[Gary Eickmeier]

Had a great recording session with the jazz group of my concert band -
except for the thrumming bass once again. I checked once again, and you
can't hear it too bad live, but on the recording a region around 100 Hz is
boosted so that it annoyingly takes over everything and all you hear (or
notice) is that bass.

So I had the bass player do me about 10 seconds of him alone to be able to
analyze something when I got home. What I did was just lay a graphic
equalizer filter on that track and keep lowering one of 30 bands to see
which one had the most effect, then I fashioned a new EQ curve cutting that
area by up to 16 dB. So near 100, 80, and 125 I smoothly cut out the bass
frequencies but let it rise back up to zero cut at the bottom end.

It worked! You don't notice anything missing from the rest of the band, but
it made a world of improvement in the recording. You can still hear the drum
kit just as powerfully on the kick drums, the stereo comes out much better
because you can hear the high freqs once again, and it sounds much more like
it did live!

The only question I might have for the group is, is there a way to read what
frequency that bass track is on Audition 2? I took a look at Spectral
Frequency Display and couldn't tell. I looked at the Alt/Z function (I
forget what it is called) and could see it bunching up at 100, but that is
pretty much normal anyway. Oh well, what I did worked.

Gary Eickmeier

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Had a great recording session with the jazz group of my concert band -
except for the thrumming bass once again. I checked once again, and you
can't hear it too bad live, but on the recording a region around 100 Hz is
boosted so that it annoyingly takes over everything and all you hear (or
notice) is that bass.

That is what the combination of FFT analyzer and equalizer is there for.

So I had the bass player do me about 10 seconds of him alone to be able to
analyze something when I got home. What I did was just lay a graphic
equalizer filter on that track and keep lowering one of 30 bands to see
which one had the most effect, then I fashioned a new EQ curve cutting
that area by up to 16 dB. So near 100, 80, and 125 I smoothly cut out the
bass frequencies but let it rise back up to zero cut at the bottom end.

It worked! You don't notice anything missing from the rest of the band,
but it made a world of improvement in the recording. You can still hear
the drum kit just as powerfully on the kick drums, the stereo comes out
much better because you can hear the high freqs once again, and it sounds
much more like it did live!

The only question I might have for the group is, is there a way to read
what frequency that bass track is on Audition 2?

FFT window on mouse over. Set resolution to max.

I took a look at Spectral Frequency Display and couldn't tell. I looked at
the Alt/Z function (I forget what it is called) and could see it bunching
up at 100,

That IS the FFT window. It allows you to zoom in by selecting a portion of
the frequency scale.

but that is pretty much normal anyway. Oh well, what I did worked.

Use the FFT eq where you can hand-draw a curve by plotting points, set it to
active and to use splines. The reaason you should use the FFT equalizer is
that it is non-minimum phase and this sonic aberration is not likely to be
directly linked to a transducer frequency response issue, which would be
minimum phase.

Gary Eickmeier

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[geoff]

On 13/01/2015 7:21 a.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Had a great recording session with the jazz group of my concert band -
except for the thrumming bass once again. I checked once again, and you
can't hear it too bad live, but on the recording a region around 100 Hz is
boosted so that it annoyingly takes over everything and all you hear (or
notice) is that bass.

So I had the bass player do me about 10 seconds of him alone to be able to
analyze something when I got home. What I did was just lay a graphic
equalizer filter on that track and keep lowering one of 30 bands to see
which one had the most effect, then I fashioned a new EQ curve cutting that
area by up to 16 dB. So near 100, 80, and 125 I smoothly cut out the bass
frequencies but let it rise back up to zero cut at the bottom end.

It worked! You don't notice anything missing from the rest of the band, but
it made a world of improvement in the recording. You can still hear the drum
kit just as powerfully on the kick drums, the stereo comes out much better
because you can hear the high freqs once again, and it sounds much more like
it did live!

The only question I might have for the group is, is there a way to read what
frequency that bass track is on Audition 2? I took a look at Spectral
Frequency Display and couldn't tell. I looked at the Alt/Z function (I
forget what it is called) and could see it bunching up at 100, but that is
pretty much normal anyway. Oh well, what I did worked.

Gary Eickmeier



A 'spectral display' would seem the best way, considering the baqss
probably isn't just one note. Of put a high-Q BPF on EQ and sweep that
up and down to get an idea of which bits stand out too much compared
with the others.

