[Nate Najar]

Hi guys,

Where can I get a proper jecklin disc? I've read the aes paper on joepshson's site and I've noticed some of the prescriptions are different than some of the d.i.y. articles and other discs I've seen people use. So if I wanted the real deal, where can I get one?

I have considered making one, I have some 1" sitting around, but I'm concerned about mounting everything elegantly at the proper distances/dimensions. And if I can get a nice one for a few hundred quid or less it's worth it to not have to do myself.....

Any thoughts?

As a side note, the aes paper says a jecklin disc must be used in the diffuse field. Can anyone comment why that is? Too much L-R separation if it's too close maybe?

Thanks!

[Tatonik]

Nate Najar wrote:

Hi guys,

Where can I get a proper jecklin disc? I've read the aes paper on
joepshson's site and I've noticed some of the prescriptions are different
than some of the d.i.y. articles and other discs I've seen people use. So
if I wanted the real deal, where can I get one?

I have considered making one, I have some 1" sitting around, but I'm
concerned about mounting everything elegantly at the proper
distances/dimensions. And if I can get a nice one for a few hundred quid
or less it's worth it to not have to do myself.....

Any thoughts?

As a side note, the aes paper says a jecklin disc must be used in the
diffuse field. Can anyone comment why that is? Too much L-R separation
if it's too close maybe?

Thanks!

I bought my Jecklin disk here (it's made by Josephson):

http://www.zenproaudio.com/josephson-ossdisk

It looks like the price has gone up a bit since I bought mine.

[Scott Dorsey]

Nate Najar wrote:
Where can I get a proper jecklin disc? I've read the aes paper on joepshson=
's site and I've noticed some of the prescriptions are different than some =
of the d.i.y. articles and other discs I've seen people use. So if I wante=
d the real deal, where can I get one? =20

Josephson sells one. I think Schoeps sells one too. Be prepared to dig
deeply.

I have considered making one, I have some 1" sitting around, but I'm concer=
ned about mounting everything elegantly at the proper distances/dimensions.=
And if I can get a nice one for a few hundred quid or less it's worth it =
to not have to do myself.....

Just make one yourself, it'll be fine. My suspicion is that you are working
close enough that the Jecklin may not make you happy anyway.

As a side note, the aes paper says a jecklin disc must be used in the diffu=
se field. Can anyone comment why that is? Too much L-R separation if it's=
too close maybe?

That's really pretty much the case with all stereo miking methods. Get up
too close and it's not a realistic image anymore.
--scott

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

[Nate Najar]

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:40:57 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nate Najar wrote:
Where can I get a proper jecklin disc? I've read the aes paper on joepshson=
's site and I've noticed some of the prescriptions are different than some =
of the d.i.y. articles and other discs I've seen people use. So if I wante=
d the real deal, where can I get one? =20

Josephson sells one. I think Schoeps sells one too. Be prepared to dig
deeply.

I have considered making one, I have some 1" sitting around, but I'm concer=
ned about mounting everything elegantly at the proper distances/dimensions.=
And if I can get a nice one for a few hundred quid or less it's worth it =
to not have to do myself.....

Just make one yourself, it'll be fine. My suspicion is that you are working
close enough that the Jecklin may not make you happy anyway.

As a side note, the aes paper says a jecklin disc must be used in the diffu=
se field. Can anyone comment why that is? Too much L-R separation if it's=
too close maybe?

That's really pretty much the case with all stereo miking methods. Get up
too close and it's not a realistic image anymore.
--scott

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

ha you know me too well.

I've never done any strict classical guitar recording, and I thought the jecklin disc might be nice to try. So of course I wouldn't be miking nearly as close as I do with my other work, but I am not sure of the correct working distance until I try it. I have a few reference recordings of guitar in particular rooms that I am quite fond of. I recently heard some John Williams on the radio and as wonderful a player as he is, it was miked so close it was difficult to listen to. Anyway, my point is, I shall certainly be working at greater distance than my usual work, but I have no idea what that is yet! I really like the sense of space and depth I feel with pressure omnis....

