[[email protected]]

I found this item in the Neumann forum archive, from 2003, submitted
by Jeffrey Rassier:
"I record 80-90 live orchestral and chamber concert events per year.
I've experimented with EVERY possible stereo micing technique and have
recently developed one of the most spacially and tonally pleasing
combinations: mixing a spaced pair of KM183 and an ORTF pair of KM184.
The omni KM183 yield a wonderfully spacious environment, while the
KM184 add detailed placement of sources. (If you grasp the concept of
the space created by this technique, ponder this: companding the
cardiod pair...the space subtley opens and closes proportionate to the
dynamic levels.)

The Neumann response was this:
"Dear Mr. Rassier, interesting technique, indeed.
The late Mr. Straus, head of Tonmeister institute in Detmold,
developed the Straus Paket ('package'). Omni (KM83)and cardioid (KM84)
sitting on top of each other, so he could mix the omni and cardioid
pairs separately. Yielding a variable subcardioid setup. Similar
approach but not identical to your technique, especially regarding the
compression.
Best regards, Martin Schneider Neumann Mic. Development

While the Straus Package is noted in the historical texts (albeit
remaining a relatively obscure method, now that subcardioids are more
common), a more recent variant could be the Faulkner array, with a
pair of cardioids and omnis on the same bar, though not located above
one another like the Straus model. The two don't have the same goal
however.....and the only commonality is the pairs of mics used. Mr
Rassier might claim to have predated the Faulkner method by a good 10
years or so, on the strength of this posting !!

What intrigues me however is the OP's contention that companding the
cardioid pair might allow for spatial image variation proportional to
the dynamic levels. I'd imagine a situation where a dynamic passage
follows a quieter one, and on exceeding a threshold the omni pair
might 'close down' so that the image becomes tighter, while in a quiet
passage the omnis might open up to give more spaciousness ? Am I
reading it right ? Would the 2 pairs be linked via a sidechain
compressor scenario, so that (proportional to volume or dynamics) one
might predominate over the other. In theory it sounds intriguing, but
I'm having trouble visualizing it's implementation.

My instinct would be to compand the omni pair,rather than the
cardioid, as in dynamic passages they could contribute to 'wooliness',
while their 'air' is precisely what you'd crave during the quieter
parts. There's going to be the suspicion and reluctance of the "must
ride faders manually" crowd to something like this, which smacks of
gating or threshold dependent automation, but I'd like to hear of how
it might be implemented on an experimental basis. The Waves C1
compander could be called into service here, among others...?

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

I found this item in the Neumann forum archive, from 2003, submitted
by Jeffrey Rassier:
"I record 80-90 live orchestral and chamber concert events per year.
I've experimented with EVERY possible stereo micing technique and have
recently developed one of the most spacially and tonally pleasing
combinations: mixing a spaced pair of KM183 and an ORTF pair of KM184.
The omni KM183 yield a wonderfully spacious environment, while the
KM184 add detailed placement of sources. (If you grasp the concept of
the space created by this technique, ponder this: companding the
cardiod pair...the space subtley opens and closes proportionate to the
dynamic levels.)

snips

I do about 40-50 such events a year, with KM183s in a 50 cm Williams curve
configuration (diffraction spheres on the 183s), and a pair of Gefell M940s (LD
hypercardioide) in a 17cm ORTF config (about 100 degrees rather than 110).

I originally hit upon this combo several years back out of desperation. There was
one particular event that was going to have wild variances in the ensembles. I never
intended to use the two fields together, just the one best suited for any particular
configuration, but was amazed at how good they sounded together. You get the
immediacy and "forward presence" of the ORTF, but then can add the breadth and depth
of the omnis.

Best of all, you can shift the blend to best suit the music and hall conditions,
even as they change within the same program.

(I'll still use spots, mostly for step-forward vocal soloists and sometimes
instruments.) But the two pairs is a good combination. Everything is time aligned,
of course.

The idea of messing with the dynamics of one of the pairs seems a little odd, but
maybe they're on to something. I'll have to play with that.

