best mics for classical main pair?
jnorman
in live halls. i'm using a pair of km184s in ORTF for most live work,
and use them in a variety of configs in the studio for close micing
flutes, strings, oboes, etc, along with a pair of rode NTK tube mics
(sold my pair of tlm103s after trying the NTKs)for stereo micing of
pianos, pedal harps, etc. i have been considering a pair of the
schoeps cmc6/mk4s to replace/supplement my neumanns, though many folks
have recommended the dpa 4011s. i watched ben maas (fifth circle in
LA) do a job in a small auditorium and he seemed particularly fond of
his akg c426, though he used a pair of ORTF schoeps when he recorded
the performance.
since most of you mention omnis as your most commonly used mics for
classical applications, i would like to explore that a bit more. i am
so familiar and happy with ORTF cardioids that i am hesitant to move
to omnis, even though i know most pros use them for larger scale
classical recordings. my work is very specialized toward small
ensemble groups (including lots of solo and duo material,
violin/piano, flute/harp, etc), and is split about 60/40 in the studio
vs live hall. so i really need a pair of top-end all around mics that
can work as close mics (in a medium-dead studio, 17x24x8'), and as a
stereo pair for live performances in smallish to medium sized venues.
i have heard that given my mediocre studio space, omnis may not be a
good choice, and, again, i have always had great results with ORTF
cardioids for live work, but have not ever used a spaced pair of omnis
(never owned any). should i stick with cardioids (dpa 4011s or schoeps
cmc6/mk4s), or should i just bite the bullet, sell the km184s and buy
a pair of nice omnis? how in the world can i make a decision between
the DPA and the schoeps when i cant test drive them (i'm in salem
oregon)?
i would really appreciate hearing what you've tried, and what you've
learned to prefer over the years in terms of ORTF cards vs spaced
omnis, small capsules vs large, and related topics. thanks. btw, how
nice it is to have a place like this forum where i have the
opportunity to learn from pros like you guys...i appreciate the time
you take to drop in here and share your experience.
P Stamler
in a room with great acoustics, an ORTF cardioid pair will usually sound a lot
better if the room is anything less than stellar. They can also be switched to
XY position if necessary.
That said, I think you'd be happier with the Schoepses than with the KM184s --
smoother top end. Haven't used the dpas, so it isn't fair for me to comment on
'em. I've used the Schoepses and liked them; my main ORTF microphones, though,
are a slightly-modified pair of KM-84s, which have smoother top than the 184s.
Peace,
Paul
Bob Smith
>
> i have heard that given my mediocre studio space, omnis may not be a
> good choice, and, again, i have always had great results with ORTF
> cardioids for live work, but have not ever used a spaced pair of omnis
> (never owned any). should i stick with cardioids (dpa 4011s or schoeps
> cmc6/mk4s), or should i just bite the bullet, sell the km184s and buy
> a pair of nice omnis? how in the world can i make a decision between
> the DPA and the schoeps when i cant test drive them (i'm in salem
> oregon)?
How about selecting the Schoeps CMC6 + MK2 + MK4 capsules. Use omni
capsules when it makes sense, use cardioid when it makes sense.
--
bobs
we organize chaos
Bob Smith - BS Studios
http://www.bsstudios.com/
rsm...@bsstudios.com
James Boyk
Coincident pairs also treat attacks properly, where spaced mikings
misrepresent by broadening or multiplying them. Coinc. pairs also avoid
the comb-filter effects of spaced mikings. Personally, I would use a
Blumlein pair of the best ribbons I could find. If I were using
condensers, I'd think seriously about MS, because most condensers,
because of their off-axis anomalies, don't do Blumlein well. But MS has
the disadvantage of additional processing, which can only degrade the
sound. It's simpler to do Blumlein with ribbons. I happen to feel that
the best ribbons also sound better than any condenser I've heard, but
there are lots of condensers I've not heard.
And with the best mike preamps, of course.
James Boyk
Benjamin Maas
"jnorman" <jnor...@attbi.com> wrote in message ...
> i do lots of small ensemble classical recording both in the studio and
> in live halls. i'm using a pair of km184s in ORTF for most live work,
> and use them in a variety of configs in the studio for close micing
> flutes, strings, oboes, etc, along with a pair of rode NTK tube mics
> (sold my pair of tlm103s after trying the NTKs)for stereo micing of
> pianos, pedal harps, etc. i have been considering a pair of the
> schoeps cmc6/mk4s to replace/supplement my neumanns, though many folks
> have recommended the dpa 4011s. i watched ben maas (fifth circle in
> LA) do a job in a small auditorium and he seemed particularly fond of
> his akg c426, though he used a pair of ORTF schoeps when he recorded
> the performance.
Hey James, nice to see you here... Yes, I love my 426. Yes, I used
Schoeps for that recording you saw me do because I had them and in that
particular room they sound good. Schoeps are great mics and they show
exactly what is there. The problem is with them, if you are in a less than
stellar room, they will show you exactly how crappy that room is.
When I need omnis, I use B&K 4006s... There are a lot of mics out there,
though, that sound good.
> since most of you mention omnis as your most commonly used mics for
> classical applications, i would like to explore that a bit more. i am
> so familiar and happy with ORTF cardioids that i am hesitant to move
> to omnis, even though i know most pros use them for larger scale
> classical recordings. my work is very specialized toward small
> ensemble groups (including lots of solo and duo material,
> violin/piano, flute/harp, etc), and is split about 60/40 in the studio
> vs live hall. so i really need a pair of top-end all around mics that
> can work as close mics (in a medium-dead studio, 17x24x8'), and as a
> stereo pair for live performances in smallish to medium sized venues.
> i have heard that given my mediocre studio space, omnis may not be a
> good choice, and, again, i have always had great results with ORTF
> cardioids for live work, but have not ever used a spaced pair of omnis
> (never owned any). should i stick with cardioids (dpa 4011s or schoeps
> cmc6/mk4s), or should i just bite the bullet, sell the km184s and buy
> a pair of nice omnis? how in the world can i make a decision between
> the DPA and the schoeps when i cant test drive them (i'm in salem
> oregon)?
Omnis can sound great when recording, but I find that I need to me much more
careful when using them than with cardiod mics because they pick up
everything. The advantages of omnis usually include increased low-end
response. If you want just a pair of mics, though, and want an image, you
most likely won't get it with omnis.
> i would really appreciate hearing what you've tried, and what you've
> learned to prefer over the years in terms of ORTF cards vs spaced
> omnis, small capsules vs large, and related topics. thanks. btw, how
> nice it is to have a place like this forum where i have the
> opportunity to learn from pros like you guys...i appreciate the time
> you take to drop in here and share your experience.
You should also look at Sennheiser MKH series, specifically the MKH 40
cardiod mics. They are pristine, clear, very quiet great mics. I find that
they don't revel the limitations of the source material as much as Schoeps
do. The MKH 20s (omnis) are fantastic as well. In the vintage realm of
things, there are some great choices to keep an eye out for. One of my
favorite microphones is the Neumann KM86. It is a small diaphragm 3 pattern
(Cardiod, Fig-8, Omni) side-address mic. The low end seems better on them
than on KM 84s. I've used them in numerous applications and they always
seem to sound good. Something like this may work for you as it will give
you the option of multiple pickup patterns.
One last suggestion: A pair of 414B-ULS mics that have been sent to Jim
Williams at Audio Upgrades for modification. They suck as mics (very
bright) without the mods, but I've been very impressed with the sound
quality after modification. It is much clearer and less colored after his
work.
--Ben
--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com
Peter Larsen
> Omnis can sound great when recording, but I find that I need
> to me much more careful when using them than with cardiod mics
> because they pick up everything. The advantages of omnis usually
> include increased low-end response.
Yes, Yes and Yes. Yes to a lot of not quoted stuff too.
> If you want just a pair of mics, though, and want an image,
> you most likely won't get it with omnis.
??????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- you write so much that is sensible and then that ....
> Benjamin Maas
--
*************************************************************
* This posting handcrafted by Peter Larsen, MCSE *
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
* I subscribe to http://www.spamcop.net *
*************************************************************
Barry Blumenthal
"Peter Larsen" <pla...@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:3CF08FAB...@mail.tele.dk...
> Benjamin Maas wrote:
> > If you want just a pair of mics, though, and want an image,
> > you most likely won't get it with omnis.
>
> ??????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> - you write so much that is sensible and then that ....
>
> > Benjamin Maas
Maybe he's referring to the sort of strange U-shaped soundstage usually
captured when using a pair of spaced omnis. To be honest, I'm not wild
about using spaced omnis as a stereo pair for that reason; maybe I just
suck, but I'm never happy with the imaging, either. On the other hand, a
pair of baffled (Jecklin disc) omnis in the right spot in the right hall can
be stunning in it's combination of natural soundstage and accurate bottom
end.
Barry
William Sommerwerck
them very much.
They have the advantage of continuously-variable patterns, simply by turning a
knob on the power supply.
David Satz
> [ ... ] If I were using condensers, I'd think seriously about
> MS, because most condensers, because of their off-axis anomalies,
> don't do Blumlein well.
Following your digression, and hoping that this will be instructive
for the "two-microphone stereo" enthusiasts in the room ...
This is somewhat tricky, but I suspect an error here. The basis of
your assertion seems to be the following set of undisputed facts:
[1] The "M" microphone in an M/S pair is pointed directly at the center
of the sound source. The pickup of direct sound by "M" will normally
be symmetrical--it will extend about as far to the right from the main
axis as it extends to the left. In this way, the good on-axis response
of the "M" microphone is used to the greatest extent possible.
[2] In X/Y, the microphones are angled away from the center of the main
sound source. Each microphone exposes its "inner flank" to the sound
source. The direct sound is picked up at a range of angles that is
not at all symmetrical with respect to each microphone's main axis.
For example, the left mike may be picking up direct sound from a range
of, say, 15 degrees on the left through 105 degrees on the right, while
for the right microphone it is the other way around. More of the direct
sound is being picked up way off axis where the typical cardioid has a
"bathtub-shaped" response, with significant peaks in both the low- and
high-frequency regions.
(People seem to expect a microphone's high-frequency response to roll
off off-axis, but that's true as a rule only for pressure transducers.
With cardioids, there is a stronger tendency for high-frequency peaks
to occur, though it depends on the microphone and the precise angle of
sound incidence.)
