[Nate Najar]

I know there's a few ways to go about this. I'm interested in your
experienced opinions on the pros and cons of the different
approaches.

record a jazz trio in a club/small venue. what kind of sound
aesthetic do you go for? natural "like you are there" sound (main
pair pickup, plus some spots maybe). doesn't sound like an
"idealized" put together recording, but instead actually sounds like a
band playing in a room at the same time and you're in that room with
the band. No real dynamics processing or eq (except protection and
corrective measures), and no artificial ambience.

OR

multi mic/use mic technique and placement to get separation and try to
make it sound like a polished production with audience. compression,
eq, reverb etc... to taste to make a cohesive sound.

If you choose the latter, this next question doesn't apply.

How do you master it? compression, eq, limiting? nothing at all?
slight limiting just to catch extreme transient peaks and get a few
more db? nothing like a classical record?

I'm interested in this conceptually and also in practice. when I get
a chance to carve some mp3's I'll post a few soundclips of my latest
debacle. It isn't for release, but a few youtubes may come of it.
and I'm recording most of the appearances these days so I can massage
and improve my technique. But one of these days I'll be using
something for something.

I think I'm set on an aesthetic for this last recording. classical
guitar, upright bass and drums. guitar has a pickup which went to
modest sound reinforcement. bass player likes to use an amp (even
though he's a super strong player with a huge sound). I miked the
guitar with a schoeps mk41 up close. bass had a dpa 4061 on the
bridge. drums had a schoeps mk41 on the ride cymbal side and a THE
hyper cardioid on the snare side. 414 on the bass drum.

when I go to mix, there are 2 ways I can go about it. the drums and
bass sound incredible with their spot mics. very clean. so if I use
those and the guitar DI track, plus a tiny bit of guitar mic,
compress, eq and reverb to high heaven, you get a very 1970's jazz
sound. It ain't bad at all, and would be great if I were playing a
fender rhodes instead of a classical guitar.

The second way is the natural way. if i bring up just the guitar mic,
you can actually hear the entire band. evenly. the drums are a
little washy because it's all off axis, but they're not trashy. and
you CAN hear the guitar fully. but that one guitar spot mic actually
is the main pickup. so i bring that up, high pass it at 80hz to get
rid of any rumble but keep the sound intact, and put some light
compression on it since it's so close to the instrument. even though
the classical guitar ain't a loud instrument, the dynamic range is
huge. sometimes I play quietly and sometimes those rasquedos and
other strummy bits get pretty freaking hot. anyway, no reverb, no
real eq. (I tried eqing the cra out of the mics and it just got all
smeary and ****ty- so much cleaner without any eq!).

so the guitar mic is the main pickup. it's panned ever so slightly
left to simulate placement on stage. bass is panned ever so slightly
but less left. drums are panned ever so slightly right. I bring up
the drum faders until i just barely hear the drum image shift to the
right. then I bring up the bass fader just enough to get some note
definition. Now it doesn't sound like a studio recording, and it
doesn't sound anything like what I want to hear. BUT it does sound
exactly like the band in that room. (oh, it's a very live room- if it
were a super dry room this would all be less of an issue). so if i
don't do any kind of fader moves and just leave it alone, it really
sounds like you're there in that room listening to that trio, except
that you're hearing a real guitar instead of a pickup (the audience is
hearing the pickup through the sound reinforcement).

ok so say I've done the mix I just described. the overall level is
very low. VERY low. and there's huge dynamic range because of some
of the loud stuff that comes in. I don't want to destroy that at all
but I'd like to restrict it so i can get a more "expected" average
level. and then when preparing for a cd or other output- if it sounds
like a band in a room, should I just leave it alone?

I know I'm getting tiring with all these long posts about the same
things over and over, but with baby steps everything is turning out a
little better each time!