Seems the biggest problem would be to get appropriate attack/release times.

Interesting post.

Thanks,
Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[PStamler]

I believe Barry Hufker proposed something like this in a JAES article
back in the 1970s or 1980s. I think he also suggested using a
coincident or near-coincident pair (XY or ORTF, in other words) full-
range, then adding a pair of spaced omni mics as outriggers, low-pass
filtered to get low-frequency time-delay information into the mix.

Peace,
Paul

[William Sommerwerck]

Obviously, mixing a stereo pair of omnis with an ORTF pair is going to add
uncorrelated spacious to the recording.

If the omnis were expanded (NOT companded -- Mr Rassier not only can't spell
("spacially"), but doesn't understand what "companding" means) -- this added
(and arguably ersatz) spaciousness will increase and decrease with the
signal level.

The whole thing sounds like something overlooked by the people who developed
Dynagroove. They would have loved it -- it alters the sound in a musically
unnatural way.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
I found this item in the Neumann forum archive, from 2003, submitted
by Jeffrey Rassier:
"I record 80-90 live orchestral and chamber concert events per year.
I've experimented with EVERY possible stereo micing technique and have
recently developed one of the most spacially and tonally pleasing
combinations: mixing a spaced pair of KM183 and an ORTF pair of KM184.
The omni KM183 yield a wonderfully spacious environment, while the
KM184 add detailed placement of sources. (If you grasp the concept of
the space created by this technique, ponder this: companding the
cardiod pair...the space subtley opens and closes proportionate to the
dynamic levels.)

This is called an outrigger system. The major advantage that it has is that
you can adjust the sense of space considerably by adjusting the levels of
the omni outriggers, without having to move the mikes (or even, if you can
record four tracks, in post).

I personally never liked it... the stereo image always changes in unpleasant
ways for me when I bring the outriggers up. However, I concede that it's
a useful technique when you have limited setup time available, especially in
an unknown hall.

The Neumann response was this:
"Dear Mr. Rassier, interesting technique, indeed.
The late Mr. Straus, head of Tonmeister institute in Detmold,
developed the Straus Paket ('package'). Omni (KM83)and cardioid (KM84)
sitting on top of each other, so he could mix the omni and cardioid
pairs separately. Yielding a variable subcardioid setup. Similar
approach but not identical to your technique, especially regarding the
compression.
Best regards, Martin Schneider Neumann Mic. Development

While the Straus Package is noted in the historical texts (albeit
remaining a relatively obscure method, now that subcardioids are more
common), a more recent variant could be the Faulkner array, with a
pair of cardioids and omnis on the same bar, though not located above
one another like the Straus model. The two don't have the same goal
however.....and the only commonality is the pairs of mics used. Mr
Rassier might claim to have predated the Faulkner method by a good 10
years or so, on the strength of this posting !!

Very different things. The point of the Straus configuration is that
the cardioid and omni are effectively at the same point in space, so
the two pairs are coherent. The lack of coherence is the point of using
conventional outriggers... the omnis are primarily for hall ambience and
since the signals from the orchestra aren't arriving at the same time on
both pairs, the direct signals on the outriggers become a sort of ambience
I think.

What intrigues me however is the OP's contention that companding the
cardioid pair might allow for spatial image variation proportional to
the dynamic levels. I'd imagine a situation where a dynamic passage
follows a quieter one, and on exceeding a threshold the omni pair
might 'close down' so that the image becomes tighter, while in a quiet
passage the omnis might open up to give more spaciousness ? Am I
reading it right ? Would the 2 pairs be linked via a sidechain
compressor scenario, so that (proportional to volume or dynamics) one
might predominate over the other. In theory it sounds intriguing, but
I'm having trouble visualizing it's implementation.

