.  It will maximize clarity and "reach" but at the expense of stereo width, openness and naturalness.  Ideally the widecards would also be spaced more widely of possible to somewhat compensate for the narrower angle.

This wont sound as open, 3-dimentional and natural, but it does everything possible (other than also switching the widecards to a tighter pattern) to accommodate an distant, boomy, overly reverberant recording position. Dealing with that pretty much overshadows everything else.


(B) Options which flip the arrangement inside out, using the hypercards in the spaced position (in order of increasing foreword sensitivity)

B1) Hypercards spaced ~24" and angled 90º (+/-45º) + widecards X/Y angled 90º (+/-45º) in the center.  Meh.  I see little reason to do this.  Same forward directionality as the outdoor baseline setup but is not "playing to the strengths of each pair".

B2) Same as above but with the X/Y widecards angled for PAS.  Meh. Center config is slightly more forward biased than B1 with less stereo width.

B3) Hypercards spaced ~24" and angled PAS + widecards X/Y angled widely, say something like 120º in the center. This is a more interesting one.  Direct on-axis clarity provided by from the hypercard pair.  A bit more openness and depth from the widecardioid pair.   This one plays to the strengths of each mic pattern, but the configuration in which each is used does not.

B4) Same as above with the widecard X/Y pair angled angled 90º (+/-45º) in the center. I think this may be what you've tried.  Somewhat less room / more forward bias from the center pair.

B5) Both pairs in PAS. Meh.  Same as A3 in terms of forward sensitivity bias. But without either pair playing to their strengths.

[Gutbucket]

Attentional options indoors include forgoing the widecardioids for regular cardioids or super/hypers, but one of the goals here is using those sweet sounding 4015's if at all possible

[al w.]

Dudes, Goose put on a clinic at MSG last night. They played for 4.5 hours between two sets and an encore. Allegedly the longest show in MSG history. Surpassing Phish 12/31/97 in duration. None of this is verified (yet), but the fan chatter post-show

I ran the supercards wide 2' at 30 degrees PAS and the widecards XY at 90 in the center position. Really nice turnout. I have not tracked out the whole show, but here is a snippet of them doing Kate Bush's Running Up That Hill -> Give It Time

This is like 85% supercards with a little of the widecards added in for some low end depth.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1khnGy-VcSpaBos2KYyiWfPp2ohkNN_RU/view?usp=drive_link

edit: link to full show
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1IQUrTy9sL19L78lqLS4Zn-9VmmFBjr2W?usp=drive_link

This is a crazy good tape of a crazy good show. NICE WORK!

[Gutbucket]

Hey Thelonious-
I'm breaking up my replies to your post up into three parts. 1st, thoughts on monitoring and the different needs of mixing verses mastering-

I would start with a note on playback being critical on these recordings. Depending on my playback setup, I find the DPA only recording anywhere between very good and almost unlistenable. I pulled out my HD6XX (Massdrop/Senheiser colab that I believe is sonically very similar to the HD650) and the DPA sounded pretty good. However, I do find these headphones rolled off in the treble which makes them very forgiving of poor recordings. Great for general listening but I can't master with them. With my HD800S', or my ~1980 La Scala's (which have horns and are in a small/medium sized room) I find the treble almost unlistenable on the DPA recording. This is despite having rolled off between 3 and 4 DB above 8K DB to try to address the bump from the short grills and then further to make it less harsh to my ears.

You've astute ears.  Agreed that the HD600 and HD650 which I generally use for assessing and general listening are somewhat forgiving in a few ways.  I find them just about right for general listening, but not the best tool for precise EQ decisions (the HD700s I have on hand are out of operation and in need of repair are better in that regard as they are far more detailed, yet have their own quirks - such as an annoying tinnitus-aggravating 7Khz peak). 

I've not used HD800S but would like to try them.  I have read that their response has a bit of a peak around 11khz, which is the approximate corner frequency of the peak imparted by the DPA406X short grids. It may be that match up perceptually aggravates the excessive energy of the DPA response in that region when using those 'phones more than it does though others.  A similar thing may be happening with the La Scala's, as classic Klipsh horns are well known for being rather energetic in the treble. Two ways to look at that - as feature or bug - and as a feature it perhaps makes for a good tool in highlighting that particular response bump issue in the DPAs so that you might correct it with EQ.

You are no doubt aware that the generally perceived response of various headphones is more or less consistent from listener to listener, yet the more specific perceived response details tend to vary substantially from person to person, particularly in the upper midrange and treble.  A consequence of headphones being close-coupled to the ear and the interaction of fit, pina-shape details and ear-canal resonance varying from person to person..

