omni's for classical music
Chris Schaub
for recording classical ensembles (spaced pair mostly) and solo performers.
I am using a pair of Neumann km-184's as directional/cardiods and am now
looking for good omni's. Opinions? Let's pretend that money is no object.
Thanks.
--
Moisture is the essence of wetness,
and wetness is the essence of beauty.
-- Derek Zoolander
Benjamin Maas
"Chris Schaub" <ch...@schaub.com> wrote in message
> Ok, it's time to buy some more mic's. I want to get a killer pair of
omni's
> for recording classical ensembles (spaced pair mostly) and solo
performers.
> I am using a pair of Neumann km-184's as directional/cardiods and am now
> looking for good omni's. Opinions? Let's pretend that money is no object.
> Thanks.
>
Well... heck if Money is no object, get yourself a pair of Neumann M50's...
Or even better yet, get three so you can do a decca tree.
Realistically, though, for classical work, I'd get something along the lines
of Schoeps CMC6 MK2, Sennheiser MKH 20's, or B&K (now DPA) 4006s. They are
all awesome microphones and all work very well for recording classical
music. They all have their own distinct sound so try to find a pair to
borrow or rent and see which you like.
--Ben
--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com
cvsound
> Ok, it's time to buy some more mic's. I want to get a killer pair of omni's
> for recording classical ensembles (spaced pair mostly) and solo performers.
> I am using a pair of Neumann km-184's as directional/cardiods and am now
> looking for good omni's. Opinions? Let's pretend that money is no object.
> Thanks.
I have never used KM184s, but I have a pair of KM140s. I like the
KM80s better than KM100s; the KM80s sounds more natural and
less-stringent but perhpas a bit loose in the bass; nevertheless, KM83
is a nice omni mic.
Also you might consider DPA (or old B&K) 4003 130 volts microphone. I
have always been able to get decent sound out of it on any instrument,
though not always the best.
I heard a piano trio CD recorded with TLM50s; they sound nice. But
they are rather expensive, and I have never use them personally.
A lot of people prefer Schoeps for classical, but I always feel that
Schoeps mics used in pairs (either ORTF or A-B) create a strange
stereo image in which things tend to focus it the middle of the stereo
image (So far I haven't been able to figure out why it's like that.
Perhaps someone can shed some light on this issue?). I don't like
Schoeps on solo instruments, but I have had nice result using them
recording a Mahler symphony.
Sennheiser are populer, too. But they sound dull and boxy to my ears.
I still can't understand why people like them.
Most tube mics I have heard (Neumann M49s, U47s, M50s, Schoeps M221s,
etc. from recordings) creats sweet sound which is nice and pleasing to
listen to, but I have never thought them as authentic to the original
sound.
Hope these would help.
Eric
Karl Winkler
> for recording classical ensembles (spaced pair mostly) and solo performers.
> I am using a pair of Neumann km-184's as directional/cardiods and am now
> looking for good omni's. Opinions? Let's pretend that money is no object.
> Thanks.
Chris,
You're on the right track to look for omni mics to do classical work.
There are a number of standards out there which are very often chosen
for this type of application, and here's a partial list. What you end
up with should depend on your taste in terms of sound.
DPA 4006
Neumann KM 183/KM 130
Neumann M 150 Tube ( you said price was no object, right?)
Sennheiser MKH20
Schoeps MK2H
I list these because they all have low self noise, provide top level
sound quality, and are well known. There are other models I'm probably
forgetting, but I'm certain that others on this NG will add some
alternatives. Give them a listen and your best choice will become
evident.
Regards,
Karl Winkler
Sennheiser
Richard Kuschel
Josephson has a couple of very interesting omni's.
One uses the Microtech Gefell instrumentation capsule.
Also, check out T.H.E. Microphones.
Some really interesting omni's.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty
Chris Schaub
Karl Winkler <kwin...@sennheiserusa.com> wrote in message
news:779042cf.01120...@posting.google.com...
John La Grou
wrote:
>"Chris Schaub" <ch...@schaub.com> wrote in message news:<0dAO7.1576$zX1.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>...
>> Ok, it's time to buy some more mic's. I want to get a killer pair of omni's
>> for recording classical ensembles (spaced pair mostly) and solo performers.
>> I am using a pair of Neumann km-184's as directional/cardiods and am now
>> looking for good omni's. Opinions? Let's pretend that money is no object.