If a sound is far off-axis for one cardioid, it will tend to be nearly
on-axis for the other one (and vice versa). The brighter pickup of any
one sound event will thus tend to occur in the channel where you really
_don't_ want it to occur for the sake of clear stereo imaging.
Based on all this, M/S seems likely to give better results than an X/Y
setup made with cardioids.
(It should be mentioned that the "M/S equivalent" of an X/Y setup with
cardioids would not have a cardioid "M" microphone. Assuming equal
on-axis sensitivity, an M/S pair with a cardioid "M" microphone would
yield the rough equivalent of an X/Y pair of hypercardioids. To match
an X/Y pair of cardioids as closely as possible in M/S, you'd probably
use a "wide cardioid" microphone for "M". -- Of course you can also get
some latitude by varying the gain of the signals before matrixing--and
in reality, microphones with different directional pattern often have
different sensitivity as well. But in my experience there's only so
far you can vary those gains and still have a believable stereo image.)
[3] The underlying assumption here _must_ be that the "S" microphone
is neutral enough--close enough to having a perfect figure-8 pattern
at all audio frequencies--that its off-axis response anomalies don't
have to be worried about. Otherwise, we'd better start considering the
specific effects of the "S" microphone's shortcomings whenever we try
to compare X/Y with M/S.
But if that's so (and I think that it is in practice), then I say
there would be no inherent sonic advantage to our transforming a
Blumlein pair into its equivalent M/S pair (i.e. rotating the pair
by 45 degrees and adding a matrix to the outputs).
This isn't "just theoretical." The best available small condenser
and ribbon figure-8 microphones have quite consistent directional
response across the audio range, at least up to 7 or 8 kHz. Their
diffuse-field frequency response parallels their on-axis response
_much_ more closely than with any cardioid. This is so especially
at low frequencies, but also toward the top of the spectrum.
(It's a continuum, by the way; hyper- and super-cardioids lie between
cardioids and figure-8s in this respect. That's one reason to prefer
hyper- and super-cardioids over cardioids in X/Y setups, though there
are many variables to consider when making that choice.)
To sum up, I think that what you said is nearly always true _when the
"M" microphone has a pattern other than bi-directional_. However, if
the proposed "M" microphone is of a type with a good enough figure-8
pattern to warrant its use as an "S" microphone, then your concern with
its off-axis response anomalies should not be a logically strong reason
to prefer M/S over a Blumlein pair--or else your assumptions about its
adequacy for "S" channel use would be logically undermined as well.
Do you see the fallacy that I'm getting at here?
--best regards
(and also, "whew, sorry that took so long to explain")
David Satz
> If I were using condensers, I'd think seriously about MS,
> because most condensers, because of their off-axis anomalies,
> don't do Blumlein well.
I thought of a much simpler way to make my point: Both M/S and
Blumlein approaches depend on highly consistent bi-directional
patterns across the audio frequency range. If anything, M/S has
_more_ stringent requirements than Blumlein in this respect. M/S
is anything but a safe haven for deficient figure-8 microphones.
If a figure-8 mike has a consistent enough polar pattern to use for
the "S" mike in an M/S pair, then in that respect it's good enough
for Blumlein, too. But if it's not good enough for Blumlein, then
it surely wouldn't be a good enough "S" mike for M/S.
--The whole "off-axis anomalies" argument for M/S makes sense where
other "M" microphone patterns are concerned, however. Folks may
want to slog through my (long) previous message for details.
James Boyk
anomalies of condenser mikes. Blumlein won't. On the other hand,
Blumlein works beautifully with ribbons (because they don't have those
anomalies; or rather, have them at much higher frequencies where they
don't annoy); and Blumlein done this way saves the additional processing
of MS (the sum/diff. circuitry) and thus avoids the sonic degradation
inherent in that processing. That's all I was saying.
James Boyk
James Boyk
> > Benjamin Maas wrote: If you want just a pair of mics, though, and want an image, you most likely won't get it with omnis.
> ...you write so much that is sensible and then that...
Do you mean that spaced omnis *can* give a precise stereo image? Sorry,
no. Or rather, wide-spaced omnis are hopeless, image-wise. (Listen to
the stereo miking demo CD from my lab, if you know someone who has it.)
Close-spaced omnis can give quite a nice spatial feel, and if *very*
cleverly done, can be acceptable image-wise if you don't listen
critically; but as they get closer and closer, they of course get closer
to being mono.
James Boyk
Scott Dorsey
>
>since most of you mention omnis as your most commonly used mics for
>classical applications, i would like to explore that a bit more. i am
>so familiar and happy with ORTF cardioids that i am hesitant to move
>to omnis, even though i know most pros use them for larger scale
>classical recordings. my work is very specialized toward small
>ensemble groups (including lots of solo and duo material,
>violin/piano, flute/harp, etc), and is split about 60/40 in the studio
>vs live hall. so i really need a pair of top-end all around mics that
>can work as close mics (in a medium-dead studio, 17x24x8'), and as a
>stereo pair for live performances in smallish to medium sized venues.
>i have heard that given my mediocre studio space, omnis may not be a
>good choice, and, again, i have always had great results with ORTF
>cardioids for live work, but have not ever used a spaced pair of omnis
>(never owned any). should i stick with cardioids (dpa 4011s or schoeps
>cmc6/mk4s), or should i just bite the bullet, sell the km184s and buy
>a pair of nice omnis? how in the world can i make a decision between
>the DPA and the schoeps when i cant test drive them (i'm in salem
>oregon)?
I can't stand spaced omnis, but I like baffled omnis a lot.
My suggestion is that you get a set of microphones with both a cardioid
and an omni capsule. Then try them.
The DPAs are great and so are the Schoeps. So is the Josephson 606 and
the Sennheiser MKH stuff (although the MKH series mikes won't let you
swap capsules, there is a variable pattern one in the series). And you
need to test drive them.
Most places will let you rent a pair of mikes for a weekend to try them
out. I don't think you'll go wrong with any of these mikes, per se, but
you might like one more than the other. I keep the MKH stuff and the
older B&K stuff and the Josephsons all in my kit and in some rooms I use
one and in other rooms with other groups I use another.
>i would really appreciate hearing what you've tried, and what you've
>learned to prefer over the years in terms of ORTF cards vs spaced
>omnis, small capsules vs large, and related topics. thanks. btw, how
>nice it is to have a place like this forum where i have the
>opportunity to learn from pros like you guys...i appreciate the time
>you take to drop in here and share your experience.
Large diaphragm capsules are weird off-axis. In the case of omnis, you
can use this to your advantage in something like a Decca tree, but in
most cases this is a serious, serious problem for area miking.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Steve McLain
> Blumlein done this way saves the additional processing
> of MS (the sum/diff. circuitry) and thus avoids the sonic degradation
> inherent in that processing.
You have mentioned this sonic degradation issue of M/S in a number of
threads. Could you explain what you mean? What is the cause of hte
degradation. Are you talking about problems from using sum and
difference with two different type mics for the M and S, or do you
believe this occurs in a Blumfield pair with identical figure 8's that
is rotated to give an M/S configuration?
--
to email me use: mclainusenet AT comcast DOT net
James Boyk
M/S in a number of threads. Could you explain what you mean?....
Simply that M/S requires additional processing, which always degrades
sound quality.
James Boyk
Mike Rivers
> Simply that M/S requires additional processing, which always degrades
> sound quality.
So does any recording process. Sometimes it ends up sounding better
than live, sometimes worse, but always different. Why worry about
something you can't get away from?
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
James Boyk
additional processing, which always degrades sound quality.
> So does any recording process. Sometimes it ends up sounding better than live, sometimes worse, but always different. Why worry about something you can't get away from?
"Any recording process" degrades sound quality: Check. "Sometimes it
ends up sound better than live": Sorry; can't agree; to me, live sounds
radically better than any recording. "Something you can't get away
from": But you *can* get away from the additional processing required by
M/S: Blumlein gets you away from it. People who have tried Blumlein with
condensers criticize it for having a vague center, etc. etc. They are
right! But the problem isn't Blumlein, it's the condensers. Just try it
with good ribbons.
James Boyk
hank alrich
> "Sometimes it
> ends up sound better than live": Sorry; can't agree; to me, live sounds
> radically better than any recording.
I've heard quite a few recordings that sounded to me bettr than the live
performance did and the reason was that the recordist had keen awareness
of the room's conribution and placed the mics in a position that while
unsittable by any human, offered a much better listening point than even
the best seat in the house.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
Benjamin Maas
>
> > Omnis can sound great when recording, but I find that I need
> > to me much more careful when using them than with cardiod mics
> > because they pick up everything. The advantages of omnis usually
> > include increased low-end response.
>
> Yes, Yes and Yes. Yes to a lot of not quoted stuff too.
>
> > If you want just a pair of mics, though, and want an image,
> > you most likely won't get it with omnis.
>
> ??????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> - you write so much that is sensible and then that ....
>
> > Benjamin Maas
With all due respect, spaced omnis have never provided an accurate image for
me... In a proper room, they can get close, but with coincident and
near-coincident micing you can get very precise imaging of an ensemble.
Sometimes this is a sound that I'm looking for (I have 4 B&K 4006s for doing
this kind of thing), but more often than not, it isn't.
Many have mentioned baffled omnis here as working well in the proper
acoustic environment. I would tend to agree with this because it is giving
some degree of separation and directionality to omnidirectional microphone.
For James's studio, however, I kind of doubt that this would work for him.
As I remember from our conversation some year back or so, he has a rather
dead space that isn't particularly large that he does his classical work in.
In his situation, for the small ensembles that he is talking about, a couple
multi-pattern (ie. KM-86) or cardiod small diaphragm mics would probably do
the best job.
Peter Larsen
> > > If you want just a pair of mics, though, and want an image,
> > > you most likely won't get it with omnis.
> > ??????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > - you write so much that is sensible and then that ....
> Maybe he's referring to the sort of strange U-shaped soundstage
> usually captured when using a pair of spaced omnis.
Ah yes, sometimes the properties of such a pair works for you, sometimes
against you.
> Barry
Peter Larsen
>>> Benjamin Maas wrote: If you want just a pair of mics, though,
>>> and want an image, you most likely won't get it with omnis.
> > ...you write so much that is sensible and then that...
