[Scott Dorsey]

PStamler wrote:
Gary, you've got your terminology confused. XY recording is defined by audi=
o engineers as two *cardioid* mics mounted as a coincident pair at a 110 de=
gree angle to one another, not Figure-8 mics. Two Figure-8 mics in a coinci=
dent pair, angled at 90 degrees from one another, are defined as a Blumlein=
array, not as XY. It's useful, when communicating, to use terms in the way=
they're understood by others.=20

AND... if you take a Blumlein pair and turn it 90 degrees and run it through
an M-S decoder.... what you get is a slightly different arrangement that is
ALSO called a Blumlein pair!

Alan Blumlein, in fact, first used the decoded configuration before later
settling on plain coincident figure-8s, calling his decoding box a "shuffler."


Oh, and on a separate issue, a pair of Figure-8 mics mounted about 8" apart=
, both facing forward, constitute what's known as a "phased array". It's a =
term that was introduced, along with the technique, by the British recordin=
g engineer Tony Faulkner, who made some best-selling classical albums using=
it in the 1980s, including the one on Hyperion that made Hildegarde of Bin=
gen famous. Mono compatibility is only so-so, but the recording is otherwis=
e very nice sounding. It's probably easier to use now that the results are =
distributed digitally, rather than on LPs -- back in the 80s cutting discs =
from phased array recordings was difficult due to phase issues.=20

This is a "near coincident figure-8" configuration. It can be made to work
but placement is difficult and I would generally not recommend it except in
a few special cases where you need the low frequency phase imaging but have
to deal with room echoes from the side.

Look up British Patent 394,325.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Scott Dorsey" skrev i en meddelelse
...

PStamler wrote:

Oh, and on a separate issue, a pair of Figure-8 mics mounted about 8"
apart=
, both facing forward, constitute what's known as a "phased array".

This is a "near coincident figure-8" configuration. It can be made to
work
but placement is difficult and I would generally not recommend it except
in
a few special cases where you need the low frequency phase imaging but
have
to deal with room echoes from the side.

Some day you are bored try setting up a pair of omnis in AB, parallel, with
some 40 to 50 centimeters between them. I think it should be less, but
haven't been able to test, but I do know that a compared uses that setup
when suppressing side and ceiling reflections is required and what he brings
home sounds very well indeed.

Look up British Patent 394,325

Thanks. A day spent in a patent library can be a fun day well spent.
Everybody should for instance read Adolphe Sax's patents and be surprised
over what his aim with the invention was - something to emulate strings with
that could be used outdoors in rain in military style orchestras.

--scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Tom McCreadie]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Alan Blumlein, in fact, first used the decoded configuration before later
settling on plain coincident figure-8s, calling his decoding box a "shuffler."

As I understood it, Blumlein's first mention of "shuffler" was not actually
w.r.t. to the sum & difference decoding of an MS pair to a L/R pair - which of
course he also did - but rather about synthesizing a fig8 mic pattern in the
first place - by the expedient of shuffling two very closely spaced omni's.

That was necessitated because commercial fig8 mics of sufficiently high quality
were not readily available in the UK at the time he embarked on his studies.

The word usage "shuffling" has morphed into a few other meanings and
interpretations over the decades. Some folks restrict it to the sum & difference
matrixing; others to the adding of a low end equalization hump onto the
intermediate M channel to increase perceived bass width...spatial
equalization...Gerzon...Griesinger.. etc.


Oh, and on a separate issue, a pair of Figure-8 mics mounted about 8" apart=
, both facing forward, constitute what's known as a "phased array". It's a =
term that was introduced, along with the technique, by the British recordin=
g engineer Tony Faulkner, who made some best-selling classical albums using=
it in the 1980s, including the one on Hyperion that made Hildegarde of Bin=
gen famous. Mono compatibility is only so-so, but the recording is otherwis=
e very nice sounding. It's probably easier to use now that the results are =
distributed digitally, rather than on LPs -- back in the 80s cutting discs =
from phased array recordings was difficult due to phase issues.=20

This is a "near coincident figure-8" configuration. It can be made to work
but placement is difficult and I would generally not recommend it except in
a few special cases where you need the low frequency phase imaging but have
to deal with room echoes from the side.

Look up British Patent 394,325.
--scott

[Gary Eickmeier]

PStamler wrote:
Gary, you've got your terminology confused. XY recording is defined
by audio engineers as two *cardioid* mics mounted as a coincident
pair at a 110 degree angle to one another, not Figure-8 mics. Two
Figure-8 mics in a coincident pair, angled at 90 degrees from one
another, are defined as a Blumlein array, not as XY. It's useful,
when communicating, to use terms in the way they're understood by
others.

OK, I sure did not realize that distinction. I just thought XY was shorthand
for coincident.