>> Thanks.
>
>I have never used KM184s, but I have a pair of KM140s. I like the
>KM80s better than KM100s; the KM80s sounds more natural and
>less-stringent but perhpas a bit loose in the bass; nevertheless, KM83
>is a nice omni mic.
I'll second that. IMO, the original 80-series generally sound more
musical than the newer 100- and 180-series. We've got 130's, 140's,
and 184's, but I would gladly trade them for 83's and 84's, though in
fairness I think the newer mics are quieter with better dynamic
range..
>Also you might consider DPA (or old B&K) 4003 130 volts microphone. I
>have always been able to get decent sound out of it on any instrument,
>though not always the best.
And for many sources, especially grand piano, percussive soloists,
ambience retrieval, and pipe organ, the DPA 4003's are often the best
mics in our kit.
>A lot of people prefer Schoeps for classical, but I always feel that
>Schoeps mics used in pairs (either ORTF or A-B) create a strange
>stereo image in which things tend to focus it the middle of the stereo
>image (So far I haven't been able to figure out why it's like that.
>Perhaps someone can shed some light on this issue?). I don't like
>Schoeps on solo instruments,
Interesting. I can't recall experiencing any strange imaging using
Schoeps mics, whether MK-series or old 221's. One downside to using
Schoeps is that they tend to "compress" rather quickly on dynamic
peaks. At least, I call it compression -- it's a distinct change in
timbre with peaks. An engineer I know calls it a "bunching up" of the
program. It's not overt, and sometimes it's even handy to achieve a
certain production goal, but overall the Schoeps are at home just
about anywhere.
>Sennheiser are populer, too. But they sound dull and boxy to my ears.
>I still can't understand why people like them.
Again highly source dependent. One engineer I know uses four
Sennheiser MKH-20's exclusively on large concert bands and gets the
most consistently beautiful depth and richness I've ever heard. The
MKH-series tend towards a thicker timbre, but not overly so. I
certainly wouldn't call them "dull" or "boxy." In fact, if I had to
pick a desert island multi-pattern stereo front-end, it would a pair
of MKH-80's.
>Most tube mics I have heard (Neumann M49s, U47s, M50s, Schoeps M221s,
>etc. from recordings) creats sweet sound which is nice and pleasing to
>listen to, but I have never thought them as authentic to the original
>sound.
I wish someday I can make a recording that is truly "authentic to the
original sound" ! Until then, I'm just a well meaning journalist at
the original concert -- taking notes that hopefully convey to a
listener some of the emotion and energy present at the event.
Anyway, to address Chris's original question, I think Karl Winkler's
list is a good starting point. To it, I would add David Josephson's
600-series mics. If you want to get adventurous, you might also look
at some ribbons (Royer, AEA, etc..). Between all those DPA's, Schoeps,
Sennheisers, DJ's, and Neumanns, you'll be picking from a list that
comprises the majority of today's classical front-end.
JL
Scott Dorsey
"Chris Schaub" <ch...@schaub.com> wrote in message
> Ok, it's time to buy some more mic's. I want to get a killer pair of
omni's
> for recording classical ensembles (spaced pair mostly) and solo
performers.
> I am using a pair of Neumann km-184's as directional/cardiods and am now
> looking for good omni's. Opinions? Let's pretend that money is no object.
> Thanks.
I hate spaced omnis. But you can get a pair of the Josephson Series Six
mikes with the optional IEC Type I measurement capsule modification, then
stick B&K measurement capsules on the things. Flattest thing around, great
detail.
>Well... heck if Money is no object, get yourself a pair of Neumann M50's...
>Or even better yet, get three so you can do a decca tree.
I used M50s for years, and I'll take the B&K measurement stuff over them
any day.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Bob Olhsson
<j...@jps.net> wrote:
>I'll second that. IMO, the original 80-series generally sound more
>musical than the newer 100- and 180-series. We've got 130's, 140's,
>and 184's, but I would gladly trade them for 83's and 84's, though in
>fairness I think the newer mics are quieter with better dynamic
>range..
A friend of mine who makes marvelous acoustical recordings has observed
that he always prefers ONE transformer either in the mike or in the
mike preamp.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing and Mastering
615.352.7635 FAX 615.356.2483 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they thought possible!
Rob Adelman
Bob Olhsson wrote:
>
>
> A friend of mine who makes marvelous acoustical recordings has observed
> that he always prefers ONE transformer either in the mike or in the
> mike preamp.