N

[hank alrich]

Nate Najar wrote:

I know there's a few ways to go about this. I'm interested in your
experienced opinions on the pros and cons of the different
approaches.

record a jazz trio in a club/small venue. what kind of sound
aesthetic do you go for? natural "like you are there" sound (main
pair pickup, plus some spots maybe). doesn't sound like an
"idealized" put together recording, but instead actually sounds like a
band playing in a room at the same time and you're in that room with
the band. No real dynamics processing or eq (except protection and
corrective measures), and no artificial ambience.

OR

multi mic/use mic technique and placement to get separation and try to
make it sound like a polished production with audience. compression,
eq, reverb etc... to taste to make a cohesive sound.

In the case of the recording I made with my daughter and the cellist, we
recorded in studio with close mic'ing of individual sources, plus a
stereo pair (Schoeps CMC64 into Millennia HV3-D) positioned such that it
would capture an image of the ensemble as if we were playing in a trio
format with cellist in the middle.

In fact we were positioned in a triangle, with Doug opposite Shaidri and
me so that we could maintain decent visual communication. We didn't have
enough preprod time to get tight, and we wanted to keep in touch as we
winged it.

The stereo pair was placed high above the trio aimed down such that the
image it captured nicely fit my target. That real stereo image is
embedded in the final mix. You can't hear it in and of itself, but it's
there and I think it has a hugely positive effect on the final result.

If there's a catch it's that any editing generally must be done to the
entire ensemble.

I will do this again next time we hit the studio, as I quite like the
result and the approach has our product sounding unlike the rest of the
field, in a good way judging by responses from fans and DJ's.

I know I'm getting tiring with all these long posts about the same
things over and over, but with baby steps everything is turning out a
little better each time!

Your posts are not at all tiring, Nate. Keep after it. It's refreshing
to get to discuss a specific type of project as it progresses, with
someone who pays attention, and who also thinks. g

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Frank Stearns]

(hank alrich) writes:

The stereo pair was placed high above the trio aimed down such that the
image it captured nicely fit my target. That real stereo image is
embedded in the final mix. You can't hear it in and of itself, but it's
there and I think it has a hugely positive effect on the final result.

If there's a catch it's that any editing generally must be done to the
entire ensemble.

I will do this again next time we hit the studio, as I quite like the
result and the approach has our product sounding unlike the rest of the
field, in a good way judging by responses from fans and DJ's.


Various snips above....

What Hank describes in concept is what I do on a routine basis in the field with
many of my classical clients. A stereo pair (in my case generally two on the same
pole to get two very different "flavors"), and then spots where needed.

The trick with the spots (once appropriately delayed to minimize comb filtering) is
go in with NO preconceptions about how loud they should be, and what might or not
be appropriate in terms of EQ, comp, added reverb, and so on.

In my mind the goal is to have what seems like a "natural" acoustic presentation,
but the practicalities of the original recording space, performance, playback living
rooms, etc, all generally lead to using a little "hair and makeup" from the spots.

It's still the same stage performers (unlike a large portion of studio pop and rock
we haven't totally remanufactured everything), but maybe with some slight
exaggerations here and there to overcome what gets lost along the way, as well as
the fundamental limits of our still primitive transducer systems (especially the
speakers).


I know I'm getting tiring with all these long posts about the same
things over and over, but with baby steps everything is turning out a
little better each time!

Your posts are not at all tiring, Nate. Keep after it. It's refreshing
to get to discuss a specific type of project as it progresses, with
someone who pays attention, and who also thinks. g

Indeed.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[[email protected]]

On 2011-04-18 said:
What Hank describes in concept is what I do on a routine basis in
the field with
many of my classical clients. A stereo pair (in my case generally
two on the same
pole to get two very different "flavors"), and then spots where
needed.

INdeed, that's the way I prefer to work in such situations,
jazz as well as classical.

snip

In my mind the goal is to have what seems like a "natural" acoustic
presentation,
but the practicalities of the original recording space, performance,
playback living
rooms, etc, all generally lead to using a little "hair and makeup"
from the spots.
It's still the same stage performers (unlike a large portion of
studio pop and rock
we haven't totally remanufactured everything), but maybe with some
slight exaggerations here and there to overcome what gets lost
along the way, as well as
the fundamental limits of our still primitive transducer systems
(especially the
speakers).