[Frank Stearns]

Nate Najar writes:

snips

I've never done any strict classical guitar recording, and I thought the je=
cklin disc might be nice to try. So of course I wouldn't be miking nearly =
as close as I do with my other work, but I am not sure of the correct worki=
ng distance until I try it. I have a few reference recordings of guitar in=
particular rooms that I am quite fond of. I recently heard some John Will=
iams on the radio and as wonderful a player as he is, it was miked so close=
it was difficult to listen to. Anyway, my point is, I shall certainly be =
working at greater distance than my usual work, but I have no idea what tha=
t is yet! I really like the sense of space and depth I feel with pressure =
omnis....

Assuming solo classical guitar in a good space I'd do the following:

1. vertical stereo pair, 8-10" apart, 1 foot back, up near where the neck joins the
body. (Up and down on this pair gives an excellent image yet the player can pivot
without causing really annoying image shifts. Gefell M940 hypers are excellent for
this. Other hypers would probably work too.) Set the splay of the pair to the bottom
mic -- angle the bottom mic up a touch so that the floor is in the null of the
pattern, then tilt the top mic down a touch to symmetrically match that angle.

In the mix, add just a touch for clarity and vibrance (if needed) and
width-addition. But don't face-slap the listener.

2. omni stereo pair (I love'm too) 5-7" feet back (maybe a few feet more if
it's really a good concert instrument capable of projecting into a hall), perhaps up
a bit but not super high (adjust to taste). Could be the Jecklin, could be a 50 cm
spacing of KM183s with diffraction spheres. Depends on what you have -- just so long
as it's something that typically produces an eerie-ly accurate image, left-to-right
*AND* front-to-back. This is likely the dominant signal in your mix

3. Room pair, 12-15 feet back, possibly spaced 15-20 feet (I'd try that first in
this case), or possibly in a pair configuration; depends on the room. Use in the mix
like a reverb field -- subtle. If the room is lousy then omit this pair and possibly
use a touch of artificial reverb instead -- again depending on the music played.

In post, time align and mix to taste. It's even likely that the mix would change,
depending on the music.

You'd cover all your bases, and with a little luck get remarkable dimension, along
with wonderful definintion and detail but without being "in your face", depending on
the level balances between the pairs.

(Even money the John Williams affront was done with KM184s at 1-2 feet, and no doubt
with a concert instrument designed to fill a hall. By themselves, with that
kind of instrument, it's way too close.)

Have fun with it,

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[JackA]

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 4:11:20 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
Nate Najar writes:

snips

I've never done any strict classical guitar recording, and I thought the je=
cklin disc might be nice to try. So of course I wouldn't be miking nearly =
as close as I do with my other work, but I am not sure of the correct worki=
ng distance until I try it. I have a few reference recordings of guitar in=
particular rooms that I am quite fond of. I recently heard some John Will=
iams on the radio and as wonderful a player as he is, it was miked so close=
it was difficult to listen to. Anyway, my point is, I shall certainly be =
working at greater distance than my usual work, but I have no idea what tha=
t is yet! I really like the sense of space and depth I feel with pressure =
omnis....

Assuming solo classical guitar in a good space I'd do the following:

1. vertical stereo pair, 8-10" apart, 1 foot back, up near where the neck joins the
body. (Up and down on this pair gives an excellent image yet the player can pivot
without causing really annoying image shifts. Gefell M940 hypers are excellent for
this. Other hypers would probably work too.) Set the splay of the pair to the bottom
mic -- angle the bottom mic up a touch so that the floor is in the null of the
pattern, then tilt the top mic down a touch to symmetrically match that angle.

In the mix, add just a touch for clarity and vibrance (if needed) and
width-addition. But don't face-slap the listener.