If price is no object how about a pair of S.P. modified C-12's set to
omni?
Rob Adelman
Richard Kuschel
>From: Rob Adelman rade...@mn.rr.com
>Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2001 12:12 PM
>Message-id: <3C0BCEB1...@mn.rr.com>
>
>
>
>If price is no object how about a pair of S.P. modified C-12's set to
>omni?
>
>
>
>Rob Adelman
>
>
Because C-12's aren't true omni's. They might work better in some situations,
but the pattern isn't really omni and the diaphragm is too large for a really
focused sound.
David Satz
> If price is no object how about a pair of S.P. modified C-12's set
> to omni?
The usual reason for preferring spaced omnis is the quality of
spaciousness, the "swimmy" stereo imaging and the DEEP BASS
response.
The sense of spaciousness comes in large part because with a
pressure transducer the pickup of low-frequency energy can be
completely flat down to the lowest audio frequencies (down to
0.1 Hz if you want), and because with a spaced pair, the low-
frequency energy will have relatively low correlation between
channels.
The problem with the omni setting of large-diaphragm multi-
pattern condensers is that they are only halfway to being
pressure transducers. At the lowest audio frequencies their
response is attenuated and their directional capsules (though
summed in phase to produce a synthetic "omni" pattern) miss
a significant amount of reflected low-frequency sound energy.
This is true even if the signals are equalized electronically for
flat on-axis bass response; a pressure-gradient capsule simply
won't pick up as much diffuse low-frequency sound energy as
an equivalent pressure microphone would. The effect is most
marked with a pure pressure-gradient (figure-8) microphone,
but it still is valid for a cardioid or a back-to-back pair of them,
which is what nearly all electrically switched multi-pattern mikes
actually contain.
Further, the on-axis frequency response curves for this type of
microphone generally include a certain amount of proximity
effect which will be absent in a spaced-omni setup. So even the
on-axis low-frequency response of such mikes is generally not
as good as most people would suppose, for more distant pickup.
If you want the real spaced-omni effect, the best way to get it is
with real pressure transducers. Nearly all such microphones are
small-diaphragm because of the high-frequency pattern problems
that are unavoidable with larger capsules. Even the famous and
very interesting Neumann M 50, and its modern-day successors,
are small-diaphragm pressure microphones. They are often talked
about as if they were large-diaphragm, but it is not so.
I'd generally agree with the list of candidates that Karl Winkler
posted here; I even agree with his taste in Schoeps microphones.
I'd also like to mention (just so that it is mentioned at least once
by someone) that even though a microphone may be an "omni,"
you still have to take care where you aim it. At high frequencies,
any omnidirectional microphone of the size which one usually
encounters in serious music recording will be more sharply
directional than any shotgun microphone ever made.
OK, you probably knew that, but just in case someone else didn't ...
--best regards
Rob Adelman
David Satz wrote:
>
> "Rob Adelman" <rade...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > If price is no object how about a pair of S.P. modified C-12's set
> > to omni?
>
> OK, you probably knew that, but just in case someone else didn't ...
Nope, that's why I asked.
Thanks,
Rob
Daniel Fuchs
Karl Winkler wrote:
>
> DPA 4006
> Neumann KM 183/KM 130
> Neumann M 150 Tube ( you said price was no object, right?)
> Sennheiser MKH20
> Schoeps MK2H
>
I have to add the AKG CK62. It is an excellent omni capsule. (I use it with a C 460,
alternatively C 480)
I had them modified for diffuse field. I've seen the frequency response and it goes
straight up all the way to 20 k and doesn't go down again before 20k like some others do
(Can post a link to the graph).
I very much prefer the AKGs to MKH20. The Sennheiser sound a bit rough and dry at times to
my ears, especially the reverb sounds a bit strange. Neumann KM 83 are almost a bit too
soft and silky for my taste.
I just love the lively, bright (not overbright), yet round and even sound of the AKGs...
Ok, I'll admit, I haven't tried Schoeps... ;-) And I would really like to hear the M 150.
Here's another interesting one: MTG (Microtech Gefell) M 296. It only has a very slight
2dB treble boost, but it's a very good sounding mic. True pressure transducer.
MTG also makes the new M 960, a diffuse-field large-diaphragm omni, also pressure
transducer. I found the concept appealing and tried them, only to find that they sound
overbright and very, err... restless and nervous, I would say... Hard to describe. Very
unpleasant, anyway...