[and (out of order) from later in your post..]

The difference in sound from playback matters a lot as the difference between the recordings to me comes down to the EQ primarily, with the 22/41 matrix sounding very polished and pleasant on my systems with high end extension and the DPAs sounding bright and harsh. This is also true of the horns where there is a bite, particularly with the trumpet, that the 22s tame well. I suspect this is partially due to frequency response of the mics and partly due to the trumpet being more off axis from the mic compared to the Omni. I suspect I could EQ the omnis more and get them closer to the profile I want, however, I'm still developing that skill and am also trying to align on a mastering headphone that I trust as "accurate" from which to make adjustments.

I keep meaning to make time to dive more deeply into response correction for headphones as a way of making them more useful for objective tasks like mastering.  There are plenty of corrective filter tools for headphones, but most are generic to the headphone model and not specifically tuned to the listeners own HRTF.  In my limited experience a number of years back, none of those generic headphone response correction tools I tried were really good enough.  It took a personalized calibration to get something really usable. Still want to get around to exploring that more deeply.  Maybe they are better now, maybe I just need to delve into a personalized HTRF correction using the right headphones as starting point.  Until then, I trust good monitors that have been calibrated for in room response more than headphones when it comes to reliable tonal response details.

Might be a good opportunity to work on EQ skills to make that DPA peak acceptable.  Lacking a truly objectual trustworthy headphone response that might entail comparing on both sets of phones along with the awareness of how both are somewhat incorrect in that region only in opposite ways, then shooting for something that sort of splits the difference, or at least makes it bearable on 800S and the La Scalas.

This all gets to the important difference between relative and absolute response.  Mixing primarily deals with relative response - getting everything to work right together, the relationship of things to other things in the mix itself, and that can be done with monitoring that is less than objective as long as you can identify those relative differences.  Mastering is more difficult because it attempts to deal with absolute response - how your mix translates beyond your own monitoring to the outside world.  Far more challenging to get really right.

[Gutbucket]

EQing-

I would note that I did not have this issue with the treble glare on my previous recording, from the same venue, that I recorded "binauralish" (mounted on glasses at temples) and where I applied no EQ. https://samply.app/p/Ga5WbtzNargjM4rqsvTD My theory is that my head was absorbing the reflections in that instance but, obviously, just a theory and it wasn't the same night.

I generally find head-baffled omnis, like Jecklin-disk baffled omnis, to have less treble-emphasis than the same pair of omnis does when used without a baffle.  Sometimes J-disk recordings come to life with a touch of treble boost because of that.  Not exactly sure why, could be frequency specific absorption by the baffle, reduced acoustic cross-talk and phase interaction between channels at those frequencies due to the presence of the baffle, or something else. It is a thing I've noticed in any case.

Again, another situation where some subtle EQ correction can be quite valuable.

I did create a matrix with the Omnis as the base and bringing in the XY, similar to what I did with the 22s, but I found something that sounded "off" that I attributed to the open pattern of the omnis being too close to the XY but, in hindsight, it could have been due to the treble in the DPA recording.

I had also tried a matrix with all 3 (Omnis being primary and the 22s and 41s mixed in) but this sounded really off and, again, I assumed it was due to the lack of distance (in particular between the 22s and the omnis placed directly below them). I still had these on my hard drive so I've uploaded the same two songs from this matrix here https://samply.app/p/D0BNOBkFIAZyHLlBlH0A . I could certainly try adding in a bit of the omnis to the 22/41 matrix but I will need to eq the omnis again as I find them uncomfortable to listen to.

I suspect its that somewhat peaky high frequency response from the omnis. Might be insightful to attenuate the highs in the omnis more than you otherwise might (EQ the omnis to sound somewhat dull in isolation without any of that high frequency problem) and see if the omnis work better in the mix that way.  Going further, you might try low passing the omnis down where the response of directional mics naturally starts to roll off.  At that point they are only extending the really low frequency content the other mics don't really get.  Having them positioned "overly close" to the other pair then might actually work to advantage.  Other folks really like using omnis that way.

I do think that ideal would have been to have omnis set up another 3 feet to each side (5' each side of centre) however, that wasn't feasible for this outing as there was a limitation of space among other factors.

 
Does help to get the omnis wider for a few reasons when you want to use their full frequency response, such as I prefer doing. One reason is less potential problematic phase interaction with other mics that are overly close, if not chopping off everything above a certain frequency range where the closely positioned mics may be interacting.