INdeed that's my philosophy for almost any sort of live
recording.

I know I'm getting tiring with all these long posts about the
same things over and over, but with baby steps everything is
turning out a little better each time!
Your posts are not at all tiring, Nate. Keep after it. It's
refreshing to get to discuss a specific type of project as it
progresses, with someone who pays attention, and who also thinks.
g
Indeed.

Count that a third vote Nate. GOod to see someone think
about these issues and who cares.

Regards,



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Sean Conolly]

"Nate Najar" wrote in message
...
The second way is the natural way. if i bring up just the guitar mic,
you can actually hear the entire band. evenly. the drums are a
little washy because it's all off axis, but they're not trashy. and
you CAN hear the guitar fully. but that one guitar spot mic actually
is the main pickup. so i bring that up, high pass it at 80hz to get
rid of any rumble but keep the sound intact, and put some light
compression on it since it's so close to the instrument. even though
the classical guitar ain't a loud instrument, the dynamic range is
huge. sometimes I play quietly and sometimes those rasquedos and
other strummy bits get pretty freaking hot. anyway, no reverb, no
real eq. (I tried eqing the cra out of the mics and it just got all
smeary and ****ty- so much cleaner without any eq!).

Not having heard any of the tracks, you have the general direction I would
take. Start with the mic with the best sound, and blend in a bit of the
others to fill in what's missing. You can put a bit more EQ on the mics
you're blending in, say to bring up the stick noise on the ride cymbal.

You can use limiting on the individual tracks to tame the peaks a bit, not
squashed, just easier to mix. On the final mix use compression to taste - a
little goes a long way.

That's my two cents,
Sean

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , wrote:
On 2011-04-18 said:
What Hank describes in concept is what I do on a routine basis in
the field with
many of my classical clients. A stereo pair (in my case generally
two on the same
pole to get two very different "flavors"), and then spots where
needed.

INdeed, that's the way I prefer to work in such situations,
jazz as well as classical.

Me too, but I tend to be more apt to spot things in the jazz world than in
the classical world. And I'm probably still more willing to put up with
balance oddities and less willing to put up with imaging oddities than Frank
is. I'll go pretty far to avoid spotting.

In my mind the goal is to have what seems like a "natural" acoustic
presentation,
but the practicalities of the original recording space, performance,
playback living
rooms, etc, all generally lead to using a little "hair and makeup"
from the spots.

Sometimes moving folks around gives you more power than spotting them,
actually. Sometimes a natural-sounding recording gets made in a very
unnatural acoustic situation, with gobos and reflectors all over the damn
place in order to make it sound natural on tape.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey writes:

In article ,
wrote:
What Hank describes in concept is what I do on a routine basis in
the field with
many of my classical clients. A stereo pair (in my case generally
two on the same
pole to get two very different "flavors"), and then spots where
needed.
INdeed, that's the way I prefer to work in such situations,
jazz as well as classical.

Me too, but I tend to be more apt to spot things in the jazz world
than in the classical world. And I'm probably still more willing to
put up with balance oddities and less willing to put up with imaging
oddities than Frank is. I'll go pretty far to avoid spotting.

wE differ a bit there, balance tips the scales there,
because i figure a lot of folks even with jazz or classical
might be listening in mono, or on less than desirable
systems. PRoper balance might make the difference between
program they enjoy and that they refuse to buy or buy
another.

FIrst cup of coffee time so hope I'm making sense grin.

Sometimes moving folks around gives you more power than spotting
them, actually. Sometimes a natural-sounding recording gets made in
a very unnatural acoustic situation, with gobos and reflectors all
over the damn place in order to make it sound natural on tape.
THat it can, and if it's not live performance with audience
present often the conductor/leader will be amenable to that. i talked and talked to get a female chorus to do that for
their recording in their church basement one time. They
were quite happy with the results.

Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Nate Najar wrote:

I know there's a few ways to go about this. I'm interested in your
experienced opinions on the pros and cons of the different
approaches.

Hmmm ...

record a jazz trio in a club/small venue. what kind of sound
aesthetic do you go for? natural "like you are there" sound (main
pair pickup, plus some spots maybe). doesn't sound like an
"idealized" put together recording, but instead actually sounds like a
band playing in a room at the same time and you're in that room with
the band.

What they all said + imo the goal is to make it sound as if it is a
recording of the ensemble as is made with a pair of omni's. That's the goal,
not the route.

No real dynamics processing or eq (except protection and
corrective measures), and no artificial ambience.

That Reinheitgebot does not hold water in the real world. What breaks it is
that you DO end up having to use spot mikes and those DO end up having
unnaturally high crest factors. The methods for reducing crest factor is to
lower peaks, ie. compress/limit or add mush, ie. reverb. What sounds most
natural if reverb is on the palette may be a quite unnatural reverb, at a
Bach Oratorium recording I ended up using emulated plate on the vox.

OR

There is no choice, the recording setup gets defined when the amplification
setup is defined and follows from it. The ensemble per se is "just another
chamber music ensemble" so the basic sound recording concept is a chamber
music recording.

multi mic/use mic technique and placement to get separation and try to
make it sound like a polished production with audience. compression,
eq, reverb etc... to taste to make a cohesive sound.

It is difficult to get a cohesive sound from splitting things up, one has to
record it like that, thus the main pair. Let us for arguments sake - and to
make it general - assume that we PA it for a 500 seater, if you have one of
those wonderful "near silent" jazz drummers that does imply a multimic style
setup. What I would do would then be to record tracks of all mics + stage
overhead (to get direct cohesive ensemble sound with not too much pa-sound),
main pair and ambience pairs.

If you choose the latter, this next question doesn't apply.

That distinction does not hold.

How do you master it? compression, eq, limiting? nothing at all?
slight limiting just to catch extreme transient peaks and get a few
more db? nothing like a classical record?

Even if unamplified I'd expect to use some variation of the main pair +
spots theme, and I would also expect to use track compression in the mix to
make it listenable and to make the close miked components blend well into
the overall image from the main pair with its lower crest factor. As I have
written multiple times: it is all about getting the direct to reflected
ratio right, Bose was right about its importance but wrong in thinking that
mic setup can be fixed in the replay phase in the home.

You've "made it" when you have recorded a soprano next to a church organ and
people ask how you got that clarity with just a pair of omni's .... THAT is
a comment I cherish, because it took 1 vox mike, compressed, eq'ed and
verbed, one organ pair and two ambience pairs to get that result. Time
aligning it all was critical.

I'm interested in this conceptually and also in practice. when I get
a chance to carve some mp3's I'll post a few soundclips of my latest
debacle. It isn't for release, but a few youtubes may come of it.
and I'm recording most of the appearances these days so I can massage
and improve my technique. But one of these days I'll be using
something for something.

I think I'm set on an aesthetic for this last recording. classical
guitar, upright bass and drums. guitar has a pickup which went to
modest sound reinforcement. bass player likes to use an amp (even
though he's a super strong player with a huge sound). I miked the
guitar with a schoeps mk41 up close. bass had a dpa 4061 on the
bridge. drums had a schoeps mk41 on the ride cymbal side and a THE
hyper cardioid on the snare side. 414 on the bass drum.

I'd want a valid stereo pair above the drummers head or in front of the kit,
there is no way I see it as acceptable to split the mics farther apart than
ortf except if omnis. Even if you DO split them then both mics still get a
bit of it all, they will be a pair, so use a pair.

when I go to mix, there are 2 ways I can go about it. the drums and
bass sound incredible with their spot mics. very clean. so if I use
those and the guitar DI track, plus a tiny bit of guitar mic,

I would prefer to spot the guitar amps loudspeaker, if short of tracks I'd
even pass on the DI in favour of the actual sound put into the room cleanly
recorded.

compress, eq and reverb to high heaven, you get a very 1970's jazz
sound. It ain't bad at all, and would be great if I were playing a
fender rhodes instead of a classical guitar.