Daniel
PS: For crying out loud, it's "omnis", not "omni's"... There is no such thing as a
plural-apostrophe... Drives me mad...
Garthrr
writes:
< At high frequencies,
>any omnidirectional microphone of the size which one usually
>encounters in serious music recording will be more sharply
>directional than any shotgun microphone ever made.
>
>OK, you probably knew that, but just in case someone else didn't ...
I must confess I didnt know that. I knew that omni's are somewhat directional
at higher freqs but I was not aware they are that much so. How high does the
frequency have to be for an omni mic to become more directional than a shotgun?
Garth
"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney
Karl Winkler
> What do you think of the Earthworks QTC-1 ?
>
Chris, I've not personally used the QTC-1 so I can't comment directly
on this microphone. But it's telling that the responses to your post
all included approximately the same list of mics, and the QTC-1 wasn't
among them.
The bottom line is still the sound you get at the end of the day. If
you've heard recordings done with these mics that you really like, or
have tried them and feel that they will do the job for you, then
there's no reason not to consider them.
Karl Winkler
Sennheiser
John La Grou
>At high frequencies,
>any omnidirectional microphone of the size which one usually
>encounters in serious music recording will be more sharply
>directional than any shotgun microphone ever made.
Hi David,
Nice to see you here. I'm wondering about a DPA 4003 with nose cone.
DPA's polar graph suggests flat response to around +/- 3dB in any
direction at any frequency. Is this correct?
JL
Richard Kuschel
>Daniel
>
>
>PS: For crying out loud, it's "omnis", not "omni's"... There is no such thing
>as a
>plural-apostrophe... Drives me mad...
>
>
I don't think that it's a plural apostrophe.
It is a big contraction for omni(directional microphone)s.
But I could be wrong.
Also, mic'd for microphoned (slang). I think that miced has something to do
with rodents.
Daniel Fuchs
>
> It is a big contraction for omni(directional microphone)s.
But we say "an omni" if we talk about just one... It's a common term. For plural, just add
"s".... ;-)
And apostrophe-abuse is just becoming a real pain these days...
Daniel
>
> But I could be wrong.
>
> Also, mic'd for microphoned (slang). I think that miced has something to do
> with rodents.
>
> Richard H. Kuschel
> "I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty
--
===============================================================
SEK媛 Germany
Schwabenstr. 27
74626 Bretzfeld
Germany
Phone : +49 (0)7946 776 14
Fax. : +49 (0)7946 776 60
eMail : d...@sekd.de
Internet : www.sekd.de
===============================================================
JnyVee
Like all the multitudinous 'exceptions' in the englishg language to any
rule you pick, whether it;'s how you make a plural from a noun to the
phrase-construction or whatever.. this one has evolved as a SHORTHAND
cheat... yes it's technically incorrect but to avoid reading confusion,
one gets used to it unless youlr proofreading a textbook.
there IS no gerund form of MICROPHONE and the abbreviation of it
("mic") would be pronounced like the proper name "MICK" on reading it,
the proper SOUNDING word would of course be 'mike' but that's a proper
name and can;t work, besides it isnt a 'mikerophone'
'miced' is indeed pronounced like the plural of 'mouse' and so that
stinks...
... so things are already dead-wrong before the process gets STARTED.
until folks stop being lazy talkers and typers and get into the
now-15-years-gone habit of regularly using proper english in everyday
conversation (HA!) I think we're stuck with this kind of crap.
In article <20011204100105...@mb-cs.aol.com>,
rickp...@aol.com (Richard Kuschel) wrote:
--
<Help Keep The Net Emoticon-Free>
JnyVee
wrote:
> > I don't think that it's a plural apostrophe.
> >
> > It is a big contraction for omni(directional microphone)s.
>
> But we say "an omni" if we talk about just one... It's a common term. For
> plural, just add
> "s".... ;-)
>
> And apostrophe-abuse is just becoming a real pain these days...
>
> Daniel
Ok.. what's an (as it looks in print) 'omniss'?
or a 'mick'
or ... whatever
get used to it, and if you don;t like the contraction ( and yours
aren;t any better for the same-caliber of grammatical reasons) then
WRITE THE PHRASE OUT.