> Do you mean that spaced omnis *can* give a precise stereo image?
Depends on spacing, inter mic angling and depthwise aimin as well as on
stand height.
> Close-spaced omnis can give quite a nice spatial feel,
Close is a relative term that has to be seen in accordance with the
intended perspective and the width of the sound source, it is not an
absolute term. Close per se implies a "too".
> and if *very* cleverly done, can be acceptable image-wise
You will not get a proper image from omnis unless you grasp that it is
only in the brochure they are omnis, also for small membrane mics like
the 4006 or the AKG CK452EB omni aiming the mic within 10 degrees is
critical.
> if you don't listen critically; but as they get closer
> and closer, they of course get closer to being mono.
Again - yes, you know that, but it has to be stressed - close is a
relative term, the deeper the sound source the farther they must be
apart and the wider the sound source the closer they must be.
The same general principle applies for cardioids and as with cardioids
(but to an admittedly lesser extent) inter mic angling is an additional
tool that requires understanding and careful use.
It is vital to understand that with a wide sound source the mics need to
be closer or more parallel to each other or both, there can never be
good stereo unless a continuous center image exists in the rendering of
the room.
Mostly when I disagree with how people deploy omnis it is a hole in the
middle problem (or "near loudspeaker clustering of musicians") that
annoy me, rather than lack of L-R distinction.
> James Boyk
James Boyk
James Boyk
James Boyk
that you think images well. -jb
Peter Larsen
> In fact, I'd be interested to hear a recording made w/ spaced omni's
> that you think images well. -jb
gets email reply
Scott Dorsey
James Boyk <bo...@caltech.edu> wrote:
>Sorry; I can't agree that spaced omnis can give correct imaging.
He was saying closely-spaced omnis, by which I assume he either means
something like a baffled omni configuration, or something like the Decca
tree which takes advantage of the omnis not really being very omni.
James Boyk
> For James's studio, however, I kind of doubt that this would work for him. As I remember from our conversation some year back or so, he has a rather dead space that isn't particularly large that he does his classical work in. In his situation, for the small ensembles that he is talking about, a couple multi-pattern (ie. KM-86) or cardiod small diaphragm mics would probably do the best job.
Oog! Thanks, but no thanks. I hate what cardioids do to imaging and
sound. I use classic Blumlein with ribbons very happily in my
lovely-sounding, moderately live space which is heard on my albums. (Not
my own studio!)
James Boyk
Kurt Albershardt
>>
>>Simply that M/S requires additional processing, which always degrades
>>sound quality.
>
>
> So does any recording process. Sometimes it ends up sounding better
> than live, sometimes worse, but always different. Why worry about
> something you can't get away from?
But if you're recording digitally the impact of phase inversion and
summing in a modern DAW is certainly of far less concern than at least a
dozen other factors I can think of.
Peter Lutek
what ribbons do you use?
-p
"James Boyk" <bo...@caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:3CF3B3EE...@caltech.edu...
Brad Lunde
>
>James Boyk
Aren't you always fighting a hole in the middle or a small image if you get rid
of the hole with spaced omni's? Even with stereo mic, this seems like a big
issue.
I sold a Brauner Stereo VMS to the fellow in Nashville (Dave Sinko) who does a
lot of Sony Classical's titles...loves it. For imaging fans, SoundFields
still seem like they make imaging fans happy.
Brad Lunde
TransAmerica Audio Group, Inc
http://www.transaudiogroup.com
702-365-5155 Voice, 702-365-5145 Fax
US sales for AEA, API, Brauner, Drawmer, FMR, Soundelux & SoundField
Peter Larsen
> Sorry; I can't agree that spaced omnis can give correct imaging.
A commercial example of very well working use of _really_ spaced omnis
is the recording(s) Ed Wodenjak made in Boston Symphony hall, three 0.5"
omnis on a straight line, some 5 feet apart and some 12 feet up.
(Distance estimates from the album cover).
I have always had a soft spot for 3 mic stereo, that was what I started
with when trying to learn recording on my own some 30+ years ago. I used
two MD421's quite far apart and a single MD211 closer to the orchestra
(!) to patch the hole in the middle.
It probably would have worked better, and I would have had fewer
problems with that darn hole in the middle if Sennheiser had written in
humanly understandable form in their MicroRevue's that a 421 HL would
have its output phase-inverted if used with a standard cable wired for a
421 N.
It gets difficult to recommend recordings when one start making them,
because at least I very often would have had them done just a bit
differently, and if so, then they do not illustrate the point I want to
make. And I do not currently have something applicable that I have a
release for that allows me putting it on my web-site, otherwise it would
be simpler.
Lloyd Frank
: In fact, I'd be interested to hear a recording made w/ spaced omni's
: that you think images well. -jb
At this time I don't quite know whether or not this particular
thread is dead, but I wanted to rise to Mr. Boyk's challenge. The series
of recordings produced in the 1950s and 60s by Mercury on its "Mercury
Living Presence" label all extol the virtues of recording with three
spaced omni microphones. The performance of Dvorak's Symphonies no. 7
and 8, with Antal Dorati and the London Symphony, are particularly
stunning examples of what can be done with this configuration. The
microphones used were Telefunken/Schoeps 201s. The soundstage is
completely convincing. I detect no "holes." The orchestra sounds
absolutely gorgeous--richly detailed and lively. For me, the recording
represents an ideal in recording technique, one to which I constantly
strive to achieve.
Now for the caveats: I am a rank amateur recordist. I have
recorded only small classical chamber ensembles; usually I am part of
these ensembles. I am primarily a scholar of music history and a
lifelong dedicated violist. I have learned so much from everyone on this
list, mostly by keeping my "mouth" shut and reading the posts
faithfully. I have more than a passing interest in this thread. I have,
more or less, committed myself to using large diaphram condenser
microphones to record classical ensembles. I do not have enough money to
invest in an array of microphones. Needless to say, I have been getting
quite an education in the various alternative applications to recording
ensembles. Won't anybody more experienced than I put in a good word for
spaced omnis?
Very well, then. I trust I haven't made too big an ass of
myself, and I will return to listening and learning.
Regards,
Lloyd
--
Lloyd Joseph Frank
Department of Music
University of Pennsylvania
lfr...@sas.upenn.edu
James Boyk
small image if you get rid of the hole with spaced omni's? Even with
stereo mic, this seems like a big issue.
Not sure I understand you, but there's no hole in the middle or small
image with M/S or Blumlein with appropriate mikes.
James Boyk
James Boyk
good word for spaced omnis?
From an imaging point of view, it's hard to do so, since they don't
image correctly!
James Boyk
Benjamin Maas
Spaced omnis have a particular sound. The image is not particularly
precise, but more general in nature. There can be some strange things that
happen when omnis are used exclusively.
That said, you can also use this to your advantage. I use spaced omnis for
choral work where I don't want to hear every singer's placement exactly. I
also use it in concert band and brass band recordings where ensemble blend
rather than precise image is what is called for.
All mics are tools that have strengths and weaknesses. To go solely on
Dogma where you can *only* use specific mics is foolish.
--Ben
--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com
"Lloyd Frank" <lfr...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> wrote in
hank alrich
> At this time I don't quite know whether or not this particular
> thread is dead,
Glad to see a new handle here, and may I add: rec.audio.pro threads
never die; sometimes they go dormant like highland frogs in the winter,
but one may never count them out for good.
hank alrich
Aaah... In a universe of subjectivity, "correctly" is an interesting
word.
Carey Carlan
One great example of spaced omnis in my library is a recording of a choir in a
very reverberant church.
A single point recording yielded no soundstage until it was so close that I was
getting individual voices. In order to get some stereo spread and still keep
the blend I set up two omnis about 6 feet apart. There was no hole because
there was no distinct point source.
James Boyk
interesting word.
The stereo miking demo CD produced in my lab (
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/records.html#pr6 out of print, but lots
of people have them) demonstrates what I'm talking about. "Correctly"
means putting sound sources where they should be, and giving each one a
tightly-defined location. Once one has accepted the stereo illusion in
the first place, there's nothing particularly subjective about it. All
listeners agree that only Blumlein and M/S do a good job of lateral
imaging; and of the three Blumleins we tested (ribbons, large-diaphragm
condensers, small-diaphragm condensers), the ribbons do the best job.
(We also found that the same mikings represented depth accurately, but
we did not include those examples on the disk.) No miking is perfect in
this regard, but the good ones were so much better than the others that
any notion of 'subjectivity' in this particular aspect of performance
really does go out the window.
As the CD notes point out, lateral imaging is only one aspect of miking.
But it's interesting to note that coincident miking also eliminates two
other problems caused by spaced miking: the degradation of attacks
(broadening or multiplying) and comb-filter effects. To me, this
combination of virtues is decisive, not as a matter of theory, but as a
matter of what happens to the sound of the piano when I record one of my
recitals.
James Boyk
James Boyk
a recording of a choir in a very reverberant church. A single point
recording yielded no soundstage until it was so close that I was getting
individual voices. In order to get some stereo spread and still keep the
blend I set up two omnis about 6 feet apart. There was no hole because
there was no distinct point source.
Yes, I've heard superb recordings of this nature.
James Boyk
Scott Dorsey
>
> At this time I don't quite know whether or not this particular
>thread is dead, but I wanted to rise to Mr. Boyk's challenge. The series
>of recordings produced in the 1950s and 60s by Mercury on its "Mercury
>Living Presence" label all extol the virtues of recording with three
>spaced omni microphones. The performance of Dvorak's Symphonies no. 7
>and 8, with Antal Dorati and the London Symphony, are particularly
>stunning examples of what can be done with this configuration. The
>microphones used were Telefunken/Schoeps 201s. The soundstage is
>completely convincing. I detect no "holes." The orchestra sounds
>absolutely gorgeous--richly detailed and lively. For me, the recording
>represents an ideal in recording technique, one to which I constantly
>strive to achieve.
I find the imaging on all of these recordings to be really bizarre. They
have a depth that just is not there in the original performance. Yes, they
have excellent tonality but the sense of space is very, very different than
that of a live performance.
Don't forget the Dorati recording of Petrouchka and also the really amazing
recording Mercury made with the Osipov State Balalaika Orchestra. Great
tone, incredible performances, really weird imaging.
If you like the effect, use it, but I don't find it very much like the real
thing.