First you listen to the main pair, the objective - seen as recordist rather
than as artist - is to get it "like that but clearer and with any balance
issues addressed".

The second way is the natural way. if i bring up just the guitar mic,
you can actually hear the entire band. evenly.

I would except that to apply for any and all mics.

the drums are a
little washy because it's all off axis, but they're not trashy. and
you CAN hear the guitar fully. but that one guitar spot mic actually
is the main pickup. so i bring that up, high pass it at 80hz to get
rid of any rumble but keep the sound intact,

Be very careful, try high passing it lower or via the mics natural response.

and put some light
compression on it since it's so close to the instrument. even though
the classical guitar ain't a loud instrument, the dynamic range is
huge.

It is *because* it is not a loud instrument that the dynamic range is huge.
I might skip the track compression in spite of what I wrote above because
the instrument sounds are uniquely sensitive to distortion and loss of
clarity. I would not skip it on drums and bass and I will advocate checking
the bass range with an FFT analyzer, most audio software has one and you DO
need to even out the bumps in the bass spot mikes response.

sometimes I play quietly and sometimes those rasquedos and
other strummy bits get pretty freaking hot. anyway, no reverb, no
real eq. (I tried eqing the cra out of the mics and it just got all
smeary and ****ty- so much cleaner without any eq!).

Yeah yeah yeah, classical guitar and cembalo are fast discarders of mediocre
electronics and/or mix practices.

so the guitar mic is the main pickup. it's panned ever so slightly
left to simulate placement on stage. bass is panned ever so slightly
but less left. drums are panned ever so slightly right. I bring up
the drum faders until i just barely hear the drum image shift to the
right.

You don't seem to "think stereo", you do not mention the main pair. The main
pair records the room, you then use the spots to clarify sound sources that
need "focus aid" and/or level adjustment.

then I bring up the bass fader just enough to get some note
definition. Now it doesn't sound like a studio recording, and it
doesn't sound anything like what I want to hear.

When I cook I want it like I want it, as when I record.

BUT it does sound
exactly like the band in that room. (oh, it's a very live room- if it
were a super dry room this would all be less of an issue).

At least it is not a boring sounding room. Anyway, it is too live, thus the
relevance of the spot-miking as a tool to get direct vs. reflected ratio
right.

so if i
don't do any kind of fader moves and just leave it alone, it really
sounds like you're there in that room listening to that trio, except
that you're hearing a real guitar instead of a pickup (the audience is
hearing the pickup through the sound reinforcement).

I always aim for a the holy grail of the static mix when it is about
acoustic sources such as these.

ok so say I've done the mix I just described. the overall level is
very low. VERY low. and there's huge dynamic range because of some
of the loud stuff that comes in.

This is where scaling comes in, you need to scale the dynamics to what a
living room can bear. You can not do that in one stage, it is about the
proper use of track compression in the mix and the proper use of overall
compression on the mix bus or afterwards.

I don't want to destroy that at all
but I'd like to restrict it so i can get a more "expected" average
level. and then when preparing for a cd or other output - if it sounds
like a band in a room, should I just leave it alone?

No, it should come close to sounding like the imaginary performance that you
would have wanted it to be.

I know I'm getting tiring with all these long posts about the same
things over and over,

No!

but with baby steps everything is turning out a
little better each time!

It is in my opinion imperative to understand how a stereo pair of mics work.
Since the recording context is an integral part of those gigs I will suggest
NO monitors and putting the PA speakers behind the ensemble. If not for any
other reason then because it takes at least one temporal contradiction out
of the recording and thus improves the sound from the main pair.

