Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ORTF and panning L/R
Here's something I'm wondering about.
Is panning far left and far right the best thing to do when recording 2 stereo tracks? or should it be 40 min and 20 min, or 45 min and 15 min, or should I just leave both tracks centered, or is it all purely subjective? My ORTF configuration is sounding pretty good just leaving it centered, but it also sounds pretty good panning wide. Is there a "correct" way to get the most realistic stereo sound? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"offpeak808" wrote in message ... Here's something I'm wondering about. Is panning far left and far right the best thing to do when recording 2 stereo tracks? or should it be 40 min and 20 min, or 45 min and 15 min, or should I just leave both tracks centered, or is it all purely subjective? My ORTF configuration is sounding pretty good just leaving it centered, but it also sounds pretty good panning wide. Is there a "correct" way to get the most realistic stereo sound? ORTF is predicated on panning L&R. If you pan both microphones to the center, you have mono, with cancellations, and if that's what you want, you'd be better off just pointing a single wide cardioid forward. Peace, Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"offpeak808" wrote in message ... Here's something I'm wondering about. Is panning far left and far right the best thing to do when recording 2 stereo tracks? or should it be 40 min and 20 min, or 45 min and 15 min, or should I just leave both tracks centered, or is it all purely subjective? My ORTF configuration is sounding pretty good just leaving it centered, but it also sounds pretty good panning wide. Is there a "correct" way to get the most realistic stereo sound? ORTF is predicated on panning L&R. If you pan both microphones to the center, you have mono, with cancellations, and if that's what you want, you'd be better off just pointing a single wide cardioid forward. Peace, Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"offpeak808" wrote in message ... Here's something I'm wondering about. Is panning far left and far right the best thing to do when recording 2 stereo tracks? or should it be 40 min and 20 min, or 45 min and 15 min, or should I just leave both tracks centered, or is it all purely subjective? My ORTF configuration is sounding pretty good just leaving it centered, but it also sounds pretty good panning wide. Is there a "correct" way to get the most realistic stereo sound? ORTF is predicated on panning L&R. If you pan both microphones to the center, you have mono, with cancellations, and if that's what you want, you'd be better off just pointing a single wide cardioid forward. Peace, Paul |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
offpeak808 wrote:
Here's something I'm wondering about. Is panning far left and far right the best thing to do when recording 2 stereo tracks? Yes. or should it be 40 min and 20 min, or 45 min and 15 min, or should I just leave both tracks centered, or is it all purely subjective? If you leave them both centered, you get mono. There's nothing wrong with mono, but if you want mono, a single omni will sound better than ORTF rolled to mono in most cases. If you are using ORTF, you probably don't want mono. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
offpeak808 wrote:
Here's something I'm wondering about. Is panning far left and far right the best thing to do when recording 2 stereo tracks? Yes. or should it be 40 min and 20 min, or 45 min and 15 min, or should I just leave both tracks centered, or is it all purely subjective? If you leave them both centered, you get mono. There's nothing wrong with mono, but if you want mono, a single omni will sound better than ORTF rolled to mono in most cases. If you are using ORTF, you probably don't want mono. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"offpeak808" wrote in
: Here's something I'm wondering about. Is panning far left and far right the best thing to do when recording 2 stereo tracks? or should it be 40 min and 20 min, or 45 min and 15 min, or should I just leave both tracks centered, or is it all purely subjective? My ORTF configuration is sounding pretty good just leaving it centered, but it also sounds pretty good panning wide. Is there a "correct" way to get the most realistic stereo sound? You pan the channels far L&R. If you want to adjust the stereo spread, you change the angle of the microphones. Pointing them farther away from each other centers the signal. Pointing them more toward the center widens the stereo field. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"offpeak808" wrote in
: Here's something I'm wondering about. Is panning far left and far right the best thing to do when recording 2 stereo tracks? or should it be 40 min and 20 min, or 45 min and 15 min, or should I just leave both tracks centered, or is it all purely subjective? My ORTF configuration is sounding pretty good just leaving it centered, but it also sounds pretty good panning wide. Is there a "correct" way to get the most realistic stereo sound? You pan the channels far L&R. If you want to adjust the stereo spread, you change the angle of the microphones. Pointing them farther away from each other centers the signal. Pointing them more toward the center widens the stereo field. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
That's exactly what I wanted to know!