Lloyd Frank
: I find the imaging on all of these recordings to be really bizarre. They
: have a depth that just is not there in the original performance. Yes, they
: have excellent tonality but the sense of space is very, very different than
: that of a live performance.
: Don't forget the Dorati recording of Petrouchka and also the really amazing
: recording Mercury made with the Osipov State Balalaika Orchestra. Great
: tone, incredible performances, really weird imaging.
: If you like the effect, use it, but I don't find it very much like the real
: thing.
: --scott
I simply don't agree that the imaging is in any sense "weird" or
"bizarre" on the Dvorak recordings. I know the 8th symphony inside out,
backwards and upside down, having performed it numerous times and have
heard it in some of the best halls in the country. Maybe I don't
understand what is meant by "imaging," in which case, I would love to be
enlightened. It is my understanding that we want recordings of classical
symphonies to recreate the effect of being there. Often the "there" is
some wonderful, usually hypothetical "perfect" seat in the audience. If
this premise is the one we are working from, then, again, I say that the
recording of Dvorak's symphony #8 is simply marvelous. I can hear the
individual string sections when they have their prominent passages. I
can hear the woodwind and brass solos. And I hear all of them emanating
from their proper place in the imagined "stage." I realize I am going on
a bit about this subject, but I would like to hear from the experts
what,specifically, is wrong with the imaging created by the process of
recording orchestras with spaced omnis. References to the Dorati
recording would greatly be appreciated.
Scott Dorsey
> I simply don't agree that the imaging is in any sense "weird" or
>"bizarre" on the Dvorak recordings. I know the 8th symphony inside out,
>backwards and upside down, having performed it numerous times and have
>heard it in some of the best halls in the country. Maybe I don't
>understand what is meant by "imaging," in which case, I would love to be
>enlightened. It is my understanding that we want recordings of classical
>symphonies to recreate the effect of being there. Often the "there" is
>some wonderful, usually hypothetical "perfect" seat in the audience. If
>this premise is the one we are working from, then, again, I say that the
>recording of Dvorak's symphony #8 is simply marvelous. I can hear the
>individual string sections when they have their prominent passages. I
>can hear the woodwind and brass solos. And I hear all of them emanating
>from their proper place in the imagined "stage." I realize I am going on
>a bit about this subject, but I would like to hear from the experts
>what,specifically, is wrong with the imaging created by the process of
>recording orchestras with spaced omnis. References to the Dorati
>recording would greatly be appreciated.
There is a depth there that doesn't exist in reality, as if the orchestra
is very deep and stretched out. There is also a sense of very tight spatial
imaging on the sides, which I don't hear in a real hall.
Best way to get a feel for this is with an A-B test.
James Boyk
is to listen to the stereo miking demo CD created by my students & me;
it's cited in another post of mine in this thread. THe omnis on it were
spaced by the 3:1 rule. I've heard some beautiful recordings done with
closer-spaced omnis; but I wouldn't really call them accurately imaged.
Blumlein miking done with ribbons comes as a revelation to people who
have heard only spaced-omni recordings.
With omnis spaced 3:1, sources that are exactly in the middle stay in
the middle; sources at the sides stay at the sides; but everything
between middle and right, or middle and left gets "pulled" out of place.
As one spaces the omnis closer and closer to each other, the imaging
approaches mono; when they are coincident, it *is* mono (except for
minor effects associated with non-perfect matching of the mikes).
If one fills in the middle with a third omni, the result is exactly what
you'd expect: You now have two spaced-omni pairs: Left/Middle, and
Middle/Right. Each of those pairs behaves as described above. In other
words, this does not solve the problem.
Coincident miking also has completely separate benefits, which I've
stated elsewhere in this thread.
If a recording sounds good and satisfies, more power to it! But it
remains true that most people have never heard stereo. They've heard
two-channel mono all their lives, not stereo. Stereo arises from a
certain *relationship* between two microphones; and it's quite a
revelation.
James Boyk
Steve Hilmy
> classical applications, i would like to explore that a bit more. i am
> so familiar and happy with ORTF cardioids that i am hesitant to move
> to omnis, even though i know most pros use them for larger scale
> classical recordings. my work is very specialized toward small
> ensemble groups (including lots of solo and duo material,
> violin/piano, flute/harp, etc), and is split about 60/40 in the studio
> vs live hall. so i really need a pair of top-end all around mics that
> can work as close mics (in a medium-dead studio, 17x24x8'), and as a
> stereo pair for live performances in smallish to medium sized venues.
> i have heard that given my mediocre studio space, omnis may not be a
> good choice, and, again, i have always had great results with ORTF
> cardioids for live work, but have not ever used a spaced pair of omnis
> (never owned any). should i stick with cardioids (dpa 4011s or schoeps
> cmc6/mk4s), or should i just bite the bullet, sell the km184s and buy
> a pair of nice omnis? how in the world can i make a decision between
> the DPA and the schoeps when i cant test drive them (i'm in salem
> oregon)?
>
> i would really appreciate hearing what you've tried, and what you've
> learned to prefer over the years in terms of ORTF cards vs spaced
> omnis, small capsules vs large, and related topics. thanks. btw, how
> nice it is to have a place like this forum where i have the
> opportunity to learn from pros like you guys...i appreciate the time
> you take to drop in here and share your experience.
Faced with some of the same issues I ended up with a pair of Schoeps
CMC6's, an MK8 (figure 8,) and a pair of matched MK21's (wide
cardioids.) The MK8/MK21 as an M-S pair gave me the equivalent of X/Y
with cardioids, and the pair of MK21's wide ORTF or small A-B. These
have been very good (I would say extraordinary actually) and versatile
for small chamber ensembles, solo instruments, and large ensembles
(Choir/Orchestra) alike. If I were faced with having to choose two and
only two capsules I would probably choose the MK21's since they offer
(for me) the best of both worlds - they have better off axis response
than cardioids, and are flat to 30 Hz. You can't use them for classic
ORTF or X/Y however since they are less directional. These days my
favorite configuration is around 30 mm separation at an angle of
100-110 degrees.
Cheers
Steve Hilmy
Barry Blumenthal
> hank alrich wrote: > ...In a universe of subjectivity, "correctly" is an
> interesting word.
>
> The stereo miking demo CD produced in my lab (
> http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/records.html#pr6 out of print, but lots
> of people have them) demonstrates what I'm talking about. "Correctly"
> means putting sound sources where they should be, and giving each one a
> tightly-defined location. Once one has accepted the stereo illusion in
> the first place, there's nothing particularly subjective about it. All
> listeners agree that only Blumlein and M/S do a good job of lateral
> imaging;
All listeners?!? Blumlein does do a good job. ONLY Blumlein? ALL
listeners?!? No. Especially when we're talking lateral imaging. ORTF and
NOR both do a nice job w/ lateral imaging. The best imaging from a PAIR of
mics, in my experience, both lateral AND front to back, is with a
well-placed Jecklin disc (baffled omnis). I do like a Blumlein
configuration, and admit that I don't have a pair of excellent ribbon mics
to implement it properly. With a pair of AT-4050 mics switched to figure of
8 pattern and mounted one above the other, the results are suprisingly good.
The 8 pattern on those mics is by far the least colored of the patterns
available on that mic, but they probably aren't in the same league as the
mics you're using, James... or maybe they are. I don't recall what mics
you're referencing. In any case, that was my favorite technique for
recording "classical" (I hate that term, but I don't like "legit" either..
as a violinist/violist/jazz pianist/orchestral educator, every term offends
one of my occupations.. <g>) for the reasons you state; excellent imaging,
believable depth, and a realistic sense of space around the performers.
Then I picked up a good pair of small cap omnis, built a disc, and...
well.... not even close. Haven't used the blumlein since. This is superior
in every aspect, at least with the mics I have. Tell me more about your
ribbons...
Barry
James Boyk
jb
Barry Blumenthal
"Benjamin Maas" <ben...@fifthcircle.com> wrote in message
news:QVjJ8.7642$861.3...@typhoon1.we.ipsvc.net...
>
> Spaced omnis have a particular sound. The image is not particularly
> precise, but more general in nature. There can be some strange things
that
> happen when omnis are used exclusively.
>
> That said, you can also use this to your advantage. I use spaced omnis
for
> choral work where I don't want to hear every singer's placement exactly.
I
> also use it in concert band and brass band recordings where ensemble blend
> rather than precise image is what is called for.
<snip>
I used a pair of spaced omnis, because that's all I had with me when a
colleague asked me to grab a quick recording of a dress rehearsal, on a wind
ensemble. Really came out awful, and I have no clue why. I, too, thought
that, although the imaging wouldn't be what I'd like, I WOULD get the blend
you mentioned, and a good overall representation of the groups overall tone
and balance. Not even close. Instruments that, in the hall, sounded
balanced within the ensemble, stuck out like crazy. Particularly
problematic were the orchestral bells on full stage right; they sounded like
they were being played right on top of the mic. Why? This was a 50-piece
wind ensemble, setup about 8 feet back from the apron of the stage. The
mics were placed about another 10-12 feet out into the hall from the apron,
elevated above the ensemble approx. 10 feet, and spaced about 12' apart (the
band was spread quite wide on stage.. perhaps this is where I erred).
I'm obviously unfamiliar with using a pair of spaced omnis.. I've never
liked the soundstage captured by the technique on larger respected releases,
so I figured I certainly couldn't do any better with it. If and when I'm
forced to use it again.. can someone give me some hints as to what might
have caused the bell anomoly, based on the facts above?
Oh... someone added to the thread that spaced omnis don't have a hole in the
middle, and can image wonderfully, but then sited the three mic technique
from the Mercury Presence series. Yes, I like those.. but that's not a
"classical main PAIR," which is what I thought we were discussing. If we're
talking about three omnis, then I concur.. that can sound quite good.
Barry
John La Grou
wrote:
> I simply don't agree that the imaging is in any sense "weird" or
>"bizarre" on the Dvorak recordings. I know the 8th symphony inside out,
>backwards and upside down, having performed it numerous times and have
>heard it in some of the best halls in the country. Maybe I don't
>understand what is meant by "imaging," in which case, I would love to be
>enlightened. It is my understanding that we want recordings of classical
>symphonies to recreate the effect of being there. Often the "there" is
>some wonderful, usually hypothetical "perfect" seat in the audience. If
>this premise is the one we are working from, then, again, I say that the
>recording of Dvorak's symphony #8 is simply marvelous. I can hear the
>individual string sections when they have their prominent passages. I
>can hear the woodwind and brass solos. And I hear all of them emanating
>from their proper place in the imagined "stage." I realize I am going on
>a bit about this subject, but I would like to hear from the experts
>what,specifically, is wrong with the imaging created by the process of
>recording orchestras with spaced omnis. References to the Dorati
>recording would greatly be appreciated.