Oh, and on a separate issue, a pair of Figure-8 mics mounted about 8"
apart, both facing forward, constitute what's known as a "phased
array". It's a term that was introduced, along with the technique, by
the British recording engineer Tony Faulkner, who made some
best-selling classical albums using it in the 1980s, including the
one on Hyperion that made Hildegarde of Bingen famous. Mono
compatibility is only so-so, but the recording is otherwise very nice
sounding. It's probably easier to use now that the results are
distributed digitally, rather than on LPs -- back in the 80s cutting
discs from phased array recordings was difficult due to phase issues.

Peace,
Paul

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

Tom McCreadie wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I understand all of the parameters, but not yet what those graphs are
telling me (about what that would SOUND like).

Nobody but Superman can tell what things will sound like by
inspecting graphs.

In general though, sounds from the ambiophonic regions can on
2-speaker playback give a wide spacious illusion, but their actual
imaging will be vague and woozy. Some folks experience it as
unsettling and confusing..and in some circumstances the 'imaging'
even seems to collapse back into the centre.

Why not accumulate some "walkaround" test recordings, when the hall's
quiet, before the band and audience arrive?

Yah, that's the trick. Seems no matter how early I arrive, the chairman is
about 10 minutes behind me.

Gary

PS however - there are a few test discs that have some well done tracks of
walkarounds like that. I'm not at home right now to look them up, but John
Eargle's Surround Spectacular and Test Disc has some surround test tracks
and Bruce Bartlett's book
http://www.amazon.com/Recording-Musi...dp_ob_title_bk
has a test disc inside it that is very good on showing the sound of variouis
miking techniues.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

Peter Larsen wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

This is fantastic! Is Audition compatible with this VST stuff?

Yes, in case you didn't know Audition is an audio editor that can
also do multitrack and in some versions handles midi and it will
handle directx plugins as well as vst's, but at least versions 1,
1.5, 2 and 3 only can be expected to handle 32 bit executable
plug-ins.
There is no plug in required for adjusting ms-stereo, you simply
adjust the level of track 2, the difference track, in relation to the
level of track 1, the sum track, you can't do it while listening, but
I can't see that as really an issue, at least not large enough to pay
for a plug in.

Yes, as I say, that is how I have been doing it - brute force! I do the S
inverting in Audition and carefully label everything and lay the tracks down
in Multitrack.The output then gets mixed down, at various levels, into two
channel. After the mixdown, I can then level some more and EQ as desired.

MS encode and decode can btw. also be configured on any mixing desk
with a channel polarity switch, so you could also set it up in
Auditions multitrack view and then have it adjustable while listening.

Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Tom McCreadie]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Yes, as I say, that is how I have been doing it - brute force! I do the S
inverting in Audition and carefully label everything and lay the tracks down
in Multitrack.The output then gets mixed down, at various levels, into two
channel. After the mixdown, I can then level some more and EQ as desired.

if you are starting out Audition with only 2 channels of music, M and S - that
is, didn't require to dedicate additional channels to (a) mix in spot mics etc.
or (b) "pre-assemble" that fig8 pattern by combining the channels from a
multipattern mic's cardioid outputs - then there is no need to employ Audition's
Multitrack Mode.

For in the 2-channel Edit Mode, the sliders of the Channel Mixer (itself just a
built-in vst plug-in) can be slid in real time while you preview the outcome,
without committing. Likewise for little Voxengo MSED plug (with its rotary knobs
for Mid and Side Gain)

Keep it simple. Every little reduction in operational tortuousness will surely
help lower the psychological hurdle to MS participation...and free up more time
to really listen to the music :-)

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Tom McCreadie wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I understand all of the parameters, but not yet what those graphs are
telling me (about what that would SOUND like).

Nobody but Superman can tell what things will sound like by
inspecting graphs.

In general though, sounds from the ambiophonic regions can on
2-speaker playback give a wide spacious illusion, but their actual
imaging will be vague and woozy. Some folks experience it as
unsettling and confusing..and in some circumstances the 'imaging'
even seems to collapse back into the centre.

Why not accumulate some "walkaround" test recordings, when the hall's
quiet, before the band and audience arrive?

Yah, that's the trick. Seems no matter how early I arrive, the chairman is
about 10 minutes behind me.

Gary

PS however - there are a few test discs that have some well done tracks of
walkarounds like that. I'm not at home right now to look them up, but John
Eargle's Surround Spectacular and Test Disc has some surround test tracks
and Bruce Bartlett's book
http://www.amazon.com/Recording-Musi...formance/dp/11
38022373/ref=dp_ob_title_bk has a test disc inside it that is very good on
showing the sound of variouis miking techniues.

Gary

I think what Tom is suggesting is that _you_ record the room in which
you will be working to record the bands, before you record the bands, so
that you will have evidence of how your mics and miking techniques work
_in that space_ without the band sound.