It sounds like a really really bad idea to me. Yes, you could do it, and
you could make the stereo image change with level... but I have spent most
of my life trying to keep stuff like that from happening and the notion
that someone would want to create it is a little disturbing. You could try
it on drum overheads I suppose....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

wrote:
I found this item in the Neumann forum archive, from 2003, submitted
by Jeffrey Rassier:
"I record 80-90 live orchestral and chamber concert events per year.
I've experimented with EVERY possible stereo micing technique and have
recently developed one of the most spacially and tonally pleasing
combinations: mixing a spaced pair of KM183 and an ORTF pair of KM184.
The omni KM183 yield a wonderfully spacious environment, while the
KM184 add detailed placement of sources. (If you grasp the concept of
the space created by this technique, ponder this: companding the
cardiod pair...the space subtley opens and closes proportionate to the
dynamic levels.)

This is called an outrigger system. The major advantage that it has is that
you can adjust the sense of space considerably by adjusting the levels of
the omni outriggers, without having to move the mikes (or even, if you can
record four tracks, in post).

I personally never liked it... the stereo image always changes in unpleasant
ways for me when I bring the outriggers up. However, I concede that it's
a useful technique when you have limited setup time available, especially in
an unknown hall.

Scott, at what point does one make the transition from "stereo pair with the goal of
an accurate image" to "outriggers"?

I'd argue that 50 cm omnis really are not "outriggers" as I'd think of them. They
are perhaps (along with your Jecklin disk technique) one of the more accurate
stereo methods that can be used, and can stand completely alone. They don't need to
"outrig" to any other microphones.

To me, outriggers (omni or anything else) do not offer an accurate image, due to
their wide spacing, typically something much more than 50 cm (more on the order of
one to several meters).

At those wide spacings the image they do get is rather weird. Useful at times,
but odd. My observations in this regard match up with yours.

I'm not exactly following on to the original post here. The point with my first
reply was the serendipity of combining two different stereo techniques (each useful
in its own right) and taking the best of both worlds in post, varying the amount of
each as dictated by the music

And you're right: actively messing with the blend as the music progresses could get
strange. (I've got five projects in post right now where I have the two pairs
available. Might play with it briefly.)

As always, YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[[email protected]]

On Dec 8, 10:29*am, Frank Stearns
wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
wrote:
I found this item in the Neumann forum archive, from 2003, submitted
by Jeffrey Rassier:
"I record 80-90 live orchestral and chamber concert events per year.
I've experimented with EVERY possible stereo micing technique and have
recently developed one of the most spacially and tonally pleasing
combinations: mixing a spaced pair of KM183 and an ORTF pair of KM184.
The omni KM183 yield a wonderfully spacious environment, while the
KM184 add detailed placement of sources. (If you grasp the concept of
the space created by this technique, ponder this: companding the
cardiod pair...the space subtley opens and closes proportionate to the
dynamic levels.)
This is called an outrigger system. *The major advantage that it has is that
you can adjust the sense of space considerably by adjusting the levels of
the omni outriggers, without having to move the mikes (or even, if you can
record four tracks, in post).
I personally never liked it... the stereo image always changes in unpleasant
ways for me when I bring the outriggers up. *However, I concede that it's
a useful technique when you have limited setup time available, especially in
an unknown hall.

Scott, at what point does one make the transition from "stereo pair with the goal of
an accurate image" to "outriggers"?

I'd argue that 50 cm omnis really are not "outriggers" as I'd think of them. They
are perhaps (along with your Jecklin disk technique) one of the more accurate
stereo methods that can be used, and can stand completely alone. They don't need to
"outrig" to any other microphones.

To me, outriggers (omni or anything else) do not offer an accurate image, due to
their wide spacing, typically something much more than 50 cm (more on the order of
one to several meters).

At those wide spacings the image they do get is rather weird. Useful at times,
but odd. My observations in this regard match up with yours.

I'm not exactly following on to the original post here. The point with my first
reply was the serendipity of combining two different stereo techniques (each useful
in its own right) and taking the best of both worlds in post, varying the amount of
each as dictated by the music

And you're right: actively messing with the blend as the music progresses could get
strange. (I've got five projects in post right now where I have the two pairs
available. Might play with it briefly.)