Tell us where you'd place a pair of omni microphones,
Daniel Fuchs
JnyVee wrote:
>
>
> get used to it, and if you don;t like the contraction ( and yours
I don't see it as a contraction... There are too many examples of "photo's", "video's",
"tapedeck's", "Friday's" "lot's of..." etc. etc. out there. Its a plain plural-s, and
people think that has an apostrophe like the genitive-s...
Daniel
Garthrr
>I don't see it as a contraction... There are too many examples of "photo's",
>"video's",
>"tapedeck's", "Friday's" "lot's of..." etc. etc. out there. Its a plain
>plural-s, and
>people think that has an apostrophe like the genitive-s...
>
>Daniel
Ok fine, I stand corrected. Now Daniel, maybe you can tell me at what frequency
an omni microphone becomes more directional than a shotgun (not that I doubt
the truth of this) assuming you're as knowledgable about mics as you are about
grammar.
Oh, by the way, not to pick nits but isn't it technically incorrect to start a
sentence with the word "and" as you did here?
<<And apostrophe-abuse is just becoming a real pain these days...
Daniel>>
Sorry, couldn't resist.
PeterViehoever
>Daniel
>
>
>PS: For crying out loud, it's "omnis", not "omni's"... There is no such thing
>as a
>plural-apostrophe... Drives me mad...
From:
http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/
An apostrophe is also used to form some plurals, especially the plural of
letters and digits. Raoul got four A's last term and his sister got four 6's in
the Olympic ice-skating competition. It is no longer considered necessary or
even correct to create the plural of years or decades or abbreviations with an
apostrophe. He wrote several novels during the 1930s. There are fifteen PhDs on
our faculty. My sister and I have identical IQs. (If you wrote Ph.D. with
periods, you would add an apostrophe before the pluralizing "s": Ph.D.'s) If
the abbreviation ends in "S," it's a good idea to separate this final "S" from
the pluralizing "s" with an apostrophe: SOS's
...just passing it along.
Peter
separated by a common language
Jamie Lamm
for recording classical ensembles (spaced pair mostly) and solo performers.
I have a pair of KM53's which have the same capsule as M50's. I have used
them for live string sections with great success. Also, they make great drum
overheads.
Dean Dydek
> Ok, it's time to buy some more mic's. I want to get a killer pair of omni's
> for recording classical ensembles (spaced pair mostly) and solo performers.
> I am using a pair of Neumann km-184's as directional/cardiods and am now
> looking for good omni's. Opinions? Let's pretend that money is no object.
> Thanks.
Hi,
If you're considering tube mic tone, the Neumann KM53 is a nice
option.
It has the almost exact aluminum capsule and amplifier (AC701)tube as
the Neumann M50/250. I have a pair I'll be selling,...they're
currently at Stephen Pauls being checked out by Tony, they are
upgraded to "C" modifaction and I'll include a spare AC701 along with
the cables and PSU. Email me privately if you're interested.
Thanks,
Dean
Daniel Fuchs
Garthrr wrote:
> Ok fine, I stand corrected. Now Daniel, maybe you can tell me at what frequency
> an omni microphone becomes more directional than a shotgun (not that I doubt
> the truth of this) assuming you're as knowledgable about mics as you are about
> grammar.
I would say there's no rule to that... It depends on the size of the capsule. The smaller
the capsule, the less directional it becomes at high frequencies.
>
> Oh, by the way, not to pick nits but isn't it technically incorrect to start a
> sentence with the word "and" as you did here?
Is it? Maybe. Not in german (my mother tongue), maybe in English? But it would surprise
me.
Daniel
Garthrr
Garth said: >> Oh, by the way, not to pick nits but isn't it technically
incorrect to
>start a sentence with the word "and" as you did here?
>Is it? Maybe. Not in german (my mother tongue), maybe in English? But it
>would surprise
>me.
>Daniel
My understanding is that it is technically incorrect but, of course, it's done
all the time. I think that very example was discussed in the movie "Finding
Forrester" with Sean Connery.
I'm not surprised to learn that you're European, Daniel. I've found that many
European's English is quite good and most American's knowledge of grammar is
even worse than mine.
Kelly Dueck
directional at high frequencies. It's in a new mic called the CO-Z
that I noticed on their site. Anyone know anything about this puppy?
Scott Dorsey
I tried to ask them about this at the AES show, but the fellow there did
not speak very good English and had no documentation.
He claims it is very omni. Whether it is more omni than a B&K with the
bullet diffuser on the front, he didn't know. It's hard to beat the B&K
with the bullet gadget if you really want a very omni omni.
