Hi!

I'm a bit new to all this, but this seems one of the only places where
people give sound advice (pun...). I will have to record a live little
jazz ensemble in a small room in stereo using a Microtrack 24/96 from
M-audio. I don't need to reject the sound from the room, the assistance
is not very noisy.

After spending a week-end reading archives of this newsgroup, the taper
forum and technical documents about audio recording, I am really
confused. I'd like a few pointers.

Let me first summarize what I learned:
-on microphones, there are dynamic (cheap, sturdy, no alim needed, but
not well-defined sound and not what I need), large capsule condensers
(good for voice, where they increase the bass presence) and small
capsule condensers (better for what I have in mind). There are also
more esoteric, more expensive types, but I understand that they are
especially good for voice, suppressing pops, etc... so not what I need.
-on microphones, there also omnidirectional, cardioids and more
directive types, the more directive they are, the more uneven the
frequency response.
-on microphone placement (for a simple stereo recording), there is the
ORTF (or X-Y) pair (no phase difference allows for mono mix, needs two
cardioid mic), the "separated mic" setup (2 omni mics left and right of
the musician formation), and intermediates between the two. I'm not
going to go the route where one puts a mic above each instrument and
mixes 15 or so channels.

(If the above is completely off-track, shout.)

With this in mind, I am planning to buy a matched pair of Sennheiser
614 and arrange them in an ORTF pair. Is this idea grossly wrong?

Other choices would be Sennheiser 914 or Rode NT5. There are also cheap
chinese-made Fostex MC10. Of these, only the Sennheisers seem to work
with the 30V non-standard phantom power that the Microtrack outputs.
For US posters: this means biased towards European manufacturers, but I
live in Germany.

I also understand that a stereo mic works like an ORTF pair (but allows
less adjustment, of course). Is that correct?

Last but not least, the previous recording of this ensemble (where a
"separated mic" setup was used) and the examples I could download from
the taper forum have, IMO, far too much bass. Is this unavoidable with
this type of recording? Of course, I can somewhat correct it
afterwards, but I would rather keep corrections minimal if possible.

Thanks in advance for any help.

wrote:
Hi!

I'm a bit new to all this, but this seems one of the only places where
people give sound advice (pun...). I will have to record a live little
jazz ensemble in a small room in stereo using a Microtrack 24/96 from
M-audio. I don't need to reject the sound from the room, the assistance
is not very noisy.

After spending a week-end reading archives of this newsgroup, the taper
forum and technical documents about audio recording, I am really
confused. I'd like a few pointers.

Let me first summarize what I learned:
-on microphones, there are dynamic (cheap, sturdy, no alim needed, but
not well-defined sound and not what I need), large capsule condensers
(good for voice, where they increase the bass presence) and small
capsule condensers (better for what I have in mind). There are also
more esoteric, more expensive types, but I understand that they are
especially good for voice, suppressing pops, etc... so not what I need.
-on microphones, there also omnidirectional, cardioids and more
directive types, the more directive they are, the more uneven the
frequency response.
-on microphone placement (for a simple stereo recording), there is the
ORTF (or X-Y) pair (no phase difference allows for mono mix, needs two
cardioid mic), the "separated mic" setup (2 omni mics left and right of
the musician formation), and intermediates between the two. I'm not
going to go the route where one puts a mic above each instrument and
mixes 15 or so channels.

(If the above is completely off-track, shout.)

With this in mind, I am planning to buy a matched pair of Sennheiser
614 and arrange them in an ORTF pair. Is this idea grossly wrong?

Other choices would be Sennheiser 914 or Rode NT5. There are also cheap
chinese-made Fostex MC10. Of these, only the Sennheisers seem to work
with the 30V non-standard phantom power that the Microtrack outputs.
For US posters: this means biased towards European manufacturers, but I
live in Germany.

I also understand that a stereo mic works like an ORTF pair (but allows
less adjustment, of course). Is that correct?

Last but not least, the previous recording of this ensemble (where a
"separated mic" setup was used) and the examples I could download from
the taper forum have, IMO, far too much bass. Is this unavoidable with
this type of recording? Of course, I can somewhat correct it
afterwards, but I would rather keep corrections minimal if possible.

Thanks in advance for any help.

You have a very good grasp on the theory. Just remember to use your
ears when you're on location.


wrote:
Hi!