>
>Regards,
>
>Lloyd
>
>Lloyd Joseph Frank
>Department of Music
>University of Pennsylvania
>lfr...@sas.upenn.edu
Lloyd et al,
There is nothing inherently "wrong" with any conventional two-mic
orchestra recording technique. The way some people here are holding up
one technique religiously over another, you would think there's "only
one way" to achieve our artistic goals. It ain't so. Every technique
has its strengths and weaknesses.
Personally, I've found ribbons in Blumlein give the orchestra a
harder, flatter, somewhat less musical sound. Great for L-R
positioning, but murder on diffuse field timbre and depth. On the
other hand, Blumlein condensors are my preferred (first try) method
for main pair on small acoustic ensemble. I've also been spreading
Royer ribbons AB on concert band recently with favorable results.
My favorite 2-mic orchestral technique remains as a pair of small
diaphragm omnis in relatively close AB. Yes, there is a minor tradeoff
in absolute L-R positioning, but the sense of "being there" WRT
timbre, depth, air, and space greatly outweighs this tradeoff, in my
opinion.
Caveat -- this applies to the halls I work in most often (Freeborn
Hall in Davis, Sacramento Symphony Hall, Crest Theatre, and a few of
the larger churches). Mic technique success is very much "hall
dependent," and in other halls Blumlein ribbons might be an ideal
choice for large ensemble.
John La Grou @ Millennia Media
http://www.mil-media.com
p.s.: I'm looking forward to seeing everyone at the Tape-Op Conference
this weekend at the Crest Theatre in Sacramento
p.p.s.: GO KINGS!!!
Kurt Albershardt
>
> The stereo miking demo CD produced in my lab (
> http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/records.html#pr6 out of print, but lots
> of people have them)
You keep alluding to this unavailable disc. I'd like to listen to it
and have emailed you asking for info on reprints but perhaps you'd give
the okay for someone to burn me a CD-R?
Chris Hornbeck
wrote:
>In fact, I'd be interested to hear a recording made w/ spaced omni's
>that you think images well. -jb
Of course this doesn't fit anyone's intended meaning, but for me,
*any* mono recording images well. The improvement in the old
Mercury's and "shaded dogs" goes beyond better mono cutter-heads,
etc. I just hear the orchestra better. Harry Pearson's visual
analogies to sound reproduction have gone on too long IMHO.
Or to put it another way, "imaging" is so inherently flawed
conceptually as to have significance only in the "toys for boys"
realm.
The image is *only* inside yer head.
Fire when ready, Gridley.
Chris Hornbeck, Guyville
guyville{at}aristotle{dot}net
L David Matheny
news:ad5r2p$6sd$1...@panix2.panix.com...
<snip>
> There is a depth there that doesn't exist in reality, as if the
> orchestra is very deep and stretched out. There is also a
> sense of very tight spatial imaging on the sides, which
> I don't hear in a real hall.
>
behind the conductor? That's what should be reproduced.
Scott Dorsey
No, I would hear even less of it up there.
But frankly, I don't want a recording to sound like it does above and
behind the conductor because that's not where I listen to it in the hall.
A lot of nice blending effects that work out in the audience don't work
when you get so close that you lose the sense of ensemble (and the podium
is way too close for that).
James Boyk
arrangements--Blumlein, ORTF, or whatever--they may be talking about
completely different things. This happens for two reasons. I already
knew one reason: a change of diaphragm shape or size affects
performance. If you're tried M/S with ribbons, the imaging you've gotten
is quite different from what condensers would give. (It's closer to
small-diaphragm condensers than to large, but still not the same.)
I've recently been surprised to learn another reason for the lack of
communication: People can be awfully sloppy about their use of language.
Folks, ORTF means mikes of a certain pattern, at a certain spacing, at a
certain angle; and it means Nothing Else. Don't call it ORTF if it's
not! And Blumlein means coincident figure-8 mikes crossed at 90 degrees.
"Coincident" means precisely coincident, so that a line down a diameter
of the upper diaphragm would, if extended, pass through a diameter of
the lower diaphragm. "Coincident" does not mean "sort of in the same
spot"! We've done the work on this in my lab, and it matters! A
quarter-inch lateral spacing profoundly affects imaging. And 90 degrees
doesn't mean 80, or 88 degrees; it means 90.
I wonder how many disagreements in this thread are apparent, not real.
Most people, I feel confident, have never tried real Blumlein miking,
let alone done it with ribbons; and the same probably applies to all the
other mikings, too.
James Boyk
James Boyk
An important remark! And a *very* revealing technique for seeing the
problems with the usual "stereo" recordings is simply to play them in
mono through one speaker. They don't image! In other words, there is not
a sense that the instruments are there at or in the speaker. Instead,
one hears vividly how internally contradictory the recording is!
James Boyk
William Sommerwerck
it as realistic. It is very much worth considering when we're buying a pair or
speakers, or selecting a recording on the basis of its sound quality.
One of the fundamental problems with conventional stereo recording is that it
fails to image in any "rational" way. Although particular micing techniques
produce particular results, you cannot place _any_ stereo pair in front of a
performing group and expect to hear in playback what you heard live.
Binaural, Quad-Biphonic, and Ambisonic recording rationalize the imaging
process, placing instruments and performers at more or less their correct
lateral and depth positions. This is because these non-stereo systems
incorporate known principles of directional hearing. The fact that they work
shows that the "subjective" nature of imaging can be reduced to a series of
effective recording techniques, even if we don't fully understand the internal
mechanisms of the ears and brain.
Chris Hornbeck wrote...
> Of course this doesn't fit anyone's intended meaning, but for me,
> *any* mono recording images well. The improvement in the old
> Mercurys and "shaded dogs" goes beyond better mono cutter-heads,
Jerry Steiger
"Steve Hilmy" <Icaru...@acmemail.net> wrote in message
news:a78b965a.02053...@posting.google.com...
Snip
> > i would really appreciate hearing what you've tried, and what you've
> > learned to prefer over the years in terms of ORTF cards vs spaced
> > omnis, small capsules vs large, and related topics.
> If I were faced with having to
choose two and
> only two capsules I would probably choose the MK21's since they offer
> (for me) the best of both worlds - they have better off axis response
> than cardioids, and are flat to 30 Hz. You can't use them for classic
> ORTF or X/Y however since they are less directional. These days my
> favorite configuration is around 30 mm separation at an angle of
> 100-110 degrees.
Steve,
Is that 30 cm separation? So you have about the ORTF angle with wider
separation?
Jerry Steiger
Barry Blumenthal
"James Boyk" <bo...@caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:3CF6D864...@caltech.edu...
Easy James.. I think most of the folks who've been following this thread ARE
acutely aware of these techniques, and HAVE used them correctly, and some of
us extensively. Sometimes our opinions truly ARE based on many experiences.
That doesn't necessarily make our opinions right for everyone; disagreements
will naturally occur because folks value different things in recordings.
Some place imaging above all else, others place a natural timbre as most
desirable , others place balance/mix a top priority..etc. That's why folks
prefer different mics, different methods, etc. I've used ORTF extensively,
and yes, I'm extremely anal about setting it up correctly. NOR, too.
Blumlein.. you betcha, totally coincident except for vertical displacement
(you haven't figured a way around that, have you? <g>). I haven't used
M/S, and therefore I have no opinions on it.
I sent you an email; I've prepared the clip you requested, but it's a big
honkin' file... 1 minute 40 seconds of 44.1/16 uncompressed translates to
about 16 MB. Are you sure that's OK? Let me know before I email it to you.
Barry
Chris Hornbeck
<will...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>How a recording images has a strong bearing on whether we judge
>it as realistic. It is very much worth considering when we're buying a pair or
>speakers, or selecting a recording on the basis of its sound quality.
Perhaps we disagree here on the meaning of the word "images". My
contention is that it is ephemeral after having been freeze-dried
by the reproduction process.
>One of the fundamental problems with conventional stereo recording is that it
>fails to image in any "rational" way.
Here we can agree perfectly.
>Although particular micing techniques
>produce particular results, you cannot place _any_ stereo pair in front of a
>performing group and expect to hear in playback what you heard live.
By this, I'm assuming you mean something like "place JUST any". With
that, I certainly can agree.
>Binaural, Quad-Biphonic, and Ambisonic recording rationalize the imaging
>process, placing instruments and performers at more or less their correct
>lateral and depth positions. This is because these non-stereo systems
>incorporate known principles of directional hearing.
If you were just *anybody*, I'd keep my big mouth shut and read on,
but since you're a serious and dedicated person, I'll respond (as
well as I can) in kind. Point #1:
>The fact that they work
Yes, you're right, to a given degree of "right", here (to steal a
sig). But I contend that the thread should lead more in the
direction of what's "right". That all purist stereo micing
techniques are wedded to a particular repro technique is beside
my point. I'm really suggesting that the whole process is a
lucky result of an artifact. Nothing shameful about it; just not
defensible as an ideal.
>shows that the "subjective" nature of imaging can be reduced to a series of
>effective recording techniques, even if we don't fully understand the internal
>mechanisms of the ears and brain.
This really makes my point much more eloquently than I can. Time
for me to shut up and listen now.
Steve Hilmy
> > than cardioids, and are flat to 30 Hz. You can't use them for classic
> > ORTF or X/Y however since they are less directional. These days my
> > favorite configuration is around 30 mm separation at an angle of
> > 100-110 degrees.
>
> Steve,
>
> Is that 30 cm separation? So you have about the ORTF angle with wider
> separation?
Hi Jerry. Yes of course! 30cm or close to 12"!! And I should probably
say near-coincident rather than wide ORTF I suppose :) I recently used
this arrangement for a string quartet (live in a fairly nice sounding
hall) and it was, pretty much, the best live recording I have ever
done personally - just wonderful! Love them Schoeps!