Personally I prefer my omnis a touch less omni.
Garthrr
(Kelly Dueck) writes:
>Sanken claim to have developed the "perfect" omni capsule that is NOT
>directional at high frequencies.
I'm still curious about a statement someone made (now I've forgotten who) that
(most) omni mics become even more directional than a shotgun at certain
frequencies. I understand that the frequency at which this happens varies with
capsule size and probably other things but I'm curious about roughly what range
this happens at. Are we talking about 8kHz or 20k or above human hearing or
what?
David Satz
> I'm still curious about a statement someone made (now I've forgotten who)
that
> (most) omni mics become even more directional than a shotgun at certain
> frequencies. I understand that the frequency at which this happens varies
with
> capsule size and probably other things but I'm curious about roughly what
range
> this happens at. Are we talking about 8kHz or 20k or above human hearing
or
> what?
I'm the one who made the statement, and yes, it depends on
capsule size. Have a look at the published polar patterns of
the big manufacturers and you can see it immediately. It's
around the frequency at which the microphone's smallest
dimension (usually its diameter) is about one-half a sound
wavelength. So for a 1"-diameter microphone, for example,
it will normally be around 6.5 kHz. For smaller microphones
it will be proportionally higher in frequency.
But please, look at some polar diagrams and see what I mean.
For example try http://www.schoeps.de/D/mk-ccm2.html or
http://www.neumann.com/infopool/mics/en/polar/km130pl.gif
Garthrr
writes:
>I'm the one who made the statement, and yes, it depends on
>capsule size. Have a look at the published polar patterns of
>the big manufacturers and you can see it immediately. It's
>around the frequency at which the microphone's smallest
>dimension (usually its diameter) is about one-half a sound
>wavelength. So for a 1"-diameter microphone, for example,
>it will normally be around 6.5 kHz. For smaller microphones
>it will be proportionally higher in frequency.
Thanks David,
That was sort of my guess. I knew that the pattern tightened but I had no idea
it got as tight as a shotgun mic. If the diaphram is half the diameter would
the beaming frequency double and thus be roughly 13k for a 1/2" diaphram? And
would a 1/4" like the Earthworks omnis do it at over 20kHz and thus practically
nullify the effect?
Has anyone ever tried to make a diaphram so small that the beaming thing would
happen above hearing or does noise become so significant that it's a deal
breaker? Or, on the other hand, is the partial directionality of omnis
considered to be a useful side-effect?
Garth~
Ty Ford
wrote:
The Sanken mic had phase problems. I tried it out and found that at certain
angles there was quite a bit of phase shift at HF. The Japanese gent was
very informative. There are two small capsules, sitting 1/2 wavelength apart
(at 16kHz), one on top of the other. An electronic circuit connects the two
capsules and theoretically creates the perfect omni.
My guess is that the phase problems MAY be due to sound entering the
capsule, bouncing off the inside of the headgrille and back on to one of the
capsules. Interesting idea, though.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford's web site is http://www.jagunet.com/~tford.
Check it out for voiceover samples and audio equipment reviews.
Ty Ford
Well, let's make sure were talking about the same stuff here. Most omnis are
directional at high frequencies. Pressure mics (versus pressure difference
mics) are more "omni", but even pressure difference mics begin to perform
like pressure mics above certain frequencies.
Get in front of an omni with cans on and make a SHHHH sound. Move off-axis
and you'll hear exactly where the HF response drops off.
Omni mics don't have the reach of a shotgun. Surprisingly, most shotguns are
more omni at low and mid frequencies, which is why hypers are used in
interior dialog recording. (Unless, of course, you're on a sound stage and
there are no ceilings and minimal walls on the set.)
Kelly Dueck
> Has anyone ever tried to make a diaphram so small that the beaming thing would
> happen above hearing or does noise become so significant that it's a deal
> breaker?
I was wondering if that's what Sanken was attempting with their CO-Z.
>Or, on the other hand, is the partial directionality of omnis
> considered to be a useful side-effect?
>
I think it's at the heart of Bruce Swedien's spaced omni approach to
recording almost everything. As he puts it, he's after real stereo as
opposed to "panned mono" -- uses a lot of tracks, of course -- but you
can't argue with his results!