2. omni stereo pair (I love'm too) 5-7" feet back (maybe a few feet more if
it's really a good concert instrument capable of projecting into a hall), perhaps up
a bit but not super high (adjust to taste). Could be the Jecklin, could be a 50 cm
spacing of KM183s with diffraction spheres. Depends on what you have -- just so long
as it's something that typically produces an eerie-ly accurate image, left-to-right
*AND* front-to-back. This is likely the dominant signal in your mix

3. Room pair, 12-15 feet back, possibly spaced 15-20 feet (I'd try that first in
this case), or possibly in a pair configuration; depends on the room. Use in the mix
like a reverb field -- subtle. If the room is lousy then omit this pair and possibly
use a touch of artificial reverb instead -- again depending on the music played.

In post, time align and mix to taste. It's even likely that the mix would change,
depending on the music.

You'd cover all your bases, and with a little luck get remarkable dimension, along
with wonderful definintion and detail but without being "in your face", depending on
the level balances between the pairs.

(Even money the John Williams affront was done with KM184s at 1-2 feet, and no doubt
with a concert instrument designed to fill a hall. By themselves, with that
kind of instrument, it's way too close.)

Have fun with it,

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
.

I was getting excited, I thought you meant John Williamson!! But, I guess I'll never hear his audio work, being stashed in some underground bunker in a nondescript building.

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

Nate Najar wrote:
I've never done any strict classical guitar recording, and I thought the je=
cklin disc might be nice to try. So of course I wouldn't be miking nearly =
as close as I do with my other work, but I am not sure of the correct worki=
ng distance until I try it. I have a few reference recordings of guitar in=
particular rooms that I am quite fond of. I recently heard some John Will=
iams on the radio and as wonderful a player as he is, it was miked so close=
it was difficult to listen to. Anyway, my point is, I shall certainly be =
working at greater distance than my usual work, but I have no idea what tha=
t is yet! I really like the sense of space and depth I feel with pressure =
omnis....

So, get three mike stands. Put omnis on two of them, then in the middle
one put a microphone thread barrel that allows you to connect two male
threaded things. Then put an Atlas clamp on the top of it. Now, put a
big but thin book in the clamp (Goode's World Atlas is a nice pick) and
stick the book between the two mikes. Record.

You may decide to cock the microphones out if they are a little bit
directional at high frequencies. Then again, you might not.
--scott

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

So, get three mike stands. Put omnis on two of them, then in the
middle one put a microphone thread barrel that allows you to connect
two male threaded things. Then put an Atlas clamp on the top of it.
Now, put a big but thin book in the clamp (Goode's World Atlas is a
nice pick) and stick the book between the two mikes. Record.

You may decide to cock the microphones out if they are a little bit
directional at high frequencies. Then again, you might not.
--scott

With my limited experience I would like to jump on in there with a question.
I am thinking of the book technique, or the Jecklin Disc, as very similar to
what you would get with two cardioids or hypercardioids back to back, so
that they are in each other's nulls. Thus, they are recording mostly the L
and R portions of the S mike in an MS pair. But then, especially on a single
instrument like the guitar, wouldn't a real MS pair give you much greater
functionality and versatility in the mixing session?

Gary Eickmeier

[Frank Stearns]

"Gary Eickmeier" writes:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

So, get three mike stands. Put omnis on two of them, then in the
middle one put a microphone thread barrel that allows you to connect
two male threaded things. Then put an Atlas clamp on the top of it.
Now, put a big but thin book in the clamp (Goode's World Atlas is a
nice pick) and stick the book between the two mikes. Record.

You may decide to cock the microphones out if they are a little bit
directional at high frequencies. Then again, you might not.
--scott

With my limited experience I would like to jump on in there with a question.
I am thinking of the book technique, or the Jecklin Disc, as very similar to
what you would get with two cardioids or hypercardioids back to back, so
that they are in each other's nulls. Thus, they are recording mostly the L
and R portions of the S mike in an MS pair. But then, especially on a single
instrument like the guitar, wouldn't a real MS pair give you much greater
functionality and versatility in the mixing session?

In one sense, yes, but you could do much the same with pan pots.