High bass is well known for muddying things up. Maybe up to 160ish.
Works for bass drums too.

geoff

[Frank Stearns]

"Gary Eickmeier" writes:

Had a great recording session with the jazz group of my concert band -
except for the thrumming bass once again. I checked once again, and you
can't hear it too bad live, but on the recording a region around 100 Hz is
boosted so that it annoyingly takes over everything and all you hear (or
notice) is that bass.

So I had the bass player do me about 10 seconds of him alone to be able to
analyze something when I got home. What I did was just lay a graphic
equalizer filter on that track and keep lowering one of 30 bands to see
which one had the most effect, then I fashioned a new EQ curve cutting that
area by up to 16 dB. So near 100, 80, and 125 I smoothly cut out the bass
frequencies but let it rise back up to zero cut at the bottom end.

It worked! You don't notice anything missing from the rest of the band, but
it made a world of improvement in the recording. You can still hear the drum
kit just as powerfully on the kick drums, the stereo comes out much better
because you can hear the high freqs once again, and it sounds much more like
it did live!

So it's a little weird that this isn't (apparently) noticed live in the hall and
worse, that the bass player doesn't notice and adjust accordingly. Could there be
something funky with the LF response of your microphones? Where they're placed?

You're cutting in some fairly important areas, with something of a sledge hammer
(graphic EQ) when a finer tool (parametric) might be helpful. To each his own.

I'd be somewhat circumspect in assuming you've done no damage to other things with
those dips -- unless indeed you have a microphone issue rather than a hall issue.
Then you're just correcting the microphones.

Give it some time, come back and do some comparative listening again when the aural
palette and acoustic memory in your head has completely cleared.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[[email protected]]

Try n track studio
It has a great fft display combined with an equalizer
Mark

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

skrev i en meddelelse
...

Try n track studio
It has a great fft display combined with an equalizer

He is using Audition v2, it has all he needs for this out of the shrinkwrap.

Mark

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

I actually ended up dipping the response below 100, centered around 60 Hz,
experimentally, but all audio tracks looked at by the "FFT" or Frequency
Analysis window will peak at 100 for some strange reason.

That is then a property of the audio tracks. Read what I wrote again, I
don't think you came to grips with the suggested procedure, if need be ask.

I had this same problem with this band last year, in another venue,
and I will be recording them at yet another place this Thursday.

Is the bass player using an amplifier?

Try this for a possible answer: I am using my 3 microphone
array in which they are placed on a bracket in a triangle formation,
center channel ahead of the L and R channels by about 8 inches
and L and R separated by maybe 14 inches.

For that array to have an icecubes chance in hell of being of any use you
need to record separate tracks.

So I have 3 mikes picking up all frequencies. Scott once told
me how three spaced omnis will emphasize the bass because they
will pick up those frequencies one after the other in sequential
fashion and add to wach other.

Scott is kinda right, in my opinion two spaced omnis have the same bass
smearing that makes bass appear louder. Because of this it could make sense
to high pass filter your side mics in that array at say 120 Hz first order.
Theoretically seen it would be turd polishing, but might work well.
Recording all mics on separate tracks once was a luxury, now it is in my
opinion a requirement, at least if loudspeaker monitoring is not possible,
but in my opinion always.

When I have used three microphones on one stand it has been because of a
need for improved room rendering, such as at one occasion a cello on the
balcony, ie. with the third - or occasionally the second pair (thank you for
selling them Nate!) aimed backwards.

Maybe I should use coincident mikes on the next one and find out. But the
mikes themselves (AT 2050) are reasonably flat. I do have a bracket for
rigging up an M/S microphone pair. It's a teensy bit clumsier but might be
worth it in sound quality and fun back home....

Jecklin with omnis as well as modified ORTF is benign to set up and AB with
parallel mics spaced some 50 centimeters need not be done with omnis, fig8
as well as sub-cards and cards are also usable, each setup with different
properties.

Thanks for the responses. Will let you know.

Live recording is the forever learning trip.

Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Same as I said before.

1. Make sure the problem isn't your monitoring system rather than your
recording.

2. If it is in the recording, go around with a finger in one ear and listen
until you hear it, then move the mike to a position where you don't hear
it.

3. You can use the normal trick with the parametric to fudge around the
problem in post. Set the filter narrow and to boost, sweep the frequency
back and forth until you make the boom as severe as possible. Once you
have found the center frequency that way, move the knob to cut and start
widening it out.

