Topic: Best stereo technique for a narrow bar/saloon?

[HighStandDave]

The AZ-based Phish tribute band "Llama" is making its debut on 2025-11-19 at Birdcage Saloon in Prescott. Being right in my own backyard, I'll certainly be there. I'm thinking run the sE8s in XY90? 7.5-foot stand should suffice. This is a pretty narrow little place, see the link below. Should I try to claim a table up closer to the stage or what are we thinking here? Never really taped in a bar before. I might see if I can patch out of the board with my H1 XLR (mono?) in case the vocals don't come through very well in my AUD. Let's hear it.

https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/bird-cage-saloon-prescott-2?select=2yfagsWJac56jpsAzqMWeg

Or, I could run the CA 14 omnis if I can manage a close enough table. Maybe a matrix of both the CA 14 omnis, the sE8s in XY and a board feed on a separate device? Check my sig and see what tools you'd use out of my box.

[Thelonious]

My suggestion would be to consider running the se8s in nos, din or ortf, ideally setup about 10’ back from the PA speakers to allow you to capture the vocals clearly. I would choose the option that gets you closest to having the mics on axis with the PA.

The reason I suggest being in that position is to be far enough back to capture the vocals, but not so far that the reflected sound is too powerful. It will also support improving the music to crowd ratio.

The suggestion of the cardioids is also to improve the ratio of reflections and crowd noise to music.

Finally, the suggestion of NOS or ORTF (or DIN) is to narrow the stereo recording angle, effectively giving your recording more “width” on playback, which will also help with the reflections vs. Direct sound. Both of these improvements will become even more important as you move back from the “ideal” distance from the stage due to any required logistical compromises.

My two cents, I hope it’s helpful.

[raynman]

I’ll second the recommendation above - get as close to up front and center as you feel comfortable (new band, maybe not a large crowd - more space for you). Run cards ORTF. Get in the sweet spot

If you have a second deck see if you can get a back up SBD recording 😀

[morst]

Omni on stage plus vocals via board feed (thumb drive maybe?)


If you have time before that show try recording another bar show so it’s not your first?


Just peeked at the yelp photo. That joint is small. If you’re anywhere other than up close, you’re gonna get some bar noise which you might get from up close but at least the band will be loud

[Top Hat]

Stage + Board or if no board available, stack tape close to a PA speaker

[HighStandDave]

Ended up running XY90 at about 7' high. Got there a bit late, so I was in the back of the venue. Still turned out way better than I thought. Being such a narrow hall with a tiny stage and 95% of the crowd in front of me instead of virtually anyone on the sides, XY was absolutely the way to go at this venue. I think XY is slept on at times. It has its place. Last night was one such occasion. Now, I've not yet been given permission to upload it to LMA, but I can at least provide a setlist:

Set I:

AC/DC Bag
Gotta Jibboo
Sample in a Jar
Gumbo
Possum
Simple >
Wolfman's Brother
Chalk Dust Torture

Set II:

Down with Disease
Also Sprach Zarathrustra
Free
Llama
Runaway Jim
Slave to the Traffic Light
Suzy Greenberg
Wilson
Tweezer Reprise

Highlights were Simple > WB, Free and SttTL. Great debut show for a band. A bit rough around the edges, but they meshed very well together. I can't say anything bad about it at face value.

[VibrationOfLife]

Nice job reading and adapting to the environment.  It is a huge part of what I love about taping.  I'll even go so far as to map out mic placement and routing the night before a gig.

[Gutbucket]

Good to hear it worked out well.

Being such a narrow hall with a tiny stage and 95% of the crowd in front of me instead of virtually anyone on the sides, XY was absolutely the way to go at this venue. I think XY is slept on at times. It has its place. Last night was one such occasion.

Interesting, can you expound on that?  Why absolutely the way to go there?  Your assuredness really interests me because I'd go the opposite route, based on each of the reasons you mention!

Why? If I were unable to run mics up at stagelip or on stage + SBD (as 1st choice, and where I might consider using X/Y).  I'd most likely run PAS, and would definitely go that route if recording from the back of the room.  PAS will place the mics directly on-axis to the PA and stage sound sources, improving the ratio and clarity of pickup of that content as much as possible, while picking up less room sound, wall reflections and content from behind.  But by placing the mics on-axis with the PA the angle between the mic pair will become rather narrow, so unless some spacing is used between the two mics to compensate for that overly narrow angle (in effect, "trading" angle for spacing by using increased spacing to compensate for the decreased angle), the stereo effect from the narrowly angled XY pair is going to be less than what it could be.  In terms of imaging, the inclusive recording angle of narrow angled X/Y pair is very wide, which doesn't match up with the narrow apparent angle the stage and PA fit into.  The imaging from the pair is in effect "zoomed" way out, which works if up close, but less so from the back of a narrow room.

If instead an angle more appropriate for X/Y is used (say between 90-130 degrees), the imaging works better but clarity suffers since the mics end up getting pointed at the side walls, picking up more reflected stuff and lowering the pickup ratio of direct sound from stage and PA in the recording.  For that reason, unless part of an four mic array, I'd probably only choose to use X/Y up close where the sources on stage better fit the wide X/Y recording angle.