The underlying problem with MS (and by extension, XY) is that while we can get
excellent left/right imaging, we don't seem to get the same depth image that
omnis can provide. That's been my experience; YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

So, get three mike stands. Put omnis on two of them, then in the
middle one put a microphone thread barrel that allows you to connect
two male threaded things. Then put an Atlas clamp on the top of it.
Now, put a big but thin book in the clamp (Goode's World Atlas is a
nice pick) and stick the book between the two mikes. Record.

You may decide to cock the microphones out if they are a little bit
directional at high frequencies. Then again, you might not.
--scott

With my limited experience I would like to jump on in there with a question.
I am thinking of the book technique, or the Jecklin Disc, as very similar to
what you would get with two cardioids or hypercardioids back to back, so
that they are in each other's nulls. Thus, they are recording mostly the L
and R portions of the S mike in an MS pair. But then, especially on a single
instrument like the guitar, wouldn't a real MS pair give you much greater
functionality and versatility in the mixing session?

No, it's quite different than what you get from any cardioid arrangement
because the omnis are flatter off-axis than any cardioid.

There is space between them so there is some phase difference between the two
for imaging at low frequencies. Putting the baffle between them blocks
high frequencies from the sides, so it gives you some amplitude difference
at high frequencies.

The Jecklin pair wants to be much closer in than an ORTF pair, in part because
it picks up so much more room ambience. It is also much more touchy about the
room.

If you want to know what it sounds like, get some of the recordings on the
M-A Recordings label which are made with a pair of B&K instrumentation
capsules and a Jecklin disc.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:

The underlying problem with MS (and by extension, XY) is that while we can get
excellent left/right imaging, we don't seem to get the same depth image that
omnis can provide. That's been my experience; YMMV.

Well, MS and XY provide only intensity stereo so there is no imaging at all
at low frequencies. This is annoying to me, but I wouldn't call that a sense
of depth, I'd call that a sense of low frequency space.

On the other hand there is the sense of depth that you get from widely spaced
omnis... and you don't get that with the Jecklin disc or ORTF pairs of any of
the other configurations that give you both amplitude and phase imaging.

I think that sense of depth is an artifact and it's something I don't hear
in the actual hall. But a lot of people grew up listening to Mercury and
Columbia recordings made with spaced triads and they expect recordings to
sound that way. So I'm happy to make them sound that way for them and set
up a spaced triad.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:

The underlying problem with MS (and by extension, XY) is that while we can get
excellent left/right imaging, we don't seem to get the same depth image that
omnis can provide. That's been my experience; YMMV.

Well, MS and XY provide only intensity stereo so there is no imaging at all
at low frequencies. This is annoying to me, but I wouldn't call that a sense
of depth, I'd call that a sense of low frequency space.

On the other hand there is the sense of depth that you get from widely spaced
omnis... and you don't get that with the Jecklin disc or ORTF pairs of any of
the other configurations that give you both amplitude and phase imaging.

I think that sense of depth is an artifact and it's something I don't hear
in the actual hall. But a lot of people grew up listening to Mercury and
Columbia recordings made with spaced triads and they expect recordings to
sound that way. So I'm happy to make them sound that way for them and set
up a spaced triad.

Have you tried the 50cm Williams Curve using splayed KM183s and diffraction
spheres? It truly is the most remarkable rendering of a space I've ever heard.

Yes, the LF is nice, but it's the ability to pin-point items on a sound stage (in a
reasonably good hall, of course) -- left to right, front to back within the space --
that's so amazing.

You can walk around the stage, up and down, back and forth, with a dog clicker or
simply talking, and this method images the location precisely (assuming reasonably
good monitoring). ORTF won't quite do this; MS/XY won't do it at all. Spaced
omnis are just kinda weird with their image, in my experience. (Image "points" move
around unevenly; they do not correspond to what one hears acoustically from, say,
the front row.)

I might occasionally use spaced microphones as outriggers to a central pair, but I'd
never be happy with just a pair of spaced microphones as the primary capture.

Not sure what you mean by "artifact" in this context. If I'm sitting in the house
front row (or near front row) center and musicians are moving around on stage (and I
close my eyes), my hearing is giving me a pretty good indication of where they are
in space -- left/right and front/back. The 50cm technique comes the closest I've
heard to capturing this.