This is different than studying recording somewhat abstractly using
material from other venues, recorded with other mics, etc.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Richard Kuschel]

I have been following this conversation on mic techniques for some time now.
Might I suggest a CD that gave me a lot of insight into recording for stereo?
"Demonstration of Stereo Microphone Technique" by James Boyk.

I learned a lot from this demonstration. It shows the strength and weakness of many stereo microphone techniques


http://shop.performancerecordings.co...sc?productId=6

As far as "thrumming" bass is concerned, much of it is due to the room and the fact that the bass player cannot hear himself.

Get that speaker off the floor and into the player's ear and the sound tends to get a lot better in a hurry.

He doesn't have ears at knee level.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Richard Kuschel" skrev i en meddelelse
...

I have been following this conversation on mic techniques for some time
now.
Might I suggest a CD that gave me a lot of insight into recording for
stereo?
"Demonstration of Stereo Microphone Technique" by James Boyk.

I learned a lot from this demonstration. It shows the strength and
weakness of many stereo microphone techniques


http://shop.performancerecordings.co...sc?productId=6

As far as "thrumming" bass is concerned, much of it is due to the room and
the fact that the bass player cannot hear himself.

Get that speaker off the floor and into the player's ear and the sound
tends to get a lot better in a hurry.

He doesn't have ears at knee level.

He doesn't have one, he has his bass and then it is amplified via the pair
of shoeboxes on sticks that are their pa, that is how I understood the
description once we got one. And that is the entire problem. He should NOT
be in their pa, he should ONLY be in his own amplifier.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[hank alrich]

Jeff Henig wrote:

Tom McCreadie wrote:

Why not accumulate some "walkaround" test recordings, when the hall's quiet,
before the band and audience arrive?

Huh. I've never recorded a space without a performer.

Curious: What do you use for impulse material when you do that? Finger
snaps and claps or something?

In most rooms, just raise the gain and listen. Some of the biggest money
in good studios goes into keeping it quiet in the tracking rooms.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Tom McCreadie]

Jeff Henig wrote:

Tom McCreadie wrote:
Why not accumulate some "walkaround" test recordings, when the hall's quiet,
before the band and audience arrive?
Huh. I've never recorded a space without a performer.

Curious: What do you use for impulse material when you do that? Finger
snaps and claps or something?

I was unclear, Jeff. I'm talking about recording oneself - a quick 'n dirty
test, taking only a couple of minutes.
- Stroll around mic-array at same distance of a few metres.
- Pauze at various angular or "clock" locations
- announce position location; make sounds, preferably a mix of staccato
(dog-clicker is great, or hand claps..) and sustained sounds (whistle, yell,
sing a note.. )

For example, "Twelve o'clock", click, click ..."twelve thirty", click, click
...."one o'clock", click, click...etc.
If you're embarrassed by grinning onlookers, you could suffice with a few
discrete clicks from pre-selected positions.

The above test - that you could even do at your leisure in your home or back
yard - doesn't test for voice/instrument tone quality or hall ambience. It's
primarily to get a handle - and build up a personal knowledge base - on what
kind of imaging your chosen array delivers, for the various sound source arrival
directions. But course, you could customize it for the hall and performers you
often work with: "podium right-edge piano", click, click..."front-left soprano
soloist"..."rear centred timpani"....
--
Tom McCreadie

[Frank Stearns]

Jeff Henig writes:

Tom McCreadie wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I understand all of the parameters, but not yet what those graphs are
telling me (about what that would SOUND like).

Nobody but Superman can tell what things will sound like by inspecting graphs.

In general though, sounds from the ambiophonic regions can on 2-speaker playback
give a wide spacious illusion, but their actual imaging will be vague and woozy.
Some folks experience it as unsettling and confusing..and in some circumstances
the 'imaging' even seems to collapse back into the centre.

Why not accumulate some "walkaround" test recordings, when the hall's quiet,
before the band and audience arrive?

Huh. I've never recorded a space without a performer.

Curious: What do you use for impulse material when you do that? Finger
snaps and claps or something?

Usually speak and annouce where you are as you move. If you want something "crisp"
to see on a waveform display later, go to the pet store and get a dog trainer
clicker for US$1.50 -- a small plastic box not much larger than your thumb with a
hole and piece of slightly tensioned light-weight sheet metal inside. Makes a nice,
loud "snap" when you press the metal through the little hole.

Takes about five seconds of practice to learn how to quickly release your thumb so
as not muffle the snap. Handy to clearly check mics, have a visual alignment mark
for post (starting alignment point anyway), and listen for anomolies (such as bad
flutter echo) in the room.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" skrev i en meddelelse

This is a "near coincident figure-8" configuration. It can be made to
work
but placement is difficult and I would generally not recommend it except
in
a few special cases where you need the low frequency phase imaging but
have
to deal with room echoes from the side.