4. If your monitoring has an issue, anything you do to alter the sound in post
will make things worse, so be very careful.
--scott

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

I actually ended up dipping the response below 100, centered around 60
Hz, experimentally, but all audio tracks looked at by the "FFT" or
Frequency Analysis window will peak at 100 for some strange reason.

That is then a property of the audio tracks. Read what I wrote again, I
don't think you came to grips with the suggested procedure, if need be
ask.

Maybe not. I don't believe that the Frequency Analysis window is also an
equalizer - I thought it was just a reading instrument, not a signal
manipulator. But the confusing part is that all tracks that you put through
there have a natural peak at 100, then trailing downward from that point in
both the highs and the lows. I thought it was you who wrote up that article,
which has been very handy to me.


I had this same problem with this band last year, in another venue,
and I will be recording them at yet another place this Thursday.

Is the bass player using an amplifier?

Yes, electric bass - plugged into the same amp as the guitar and the
singer - which makes for a nightmare if I am capturing that line to mix the
singer in, because it will also make the bass louder, rather than softer.
I'm doomed, let's face it.


Try this for a possible answer: I am using my 3 microphone
array in which they are placed on a bracket in a triangle formation,
center channel ahead of the L and R channels by about 8 inches
and L and R separated by maybe 14 inches.

For that array to have an icecubes chance in hell of being of any use you
need to record separate tracks.

Of course I record separate tracks. To me the advantage of my "Three Card
Monte" mike configuration is that I have 180 degrees coverage and full
control over the amount of center fill with the center mike. And, BTW, this
and most other recordings made with this configuration sound terrific -
perfect imaging, with possibly just that bass problem.

So I have 3 mikes picking up all frequencies. Scott once told
me how three spaced omnis will emphasize the bass because they
will pick up those frequencies one after the other in sequential
fashion and add to wach other.

Scott is kinda right, in my opinion two spaced omnis have the same bass
smearing that makes bass appear louder. Because of this it could make
sense to high pass filter your side mics in that array at say 120 Hz first
order. Theoretically seen it would be turd polishing, but might work well.
Recording all mics on separate tracks once was a luxury, now it is in my
opinion a requirement, at least if loudspeaker monitoring is not possible,
but in my opinion always.

When I have used three microphones on one stand it has been because of a
need for improved room rendering, such as at one occasion a cello on the
balcony, ie. with the third - or occasionally the second pair (thank you
for selling them Nate!) aimed backwards.

Maybe I should use coincident mikes on the next one and find out. But the
mikes themselves (AT 2050) are reasonably flat. I do have a bracket for
rigging up an M/S microphone pair. It's a teensy bit clumsier but might
be worth it in sound quality and fun back home....

Jecklin with omnis as well as modified ORTF is benign to set up and AB
with parallel mics spaced some 50 centimeters need not be done with omnis,
fig8 as well as sub-cards and cards are also usable, each setup with
different properties.

Thanks for the responses. Will let you know.

Live recording is the forever learning trip.

I think I will try MS for some tracks and coincident Cardioids for the rest.

Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[geoff]

On 14/01/2015 7:36 a.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:


Yes, electric bass - plugged into the same amp as the guitar and the
singer - which makes for a nightmare if I am capturing that line to mix the
singer in, because it will also make the bass louder, rather than softer.
I'm doomed, let's face it.


Yep. I'd dick about with some EQ for a bit, then just say that's how it
is. And next time do it totally differently.


geoff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

That is then a property of the audio tracks. Read what I wrote again, I
don't think you came to grips with the suggested procedure, if need be
ask.

Maybe not. I don't believe that the Frequency Analysis window is also an
equalizer - I thought it was just a reading instrument, not a signal
manipulator.

I said no such thing. I said use the FFT analysis AND the FFT EQ, which is
in another menu.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Hi Gary,

Is the bass player using an amplifier?

Yes, electric bass - plugged into the same amp as the guitar and the
singer - which makes for a nightmare if I am capturing that line to mix
the singer in, because it will also make the bass louder, rather than
softer. I'm doomed, let's face it.

Nah, DI'ing bass and guitar is not likely to sound right anyway, but
splitting the vox mic or double miking vox and record it on a separate track
if available can be helpful.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Peter Larsen wrote:
Hi Gary,

Is the bass player using an amplifier?

Yes, electric bass - plugged into the same amp as the guitar and the
singer - which makes for a nightmare if I am capturing that line to mix
the singer in, because it will also make the bass louder, rather than
softer. I'm doomed, let's face it.