Frank
Mobile Audio



--

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Frank Stearns wrote:

The underlying problem with MS (and by extension, XY) is that while we can get
excellent left/right imaging, we don't seem to get the same depth image that
omnis can provide. That's been my experience; YMMV.

Well, MS and XY provide only intensity stereo so there is no imaging at all
at low frequencies. This is annoying to me, but I wouldn't call that a sense
of depth, I'd call that a sense of low frequency space.


I'm not convinced this is a problem. I use X/Y a lot for drum overheads
because then the single kik mic and the overheads blend (what seems to
me to be ) better.

It gives more punch up the middle.

On the other hand there is the sense of depth that you get from widely spaced
omnis... and you don't get that with the Jecklin disc or ORTF pairs of any of
the other configurations that give you both amplitude and phase imaging.

I think that sense of depth is an artifact and it's something I don't hear
in the actual hall. But a lot of people grew up listening to Mercury and
Columbia recordings made with spaced triads and they expect recordings to
sound that way. So I'm happy to make them sound that way for them and set
up a spaced triad.
--scott


--
Les Cargill

[[email protected]]

But a lot of people grew up listening to Mercury and
Columbia recordings made with spaced triads and they expect recordings to
sound that way. So I'm happy to make them sound that way for them and set
up a spaced triad.
--scott

what is a "spaced triad"?

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
But a lot of people grew up listening to Mercury and
Columbia recordings made with spaced triads and they expect recordings to
sound that way. So I'm happy to make them sound that way for them and set
up a spaced triad.

what is a "spaced triad"?

Three omnis, spaced many feet apart, usually suspended over the orchestra but
they can be moved forward or back to change the brass/string balance a bit.

The Mercury recordings were done with three U47s in omni mode, which aren't
really all that omni at high frequencies. The three tracks were recorded
discretely to an Ampex 300-3 or a Westrex 35mm dubber, and then mixed to
two channels in the mastering room so there wouldn't be an intermediate
two-channel tape.

The fact that the U47 is so beamy I think contributes to some of the effect
people like about it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:

Have you tried the 50cm Williams Curve using splayed KM183s and diffraction
spheres? It truly is the most remarkable rendering of a space I've ever heard.

I have tried a similar arrangement with B&Ks and balls, and I generally like
the idea. I like the Jecklin disc better than the balls but I think the
concept is very close. Same goes for the Schoeps sphere which I think is
really just a funny shaped baffle. I think all of these work similarly well.

Yes, the LF is nice, but it's the ability to pin-point items on a sound stage (in a
reasonably good hall, of course) -- left to right, front to back within the space --
that's so amazing.

But I don't hear absolutely pinpoint imaging when I am sitting in the balcony!
I hear a wide field and I can pick things out, but there is still a very large
diffuse component. I hear too many recordings that are exaggerated in terms
of imaging, though.

You can walk around the stage, up and down, back and forth, with a dog clicker or
simply talking, and this method images the location precisely (assuming reasonably
good monitoring). ORTF won't quite do this; MS/XY won't do it at all. Spaced
omnis are just kinda weird with their image, in my experience. (Image "points" move
around unevenly; they do not correspond to what one hears acoustically from, say,
the front row.)

ORTF is a little more diffuse which I sometimes like depending on the room,
but the jecklin disc behaves very similarly to the balls.

Not sure what you mean by "artifact" in this context. If I'm sitting in the house
front row (or near front row) center and musicians are moving around on stage (and I
close my eyes), my hearing is giving me a pretty good indication of where they are
in space -- left/right and front/back. The 50cm technique comes the closest I've
heard to capturing this.

Right, but widely spaced omnis won't. The widely spaced omnis give you this
sense of a very deep soundfield that isn't really there.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Frank Stearns wrote:

The underlying problem with MS (and by extension, XY) is that while we can get
excellent left/right imaging, we don't seem to get the same depth image that
omnis can provide. That's been my experience; YMMV.