I'm a bit new to all this, but this seems one of the only places where
people give sound advice (pun...). I will have to record a live little
jazz ensemble in a small room in stereo using a Microtrack 24/96 from
M-audio. I don't need to reject the sound from the room, the assistance
is not very noisy.

After spending a week-end reading archives of this newsgroup, the taper
forum and technical documents about audio recording, I am really
confused. I'd like a few pointers.

Let me first summarize what I learned:
-on microphones, there are dynamic (cheap, sturdy, no alim needed, but
not well-defined sound and not what I need), large capsule condensers
(good for voice, where they increase the bass presence) and small
capsule condensers (better for what I have in mind). There are also
more esoteric, more expensive types, but I understand that they are
especially good for voice, suppressing pops, etc... so not what I need.
-on microphones, there also omnidirectional, cardioids and more
directive types, the more directive they are, the more uneven the
frequency response.
-on microphone placement (for a simple stereo recording), there is the
ORTF (or X-Y) pair (no phase difference allows for mono mix, needs two
cardioid mic), the "separated mic" setup (2 omni mics left and right of
the musician formation), and intermediates between the two. I'm not
going to go the route where one puts a mic above each instrument and
mixes 15 or so channels.

(If the above is completely off-track, shout.)

With this in mind, I am planning to buy a matched pair of Sennheiser
614 and arrange them in an ORTF pair. Is this idea grossly wrong?

Other choices would be Sennheiser 914 or Rode NT5. There are also cheap
chinese-made Fostex MC10. Of these, only the Sennheisers seem to work
with the 30V non-standard phantom power that the Microtrack outputs.
For US posters: this means biased towards European manufacturers, but I
live in Germany.

I also understand that a stereo mic works like an ORTF pair (but allows
less adjustment, of course). Is that correct?

Last but not least, the previous recording of this ensemble (where a
"separated mic" setup was used) and the examples I could download from
the taper forum have, IMO, far too much bass. Is this unavoidable with
this type of recording? Of course, I can somewhat correct it
afterwards, but I would rather keep corrections minimal if possible.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Rafael Vanoni wrote:

snip

-on microphone placement (for a simple stereo recording), there is the
ORTF (or X-Y) pair (no phase difference allows for mono mix, needs two


ORTF and X/Y are different mic placement techniques, similar, but
different. The first one sets mics a few inches apart and about 110º
from each other, not really a rule tho. On X/Y you set them at 90º,
pretty close from one another.

Well, the ORTF standard of 110 degrees and 17 centimeters is a rule, or
standard if you will. In practice, engineers will vary the exact angle
and distance for various reasons, so I guess you could say that it's a
rule that's only loosly followed. I'd say that if it's not 110 and 17,
it's not ORTF, but many people will still call it by that name.

XY is a coincident technique, that is the mics are placed so that the
capsules are in the same location, and the sound arrives at both at the
same time. ORTF is "near-coincident" meaning that the mics are spaced a
small distance apart - this allows arrival time information to go into
the stereo field making for a more "spacious" recording.

//Walt

Other choices would be Sennheiser 914 or Rode NT5. There are also cheap
chinese-made Fostex MC10. Of these, only the Sennheisers seem to work
with the 30V non-standard phantom power that the Microtrack outputs.
For US posters: this means biased towards European manufacturers, but I
live in Germany.

NT5's work fine on 30V, and I recommend them. I recently got another new
pair for $275 off eBay.

I also understand that a stereo mic works like an ORTF pair (but allows
less adjustment, of course). Is that correct?

No, stereo mics are generally coincident XY, or very narrowly separated, 2cm
at most. They are also typically electret condensers, which aren't
inappropriate, but NT5's sound substantially better. Never used Sennheiser
914's, but they are electrets as well, and I woud not expect them to compete
with NT5's, which have a silky elegance to them you won't find for less than
$1000 and is well-suited to jazz.

"Zigakly" wrote in message

Other choices would be Sennheiser 914 or Rode NT5. There
are also cheap chinese-made Fostex MC10. Of these, only
the Sennheisers seem to work with the 30V non-standard
phantom power that the Microtrack outputs. For US
posters: this means biased towards European
manufacturers, but I live in Germany.

NT5's work fine on 30V, and I recommend them. I recently
got another new pair for $275 off eBay.

I also understand that a stereo mic works like an ORTF
pair (but allows less adjustment, of course). Is that
correct?