As always, YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
*.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps I'm guilty of not clarifying in the original post...the omni
pair in this scenario would not be a conventional outrigger pair, but
simply a typical A-B spaced pair, apart by around 40-50 cms on a
spacer bar. On that same bar, in the middle, would be located a sub/
cardiod/hyper pair (probably with ORTF or NOS spacing/angles) So,
while not being truly coincident in space like the 'Straus
packet'...which only exists to create a subcardioid pattern out of an
omni and cardy one atop the other...this "2 pairs on a stick" scenario
gives you two 'not-coincident but not too dissimilar' snapshots of the
same event. Mixing between these 2 pairs in post is what we're thus
talking about.

Automating this mix process via a compander strikes me as being a
lazy and risky way to attain dynamic and ambience control...doing it
by hand and fader would be more responsive to the music methinks ? The
principal question then becomes...when should the cardioid pair
predominate and when the omni pair ? During loud forte passages when
the room itself is excited or during quieter pieces when detail
recedes into the background and the ear strains to hear the woodwinds
for example ?

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:

This is called an outrigger system. The major advantage that it has is that
you can adjust the sense of space considerably by adjusting the levels of
the omni outriggers, without having to move the mikes (or even, if you can
record four tracks, in post).

I personally never liked it... the stereo image always changes in unpleasant
ways for me when I bring the outriggers up. However, I concede that it's
a useful technique when you have limited setup time available, especially in
an unknown hall.

Scott, at what point does one make the transition from "stereo pair with the goal of
an accurate image" to "outriggers"?

A stereo pair is two mikes. An outrigger arrangement is four: two cardioids
and two omnis.

I'd argue that 50 cm omnis really are not "outriggers" as I'd think of them. They
are perhaps (along with your Jecklin disk technique) one of the more accurate
stereo methods that can be used, and can stand completely alone. They don't need to
"outrig" to any other microphones.

They can stand alone, but when you mix them in with an ORTF pair, they aren't.

I'm not exactly following on to the original post here. The point with my first
reply was the serendipity of combining two different stereo techniques (each useful
in its own right) and taking the best of both worlds in post, varying the amount of
each as dictated by the music

I think doing that sort of thing tends to get you the worst of both worlds,
but I know folks who use outriggers and are very pleased with the technique.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

wrote:

On Dec 8, 10:29 am, Frank Stearns
wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
wrote:
I found this item in the Neumann forum archive, from 2003, submitted
by Jeffrey Rassier: "I record 80-90 live orchestral and chamber
concert events per year. I've experimented with EVERY possible stereo
micing technique and have recently developed one of the most spacially
and tonally pleasing combinations: mixing a spaced pair of KM183 and
an ORTF pair of KM184. The omni KM183 yield a wonderfully spacious
environment, while the KM184 add detailed placement of sources. (If
you grasp the concept of the space created by this technique, ponder
this: companding the cardiod pair...the space subtley opens and closes
proportionate to the dynamic levels.) This is called an outrigger
system. The major advantage that it has is that you can adjust the
sense of space considerably by adjusting the levels of the omni
outriggers, without having to move the mikes (or even, if you can
record four tracks, in post). I personally never liked it... the stereo
image always changes in unpleasant ways for me when I bring the
outriggers up. However, I concede that it's a useful technique when
you have limited setup time available, especially in an unknown hall.

Scott, at what point does one make the transition from "stereo pair with
the goal of an accurate image" to "outriggers"?

I'd argue that 50 cm omnis really are not "outriggers" as I'd think of
them. They are perhaps (along with your Jecklin disk technique) one of
the more accurate stereo methods that can be used, and can stand
completely alone. They don't need to "outrig" to any other microphones.

To me, outriggers (omni or anything else) do not offer an accurate
image, due to their wide spacing, typically something much more than 50
cm (more on the order of one to several meters).

At those wide spacings the image they do get is rather weird. Useful at
times, but odd. My observations in this regard match up with yours.

I'm not exactly following on to the original post here. The point with
my first reply was the serendipity of combining two different stereo
techniques (each useful in its own right) and taking the best of both
worlds in post, varying the amount of each as dictated by the music

And you're right: actively messing with the blend as the music
progresses could get strange. (I've got five projects in post right now
where I have the two pairs available. Might play with it briefly.)