Well, MS and XY provide only intensity stereo so there is no imaging at all
at low frequencies. This is annoying to me, but I wouldn't call that a sense
of depth, I'd call that a sense of low frequency space.


I'm not convinced this is a problem. I use X/Y a lot for drum overheads
because then the single kik mic and the overheads blend (what seems to
me to be ) better.

It gives more punch up the middle.

I can believe that if you're miking stuff that is then going to be part of
an intensity stereo mix. If it's just two microphones standing alone, it
is a lot more naked.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/5/2016 10:28 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:

Have you tried the 50cm Williams Curve using splayed KM183s and diffraction
spheres?

Can you express this in more common terms for the uneducated? I take it
this means that the diaphragms are 50 cm apart. Do the diffraction
spheres make the mics more omni? Or less omni? And at what angle are
they splayed? In theory, that shouldn't matter.

There's a discussion of Williams curves here, but it's pretty deep:

http://tinyurl.com/j7e53u5 (downloads a PDF)

Incidentally, when I Googled "Williams Curve" the first link on the list
was for "Why are Serena Williams' curves discussed more than her serves
.. . ." Well, it's correctly searched.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Klay Anderson[_2_]]

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:40:48 AM UTC-6, Nate Najar wrote:
Hi guys,

Where can I get a proper jecklin disc? I've read the aes paper on joepshson's site and I've noticed some of the prescriptions are different than some of the d.i.y. articles and other discs I've seen people use. So if I wanted the real deal, where can I get one?

My friend Ray Kimber makes a big-ass one. YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7e-WRojZDM

He's output many successful CDs.

Yours truly,

Mr. Klay Anderson, D.A.,Q.B.E.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 4:35:24 PM UTC-4, Klay Anderson wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:40:48 AM UTC-6, Nate Najar wrote:
Hi guys,

Where can I get a proper jecklin disc? I've read the aes paper on joepshson's site and I've noticed some of the prescriptions are different than some of the d.i.y. articles and other discs I've seen people use. So if I wanted the real deal, where can I get one?

My friend Ray Kimber makes a big-ass one. YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7e-WRojZDM

Too dark a video!!

Jack


He's output many successful CDs.

Yours truly,

Mr. Klay Anderson, D.A.,Q.B.E.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Frank Stearns wrote:

The underlying problem with MS (and by extension, XY) is that while we can get
excellent left/right imaging, we don't seem to get the same depth image that
omnis can provide. That's been my experience; YMMV.

Well, MS and XY provide only intensity stereo so there is no imaging at all
at low frequencies. This is annoying to me, but I wouldn't call that a sense
of depth, I'd call that a sense of low frequency space.


I'm not convinced this is a problem. I use X/Y a lot for drum overheads
because then the single kik mic and the overheads blend (what seems to
me to be ) better.

It gives more punch up the middle.

I can believe that if you're miking stuff that is then going to be part of
an intensity stereo mix.

Yep - the only thing that's "stereo" is the overheads, usually. You can
still get some nice imaging that way.

If it's just two microphones standing alone, it
is a lot more naked.
--scott


--
Les Cargill

[Gary Eickmeier]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

If you want to know what it sounds like, get some of the recordings
on the M-A Recordings label which are made with a pair of B&K
instrumentation capsules and a Jecklin disc.
--scott

M-A Recordings? That is the name on the label? I will Google them up.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

If you want to know what it sounds like, get some of the recordings
on the M-A Recordings label which are made with a pair of B&K
instrumentation capsules and a Jecklin disc.
--scott

M-A Recordings? That is the name on the label? I will Google them up.

Gary Eickmeier

First result on Google for M-A recordings gave me Yo Yo Ma and Ma Bailey.
Next time around it showed the actual studio's collection, vary weird titles
of unknown artists, mostly single instruments. Couldn't find anything
interesting.

Gary Eickmeier

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:

Have you tried the 50cm Williams Curve using splayed KM183s and diffraction
spheres? It truly is the most remarkable rendering of a space I've ever heard.