Thanks everyone. We've been making some terrific recordings at the club thanks to Scott's microphone advice. "Carey Carlan" wrote in message . 193... "offpeak808" wrote in : Here's something I'm wondering about. Is panning far left and far right the best thing to do when recording 2 stereo tracks? or should it be 40 min and 20 min, or 45 min and 15 min, or should I just leave both tracks centered, or is it all purely subjective? My ORTF configuration is sounding pretty good just leaving it centered, but it also sounds pretty good panning wide. Is there a "correct" way to get the most realistic stereo sound? You pan the channels far L&R. If you want to adjust the stereo spread, you change the angle of the microphones. Pointing them farther away from each other centers the signal. Pointing them more toward the center widens the stereo field. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
That's exactly what I wanted to know!
Thanks everyone. We've been making some terrific recordings at the club thanks to Scott's microphone advice. "Carey Carlan" wrote in message . 193... "offpeak808" wrote in : Here's something I'm wondering about. Is panning far left and far right the best thing to do when recording 2 stereo tracks? or should it be 40 min and 20 min, or 45 min and 15 min, or should I just leave both tracks centered, or is it all purely subjective? My ORTF configuration is sounding pretty good just leaving it centered, but it also sounds pretty good panning wide. Is there a "correct" way to get the most realistic stereo sound? You pan the channels far L&R. If you want to adjust the stereo spread, you change the angle of the microphones. Pointing them farther away from each other centers the signal. Pointing them more toward the center widens the stereo field. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Pointing them farther away from each other centers the
signal. Pointing them more toward the center widens the stereo field. This seems counter-intuitive to me. Care to explain? Thanks Ty |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Pointing them farther away from each other centers the
signal. Pointing them more toward the center widens the stereo field. This seems counter-intuitive to me. Care to explain? Thanks Ty |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
TYY wrote:
Pointing them farther away from each other centers the signal. Pointing them more toward the center widens the stereo field. This seems counter-intuitive to me. Care to explain? Thanks Ty Me too. And I would like to know because I use it every week, admittedly only to liven up a mono feed from the board. What I have done so far is borrow a couple of condensers, stuck them on a stereo bar in approx. ORTF, and mix the resulting stereo track into the recording (of the Pastor's sermon) during editing. Seems to work, but I am no expert. -- Phil Nelson |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
TYY wrote:
Pointing them farther away from each other centers the signal. Pointing them more toward the center widens the stereo field. This seems counter-intuitive to me. Care to explain? Thanks Ty Me too. And I would like to know because I use it every week, admittedly only to liven up a mono feed from the board. What I have done so far is borrow a couple of condensers, stuck them on a stereo bar in approx. ORTF, and mix the resulting stereo track into the recording (of the Pastor's sermon) during editing. Seems to work, but I am no expert. -- Phil Nelson |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Carey Carlan wrote:
(TYY) wrote in om: Pointing them farther away from each other centers the signal. Pointing them more toward the center widens the stereo field. This seems counter-intuitive to me. Care to explain? It is absolutely counter-intuitive, but intuition has to take a back seat to reason. Think of the arc covered by the microphones as the range of sounds that will sound centered between the channels. If you point both microphones near the middle (say 30 degrees), then almost everything to the left is left of the left channel and almost everything to the right is right of the right channel. The stereo field is much wider than the microphone spread. If you spread the mics wide (say 135 degrees) nearly everything in the stereo field is between the microphones (right of left and left of right) effectively narrowing the stereo field leaving the speakers. Two "buts" 1) Wide stereo field requires a mic with good off-axis response. I use Schoeps. 2) If you keep narrowing the angle, the effect eventually collapses to mono. I heard someone mention this phenomenon a while back on RAP and didn't believe it until I tried it. Hmmm. If narrowing the angle leads to mono, and widening the angle eventually reduces the stereo effect as well, then there must be some theoretically optimal angle for maximum stereo effect. Is that the "official" 110 degrees that is often associated with ORTF? Intuitively, I would expect it to be smaller than that. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