As always, YMMV.

Perhaps I'm guilty of not clarifying in the original post...the omni
pair in this scenario would not be a conventional outrigger pair, but
simply a typical A-B spaced pair, apart by around 40-50 cms on a
spacer bar. On that same bar, in the middle, would be located a sub/
cardiod/hyper pair (probably with ORTF or NOS spacing/angles) So,
while not being truly coincident in space like the 'Straus
packet'...which only exists to create a subcardioid pattern out of an
omni and cardy one atop the other...this "2 pairs on a stick" scenario
gives you two 'not-coincident but not too dissimilar' snapshots of the
same event. Mixing between these 2 pairs in post is what we're thus
talking about.

From someone's point of view it may well have been an interesting
technique at the time. especially considering that different people
exhibit different sensitivities to various approaches to imaging.

Here's something that might offer a better contemporary approach:

http://www.dspdoctor.com/540-c700s.html

"The C700S microphone has three capsules; an additional side-facing
figure-8 capsule is added to the two in the C700A. Any coincident stereo
pickup can be derived from mixing these three signals together, and like
the C700A, the signals can be recorded individually and all aspects of
image width and pattern control may be adjusted in the mixdown. With the
three capsule signals, any number of microphone outputs may be created,
each one pointed anywhere in the plane around the microphone."

Automating this mix process via a compander strikes me as being a
lazy and risky way to attain dynamic and ambience control...doing it
by hand and fader would be more responsive to the music methinks ?

In a DAW you could draw the dynamic responses you wanted at very precise
points along the time axis, probably to a degree of resolution not
obtainable manually.

The
principal question then becomes...when should the cardioid pair
predominate and when the omni pair ? During loud forte passages when
the room itself is excited or during quieter pieces when detail
recedes into the background and the ear strains to hear the woodwinds
for example ?


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

snips

I'd argue that 50 cm omnis really are not "outriggers" as I'd think of them. They
are perhaps (along with your Jecklin disk technique) one of the more accurate
stereo methods that can be used, and can stand completely alone. They don't need to
"outrig" to any other microphones.

They can stand alone, but when you mix them in with an ORTF pair, they aren't.

snips

I think doing that sort of thing tends to get you the worst of both worlds,


Interesting... Can you describe in more detail what you haven't liked?

I suspect it might be room-specific/stage specific. (?)

Just to add a few more data points:

- my original situation that led to trying the two pairs had the ORTF and the 50cm
omnis on the same main stand, but not at the same elevation. The pairs were not on
the same bar, as described by the OP in their follow-up post.

Sometimes my pairs are vertically separated by 12", sometimes much more. In the
latter case I'm generally trying to "reach across" an orchestra to get to a chorus,
where placing choral spots or even a close choral pair is impossible.

- The distance from the ensemble is always set optimally for the omnis, which
means a little too close for the ORTF. But this is very useful when I want just a
little more etched detail superimposed on what the omnis get.

Or, in the case of "reaching across" an orchestra to get to a chorus the ORTF
distance is just about right, and the hypers do give some rejection of the orch --
certainly it's enough to give me the mix control needed.

Sounds like I'm doing something different from your and the OP's description.

Still, when I'm capturing a more compact ensemble, it's really nice to have the
options that two pairs provide.

You'd think it'd be phasy as hell, but typically it isn't; though I will take a
moment to add a few samples of delay to the closer pair, dailing that in by ear
during post. (I also have a rig that can get a pretty close time alignment by
tilting in the top pair a few degrees.)

Again, fascinating stuff. Thanks for the replies.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 19:29:42 -0500, Frank Stearns wrote
(in article isition):

Scott, at what point does one make the transition from "stereo pair with the
goal of an accurate image" to "outriggers"?

I'd argue that 50 cm omnis really are not "outriggers" as I'd think of them.
They are perhaps (along with your Jecklin disk technique) one of the more
accurate stereo methods that can be used, and can stand completely alone.
They don't need to "outrig" to any other microphones.