No, stereo mics are generally coincident XY, or very
narrowly separated, 2cm at most. They are also typically
electret condensers, which aren't inappropriate, but
NT5's sound substantially better. Never used Sennheiser
914's, but they are electrets as well, and I woud not
expect them to compete with NT5's, which have a silky
elegance to them you won't find for less than $1000 and
is well-suited to jazz.

Or, use a NT4 which seems to be essentially a matched pair of NT5s with
near-ideal packaging for use as a general-purpose coincident mic.

Or, use a NT4 which seems to be essentially a matched pair of NT5s with
near-ideal packaging for use as a general-purpose coincident mic.

I use an NT4 for recording a small ensemble that straddles the border
between classical and jazz, and I've been quite happy with it. It is
two capsules that are the same as the ones in the NT5, mounted
permanently in an X-Y configuration, which makes set-up extremely
convenient (particularly nice for recording live gigs). It also differs
in that you can use a 9v battery if you don't have phantom power (video
recorders, minidisc, etc.). I recently bought an NT5 pair as well for
more versatility and being able to spot-mike certain instruments.

There are some mp3 samples at my web site -- for those recorded by the
NT4 go to "recordings" and click on the samples under "The Bluebird."
The piano is digital and was recorded direct, the rest of the
instruments are picked up by the NT4.

I used to own an NT4, but I'm no longer a fan of coincident XY for capturing
an ensemble. Even if XY were preferable to ORTF in this case (which I think
it isn't), the NT4 costs more than NT5's, and the only other benefit is the
self-power option, which is moot since NT5's will work fine from the
MicroTrack's 30V phantom.

Rafael Vanoni wrote:
snip
-on microphone placement (for a simple stereo recording), there is the
ORTF (or X-Y) pair (no phase difference allows for mono mix, needs two

ORTF and X/Y are different mic placement techniques, similar, but
different. The first one sets mics a few inches apart and about 110º
from each other, not really a rule tho. On X/Y you set them at 90º,
pretty close from one another.


ORTF is 17cm spacing by 110deg angle. that is around 6.7", fwiw.
If you want to see pictures, go to DPAs website and check out the
"microphone univiersity" section, or look on the Oades site:
http://www.oade.com/Tapers_Section/micsetup.html

imo, the Rhode small diaphrams are crap. grainy and nasty sounding.
Studio Project C4s are way better sounding, and come with cardioid and
omni capsules. I believe they are cheaper as well, or right at the same
price level.

definitely check them out.

if you want to hear what they sound like (or any mic for that matter) in
a live setting, just do a search for that mic type at the live music
archive.
http://www.archive.org/audio/etreeli...llection=etree

Walstib wrote:
imo, the Rhode small diaphrams are crap. grainy and nasty sounding.
Studio Project C4s are way better sounding, and come with cardioid and
omni capsules. I believe they are cheaper as well, or right at the same
price level.

definitely check them out.

if you want to hear what they sound like (or any mic for that matter) in
a live setting, just do a search for that mic type at the live music
archive.
http://www.archive.org/audio/etreeli...llection=etree

Thanks for the link. In the mean time I got a pair of NT5, which the
shop next door was having a clearance sale on, so your post came a bit
late, sorry. ;-) That shop was the reason for the list I gave, BTW.

I downloaded a few of the recordings on the link you provided, and I
cannot say that the Rode and Studio Project sound vastly different.
IMHO, the difference between tapers (i.e. recording conditions and
setup) is much, much bigger than any difference between microphones...

I know this is rec.audio.PRO, but I am not doing this for money, only
for my enjoyment and to help one of the artists who is a good friend.
For me, the main criteria was "let's get this started with something
that is an improvement on a low end stereo mic, at a price", not "let's
find the best stuff around, even if it is esoteric". Now I intend to
make a few tests between X/Y and ORTF and see which one gives the best
results to my taste, I got a little adjustable bar on a mic stand to
that effect. That should already keep me busy for a while. Then -who
knows?- maybe I'll get the virus and decide to invest in better gear...

wrote:

I'm a bit new to all this, but this seems one of the only places where
people give sound advice (pun...). I will have to record a live little
jazz ensemble in a small room in stereo using a Microtrack 24/96 from
M-audio. I don't need to reject the sound from the room, the assistance
is not very noisy.

You should know that this really isn't a place for advice. A decade ago
this group mostly consisted of professional audio guys hanging out and
talking, but the huge influx of newbies asking questions has driven most
of the regulars off.