Nah, DI'ing bass and guitar is not likely to sound right anyway,

There is always reamping, but reamping doesn't help with what's in the room

but
splitting the vox mic or double miking vox and record it on a separate track
if available can be helpful.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen




--
Les Cargill

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
Hi Gary,

Is the bass player using an amplifier?

Yes, electric bass - plugged into the same amp as the guitar and the
singer - which makes for a nightmare if I am capturing that line to mix
the singer in, because it will also make the bass louder, rather than
softer. I'm doomed, let's face it.

Nah, DI'ing bass and guitar is not likely to sound right anyway, but
splitting the vox mic or double miking vox and record it on a separate
track if available can be helpful.

Yes, I have thought about double miking her with one of my own, but that
leads to another possible problem - if she is standing right on the
bandstand the mike will be picking up the band as well and screwing up my
stereo pickup plan. I have often wondered if I could place her a small
distance from them, up front, and centered on them, if that would help.
Usually these spaces are pretty tight. This extra mike problem would be
especially annoying if they wander around and/or don't know how to hold a
mike. If any of that happens, I will just go with my stereo mikes and let
the voice go.

Gary

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Nah, DI'ing bass and guitar is not likely to sound right anyway, but
splitting the vox mic or double miking vox and record it on a separate
track if available can be helpful.

I haven't been to the show for obvious reasons, but could you please
describe the amplification they use? - I'm beginning to think the actual
problem is that they are not using a dedicated amplifier for the bass
player. Also btw. because I think they have two bass sound sources in the
room if having two boxes on a stick trying to do bass and that he has poor
monitoring and therefore wants the bass louder in their system, whatever it
is.

Yes, I have thought about double miking her with one of my own, but that
leads to another possible problem - if she is standing right on the
bandstand the mike will be picking up the band as well and screwing up my
stereo pickup plan. I have often wondered if I could place her a small
distance from them, up front, and centered on them, if that would help.

You can not do that, the musicians need to be where they need to be for the
concert to work, the concert is the event. As for your stereo pickup plan
.... learn forgetting about your plans and record the actual event, do not
stick to your plan if the event doesn't fit it, then fix the plan so it fits
the event.

Usually these spaces are pretty tight. This extra mike problem would be
especially annoying if they wander around and/or don't know how to hold a
mike. If any of that happens, I will just go with my stereo mikes and let
the voice go.

Split the mic then. Options a passive splitting with y-cord, passive
splitting with transformer, active splitting, insert/direct out from
console. All have drawbacks and all have advantages. Getting vox in focus
and _timing_ _it_ _right_ can make a lot of other issues with a recording
forgiveable.

Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
web.com...
That is then a property of the audio tracks. Read what I wrote again, I
don't think you came to grips with the suggested procedure, if need be
ask.

Maybe not. I don't believe that the Frequency Analysis window is also an
equalizer - I thought it was just a reading instrument, not a signal
manipulator.

I said no such thing. I said use the FFT analysis AND the FFT EQ, which is
in another menu.

Ah yes I see - I didn't know about the FFT EQ. I will play with it for this
next gig on Thursday. It seems like a neat function - can do straight line
or with spline curves. Has plenty of useful presets. Got to get familiar
with it.

Thanks,
Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
web.com...
"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Nah, DI'ing bass and guitar is not likely to sound right anyway, but
splitting the vox mic or double miking vox and record it on a separate
track if available can be helpful.

I haven't been to the show for obvious reasons, but could you please
describe the amplification they use? - I'm beginning to think the actual
problem is that they are not using a dedicated amplifier for the bass
player. Also btw. because I think they have two bass sound sources in the
room if having two boxes on a stick trying to do bass and that he has poor
monitoring and therefore wants the bass louder in their system, whatever
it is.

Yes, I have thought about double miking her with one of my own, but that
leads to another possible problem - if she is standing right on the
bandstand the mike will be picking up the band as well and screwing up my
stereo pickup plan. I have often wondered if I could place her a small
distance from them, up front, and centered on them, if that would help.

You can not do that, the musicians need to be where they need to be for
the concert to work, the concert is the event. As for your stereo pickup
plan ... learn forgetting about your plans and record the actual event, do
not stick to your plan if the event doesn't fit it, then fix the plan so
it fits the event.

Usually these spaces are pretty tight. This extra mike problem would be
especially annoying if they wander around and/or don't know how to hold a
mike. If any of that happens, I will just go with my stereo mikes and let
the voice go.