To me, outriggers (omni or anything else) do not offer an accurate image, due

to their wide spacing, typically something much more than 50 cm (more on the
order of one to several meters).

At those wide spacings the image they do get is rather weird. Useful at
times, but odd. My observations in this regard match up with yours.

I'm not exactly following on to the original post here. The point with my
first reply was the serendipity of combining two different stereo techniques
(each useful in its own right) and taking the best of both worlds in post,
varying the amount of each as dictated by the music

And you're right: actively messing with the blend as the music progresses
could get strange. (I've got five projects in post right now where I have the

two pairs available. Might play with it briefly.)

As always, YMMV.

Frank Mobile Audio

If spacing is a concern, then Decca Tree configs must also be in violation,
no?

And while I think of it, has anyone used the Schoeps Polarflex?
http://www.schoeps.de/en/products/categories/polarflex

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:

Interesting... Can you describe in more detail what you haven't liked?

I suspect it might be room-specific/stage specific. (?)

I find that the imaging with just the main ORTF pair is almost always better
than with the outriggers up.... I get a better sense of the room. Bring the
outriggers up and it's not the same as pulling the mikes farther back... there
is a blurring in the room, I think.

That's entirely a subjective opinion here.

Just to add a few more data points:

- my original situation that led to trying the two pairs had the ORTF and the 50cm
omnis on the same main stand, but not at the same elevation. The pairs were not on
the same bar, as described by the OP in their follow-up post.

I am not sure why that would make things any different because the
two pairs aren't coherent anyway, so you could move them with respect to
one another without huge differences.

Sometimes my pairs are vertically separated by 12", sometimes much more. In the
latter case I'm generally trying to "reach across" an orchestra to get to a chorus,
where placing choral spots or even a close choral pair is impossible.

- The distance from the ensemble is always set optimally for the omnis, which
means a little too close for the ORTF. But this is very useful when I want just a
little more etched detail superimposed on what the omnis get.

That's about what I'd expect, right.

Sounds like I'm doing something different from your and the OP's description.

Still, when I'm capturing a more compact ensemble, it's really nice to have the
options that two pairs provide.

Or, when you have a concert with two very different groups on stage, that
really need to be miked differently. I will often get a concert with a
larger orchestra for one piece and then a quartet or quintet for another.

You'd think it'd be phasy as hell, but typically it isn't; though I will take a
moment to add a few samples of delay to the closer pair, dailing that in by ear
during post. (I also have a rig that can get a pretty close time alignment by
tilting in the top pair a few degrees.)

Sounds reasonable.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

studer58 writes:

On 7 Dec, 18:12, PStamler wrote:
I believe Barry Hufker proposed something like this in a JAES article
back in the 1970s or 1980s. I think he also suggested using a
coincident or near-coincident pair (XY or ORTF, in other words) full-
range, then adding a pair of spaced omni mics as outriggers, low-pass
filtered to get low-frequency time-delay information into the mix.

Peace,
Paul

I think that key to making the "2 pairs of mics" approach work (at
least when they're on the same spacer bar, and perhaps more generally)
is that one pair or the other should predominate by at least 6dB or
more in the mix. If they are mixed more closely in level you tend to
get the image smearing and 'ear/brain fog' that Scott is alluding to
rearing it's ugly head. The perceptual processes seem more forgiving
when the contributions of each mic pair are differentiated in this
manner....just my experience anyway.

A very good point. Rarely are my pairs closer than 6 dB. They will tend to "fight"
each other.

One pair is the beautiful piece of wood furniture; the other a subtle stain or
varnish.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Frank Stearns wrote:

A very good point. Rarely are my pairs closer than 6 dB. They will
tend to "fight" each other.

Try a Brucks Sputnik type setup, you may well like it in a reverberant room.

One pair is the beautiful piece of wood furniture; the other a subtle
stain or varnish.

Also try adding a useful - whatever that is - amount of delay to the rear
facing or "less directional" pair.

Frank
Mobile Audio

Kind regards

Peter Larsen