Eric Toline
Re: omni's for classical music
Group: rec.audio.pro Date: Thu, Dec 6, 2001, 8:25am (EST+5) From:
gar...@aol.com (Garthrr)
Well the omni capsule in the CountrymanB6 lav has to be the smallest
capsule ever. About 1mm in diameter maybe less.
Eric
David L. Rick
> >> Ok, it's time to buy some more mic's. I want to get a killer pair of omni's
> >> for recording classical ensembles (spaced pair mostly) and solo performers.
> >> I am using a pair of Neumann km-184's as directional/cardiods and am now
> >> looking for good omni's. Opinions? Let's pretend that money is no object.
> >> Thanks.
Benjamin Maas at Fifth Circle Audio wrote:
> Realistically, though, for classical work, I'd get something along the lines
> of Schoeps CMC6 MK2, Sennheiser MKH 20's, or B&K (now DPA) 4006s. They are
> all awesome microphones and all work very well for recording classical
> music. They all have their own distinct sound so try to find a pair to
> borrow or rent and see which you like.
Eric at Cysound replied:
> >Also you might consider DPA (or old B&K) 4003 130 volts microphone. I
> >have always been able to get decent sound out of it on any instrument,
> >though not always the best.
>
Then John La Grou <j...@jps.net> wrote:
> And for many sources, especially grand piano, percussive soloists,
> ambience retrieval, and pipe organ, the DPA 4003's are often the best
> mics in our kit.
As you'd expect, the DPA 4003 and 4006 sound very similar, but there
are differences. This summer I put a matched pair of each on the same
stand, and recorded both through a four-channel converter set. I was
recording a concert-grade Steinway from about 12' away. The 4003's had
clearly superior transient response. (It was impressive, but it wasn't
always flattering; we ultimately chose the 4006's to get a softer
attack.) When compared to the 4006's, the 4003's also had something
that sounded to me like intermodulation distortion on complex chords.
Maybe it was something other than IMD, but whatever it was I didn't
like it. I've heard somewhere that the 4003's will sound better on
loud, low-frequency stuff, because there's no transformer to saturate,
but I haven't noticed this personally.
BTW, if you buy 4003's, you owe it to yourself to buy John La Grou's
HV-3 preamp to go with them. (If you buy 4006's, buy a Millennia HV-3
anyway!)
> Anyway, to address Chris's original question, I think Karl Winkler's
> list is a good starting point. To it, I would add David Josephson's
> 600-series mics. If you want to get adventurous, you might also look
> at some ribbons (Royer, AEA, etc..). Between all those DPA's, Schoeps,
> Sennheisers, DJ's, and Neumanns, you'll be picking from a list that
> comprises the majority of today's classical front-end.
I heard a piano recital a Carnagie Hall on Monday, and the performance
was being recorded. I don't know who the recordist was, but his
decision on mics was apparently not to decide. There was a pair of DPA
cardiods in ORTF about three feet out, in line with the hammers. Maybe
five feet behind that, they'd flown in a stereo bar, which had a pair
of DPA omnis AND another pair which might have been Schoeps or
something. Then there was a spaced pair of big silver Neumans
(TLM-170's, maybe?) a couple a feet from the tail. Finally, there was
an unidentifiable pair of pencil mics (either side-address or omnis)
well back in the hall, one on each side.
I guess if you have to pay a union-scale rigger, you might as well
make him work for his money...
David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording
dr...@hach.com
Rob Adelman
"David L. Rick" wrote:
>
David,
I was hoping we would hear from you. I remembered how much you are into
this type of recording.
-Rob
David L. Rick
> I heard a piano recital a Carnagie Hall on Monday, and the performance
> was being recorded. I don't know who the recordist was, but his
> decision on mics was apparently not to decide. There was a pair of DPA
> cardiods in ORTF about three feet out, in line with the hammers. Maybe
> five feet behind that, they'd flown in a stereo bar, which had a pair
> of DPA omnis AND another pair which might have been Schoeps or
> something. Then there was a spaced pair of big silver Neumans
> (TLM-170's, maybe?) a couple a feet from the tail. Finally, there was
> an unidentifiable pair of pencil mics (either side-address or omnis)
> well back in the hall, one on each side.
Oops! I forgot to mention the stereo mic (I couldn't see if it was a
Neumann or an AKG) hung slightly behind the stereo bar. This for a
total of 12 channels. I wonder if its only coincidence that thats how
many channels you can record at 96 kHz on any of several popular hard
disk recorders.