Topic: What's the point in running any other config other than PAS?

[grawk]

Congratulations. You win most confrontational agreement to a concept on the forum. 

Unless of course you’re denying those nak300 tapes exist, in which case you’re ignorant in addition to being an oppositional asshole.

[fanofjam]

Congratulations. You win most confrontational agreement to a concept on the forum. 

Unless of course you’re denying those nak300 tapes exist, in which case you’re ignorant in addition to being an oppositional asshole.

Anecdotally, I’m agreeing with the ‘most’ characterization, just because so many nak300 recordings exist from that era.  Even if it’s not true, I don’t think we need to call Snopes in for fact checking.  😂

[checht]

So sorry I offended you, Grawk. We usually agree so I'm not sure what I said wrong. But sorry.

You write "confrontational agreement to a concept", but my point was I don't agree with OP.  I don't think that most recordings were made with nak 300s PAS.
And I cited a few examples of folks who didn't use 'em to back up my assertion, as one does when making an argument of fact.

Were you there to survey the 80s scene? Seemed to me that the majority of 300s arrived when the section got moved back, which I think was the Carrier Dome (?).
Maybe it's just about what cohort one was in. My gang didn't use 'em.

What's the benefit of calling folks names who disagree? How does that improve the conversation?

[morst]

Congratulations. You win most confrontational agreement to a concept on the forum. 

Unless of course you’re denying those nak300 tapes exist, in which case you’re ignorant in addition to being an oppositional asshole.

hahah you just beat him!

[grawk]

Ok, so clearly I was being hyperbolic, but the discussion is "What's the point in running any other config other than PAS?", and the nak 300 mid to late 80s dead section tapes are a valid example of how PAS isn't always the optimal choice for recording a concert.  You acknowledged that that was true, but chose to focus in on the semantic different between "most" and "many", while acknowledging that the shotgun PAS tapes weren't the best available, and provided a couple of anecdotal examples of better recordings.  I'm aware there are MANY better recordings of the dead that weren't section nak tapes.  I never heard them until after I became a taper and got access to people with better recordings.  The ones that were passed around in the 80s (when I was going to dead shows, but not a taper) were mostly not great tapes.  Once I became a taper and made friends in the taping world, I got access to a whole different world of recordings, and learned that things could be better.  That's why I learned about ORTF, and then later many other techniques.

I apologize for calling you an oppositional asshole.

[Gutbucket]

[snip..] I'm aware there are MANY better recordings of the dead that weren't section nak tapes.  I never heard them until after I became a taper and got access to people with better recordings.  The ones that were passed around in the 80s (when I was going to dead shows, but not a taper) were mostly not great tapes.  Once I became a taper and made friends in the taping world, I got access to a whole different world of recordings, and learned that things could be better.  That's why I learned about ORTF, and then later many other techniques. [..snip]

That parallels my experience as well.

[datbrad]

Well, I had some measure of success with Naks, and those MOTB FOBs from '85 on were hit or miss, great sound plus the dude one row up screaming for Jerry to play Darkstar also fully captured, yak.

https://archive.org/details/gd1988-03-26.134379.nakcm100.lynn.datbrad.flac16

One from '88 Nak guns>Sony D5.

https://archive.org/details/gd1993-03-22.111269.naks.DATBRAD.flac16

One from '93 2 Nak guns+ center card>mx100>D5>D3 seems well received.

Just sayin.......

[Melanie]

I patched out of Bob Matthews (from CT. , I believe) who ran Shotguns with another taper, they ran two Nak shotguns (probably 300s) on the left directly facing left stack and two  directly facing right stack, each left right pair was run by each taper,  cables were run into Hi Low impedance transformers to cover massive lengths of cables, no off axis problems, some of the best  recordings with shotguns I have. Shows were the 3 dates of the Grateful Dead at Eugene, 1994. I believe that I got the technical description right. 1st night was unreal show, in spite of strong rains. All shows were stellar. Bob

[morst]

Eugene 1994 huh?
Did you happen to record Cracker's opening sets?
I've been seeking upgrades, got a good 6/17 Bronco Chase night but could use better 18th & 19th, if they are available


https://archive.org/details/cracker1994-06-17

[Melanie]

I will go through the collection  to check, but I probably didn't run for cracker, I was really pissed that Traffic opened for the Dead in Vegas just before this show and that did not continue to Eugene. I  was not a cracker fan, had to go to the
gorge to catch Traffic. Bob

[Kyle K]

I used to run PAS in addition to mics on stage (healy) & SBD and I found myself almost exclusively preferring the healy / SBD mix. I enjoy shows from the front row and capturing the direct sound from the amps / drum kit, as well as the excitement from the audience directed at the stage, just feels better to me.

[jefflester]

I will go through the collection  to check, but I probably didn't run for cracker, I was really pissed that Traffic opened for the Dead in Vegas just before this show and that did not continue to Eugene. I  was not a cracker fan, had to go to the
gorge to catch Traffic. Bob

Vegas was after Eugene and the first shows Traffic opened for GD that summer.

[Melanie]

Yeah, I'm mistaken, but I had to call Bill Graham Productions and they told me I should go to the
gorge as Traffic was not going to open in Eugene. We always seem to get less then stellar openers for the Dead in Eugene, the last few years although the Indigo Girls were good. Bob

[Gutbucket]

I used to run PAS in addition to mics on stage (healy) & SBD and I found myself almost exclusively preferring the healy / SBD mix. I enjoy shows from the front row and capturing the direct sound from the amps / drum kit, as well as the excitement from the audience directed at the stage, just feels better to me.

I agree 100%, and consider PAS as a fallback substitute for SBD + AUD/stagelip/onstage.

PAS is an AUD that prioritizes the PA first and foremost.  If only recording 2 channels, good variants of PAS that additionally convey good room and audience impression will often be the most compelling option.

But if good SBD is available and is recorded along with onstage, stagelip, or audience/ambient mics,  PAS quicly becomes redundant. The AUD no longer needs to focus on the PA when we have recorded a clean SBD which is feeding it. We can instead use an alternate stereo mic configuration that does a better job of translating the live dynamics on stage, and/or a more involving stereo illusion of the room, audience and ambience, with a more engaging sense of depth and dimension.

Alternately when good SBD is ubavailable, PAS can work well as part of an AUD mic array where there are other mic channels responsible for picking up that other stuff. Again sort of acting as a substitute for SBD, except in this case the mix of direct SBD-like sound from the PAS mics and the ambience/audience/room part is not already "baked in" to the 2-ch PAS recording but can be adjusted later.

[noahbickart]

"PAS" doesn't actually tell you very much if you're not also noting how widely the pair is spaced. Let's assume an angle of 50 degrees. A 20cm spacing and a 50cm spacing, even if, in both cases, the mics are PAS, are going to sound very different from one another.

So it's not enough to say, "why doesn't everyone run PAS?" You'd also have to ask why people choose to space their microphones as much or as little as they do