- Steve
Lloyd Frank
: There is a depth there that doesn't exist in reality, as if the orchestra
: is very deep and stretched out. There is also a sense of very tight spatial
: imaging on the sides, which I don't hear in a real hall.
: Best way to get a feel for this is with an A-B test.
: --scott
Ah. Now I think I understand your objections. To me, this
"depth" agrees well with my perception of how an orchestra sounds, but I
can see how (many) others (more knowledgable than I) could find this
sound unrealistic or unpleasurable. My thanks for your patient
explanation. As with so many aesthetic experiences, we shall have to
agree to disagree.
James Boyk
this thread ARE acutely aware of these techniques, and HAVE used them correctly,
and some of us extensively. Sometimes our opinions truly ARE based on many
experiences.
I don't doubt it, but I know for a fact that some people are using these terms
even though the mikings they're doing are not at all what's described by these
terms! I was simply pointing out a "hidden" cause of possible miscommunication,
that's all.
> > ...folks value different things in recordings. Some place imaging above all
> else, others place a natural timbre as most desirable,
Sure; but this thread is about imaging. And interestingly, the same thing that
gives optimal imaging gives the most natural timbre, because coincident mikes
avoid "comb-filtering" effects; and also gives the best attacks, because
coincident mikes don't multiply or broaden transients.
> > ...Blumlein.. you betcha, totally coincident except for vertical
> displacement (you haven't figured a way around that, have you? <g>).
No, but the Ambisonics people have. Unfortunately, the implementation of that
system--when I last heard it, which was more than a decade ago--didn't have very
good sound quality to my ears; but there's no question that spatially, it did
perform as advertised. Of course, even in the Ambisonic system, the best you can
do with the usual 2 channels is a Blumlein pair or the equivalent.
James Boyk
ma...@frog-net.com
differences experienced in perception might be due to the kind of speakers
one uses and their room placement. Such things as dipole v. monopole v.
omni etc. will make a great difference in the room speaker interaction; as
will of course the interaction caused by the placement of each type in
each particular room. "Wierd" things can happen with phase, freq
responce, apparent direction of sounds, size of sound sources, etc. and
boundry interactions manipulating the original info on a recording; all of
which are artifacts of the speakers and placement. The result is that
such discussion as on this thread have no reference by which to know what
might be on the recording. Any generl conclusion is thus impossible and
the use or misuse of a certain recording techneqe can have no universal
conclusion.
> References:
> <1e30e36f.02052...@posting.google.com>
> <ad44qb$jb9$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>
> <ad5e78$e3m$1...@panix2.panix.com>
> <ad5pl2$c57$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>
> <ad5r2p$6sd$1...@panix2.panix.com>
William Sommerwerck
spaciousness, excessive depth, and timbre colorations associated with these
errors. The "loss" of lateral ambience doesn't help any.
>Lloyd Frank wrote...
>> Scott Dorsey wrote...
>> There is a depth there that doesn't exist in reality, as if the orchestra
>> is very deep and stretched out. There is also a sense of very tight spatial
>> imaging on the sides, which I don't hear in a real hall.
>> Best way to get a feel for this is with an A-B test.
> Ah. Now I think I understand your objections. To me, this "depth" agrees
Peter Larsen
> (Choir/Orchestra) alike. If I were faced with having to choose two and
> only two capsules I would probably choose the MK21's since they offer
> (for me) the best of both worlds - they have better off axis response
> than cardioids, and are flat to 30 Hz. You can't use them for classic
> ORTF or X/Y however since they are less directional.
That statement is not strictly correct, it depends on distance to sound
source and inter-capsule angling, works fine on a standard short stereo
bar, inter capsule angling and inter capsule distance both are about the
same parameters. Oh - assuming that we are speaking about those great
subcardioids one of my friend has. It is frequently not possible to make
the distinction between a recording made with his 4006's and with the
Schoep's unless by knowing the level of audience noise to expect in that
room in relation to the music.
> These days my
> favorite configuration is around 30 mm separation at an angle of
> 100-110 degrees.
1.2 inches? - oh, you do write elsewhere that you have them 30
centimeters apart, and then it becomes a good approximation to ORTF, I
seem to recall it specified as that order of magnitude of inter capsule
distance and thne inter capsule angle as 115 degrees. Which is to say
that you proved yourself wrong.
> Cheers
> Steve Hilmy
--
*************************************************************
* This posting handcrafted by Peter Larsen, MCSE *
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
* I subscribe to http://www.spamcop.net *
*************************************************************
Peter Larsen
> The easiest way to hear what's wrong with the imaging of
> spaced omni's is to listen to the stereo miking demo CD
> created by my students & me;
Sorry, your logic is broken due to "aussagegrenz" being exceeded, you
have only shown that you and your students did not get it to work, not
that it could not have worked.
> it's cited in another post of mine in this thread. THe omnis
> on it were spaced by the 3:1 rule.
It does not apply, if anything it _prevents_ any chance of good stereo,
and I know we agree that good stereo has a center image. A pair of omnis
have to be handled as one stereo system. Some englishman living in
France wrote about stereo systems in the JAES sometime around 1983. One
should not try to utilize pairs of microhones without having read it.
> I've heard some beautiful recordings done with closer-spaced
> omnis; but I wouldn't really call them accurately imaged.
This gets to be nitpicking James, what omni's do tend to do very well is
to render reverberant spaces correctly, but strictly speaking the choice
of mic directivity comes from another factor, at least when doing live
recordings: where can the mic stand be placed? - sub-cardiods (like them
nice Schoeps') go 1.2 times further out, cardioids go 1.4 times further
out and and figure-of-8's go 2 times as far out for the same ratio of
direct to reflected sound. (Bose was right, but trying to fix recordings
via the loudspeakers was a logic that differs from the one I prefer to
use!).
> Blumlein miking done with ribbons comes as a revelation to
> people who have heard only spaced-omni recordings.
Well, with you saying that the box with my BM5 stereo mike is
"reference" I have upgraded actually trying it. Anybody here willing to
give advice on how to take it apart to search for the cause for the buzz
from the top capsule? - evidently a grounding issue, but I have not
dared do anything for fear of damaging the ribbon.
> With omnis spaced 3:1, sources that are exactly in the middle
> stay in the middle; sources at the sides stay at the sides;
This does not compute, it contradicts that paper referred to above, the
spacing I used on the snippet I sent you is an application of that
papers content. Three times as far between the mics as from the mics to
the sound source results in my view in uncorrelated mono recordings.
> Coincident miking also has completely separate benefits,
> which I've stated elsewhere in this thread.
There are two drastically different recording scenarios ... studio type
where you can choose mic type and then make the physical arrangement of
sound sources fit or live type, where you have to select the mic and the
mic setup that fits the real estate available for placing the stand. If
directional mics get too close, then the result becomes quite harsh
because the relationship between direct and reflected sound gets wrong.
The default asumption is that directional mics work best in reverberant
spaces and that omni mics can be used to add reverb in non-reverberant
spaces. That asumption is at best oversimplified, mic choice just has to
fit the mix of direct versus reflected where the mic stand is. Using
omni's in a dryish room may just make it boring .... because it will be
more of what is not good already.
You strong sympathy for directional mics seem to fit the description of
your typical recording venue as "dryish".
> If a recording sounds good and satisfies, more power to it! But it
> remains true that most people have never heard stereo. They've heard
> two-channel mono all their lives, not stereo. Stereo arises from a
> certain *relationship* between two microphones; and it's quite a
> revelation.
No contest. And I will add that I like using directional mics very much,
and that cardioids work fine for me. In my opionion your point made have
been woefully short of observations regarding direct vs. reflected
sound.
I think we are within mils and not miles of agreeing, except that I seem
to prefer doing what you say just plain does not work.
Remember: ALL mics set up at an event, be it one or one hundred capsules
become component parts of A Single Stereo Microphone. Those that
understand it when setting up and when mixing are those that get the
best results. There is such a thing as absolute left and right, and all
mics - and their placement in a mix - must comply to that if stereo is
to be the outcome.
> James Boyk
Peter Larsen
> I used a pair of spaced omnis, because that's all I had with me
> when a colleague asked me to grab a quick recording of a dress
> rehearsal, on a wind ensemble. Really came out awful, and I have
> no clue why.
??? ...
> problematic were the orchestral bells on full stage right;
> they sounded like they were being played right on top of the
> mic. Why?
Apron reflection == reason 1, too high elevation in this situation and
too far away.
> elevated above the ensemble approx. 10 feet, and spaced
> about 12' apart (the band was spread quite wide on stage..
Are you saing 12 FEET??? - The WIDER the band the NARROWER the mics, be
it omni or cardiod, 20 inches had been more likely to work. Them bells
sounded on top of one of the mics because you had a hole in the middle
the reaganomics budget deficit could have vanished in. So there you have
reason 2. You have still had a center-image of some kind, probably the
one James dislikes, and with good reason, because it had been mostly
reflected sound. So your stereo image was:
direct-sound L, reflected sound center, direct sound R
and that is likely to sound as if the instruments cluster around the
mics.
> Oh... someone added to the thread that spaced omnis don't have
> a hole in the middle, and can image wonderfully,
Yes, I am not at liberty to put the snippet shared with James on my
site, but I have understood him to the effect that I substantiated my
point.
As for how I generally like my brand of stereo I will refer you to the
previous rap cd's.
Mostly I prefer the way a well deployed pair of cardiods create an
image. The inter mic angle for the recording on that rap cd was way less
than 90 degrees ... angling a stereo pair because of some property of
the ears is less logical than angling them so as to get the center image
right.
Again, there is that paper in the JAES of 1983 that you too should read.
> but then sited the three mic technique from the Mercury Presence
> series.
I mentioned a single recording, or rather a single record, as an
example. Logically that example too fitted James' "show me wrong by
example ploy". I could mention other examples of Ed Wodenjak 3 mic
recordings as recordings that I do not quite agree in, including one
that appears to have better and more bass in case one phase inverts one
playback channel. I mentioned this specific recording because I do not
have a discography of recordings that I know are made with 4006's AND
because it is one of the "all time great recording sessions, performance
included".
> Barry
Peter Larsen
> There is nothing inherently "wrong" with any conventional two-mic
> orchestra recording technique.
We appear to agree on a lot of issues!