Some day you are bored try setting up a pair of omnis in AB, parallel, with
some 40 to 50 centimeters between them. I think it should be less, but
haven't been able to test, but I do know that a compared uses that setup
when suppressing side and ceiling reflections is required and what he brings
home sounds very well indeed.

This configuration actually accepts more ambience in general, which means
it gets placed much more closely than an ORTF or blumlein pair would be,
which is where those reduced reflection problems come from. That is, you
get more overall ambience but when you reduce it with placement you
consequently reduce the slap echo problems more.

The same thing goes for audience noise in live performances. You'd think
with the omnis that the audience noise would be worse, but it drives you to
closer placement which in the end reduces the noise a lot.

I very much prefer the baffled omni configuration with slightly closer
placement and a baffle between them to give you intensity imaging at
higher frequencies, but the placement is generally the same.

Look up British Patent 394,325

Thanks. A day spent in a patent library can be a fun day well spent.
Everybody should for instance read Adolphe Sax's patents and be surprised
over what his aim with the invention was - something to emulate strings with
that could be used outdoors in rain in military style orchestras.

It's not really a brass instrument, it's not really a woodwind, it's supposed
to sound like strings, what the hell IS it?
--scott

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

John -

Finally got time to listen, and it is pretty much a flawless recording.
There is some low frequency noise poking in once in a while that sounds most
like microphone stands being adjusted, but I enjoy those kinds of sounds
once in a while. Piano and chorus are REAL and well spread out, but not
beyond my speakers

I am having some fun experimenting with my MS techniques and the post
processing thereof. I first mix the songs by making each track the same
loudness, in other words Mid and Side the same. I get good stereo, much
like with the Blumlein placement and config. Then I take the Mid down by 5
dB to get the signal wider and it works - boy, does it work.

I am playing in Dolby Pro Logic surround, and with the M down 5 dB, I get
the soundstage to wrap almost 180 degrees in front and around me. With it
down by 10 dB, the game is all over. Full Surround but not placed quite
correctly, i.e. the band is wrapped around right along with the crowd and
everything. I will, of course, eventually end up with the M and S about the
same to get good, normal stereo with a touch of the surround ambience that I
am always looking for.

Gary

[John Williamson]

On 25/01/2015 21:26, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
John -

Finally got time to listen, and it is pretty much a flawless recording.
There is some low frequency noise poking in once in a while that sounds most
like microphone stands being adjusted, but I enjoy those kinds of sounds
once in a while. Piano and chorus are REAL and well spread out, but not
beyond my speakers

That's what I was aiming for, a realistic sound stage on a two speaker
system. The noise is most likely someone quietly wandering round the
room or the pianist tapping her feet or the pedals, the main stands were
well away from any one and not touched once they'd been set up.

I am having some fun experimenting with my MS techniques and the post
processing thereof. I first mix the songs by making each track the same
loudness, in other words Mid and Side the same. I get good stereo, much
like with the Blumlein placement and config. Then I take the Mid down by 5
dB to get the signal wider and it works - boy, does it work.

A week after I did that gig, I bought a matched pair of adjustable
figure 8/ cardioid/ omni microphones. M/S using those would have been my
preferred second choice of method. The XY pair wasn't as good as the
Decca tree.

I am playing in Dolby Pro Logic surround, and with the M down 5 dB, I get
the soundstage to wrap almost 180 degrees in front and around me. With it
down by 10 dB, the game is all over. Full Surround but not placed quite
correctly, i.e. the band is wrapped around right along with the crowd and
everything. I will, of course, eventually end up with the M and S about the
same to get good, normal stereo with a touch of the surround ambience that I
am always looking for.

Keep trying.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
b.com...
"Richard Kuschel" skrev i en meddelelse
...

I have been following this conversation on mic techniques for some time
now.
Might I suggest a CD that gave me a lot of insight into recording for
stereo?
"Demonstration of Stereo Microphone Technique" by James Boyk.

I learned a lot from this demonstration. It shows the strength and
weakness of many stereo microphone techniques


http://shop.performancerecordings.co...sc?productId=6

As far as "thrumming" bass is concerned, much of it is due to the room
and the fact that the bass player cannot hear himself.

Get that speaker off the floor and into the player's ear and the sound
tends to get a lot better in a hurry.

He doesn't have ears at knee level.

He doesn't have one, he has his bass and then it is amplified via the pair
of shoeboxes on sticks that are their pa, that is how I understood the
description once we got one. And that is the entire problem. He should NOT
be in their pa, he should ONLY be in his own amplifier.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

As I say, I think I have solved most of the problem by using coincident
miking and also a couple of new venues. Then again there was also a new bass
player, but usintg the same amp and speaker.

Gary