[Gutbucket]

Angling certain mics in the array differently when close to the musicians-

[snip..]I was thinking next time I could angle just the far right 22 up ~30degrees. I wouldn't want to do this on the left as it would be all cymbals, but on the right this would better align with the area the trumpet was most of the time. Do you think making an adjustment to one side of the pair like that would be okay in this context? The ideal would be to set up omnis (maybe 414s) at about 3' high on either side and 5' each side of centre that I could dial in as wanted after the fact but I would need to ensure I'm not taking up too much of the bands space on a small stage and it woudl require two more mic stands, which is not a small increase in gear/set up.

With respect to angling the 22s more widely, I already had them at +/-55 degrees and spaced 2'. This was done to ensure that nothing was completely outside of the 22 pair, thinking that would help with the image, without going too wide to increase the angle off axis of the mics (to which I attribute the roll off of the high end of the trumpet). Do you think there is an advantage to going wider than that? If I was going to make a change to the mic angles my instinct was to increase the angle of the right mic up by 25 degrees to better capture the area the trumpet was 90% of the time. That said, I'm open to trying a wider angle between the 22s if you think it would be helpful.

Yeah, point them differently however you need too.  The relationship of the mic array geometry verses mix-down routing geometry verses playback system geometry is really interesting.  In one sense we aim to set up the microphone array geometry in such a way that we capture an accurate picture of the acoustic situation in the room.  Maintaining that accuracy is more important if we are playing back using a speaker geometry that is similar to the recording array geometry.  If recording using two mic channels and playing back over two speakers or headphones, you don't really want to angle one mic too oddly in comparison to the other or it will tend to throw other things out of whack despite what you are trying to correct. Similarly, if you were trying to record for surround playback using an array of more than two microphones, you'd wouldn't want to vary the angle relationship between mics in the array too much so as to maintain a reasonable degree of accuracy upon playback.  Maintaining a "convicning illusion" is probably a better way of putting it.  But we aren't doing that, we don't have a parity between recording channels and playback channels.  We're recording more than two mic channels but mixing down to just 2-channels in stereo.  That allows for more freedom in angling mics up or down as needed to balance things.  The other mics in the array help cover for that in the mix.

[Thelonious]

Hey Gut, thanks as always for the thoughtful response. It's very helpful and I'm always learning something

I've not used HD800S but would like to try them.  I have read that their response has a bit of a peak around 11khz, which is the approximate corner frequency of the peak imparted by the DPA406X short grids. It may be that match up perceptually aggravates the excessive energy of the DPA response in that region when using those 'phones more than it does though others.  A similar thing may be happening with the La Scala's, as classic Klipsh horns are well known for being rather energetic in the treble. Two ways to look at that - as feature or bug - and as a feature it perhaps makes for a good tool in highlighting that particular response bump issue in the DPAs so that you might correct it with EQ.

The HD800S (as opposed to the 800) has a treble peak around 6K. It is reduced from the original 800 but still there. It is, as you say, both a feature and a bug as it presents "soundstage" unlike any other headphone I've tried, but it does not play well with recordings that also have treble peaks the particular DPA recording in question being one.

With respect to the monitoring for mastering I'm experimenting with a Quedelix 5K https://www.qudelix.com/products/qudelix-5k. Users have created custom parametric EQs for many current headphones and I am finding it promising for use with IEMs, where I can bypass the HRTF issue. It is definitely going to be my travel mixing/mastering solution.

[Thelonious]

I did create a matrix with the Omnis as the base and bringing in the XY, similar to what I did with the 22s, but I found something that sounded "off" that I attributed to the open pattern of the omnis being too close to the XY but, in hindsight, it could have been due to the treble in the DPA recording.

I had also tried a matrix with all 3 (Omnis being primary and the 22s and 41s mixed in) but this sounded really off and, again, I assumed it was due to the lack of distance (in particular between the 22s and the omnis placed directly below them). I still had these on my hard drive so I've uploaded the same two songs from this matrix here https://samply.app/p/D0BNOBkFIAZyHLlBlH0A . I could certainly try adding in a bit of the omnis to the 22/41 matrix but I will need to eq the omnis again as I find them uncomfortable to listen to.

I suspect its that somewhat peaky high frequency response from the omnis. Might be insightful to attenuate the highs in the omnis more than you otherwise might (EQ the omnis to sound somewhat dull in isolation without any of that high frequency problem) and see if the omnis work better in the mix that way.  Going further, you might try low passing the omnis down where the response of directional mics naturally starts to roll off.  At that point they are only extending the really low frequency content the other mics don't really get.  Having them positioned "overly close" to the other pair then might actually work to advantage.  Other folks really like using omnis that way.