Let me first summarize what I learned:
-on microphones, there are dynamic (cheap, sturdy, no alim needed, but
not well-defined sound and not what I need), large capsule condensers
(good for voice, where they increase the bass presence) and small
capsule condensers (better for what I have in mind). There are also
more esoteric, more expensive types, but I understand that they are
especially good for voice, suppressing pops, etc... so not what I need.

For the most part this is true, although there are some dynamic mikes
that are very accurate and well-defined. Many ribbons are this way,
and even some moving-coil dynamics (like the Sennheiser 441). For the
most part, these mikes are not cheap.

-on microphones, there also omnidirectional, cardioids and more
directive types, the more directive they are, the more uneven the
frequency response.

Not really. You can think of there being a continuum between a pure
omni on one end that is sensitive only to air pressure, and a pure
figure-8 on the other end that is sensitive to air velocity. The
cardioid is in the middle of the line, flanked by hypercardioids on
one side and "wide cardioids" or supercardioids on the other. On the
whole, the closer that you get to either side of the line, the easier it
is to get flat frequency response off-axis. The cardioid is the most
difficult, the hypercardioid and supercardioids are easier, and the
figure-8 and omni much easier.

It's easier to get good low-end response on the omni side than on the
figure-8 side, with the cardioid in-between.

-on microphone placement (for a simple stereo recording), there is the
ORTF (or X-Y) pair (no phase difference allows for mono mix, needs two
cardioid mic), the "separated mic" setup (2 omni mics left and right of
the musician formation), and intermediates between the two.

No, ORTF and X-Y are different. ORTF is a "near-coincident" technique
that gives you phase differences between channels, whereas X-Y is pure
coincident with no phase differences between channels (and correspondingly
poorer low-end imaging).

There is a good tutorial on stereophony on www.josephson.com somewhere.

With this in mind, I am planning to buy a matched pair of Sennheiser
614 and arrange them in an ORTF pair. Is this idea grossly wrong?

You could do better and you could do worse. The 614 is not the cleanest
sounding microphone, and here in the US it is fairly expensive. You could
get an AT 4053 or a Josephson Series Four for only a little more. You
could get some hand-selected Oktava 012s for a little less.

Other choices would be Sennheiser 914 or Rode NT5. There are also cheap
chinese-made Fostex MC10. Of these, only the Sennheisers seem to work
with the 30V non-standard phantom power that the Microtrack outputs.
For US posters: this means biased towards European manufacturers, but I
live in Germany.

If you live in Germany, your price points are going to be different.
I was personally not impressed with the NT5 or the Fostex cheapies, but
I have never tried the 914.

I also understand that a stereo mic works like an ORTF pair (but allows
less adjustment, of course). Is that correct?

No, most stereo mikes are X-Y (or M-S, which amounts to basically the
same thing once the math is done). They have no phase differences
between channels. If a stereo mike was built like an ORTF device, it
would be very large.

There are some large stereo mikes out there, like the Crown SASS-P,
which also has phase differences between channels, or the Schoeps Sphere.

Last but not least, the previous recording of this ensemble (where a
"separated mic" setup was used) and the examples I could download from
the taper forum have, IMO, far too much bass. Is this unavoidable with
this type of recording? Of course, I can somewhat correct it
afterwards, but I would rather keep corrections minimal if possible.

Does it have too much bass in the room? If so, try moving somewhere
in the room where there is less bass. If the original performance has
too much low end, though, there is nothing you can do other than to
use equalization. Shure sells a handy little inline bass cut device
in the A15 series.
--scott

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

On 3/14/06 7:39 AM, in article , "Scott Dorsey"
wrote:

wrote:

I'm a bit new to all this, but this seems one of the only places where
people give sound advice (pun...). I will have to record a live little
jazz ensemble in a small room in stereo using a Microtrack 24/96 from
M-audio. I don't need to reject the sound from the room, the assistance
is not very noisy.