> John La Grou @ Millennia Media
Peter Larsen
> I stepped back through this thread, interesting. May I
> suggest that the differences experienced in perception
> might be due to the kind of speakers one uses and their
> room placement.
Please do!
Daniel Fuchs
>
> Lloyd Frank wrote: > ...Won't anybody more experienced than I put in a
> good word for spaced omnis?
>
> From an imaging point of view, it's hard to do so, since they don't
> image correctly!
>
James,
you know what..? I don't care all that much....
Imaging is not everything. What useful musical information does the
exact position of the second flute provide...? Your views are as narrow
as the sound that comes out of most coincident stereo setups... ;-)
I much prefer the sound quality of a small AB setup (~60 cm) with my two
good ol' AKG C460/CK62 DF (diffuse field omnis), both over speakers and
headphones. Wouldn't trade them for anything.
And what's wrong with the fact that omnis are not perfectly omni towards
higher frequencies? Why not make good use of that fact? I point my
capsules a good 45° or more outward, and I get a bit of extra channel
separation, so there is more to the sound than just pure
time-differential stereo. And off-axis-sound is still better than with
pressure gradient transducers...
As far as "degradation of attacks" is concerned, your ears cause the
same effect. It helps you detect the position of a sound source...
(Imaging...)
Daniel
James Boyk
might be due to the kind of speakers one uses and their room placement.
certain recording techneqe can have no universal conclusion.
So far as imaging goes, I don't think the speakers actually have that
effect. I listen to dipole electrostats at home, conventional
direct-radiators large and small at my lab, hybrid direct-radiator/horn
systems when working in one particular professional setting, and a
hybrid direct-radiator/e-stat system in another; and the relative
virtues and defects of various stereo miking arrays stay pretty
constant. None of these speakers are "omni" in radiation pattern, but
while many conventional speakers are omni in the bass, I can't think
offhand of more than a couple of models in the last 50 years that have
been omni across the band.
I'm afraid that it *is* possible to draw conclusions!
James Boyk
James Boyk
information does the exact position of the second flute provide...?
To me, imaging is important because people have a harder time paying
attention to the content of what's being communicated if they can't
locate the source. If this is true, it's perhaps for evolutionary
reasons: needing to know the position of the prey when we were the
hunter, and vice versa. This is indeed not "musical information"; it
*precedes* such information.
If one accepts the importance of the best possible imaging, then there's
one miking that absolutely stands out not only for imaging accuracy but
for "effortlessness": one doesn't have to think about where the sources
are, they're just there. That's the miking I've mentioned so many times
on this & other threads. But of course there are excellent recordings
being made with other mikings; they just give up a little of something
that happens to be important to me personally. Obviously others don't
find it quite so important. Some of my best friends record with omnis.
As for your comment about our ears being spaced, yet we do not hear
attacks as distorted, that's true, and I don't know the reason. I do
know that widely-spaced mikes distort musical attacks; that's obvious
from listening. And I know from experiment that the slightest
non-coincidence between two fig-8 mikes degrades the image.
James Boyk
Scott Dorsey
>Daniel Fuchs wrote: > Imaging is not everything. What useful musical
>information does the exact position of the second flute provide...?
>
>To me, imaging is important because people have a harder time paying
>attention to the content of what's being communicated if they can't
>locate the source. If this is true, it's perhaps for evolutionary
>reasons: needing to know the position of the prey when we were the
>hunter, and vice versa. This is indeed not "musical information"; it
>*precedes* such information.
I do think the high end folks place too much importance on imaging,
which is maybe the same thing as saying that they don't place enough
importance on tonality. I think that tonality and accurate reproduction
of tone color is the most important thing when we're talking about
reproducing a live sound for acoustic music. But I think imaging is
important as well because it adds a lot to the illusion of presence.
It might not seem obvious at first how much it adds, but when it's not
there you miss it and you might not know why.
>If one accepts the importance of the best possible imaging, then there's
>one miking that absolutely stands out not only for imaging accuracy but
>for "effortlessness": one doesn't have to think about where the sources
>are, they're just there. That's the miking I've mentioned so many times
>on this & other threads. But of course there are excellent recordings
>being made with other mikings; they just give up a little of something
>that happens to be important to me personally. Obviously others don't
>find it quite so important. Some of my best friends record with omnis.
I'm a big fan of the baffled omni thing because of the imaging. Listen
to the Hot Club of San Francisco recording on Clarity or any of the stuff
on the M-A label for a sense of what the baffled omni can do. But what
gets me first is the incredible tonal reproduction of the omnis, and I
think that if you don't have good tone you can't get accurate imaging.
Barry Blumenthal
<snip>
> I'm a big fan of the baffled omni thing because of the imaging. Listen
> to the Hot Club of San Francisco recording on Clarity or any of the stuff
> on the M-A label for a sense of what the baffled omni can do. But what
> gets me first is the incredible tonal reproduction of the omnis, and I
> think that if you don't have good tone you can't get accurate imaging.
> --scott
Yes. Amen. I've got to learn how to say what I mean short and sweet like
that. That's what I was trying to say in that 9 paragraph tome I posted a
week or so ago in this thread. Oh well...
Barry
James Boyk
importance on imaging, which is maybe the same thing as saying that they
don't place enough importance on tonality.
Below, you say, "if you don't have good tone you can't get accurate
imaging." I think that's more the relationship.
> ...I think that tonality and accurate reproduction of tone color is the most important thing when we're talking about reproducing a live sound for acoustic music.
Very important, for sure.
> ...But I think imaging is important as well because it adds a lot to the illusion of presence. It might not seem obvious at first how much it adds, but when it's not there you miss it and you might not know why.
Perhaps for the evolutionary reason I suggested in previous post?
> I'm a big fan of the baffled omni thing because of the imaging. Listen to the Hot Club of San Francisco recording on Clarity...
Just ordered it on your recommendations.
> ...or any of the stuff on the M-A label...
Is this an abbreviation? I don't find "M-A" in a Web search.
> ...what gets me first is the incredible tonal reproduction of the omnis, and I think that if you don't have good tone you can't get accurate imaging.
There's a widespread idea that omnis are necessary for tonal neutrality.
This misconception comes from dealing only with condensers. Ribbons can
also be very neutral, and they don't have the damned condenser "cackle"
that annoys me so much. Another common misconception is that because one
mike is flat, a spaced pair will also be flat. I don't think this is
necessarily true.
James Boyk
Jim Williams
I'm glad some folks' are aware of Todd Garfinkle's excellent MA label.
FYI he uses Audio Upgrades Mic Pre's and B+K 4006 mics. The baffles he
uses are the "spheres" sold By B+K to offer some high frequency
directionality. He uses a spaced omni pattern without following any
ORTF or other recommended styles. His big marketing plus is the
imaging, the fidelity was addressed first. Just don't try to listen in
mono!
Jim Williams Audio Upgrades
William Sommerwerck
future date...
William Sommerwerck
> As for your comment about our ears being spaced, yet we do not hear
> attacks as distorted, that's true, and I don't know the reason.
The tautological explanation is that the brain takes into account the difference
in arrival times. It's roughly the same thing as seeing a single 3D image,
rather than two overlapping, unfused images.
William Sommerwerck
errors in recording and playback. If a system can create a subtle, realistic
image, then it is presumably doing a lot of other things correctly.
> Scott Dorsey wrote...
Scott Dorsey
>Scott Dorsey wrote: > I do think the high end folks place too much
>importance on imaging, which is maybe the same thing as saying that they
>don't place enough importance on tonality.
>
>Below, you say, "if you don't have good tone you can't get accurate
>imaging." I think that's more the relationship.
Yeah, but I go to the high-end shows and I hear people oohing and aahing
over how great the imaging is on a system, and I listen, and the upper
midrange is all screwed up and vocals sound honky, or it has no low end
whatsoever. What's the sense of even worrying about the imaging when you
are listening to someone singing through a garden hose?
>> I'm a big fan of the baffled omni thing because of the imaging. Listen to the Hot Club of San Francisco recording on Clarity...
>
>Just ordered it on your recommendations.
>
>> ...or any of the stuff on the M-A label...
>
>Is this an abbreviation? I don't find "M-A" in a Web search.
No, it should be M-A Recordings. Look for the recording "Salterio" by
Begona Olavides for instance. That is one of my favorites, but then I have
a thing about percussion.
Pope Music also uses baffled omnis.
>> ...what gets me first is the incredible tonal reproduction of the omnis, and I think that if you don't have good tone you can't get accurate imaging.
>
>There's a widespread idea that omnis are necessary for tonal neutrality.
>This misconception comes from dealing only with condensers. Ribbons can
>also be very neutral, and they don't have the damned condenser "cackle"
>that annoys me so much. Another common misconception is that because one
>mike is flat, a spaced pair will also be flat. I don't think this is
>necessarily true.
Ribbons can be pretty accurate themselves, the problem is that now you need
a transformer to deal with the low Z and that tends not to be accurate. And
ribbons are most neutral in figure-8 (as ten minutes with a 77DX will
demonstrate) and with figure-8 you're stuck with Blumlein method, which can
sound great in the right hall but has two narrow an angle of acceptance for
some other halls.
Mike Rivers
> Imaging is not everything. What useful musical information does the
> exact position of the second flute provide...? Your views are as narrow
> as the sound that comes out of most coincident stereo setups... ;-)
Precise location is different than imaging. Imaging means the
resolution with which you can locate something in playback, whether
it's the correct location or not. When something images poorly, the
location of instruments tends to wander around a bit depending on what
they're playing, and how the reflections in the room deal with the
particular frequency range.
Images are often more stable with spaced mics than with coincident,
but location is rarely as accurate. Also, mono compatability suffers.
This is of no consequnce with headphone or stereo playback, but
sometimes TV and clock radio listeners lose something. It's considered
a top priority in broadcast work, and the biggest sellers are
ultimately broadcast, so it's something you shouldn't take lightly
if you're working in the commercial world, or in the audiophile world.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
James Boyk
oohing and aahing over how great the imaging is on a system, and I
listen, and the upper midrange is all screwed up and vocals sound honky,
or it has no low end whatsoever. What's the sense of even worrying
about the imaging when you are listening to someone singing through a
garden hose?
Moreover, talk about imaging in playback systems is often baloney,
because the recordings don't have a legit image to begin with.