TYY wrote: Pointing them farther away from each other centers the signal. Pointing them more toward the center widens the stereo field. This seems counter-intuitive to me. Care to explain? Greater differences between channels gives you a wider soundfield. Pointing them both together gives you mono. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
TYY wrote: Pointing them farther away from each other centers the signal. Pointing them more toward the center widens the stereo field. This seems counter-intuitive to me. Care to explain? Greater differences between channels gives you a wider soundfield. Pointing them both together gives you mono. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Gilliland wrote in
: Hmmm. If narrowing the angle leads to mono, and widening the angle eventually reduces the stereo effect as well, then there must be some theoretically optimal angle for maximum stereo effect. Is that the "official" 110 degrees that is often associated with ORTF? Intuitively, I would expect it to be smaller than that. IME, using hypercardioid Schoeps CMC641's, the soundfield is widest at about a 30 degree spread. The angle will be wider with wider pattern mics. Starting at a very wide mic spread and a narrow stereo spread, the stereo spread widens continually until the two mic patterns almost overlap completely. Then it rather suddenly collapses to mono. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Gilliland wrote in
: Hmmm. If narrowing the angle leads to mono, and widening the angle eventually reduces the stereo effect as well, then there must be some theoretically optimal angle for maximum stereo effect. Is that the "official" 110 degrees that is often associated with ORTF? Intuitively, I would expect it to be smaller than that. IME, using hypercardioid Schoeps CMC641's, the soundfield is widest at about a 30 degree spread. The angle will be wider with wider pattern mics. Starting at a very wide mic spread and a narrow stereo spread, the stereo spread widens continually until the two mic patterns almost overlap completely. Then it rather suddenly collapses to mono. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I heard someone mention this phenomenon a while back on RAP and didn't believe it until I tried it. I too must verify to believe! I have been using ORTF for drum OH and have been getting good results. This new theory will definitely alter how I tweak mic positioning on my next drum tracking session. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I heard someone mention this phenomenon a while back on RAP and didn't believe it until I tried it. I too must verify to believe! I have been using ORTF for drum OH and have been getting good results. This new theory will definitely alter how I tweak mic positioning on my next drum tracking session. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Carey Carlan wrote:
Jim Gilliland wrote in : Hmmm. If narrowing the angle leads to mono, and widening the angle eventually reduces the stereo effect as well, then there must be some theoretically optimal angle for maximum stereo effect. Is that the "official" 110 degrees that is often associated with ORTF? Intuitively, I would expect it to be smaller than that. IME, using hypercardioid Schoeps CMC641's, the soundfield is widest at about a 30 degree spread. The angle will be wider with wider pattern mics. Starting at a very wide mic spread and a narrow stereo spread, the stereo spread widens continually until the two mic patterns almost overlap completely. Then it rather suddenly collapses to mono. I appreciate the benefit of your experience here. But that begs the obvious question - what is the theoretical basis for the 110 degrees that is commonly cited as the ORTF standard? Obviously, they weren't going for maximum stereo effect. As you observe, standard cardioid patterns would give their maximum stereo at an angle larger than 30, but I'm sure it would be nowhere near 110. So the ORTF must have been going for some sort of balance - perhaps just a "natural" sense of stereo, unexaggerated? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Carey Carlan wrote:
Jim Gilliland wrote in : Hmmm. If narrowing the angle leads to mono, and widening the angle eventually reduces the stereo effect as well, then there must be some theoretically optimal angle for maximum stereo effect. Is that the "official" 110 degrees that is often associated with ORTF? Intuitively, I would expect it to be smaller than that. IME, using hypercardioid Schoeps CMC641's, the soundfield is widest at about a 30 degree spread. The angle will be wider with wider pattern mics. Starting at a very wide mic spread and a narrow stereo spread, the stereo spread widens continually until the two mic patterns almost overlap completely. Then it rather suddenly collapses to mono. I appreciate the benefit of your experience here. But that begs the obvious question - what is the theoretical basis for the 110 degrees that is commonly cited as the ORTF standard? Obviously, they weren't going for maximum stereo effect. As you observe, standard cardioid patterns would give their maximum stereo at an angle larger than 30, but I'm sure it would be nowhere near 110. So the ORTF must have been going for some sort of balance - perhaps just a "natural" sense of stereo, unexaggerated? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