N

All of the above is based on my vision of this, your event realities may
differ and void the asumptions I have based it on.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:21:09 -0400, Nate Najar wrote
(in article
):

I know there's a few ways to go about this. I'm interested in your
experienced opinions on the pros and cons of the different
approaches.

M/S; two tracks. Done.

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

[Nate Najar]

On Apr 19, 5:36*pm, Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:21:09 -0400, Nate Najar wrote
(in article
):

I know there's a few ways to go about this. *I'm interested in your
experienced opinions on the pros and cons of the different
approaches.

M/S; two tracks. Done.

Regards,

Ty Ford

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

well, the problem with this approach is that is assumes that the
acoustic sound produced by the band is what should be heard. and I'm
standing on the rooftops screaming to anyone who will listen that a
classical guitar pickup sent through amplification should never be
heard. so when you have to use it (like on a gig!) you don't want to
record it. you somehow want to get the sound of the guitar. that's
my whole problem with this whole stupid process. how on earth am I to
get the sound of the guitar into the audience and on tape?

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/19/2011 7:29 PM, Nate Najar wrote:

well, the problem with this approach is that is assumes that the
acoustic sound produced by the band is what should be heard. and I'm
standing on the rooftops screaming to anyone who will listen that a
classical guitar pickup sent through amplification should never be
heard.

Part of me agrees with you, but on the other hand, it's a
performance and you work hard to amplify the guitar in a way
that blends well with the other instruments and doesn't lose
its identity as a guitar. So why not present that to the
listener, particularly if the listener is purchasing a live
album.

In the studio, of course, you can do whatever you want. It's
all artificial anyhow.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

In article , wrote:
On 2011-04-18 said:
What Hank describes in concept is what I do on a routine basis in
the field with
many of my classical clients. A stereo pair (in my case generally
two on the same
pole to get two very different "flavors"), and then spots where
needed.

INdeed, that's the way I prefer to work in such situations,
jazz as well as classical.

Me too, but I tend to be more apt to spot things in the jazz world than in
the classical world. And I'm probably still more willing to put up with
balance oddities and less willing to put up with imaging oddities than Frank
is. I'll go pretty far to avoid spotting.

Whoa, pardner! What imaging oddities???

That's part of the finesse with delay, pan, level, and even the gentlest amounts of
compression to make close mic dynamics match what's hitting the main pair(s). Even
if the close mic level is waayyy down in the mix you still don't want it poking
in and out of its optimal level relationship with the main pair.

Said in the voice of Yosemite Sam as he pushes a fader with the end of a
six-shooter: "If'n you got imaging oddities, ya ain't a doin' it right." w

==

What you *do* want from spots is focus and clarity -- when you need it, and when you
can't get it from the main pair due to performance issues, the hall, how an audience
changes the hall in ways variable with how many folks are there, environmental
changes, etc, etc


In my mind the goal is to have what seems like a "natural" acoustic
presentation,
but the practicalities of the original recording space, performance,
playback living
rooms, etc, all generally lead to using a little "hair and makeup"
from the spots.

Sometimes moving folks around gives you more power than spotting them,
actually. Sometimes a natural-sounding recording gets made in a very
unnatural acoustic situation, with gobos and reflectors all over the damn
place in order to make it sound natural on tape.

Sure, that will work great if you've got the budget and players who are top notch
and can work in unusual configurations.

But sometimes with even the best players it can be hard to know who can and who
can't be flexible, unless you've worked with them many times in the past.

I typically go in from the start trying to keep the players as comfy as possible,
even if it's purely psychological. "I can't hear the drums if I have to sit here!"
(Never mind that to everyone else the drums are far louder wherever the new "here"
is -- it's just different from what they're accustomed to, so some players whine.)

Okay, fine. Set up the way you want, and I'll work around that.

Plus, there's the whole live v. session angle. In a live setting, conductors can get
right cranky if you start pushing their players around as if they were giant chess
pieces. g

But here we have two reasonable paths to get to hopefully the same good results.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:

Whoa, pardner! What imaging oddities???