I have tried a similar arrangement with B&Ks and balls, and I generally like
the idea. I like the Jecklin disc better than the balls but I think the
concept is very close. Same goes for the Schoeps sphere which I think is
really just a funny shaped baffle. I think all of these work similarly well.

Never heard the Jecklin, but I did meet Gabe Weiner many years ago when he came out
from NY to record the Portland Baroque Orchestra. He had the sphere contraption.
Odd looking creature but indeed, it worked well. And I'd agree, very similar to what
I get at 50 CMs with the diffraction spheres on the KM183s


Yes, the LF is nice, but it's the ability to pin-point items on a sound stage (in a
reasonably good hall, of course) -- left to right, front to back within the space --
that's so amazing.

But I don't hear absolutely pinpoint imaging when I am sitting in the balcony!
I hear a wide field and I can pick things out, but there is still a very large
diffuse component. I hear too many recordings that are exaggerated in terms
of imaging, though.

I suppose it's a matter of taste. I don't mind slightly exaggerated imaging such as
sitting in what feels like the 3rd row of the house (but certainly not ping-pong).
To me this provides some counterbalance to the inherent flaws of the average home
listening room and speakers. [Yes, the meat in the main course is kinda tasteless so
let's add a little carefully chosen spicing.]

You can walk around the stage, up and down, back and forth, with a dog clicker or
simply talking, and this method images the location precisely (assuming reasonably
good monitoring). ORTF won't quite do this; MS/XY won't do it at all. Spaced
omnis are just kinda weird with their image, in my experience. (Image "points" move
around unevenly; they do not correspond to what one hears acoustically from, say,
the front row.)

ORTF is a little more diffuse which I sometimes like depending on the room,
but the jecklin disc behaves very similarly to the balls.

Does sound interesting.

Not sure what you mean by "artifact" in this context. If I'm sitting in the house
front row (or near front row) center and musicians are moving around on stage (and I
close my eyes), my hearing is giving me a pretty good indication of where they are
in space -- left/right and front/back. The 50cm technique comes the closest I've
heard to capturing this.

Right, but widely spaced omnis won't. The widely spaced omnis give you this
sense of a very deep soundfield that isn't really there.

Or a soundfield that's a little bizarre. I'm not fond of wide-spaced omnis either,
but for some situations using them as outriggers to a good main pair can be helpful.

Frank
--

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers writes:

On 7/5/2016 10:28 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:

Have you tried the 50cm Williams Curve using splayed KM183s and diffraction
spheres?

Can you express this in more common terms for the uneducated? I take it
this means that the diaphragms are 50 cm apart. Do the diffraction
spheres make the mics more omni? Or less omni? And at what angle are
they splayed? In theory, that shouldn't matter.

The spheres make the mics less omni, but only in the top end. From memory, the
Neumann spheres give a +2.5 dB boost at 10Khz on axis in the front, and then a -2.5
dB dip on axis out the back. These are pretty gentle slopes, starting at around 5 or
6K, then reaching the 2.5 dB change at 10K. (Again, from memory. I might be off
slightly on the slope.)

You can splay to taste but for most situations I like the splay at around 100
degrees with the mics tipped up 15-20 degrees from the horizontal. The center of
the diaphragms (by best guess) in the splayed and elevated position is 50 CM.

Angles do matter because you've added some directionality to the high end. If I want
a slightly more forward sound I'll make the horizontal angle more shallow. Generally
the pair is just a few feet back from the conductor, maybe 5 ft above his head; a
bit higher if it's a big group.

Now, if you take the spheres off, things still sound okay but you lose a lot of the
well-defined location cues. Things are a little less interesting and seem a touch
out of "focus". (Maybe the spheres are like sonic reading glasses?)

Here's an example that's mostly the 50 CM omnis with spheres, but with a touch of an
ORTF pair mounted higher on the same stand. This pair "reaches across" the orchestra
and brings the choir into focus a touch more than what the main pair can do alone in
this particular room.

http://www.mars-mobile.com/index_htm...Cantata192.mp3

(There are also a pair of solo spots used in the middle movement.)