Now, if the advantage is more about practical setup stuff - coincident X/Y compactness and small foot print in a small bar - I totally get that.  And coincident (X/Y, M/S) might be helpful when the bottom end in a small room is messy and reverberant.  But for clarity and image it would probably be my last choice from the back of the room.

Not casting shade, but interested in the different ways and perceptions of different tapers.. and always open to new insights.  Different strokes for different folks!

[HighStandDave]

Good to hear it worked out well.

Being such a narrow hall with a tiny stage and 95% of the crowd in front of me instead of virtually anyone on the sides, XY was absolutely the way to go at this venue. I think XY is slept on at times. It has its place. Last night was one such occasion.

Interesting, can you expound on that?  Why absolutely the way to go there?  Your assuredness really interests me because I'd go the opposite route, based on each of the reasons you mention!

Well, here's my line of thought here... XY, especially at 90 degrees is a very center-focused sound, obviously. Since I was so far back, the stage was so narrow and almost the entire audible crowd was dancing right in the front, I really wanted to focus in on all that which was directly in front of me. See my photo attachment to maybe "see" what I was dealing with. I was kinda locked into where I was located in the venue. I would have loved to be much closer up front, but my biggest fear when taping is that some drunk person is gonna accidentally kick or step on a leg of my stand. So by isolating myself to a location where there's less foot traffic, in such a tiny watering hole, it's worth it to me to have a slightly more distant capture than to chance it by attempting to get down front. In essence, anything the mics picked up was almost entirely right in front of me. Had I ran DIN, the stereo image may have skewed a bit since the stage is butted up against the right side of the room, with a hallway on the left leading to the bathrooms. I very briefly considered switching from XY to ORTF but I didn't think I'd have time. I was cutting it pretty close. So... yeah. Doing PAS... meh. They have three 12" drivers hung from the ceiling, and I'm not super familiar with how they even mix in this venue for shows. The drummer had OH mics on his kit, but I think they were for recording purposes. I was informed that there's a multitrack in the making of this show. So given several variables, plus my location, I just felt that XY90 was kosher for this. My next bet could have been DIN, but XY90 is so ridiculously easy and reliable to setup. Cold rainy night, late arrival, a few shots in me... XY90 took the cake. In all honesty, I favor XY over M/S. M/S feels too much like a trick hack to me. Too novelty. Neither it nor XY are even legit realistic stereo like ORTF/A-B anyway, but I just find XY to be the Toyota Corolla of stereo techniques. It'll never wow, but it will never let you down.

Let your ears be the judge... Llama gave me permission to share it earlier: https://www.archive.org/details/llama2025-11-19

[VibrationOfLife]

I struggled with this very thing tonight.  I respect your decision.

At the end of it all, you recorded history.  The nail biters can suck a fart.

Happy taping!

[kuba e]

I also record from a greater distance. I have a habit of thrift from old days and buy cheaper tickets. And I also don't want to press in the front.

There are three ways to proceed with recording. You can take it purely according to your feeling, set something and enjoy recording. Then you can study the theory and try to follow it. And the third option is somewhere in between. It's also good to experiment. What Gutbucket and other friends advise here is useful. It can make an experimentation easier. I will only briefly answer a few sentences from your previous post.

Had I ran DIN, the stereo image may have skewed a bit since the stage is butted up against the right side of the room, with a hallway on the left leading to the bathrooms.

Microphone configurations affect the width of the stereo image. XY does not have the advantage over DIN or other configurations that it would be more resistant to the shifted sound sources. You can make a mono recording to avoid this problem. For a stereo recording, It is always important to aim a pair of microphones into the acoustic center. If you fail and the stereo image is more skewed to one side, it is possible to partially fix it in post-processing.

I very briefly considered switching from XY to ORTF but I didn't think I'd have time. I was cutting it pretty close. So... yeah.

Ortf would make a wider stereo image compared to XY 90. On other hand ortf would record less direct sound in this location. To put it simply, you can imagine that you would point the most sensitive direction of the microphones on the side walls. At the rear, the reverbant ambient will prevail. But every little improvement in the direct/reverberant ratio counts.

Doing PAS... meh. They have three 12" drivers hung from the ceiling, and I'm not super familiar with how they even mix in this venue for shows.

We can only record the sound of the PA and a reverberant ambient in this location.

I favor XY over M/S. M/S feels too much like a trick hack to me.

XY and M/S are the same things. There is no difference between them. Try to change the ratio of the mid and side channels in post-processing in your XY recording. You can change the resulting virtual pattern and the virtual angle of the microphones. The angle and the pattern are tied together. For example, as the side channel is increased in the recording, the angle and directivity of the virtual microphones increases, and vice versa. It"s interesting to play with mid/side in postprocessing.

Let your ears be the judge... Llama gave me permission to share it earlier: https://www.archive.org/details/llama2025-11-19

Thank you for the recording. Personally, I would experiment. Next time I would try PAS and DIN later. Then I would listen to all and decide which configaration I like the most. By doing this, it is possible to develop basic listening skills and ideas. But it"s not necessary, you can set up some configuration and enjoy taping.