You should know that this really isn't a place for advice. A decade ago
this group mostly consisted of professional audio guys hanging out and
talking, but the huge influx of newbies asking questions has driven most
of the regulars off.
(snip)

I came here and lurked a few times when I was first into home recording. It
was WAY over my head.
Now it's only 60% over my head. Is that me, or has the demographic of the NG
changed? Probably a little (or a lot) of both. Maybe the real hotshots have
to start a new NG: sci.audio.pro.youwillneverunderstandthis****.
I feel their pain, I'm part of the reason for it, and I guess I'm a little
sorry. But there was a time when, if you could afford a car, you were likely
to pay someone else to drive you around. Mr. Ford changed all that.
MOTU and some other folks have changed the demographic of recordists. Not
that there isn't a need for educated, highly skilled professionals, but the
rest of us can have a whack at it in our modest ways now.
I mean, I'm an enthusiastic amateur, but I have a matched pair of Gefell
M300s and a Millennia HV3-C in my arsenal. Ten years ago, how many weekend
"record the garage band" guys would have had that quality of gear in their
basement? Now, it's almost commonplace. Sorry about that. Sort of.

In article , Sean wrote:
I came here and lurked a few times when I was first into home recording. It
was WAY over my head.
Now it's only 60% over my head. Is that me, or has the demographic of the NG
changed? Probably a little (or a lot) of both. Maybe the real hotshots have
to start a new NG: sci.audio.pro.youwillneverunderstandthis****.

It's both. You probably know a lot more than you did, then. But also,
a lot of the regulars have gone off to places like the pro-audio mailing
list, the Ampex User's Group list, and so forth. I think the influx of
newbies asking the same questions over and over again just drove them off.

I feel their pain, I'm part of the reason for it, and I guess I'm a little
sorry. But there was a time when, if you could afford a car, you were likely
to pay someone else to drive you around. Mr. Ford changed all that.
MOTU and some other folks have changed the demographic of recordists. Not
that there isn't a need for educated, highly skilled professionals, but the
rest of us can have a whack at it in our modest ways now.

Oh, think all those changes happened in the recording industry back in
the sixties. It's been possible for anyone to have a stab at it for
a good long time now.

I'm just talking about changes in the newsgroup, not changes in the recording
industry as a whole.

I mean, I'm an enthusiastic amateur, but I have a matched pair of Gefell
M300s and a Millennia HV3-C in my arsenal. Ten years ago, how many weekend
"record the garage band" guys would have had that quality of gear in their
basement? Now, it's almost commonplace. Sorry about that. Sort of.

No, this is a good thing. This is a very good thing. The problem is that
for every one of those Millennias, there are a million Mackie and Behringers
out there.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 3/15/06 12:01 AM, in article 7RPRf.33058$dg.741@clgrps13, "Lorin David
Schultz" wrote:

"Sean" wrote:

I mean, I'm an enthusiastic amateur, but I have a matched pair of
Gefell M300s and a Millennia HV3-C in my arsenal. Ten years ago, how
many weekend "record the garage band" guys would have had that
quality of gear in their basement? Now, it's almost commonplace.
Sorry about that. Sort of.


I own a McLaren F1 but I still can't do Laguna Seca in under 1:41.

I have the finest table saw money can buy, but I still can't make
furniture that looks and fits together as well as the stuff I see in the
high-end furniture stores.

I have the most accurate handgun ever built, but I still can't drop,
roll, and pop one straight into the heart of an attacker.

As much as better tools do remove obstacles to skilled operation, it
ain't about the hardware.

I completely agree. But, if you own the finest table saw money can buy, you
are likely to take more of an interest in woodwork and might even find
yourself lurking on rec.woodworking.pro. Maybe even asking questions. Maybe
even finding yourself knowing more than a strict amateur normally would. And
maybe exasperating the hell out of the actual pro woodworkers in that ng.

"Sean" wrote:

And maybe exasperating the hell out of the actual pro woodworkers in
that ng.


And what positive outcome is achieved by that? Who benefits?

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:38:09 -0500, Walstib wrote
(in article ):

imo, the Rhode small diaphrams are crap. grainy and nasty sounding.
Studio Project C4s are way better sounding, and come with cardioid and
omni capsules. I believe they are cheaper as well, or right at the same
price level.

definitely check them out.

if you want to hear what they sound like (or any mic for that matter) in
a live setting, just do a search for that mic type at the live music
archive.
http://www.archive.org/audio/etreeli...llection=etree

The new Rode SD omni isn't grainey or nasty.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Walstib wrote:
imo, the Rhode small diaphrams are crap. grainy and nasty sounding.


You should try a RODE mic then.

Studio Project C4s are way better sounding, and come with cardioid and
omni capsules. I believe they are cheaper as well, or right at the
same price level.

definitely check them out.

Let me guess - you have a C4 or two. Probably a Mac too.

geoff