There's a discussion of Williams curves here, but it's pretty deep:

http://tinyurl.com/j7e53u5 (downloads a PDF)

Good reference for stereo mic'ing in general. But check out the original AES paper
from Williams. That one will really make your head hurt.

Incidentally, when I Googled "Williams Curve" the first link on the list
was for "Why are Serena Williams' curves discussed more than her serves
. . ." Well, it's correctly searched.

Indeed.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:
Mike Rivers writes:

On 7/5/2016 10:28 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:

Have you tried the 50cm Williams Curve using splayed KM183s and diffraction
spheres?

Can you express this in more common terms for the uneducated? I take it
this means that the diaphragms are 50 cm apart. Do the diffraction
spheres make the mics more omni? Or less omni? And at what angle are
they splayed? In theory, that shouldn't matter.

The spheres make the mics less omni, but only in the top end. From memory, the
Neumann spheres give a +2.5 dB boost at 10Khz on axis in the front, and then a -2.5
dB dip on axis out the back. These are pretty gentle slopes, starting at around 5 or
6K, then reaching the 2.5 dB change at 10K. (Again, from memory. I might be off
slightly on the slope.)

But, the bigger the balls, the lower the corner of that curve gets. You can
actually get intensity directionality down into the midrange if you make the
ball a foot or so in diameter.

And... in the end, that's basically what the Schoeps sphere does... it's just
that the ball becomes so big that they have to put both mikes into one ball.

I have played with balls as large as six inches or so, combined with the
B&K 4145 having considerable directionality in the top two octaves to begin
with.

You can splay to taste but for most situations I like the splay at around 100
degrees with the mics tipped up 15-20 degrees from the horizontal. The center of
the diaphragms (by best guess) in the splayed and elevated position is 50 CM.

Angles do matter because you've added some directionality to the high end. If I want
a slightly more forward sound I'll make the horizontal angle more shallow. Generally
the pair is just a few feet back from the conductor, maybe 5 ft above his head; a
bit higher if it's a big group.

Makes good sense.


Now, if you take the spheres off, things still sound okay but you lose a lot of the
well-defined location cues. Things are a little less interesting and seem a touch
out of "focus". (Maybe the spheres are like sonic reading glasses?)

Because the only imaging that you are getting is a combination of the intensity
imaging from the microphones being a little beamy and the phase imaging from
them being separated in space. The B&Ks are way more beamy than the Neumanns
so you might get more audible imaging with them under that situation.
--scott

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

[Klay Anderson[_2_]]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 4:27:20 PM UTC-6, JackA wrote:

My friend Ray Kimber makes a big-ass one. YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7e-WRojZDM

Too dark a video!!


Try this one;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDMpsfYIIY

Klay

[JackA]

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:17:38 AM UTC-4, Klay Anderson wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 4:27:20 PM UTC-6, JackA wrote:

My friend Ray Kimber makes a big-ass one. YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7e-WRojZDM

Too dark a video!!


Try this one;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDMpsfYIIY

Klay

Much better. I think it should be painted/colored red, looks like a Heart

Jack

[Trevor]

On 6/07/2016 4:46 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Frank Stearns wrote:
Yes, the LF is nice, but it's the ability to pin-point items on a sound stage (in a
reasonably good hall, of course) -- left to right, front to back within the space --
that's so amazing.

But I don't hear absolutely pinpoint imaging when I am sitting in the balcony!
I hear a wide field and I can pick things out, but there is still a very large
diffuse component. I hear too many recordings that are exaggerated in terms
of imaging, though.

There's the rub. So many people seem to think their idea of live
acoustic music is all there is. But something I have pointed out for
decades is that some people prefer the sound you would hear from the
conductors position, some from the front row, some from the middle of
the hall, some from the balcony, maybe even some from the wings. Since
there is a huge difference between all of these you simply can't please
everyone in one recording.
IME whoever stumps up the money gets to decide, the listener simply gets
to choose whether they agree or not. And that includes the recording
engineer quite often, even if they do have more influence on the outcome.

Trevor.