Applying more aggressive EQ to the high end of the DPAs, and using that to mix in with the other mics, is a great suggestion and I will definitely try that. The ability to bring in a bit more of the off axis trumpet, along with some audience and PA announcements, without causing the interference or  increasing harshness would be ideal. I fully agree on preferring to use the full range response of the omnis, I just think I need to have them either much further, or closer, to the other mics.

[F0CKER]

A list of FOCKER's OMT4 options for use indoors. The ones I feel are worth consideration are bolded:

(A) Options using the widecardioids in the spaced position (in order of increasing foreword sensitivity)

A1) Same as the outdoors baseline setup.

A2) Widecards spaced ~24" and angled 90º (+/-45º) + hypercards X/Y in the center, using a narrow X/Y angle that places the hypers in PAS (the angle which achieves PAS is going be significantly less than 90º, so pointing just outside of stacks is a reasonable target).
^
I suspect this may work very nicely indoors. A narrow X/Y angle that achieves PAS won't produce much stereo separation, but having that pair on-axis with the PA will produce maximum image clarity and detail in the center part of the mix. The stereo width, room feel, and solid bottom will be contributed by the spaced widecards angled 90º.

Taking it further if you want... when doing the mix afterwards you might play around with adjusting the stereo width of the center X/Y pair.  The straight starting point is with the X/Y pair hard-panned fully Left/Right.  If you want more dry upfront clarity / less reverberance at the cost of some stereo width, you can pan both of the X/Y hyper channels toward center.  Panning them fully center will roughly equate to a single cardioid pointed directly foreword.  If you want more stereo width at the cost of increased reverberance and room, you can push the X/Y pair past fully hard-panned into "super stereo" (which is the same as decreasing the ratio of Mid verses Side).  Pushed to the full extreme of no Mid at all / 100% Side equates to a single sideways facing fig-8 in the center.

A3) Same as above but with the widecards also in PAS.
^ This angles both pairs narrowly in PAS.  It will maximize clarity and "reach" but at the expense of stereo width, openness and naturalness.  Ideally the widecards would also be spaced more widely of possible to somewhat compensate for the narrower angle.

This wont sound as open, 3-dimentional and natural, but it does everything possible (other than also switching the widecards to a tighter pattern) to accommodate an distant, boomy, overly reverberant recording position. Dealing with that pretty much overshadows everything else.


(B) Options which flip the arrangement inside out, using the hypercards in the spaced position (in order of increasing foreword sensitivity)

B1) Hypercards spaced ~24" and angled 90º (+/-45º) + widecards X/Y angled 90º (+/-45º) in the center.  Meh.  I see little reason to do this.  Same forward directionality as the outdoor baseline setup but is not "playing to the strengths of each pair".

B2) Same as above but with the X/Y widecards angled for PAS.  Meh. Center config is slightly more forward biased than B1 with less stereo width.

B3) Hypercards spaced ~24" and angled PAS + widecards X/Y angled widely, say something like 120º in the center. This is a more interesting one.  Direct on-axis clarity provided by from the hypercard pair.  A bit more openness and depth from the widecardioid pair.   This one plays to the strengths of each mic pattern, but the configuration in which each is used does not.

B4) Same as above with the widecard X/Y pair angled angled 90º (+/-45º) in the center. I think this may be what you've tried.  Somewhat less room / more forward bias from the center pair.

B5) Both pairs in PAS. Meh.  Same as A3 in terms of forward sensitivity bias. But without either pair playing to their strengths.

gut, as always I appreciate the in-depth and thoughtful responses, You are correct with what I've tried. I think for me it's really been a good deal of experimentation to see what sticks and what doesn't. The truth is I've been super happy with all the different configs and the results I've gotten. As I said above I feel like the quality of all the tapes I've made have been really good in all the different arrangements moving from 2 channel to OMT4. I have two shows tonight and tomorrow with a local dead cover bands at Ardmore Music Hall where I'm going to test out a couple varieties mentioned above. I'll post the results this week for some input. It's a small room, good sound and not too far from the stacks, I'm going to do a flavor with the widecards spaced and then the superards spaced. I think I'll have enough info at this stage to sort of settle into what seems to be the most consistent / desirable to my ears in this specific room. Either way I'm having a ton of fun just playing around! Will keep the samples coming.