That's part of the finesse with delay, pan, level, and even the gentlest amounts of
compression to make close mic dynamics match what's hitting the main pair(s). Even
if the close mic level is waayyy down in the mix you still don't want it poking
in and out of its optimal level relationship with the main pair.

I know... but even when you bring it up a tiny bit, the overall image changes
and the tonality of the instrument spotted changes too.

You can argue that's the whole point of spotmiking, of course, and in the
case of a jazz combo that is probably the case.

Said in the voice of Yosemite Sam as he pushes a fader with the end of a
six-shooter: "If'n you got imaging oddities, ya ain't a doin' it right." w

That's about what someone told me last night about outriggers on a main pair
too, and I feel the same way about those also.

What you *do* want from spots is focus and clarity -- when you need it, and when you
can't get it from the main pair due to performance issues, the hall, how an audience
changes the hall in ways variable with how many folks are there, environmental
changes, etc, etc

I agree completely. And in the case of jazz, you might want some focus
and clarity which is inherently impossible to achieve in a real hall. In
the case of classical music, though, I'm usually willing to forgo it in favor
of the sense of space.
--scott

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

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:

Whoa, pardner! What imaging oddities???

That's part of the finesse with delay, pan, level, and even the gentlest amounts of
compression to make close mic dynamics match what's hitting the main pair(s). Even
if the close mic level is waayyy down in the mix you still don't want it poking
in and out of its optimal level relationship with the main pair.

I know... but even when you bring it up a tiny bit, the overall image changes
and the tonality of the instrument spotted changes too.

I guess I've been lucky. After the appropriate pre-mix massage (timing, eq, comp,
pan, reverb, etc), when I bring up a needed spot there is usually no image shift,
left-right or front-back. Tonality (if you mean spectral balance) does not change.

All that happens is that within the stereo field, the smear or fuzz that was the
item of interest is no longer a smear or fuzz -- it's the thing we should be hearing
but didn't before.

Now, it's bloody damned easy to screw it up and yield the exact problems you've
noted. Too much level is problem #1. Unreconciable alignment due to less than
optimal spot location is #2. (I try to keep the spots physically more or less on a
line from the source sound to the main pair. If need be, one can punt by folding in
more delay than might be arithmetically correct.)

snip

Said in the voice of Yosemite Sam as he pushes a fader with the end of a
six-shooter: "If'n you got imaging oddities, ya ain't a doin' it right." w

That's about what someone told me last night about outriggers on a main pair
too, and I feel the same way about those also.

I've used outriggers in some situations, but rarely do these days. They can help
with some problems, but other methods (such the twin main pair approach I use) seem
to do a lot better with way fewer quirks.


What you *do* want from spots is focus and clarity -- when you need it, and when you
can't get it from the main pair due to performance issues, the hall, how an audience
changes the hall in ways variable with how many folks are there, environmental
changes, etc, etc

I agree completely. And in the case of jazz, you might want some focus
and clarity which is inherently impossible to achieve in a real hall. In
the case of classical music, though, I'm usually willing to forgo it in favor
of the sense of space.

In some respects, perhaps we're talking about the same net thing.

I too like the sense of space and depth, but when one of those many variables noted
earlier in this thread rears an ugly head and damages that ideal image, the spots,
probably integrated, "repair" the problem.

It's a bit like what the local body shop does to the new car that might have
suffered damage in transit.

If they're good, they'll spot-repair damages to the finish that you'll never find.
If they're really good, they can even maintain the factory look and feel after
something truly nasty happened, such as a collision on the loading dock or something
falling on the car.

Then the argument is more the "how many angels on the head of pin" thing. True, the
car was damaged, but if you can't tell that something was repaired, and it drives
properly and retains the full warranty, is it a new car or not? Something to ponder.

A big chunk of this comes around to my constant preaching to new engineers: You've
got to go *on a regular basis* to non-amplified, 100% acoustic events to keep your
ears attuned to what real instruments and real ensembles sound like. Deviate as you
wish later in your production process, but know where to start.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--