jeesh Teddy, opening up a can of worms here.
I can't write all that I want to as it would be a text book, but here goes. First to answer the direct questions and suppositions:
Yes, most standard mic techniques were DEVELOPED for recording large ensembles or orchestras as in the 1920's and 1930's when recording mediums were becoming tape instead of wire they started to "hear" differences in the way microphones were picking up the sound of live instruments as opposed to just vocal performances. Many of these techniques are actually named because they became the standard of the recording company that used them most often ( NORTF/ORTF was the French Broadcasting standard, DIN and DIN A the Deutsche standard, and the BBC used one that was different than those two!) I am seeking the link for the textbook we used in RTV class at SU in the early 1980's. John Eargle worked for JBL for many years:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0240519612/qid=1149559209/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-2485010-5169753?s=books&v=glance&n=283155Some mic techniques were actually invented for use with PA systems ( Healy, Ambisonics, Soundfield), and others are most useful for live recording such as Binaural or M-S.
That said, as Chris mentioned, recording live PA music mainly comes with limitations based on room acoustics, PA design, and simply the physical charcteristics of the PA. Many modern PA's have been designed to emulate a "Single Point Source" which can be defined as trying to create an amolified sound with siimilar output characteristics to an unamplified performance ( where the "point source" could be an orchestra or ensemble). Since this discussion is to be about mic techniques I will leave the theory and design elements of PA systems for another thread or for someone else.
IMO, you can certainly tell the difference between microphone techniques in an amplified environment when properly set up and using proper comparison methods ( Blind A-B). Of course, the difference in techniques can appear to have more impact with acoustic-only sources because the change in soundstage (width and depth) and impact ( proximity to source), and arrival times (phase response) can be quite remarkable with those type of sources. However, the same differences can be heard in amplified situations.
the limitations to hearing said differences in mic techniques in amplified situations are all of those Teddy mentioned ( miles of cable, impedance factors, electrical/electronic design factors etc) and also those that have to do with room acoustics ( PA systems "couple" to the room they are placed in, especially indoors)[ "coupling" is an engineeering term that correlates to the way a speaker system's frequency and phase output "combines" with the physical nature of the room ( building materials, room geometry, physical vs acoustic space, etc) ]. The PA then "loads" the room and the combination of room acoustics and PA design start fighting as soon as the soundcheck starts! ( and this is before any people ( read body mass= physical impedance) enter the environment)
This in essence is why proper mic technique can save you in live PA situations. An understanding of the commonly used techniques is like a building block in the recordists toolkit. Is it the only block of knowledge needed? No. Practical experience with recording gear and with different set ups and using different techniques also comes in to play.
I can say with certainty that over the years in both scientific and non scientific environments I have experimented with same location/stand set ups of 2 or 3 mic techniques in to identical recorders using identical mediums etc) and have heard astounding differences between say X-Y and Blumlein, or Binaural vs Hyper cardiod.
While it is obvious that what one person hears another may not; especially with live sound and subjective phrases such as, " muddy", "crisp", "clean". "boomy", "focused/unfocused", "soundstage" etc. It is also most obvious to me after all these years of "location recording" that the "location"- meaning room design, PA system design/set up, and configuration of instrument amplifiers and stage microphones- all determine how sweet my recordings sound more than any variation in microphone technique.
Once those factors are evened out ( with say a John Meyer designed PA, or a V-Dosc array) then the differences in microphone techniques for recording amplified sound CAN and do provide dramatically different listening experiences.
http://www.josephson.com/mictech.htmlexcellent index of other resources for stereo microphone techniques. I recommend anything written by Ron Streicher as he is one of the leading Audio Engineeriing Society experts on stereo soundfields.
Topic: Microphone Applications in Acoustic vs Amplified enviroments...Discussion.. (Read 8241 times)