> No, it should be M-A Recordings. Look for the recording "Salterio" by Begona Olavides for instance. That is one of my favorites, but then I have a thing about percussion. Pope Music also uses baffled omnis.
Tnx.
> Ribbons can be pretty accurate themselves, the problem is that now you need a transformer to deal with the low Z and that tends not to be accurate. And ribbons are most neutral in figure-8 (as ten minutes with a 77DX will demonstrate) and with figure-8 you're stuck with Blumlein method, which can sound great in the right hall but has two narrow an angle of acceptance for some other halls.
The angle for optimal stereo w/ Blumlein technique is about 60 degrees
(that is, 30 on either side of center) though anomalies don't show up
'til 90 degrees, beyond which you get things coming in the back of the
other channel. What legit stereo technique has a wider acceptance angle?
Ribbons can be amplified with no transformer. The Cambridge ribbon mike
made by Charles Fisher came in two versions, one w/ transformer & one w/
built-in preamp. I heard that one and it was quiet.
Also, a transformer can be darned good, as witness the Coles 4038, which
even in the high-impedance version has a transparency unmatched in my
experience.
jb
Peter Larsen
> I do think the high end folks place too much importance on imaging,
> which is maybe the same thing as saying that they don't place enough
> importance on tonality. I think that tonality ... [is important]
There are two ways to make a recording. One can either aim for getting
the room and the perspective correct or aim for getting the sound of
individual instruments right, not that this suggest major differences,
but these are the two different methods of weighting what is the most
important aspect of the required compromise.
In real life this can be about a few degrees of angling and aiming of
mics and about tweaking the inter mic distance, both address the same
variables and there can never be a good center image unless both mics
have the same image of the center, and certainly also of the space
behind the sound source. If this is not right, then the reverb and the
space will split in separate spaces for each mic.
When it comes to recording in the presence of an audience said audience
may take up real estate that one would have liked to have the mic stand
on, and thus it may be required to use a mic setup that will work closer
to the sound source. It may also occur that a VIP gets a chair that is
"just right", in which case not having brought an alternative, more
directional, pair of mics can be unpleasant.
> I'm a big fan of the baffled omni thing because of the imaging.
We are then talking Jecklin derivatives I presume, rather than 4006's
with golfballs added to give them MD421's tonal character [x] ....
[sorry DPA, too much of a temptation!] ... ?
[x] don't believe me? - then check the specs! - the mic that sounds
linear is not always the one that measures linear because a well crafted
rising response can be a good way of lying about mic distance and allow
you a longer distance that the mic type normally would let you get away
with.
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Ioanni
what about the Decca tree for imaging and tonality?
And for the centre maybe a ribbon Blumlein pair instead of omnis?
Just a thought.
--
Ioanni
Thessaloniki @ Macedonia @ Greece
www.minus-sounds.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen also at
www.mp3.com/ioanni/ www.mp3.com/minus_sounds/
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
> Yeah, but I go to the high-end shows and I hear people oohing and aahing
> over how great the imaging is on a system, and I listen, and the upper
> midrange is all screwed up and vocals sound honky, or it has no low end
> whatsoever. What's the sense of even worrying about the imaging when you
> are listening to someone singing through a garden hose?
>
> No, it should be M-A Recordings. Look for the recording "Salterio" by
> Begona Olavides for instance. That is one of my favorites, but then I
have
> a thing about percussion.
>
> Pope Music also uses baffled omnis.
>
Willie K.Yee, M.D.
wrote:
>As for your comment about our ears being spaced, yet we do not hear
>attacks as distorted, that's true, and I don't know the reason. I do
>know that widely-spaced mikes distort musical attacks; that's obvious
>from listening. And I know from experiment that the slightest
>non-coincidence between two fig-8 mikes degrades the image.
Not only that, but stereo speakers are spaced. So shouldn't that
degrade the attacks?
My naive theory has been, the mics should be in the same position as
the reproduction sources - thus spaced cardiods, the same distance
apart as stereo speakers (which of course varies, so this proposal is
impossible from the start), for speakers, and a binaural head for
earphones.
Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://www.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org
James Boyk
spaced. So shouldn't that degrade the attacks?
One might think so; but it doesn't seem to have this effect.
> My naive theory has been, the mics should be in the same position as the reproduction sources..
An attractive idea, but it doesn't work. To see why, read Blumlein's
patent on stereo and more recent work in the field.
jb
Luke Kaven
[...]
> Sure; but this thread is about imaging. And interestingly, the same thing that
> gives optimal imaging gives the most natural timbre, because coincident mikes
> avoid "comb-filtering" effects; and also gives the best attacks, because
> coincident mikes don't multiply or broaden transients.
> James Boyk
James,
I've become confused. Isn't binaural disparity one of the
cornerstones in the explanation of spatial perception? [Or at least
that has been the dogma since Hubel and Wiesel.] Aren't differences
in intensity and disparities in arrival time *both* used as
psychoacoustic cues?
I'm assuming that we are only speaking of sources panned hard
left-right. If so, then the concept of "comb filtering" seems
specious when we are talking about mental representations.
Psychoacoustic considerations would suggest that wide-spaced omnis
would produce unnatural disparity. But the same considerations seem
to suggest that narrow-spaced omnis might be more natural than a
coincident pair.
Luke
Peter Larsen
> Psychoacoustic considerations would suggest that wide-spaced
> omnis would produce unnatural disparity.
No, minor difference in arrival time is a valid panning tool. In fact if
you have an AB stereo recording with an apparent channel imbalance but
no loudness difference between the channels, then you have to offset one
of the channels in time until the center image gets centered.
> Luke
Peter Larsen
> On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 06:42:40 -0700, James Boyk <bo...@caltech.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >As for your comment about our ears being spaced, yet we do not hear
> >attacks as distorted, that's true, and I don't know the reason. I do
> >know that widely-spaced mikes distort musical attacks; that's obvious
> >from listening. And I know from experiment that the slightest
> >non-coincidence between two fig-8 mikes degrades the image.
>
> Not only that, but stereo speakers are spaced. So shouldn't that
> degrade the attacks?
Stereo speakers do not have to be spaced, MS-stereo works fine for
playback as demonstrated by Danish Radio personnel way long time ago.
According to the literature it is a bit weird, because the closer you
are to the speaker the bigger and farther away is the sound image.
> My naive theory has been, the mics should be in the same
> position as the reproduction sources - thus spaced cardiods,
Broken, check the literature reference I mentioned, it is at least as
vital as to read Blumleins original patent.
> Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://www.bestweb.net/~wkyee
--
Kurt Albershardt
>
> Broken, check the literature reference I mentioned, it is at least as
> vital as to read Blumleins original patent.
Blumlein, British patent 394325, 1931 Dec 14, reprinted in J. Audio Eng.
Soc., 1958 April.
Anyone got a link to an online copy? British Patent Office site is not
particularly useful for much other than checking on current applications
and filing new ones.
Luke Kaven
> Luke Kaven wrote:
>
> > Psychoacoustic considerations would suggest that wide-spaced
> > omnis would produce unnatural disparity.
>
> No, minor difference in arrival time is a valid panning tool. In fact if
> you have an AB stereo recording with an apparent channel imbalance but
> no loudness difference between the channels, then you have to offset one
> of the channels in time until the center image gets centered.
>
> > Luke
Hi Peter,
Read my note again, we're not disagreeing. I said that binaural
disparity in arrival time was a genuine cue to spatial location, just
as is disparity in intensity. The qualification was between pickups
spaced one head-width-or-so apart, versus pickups spaced, say, a few
feet apart. I'm limiting my cases to two-mic L-R recordings. The
widely spaced pickups would produce arrival time disparities that
would *seem unnatural*. The reason is that we're designed with heads
of a certain width, and our perceptual apparatus is cued to the kinds
of disparities which that entails, or so the hypothesis goes. This
suggests that (near)coincident miking would also seem *somewhat*
unnatural because although the disparities in intensity were present,
the disparities in arrival time were not.
Luke
ScotFraser
you have an AB stereo recording with an apparent channel imbalance but
no loudness difference between the channels, then you have to offset one
of the channels in time until the center image gets centered. >>
The main drawback to widely spaced omnis is that there is no really solid
center image.
Scott Fraser
Peter Larsen
You can NOT specify inter capsule distance and inter capsule angle
without also specificying distance to and depth of stage, those
parameters have to match so that the actual stereo zone for any mic
setup happens to be where the sound source is. If you end up with hole
in the middle stereo, then the actual stereo zone is behind the recorded
sound source. To get a stable center image the mics have to have the
same sonic image of the center. All of this applies no matter what mic
directionality we talk about, but inter mic distance and angling not
only are somewhat interchangeable, the requiremens also differ with
actual microphone directionality.
> Scott Fraser
Peter Larsen
> Read my note again, we're not disagreeing.
Ah well ... sloppy reading on my part.
> I said that binaural disparity in arrival time was a genuine
> cue to spatial location, just as is disparity in intensity.
> The qualification was between pickups spaced one head-width
> -or-so apart, versus pickups spaced, say, a few feet apart.
A few feet apart, i. e. between 1.9 and 2.1, is not a problem, it is
valid A-B stereo.
> I'm limiting my cases to two-mic L-R recordings.
Understood.
> The widely spaced pickups would produce arrival time
> disparities that would *seem unnatural*. The reason
> is that we're designed with heads of a certain width,
> and our perceptual apparatus is cued to the kinds
> of disparities which that entails, or so the hypothesis
> goes.
Ah yes, I have heard this happen, initially when it arrived people in
the tape recordists club, I am a member of, used the neat lil'
subcardioid Schoeps with a larger than average X-Y distance, about a
full foot, intermediary between what we user for omnis and what we use
for cardioids because it is an intermediary type. That does not in my
opinion sound right. So on my suggestion - based also on promxity to the
stage suggesting less distance between capsules - a standard X-Y
crossbar was tried, and the owner of the mics made a custom only
sligthly longer X-Y crossbar after that - say 5 centimeters extra
between the capsules.
> This suggests that (near)coincident miking would also seem *somewhat*
> unnatural because although the disparities in intensity were present,
> the disparities in arrival time were not.
Omnis and cardiods are special cases, but yes, about a single foot of
distance tends to sound wrong no matter what. Perhaps with 50-some
centimeters the phychoacoustic "head similar" model breaks and the brain
uses some other mode of interpretation.