This is still not making sense to me, especially if I use logic in
addition to intuition. The narrower the angle between the mics, the more sound information will be shared between the two mics (assuming cardioid mics, of course), and the image should be narrower. A more obtuse angle between the mics would result in greater difference in what the mic is seeing, giving a wider image, no? What if you point two cardiod mics 180s away from each other. This should give a wide image because each mic is picking up different sounds, i.e. very little information is "shared" between the two mics. Clearly two card mics parallel are almost acting as one microphone, giving a virtually mono recording. How do angles in between 0 and 180 somehow run counter to this trend? I guess I'll have to do some experimenting... |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
This is still not making sense to me, especially if I use logic in
addition to intuition. The narrower the angle between the mics, the more sound information will be shared between the two mics (assuming cardioid mics, of course), and the image should be narrower. A more obtuse angle between the mics would result in greater difference in what the mic is seeing, giving a wider image, no? What if you point two cardiod mics 180s away from each other. This should give a wide image because each mic is picking up different sounds, i.e. very little information is "shared" between the two mics. Clearly two card mics parallel are almost acting as one microphone, giving a virtually mono recording. How do angles in between 0 and 180 somehow run counter to this trend? I guess I'll have to do some experimenting... |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
This seems counter-intuitive to me. Care to explain?
Greater differences between channels gives you a wider soundfield. Pointing them both together gives you mono. --scott My last post was made before I read your post scott (damn google). You seem to have the same opinion I have. Please read the post under question more closely. You will see that your statement runs counter to the argument made. He stated that wider image is produced by a narrower angle between mikes. This will give less differences between channels, no? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
This seems counter-intuitive to me. Care to explain?
Greater differences between channels gives you a wider soundfield. Pointing them both together gives you mono. --scott My last post was made before I read your post scott (damn google). You seem to have the same opinion I have. Please read the post under question more closely. You will see that your statement runs counter to the argument made. He stated that wider image is produced by a narrower angle between mikes. This will give less differences between channels, no? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
If I point one mic left of the left instrument and another right of the right instrument, I won't have *anything* in the direct path of the mic, but I'll have fringes of everything in both channels. All three sources will be left of the right mic and right of the left mic. That's the definition of a narrow stereo image. This one definitely makes sense to me. The other piece of the puzzle which hasn't been discussed enough is the proximity to the sound source. Depending on distance to the guitar vocal and bass, the effect of mic angle changes significantly. We are making some assumptions about ORTF placement and distance to the source. For closer applications (i.e. drum overheads), a wider mic spread may indeed result in a wide image. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
If I point one mic left of the left instrument and another right of the right instrument, I won't have *anything* in the direct path of the mic, but I'll have fringes of everything in both channels. All three sources will be left of the right mic and right of the left mic. That's the definition of a narrow stereo image. This one definitely makes sense to me. The other piece of the puzzle which hasn't been discussed enough is the proximity to the sound source. Depending on distance to the guitar vocal and bass, the effect of mic angle changes significantly. We are making some assumptions about ORTF placement and distance to the source. For closer applications (i.e. drum overheads), a wider mic spread may indeed result in a wide image. |