Split the mic then. Options a passive splitting with y-cord, passive
splitting with transformer, active splitting, insert/direct out from
console. All have drawbacks and all have advantages. Getting vox in focus
and _timing_ _it_ _right_ can make a lot of other issues with a recording
forgiveable.

Thanks Peter. At rehearsal, and probably the same at the performances, they
had just one amp/speaker box that did triple duty as the guitar, the bass,
and the singer's amp. I usually just put a second recorder on that amp and
use it just for the singer. Might try double miking her with one of my mikes
run into my multi track recorder. If it catches too much of the band sound
near her, I will just drop that idea and go with my main stereo pair.

Doing MS and possibly some XY single point for the main pair.

Gary

[[email protected]]

Ah yes I see - I didn't know about the FFT EQ. I will play with it for this
next gig on Thursday. It seems like a neat function - can do straight line
or with spline curves. Has plenty of useful presets. Got to get familiar
with it.

If you like this type of EQ
I'll suggest again and for the last time to you, to check N Track Studio

Mark

[Gary Eickmeier]

The next session with them, I used two coincident miking techniques, MS and
XY. It helped a lot in reducing the problem. The sound came out about equal
with either technique - less apparent soundstage width than with my spaced
three mike technique.

Then on the next one, we heard a big BANG on stage, and it was the bass
player falling over the drums. He was injured and hurting in his shoulder so
bad they had to cart him off to the ER. I swear I had nothing to do with it.
But yes, the problem went completely away.

Gary Eickmeier

[John Williamson]

On 20/01/2015 21:18, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
The next session with them, I used two coincident miking techniques, MS and
XY. It helped a lot in reducing the problem. The sound came out about equal
with either technique - less apparent soundstage width than with my spaced
three mike technique.

Then on the next one, we heard a big BANG on stage, and it was the bass
player falling over the drums. He was injured and hurting in his shoulder so
bad they had to cart him off to the ER. I swear I had nothing to do with it.
But yes, the problem went completely away.


No fair, injuring musicians is not allowed, even if they are bass
players or drummers. ;-)


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 20/01/2015 21:18, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
The next session with them, I used two coincident miking techniques, MS and
XY. It helped a lot in reducing the problem. The sound came out about equal
with either technique - less apparent soundstage width than with my spaced
three mike technique.

Seriously, though, I'm glad you've sorted the problem out. Have you
tried a proper Decca Tree setup as documented using 3 omnis or even 2
cardioids and an omni yet as a backup, or don't you have room? I've had
excellent results using one with a choir, using a time shifted spot mic.
for the piano.

It sounded better and more natural than the XY pair with a rear pair
coincident to them that I was using for backup.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2015 21:18, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
The next session with them, I used two coincident miking techniques, MS
and
XY. It helped a lot in reducing the problem. The sound came out about
equal
with either technique - less apparent soundstage width than with my
spaced
three mike technique.

Seriously, though, I'm glad you've sorted the problem out. Have you tried
a proper Decca Tree setup as documented using 3 omnis or even 2 cardioids
and an omni yet as a backup, or don't you have room? I've had excellent
results using one with a choir, using a time shifted spot mic. for the
piano.

It sounded better and more natural than the XY pair with a rear pair
coincident to them that I was using for backup.

No, haven't gotten into Decca Trees. I can look it up though, and study it.
What I am after is WIDE and spacious. But right now, my back surgery
prevents carrying a lot of equipment to these live events, setting up
inconspicuously, learning how to refine the positioning with nothing but a
set of headphones.

The XY vs MS was interesting though. To switch from the MS to the XY, all I
had to do was rotate the mike stand 45 degrees! The rest is just the
processing of the MS, which is done on the Audition 2 by mixing and
inverting and leveling the two tracks. Next I must learn how to decrease the
M to get a wider soundstage. Don't want to cut out the middle man though.

Big fun. Doing it again Friday. Might go full surround, with my 4 cardioid
technique.

Gary

[John Williamson]

On 21/01/2015 19:56, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2015 21:18, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
The next session with them, I used two coincident miking techniques, MS
and
XY. It helped a lot in reducing the problem. The sound came out about
equal
with either technique - less apparent soundstage width than with my
spaced
three mike technique.

Seriously, though, I'm glad you've sorted the problem out. Have you tried
a proper Decca Tree setup as documented using 3 omnis or even 2 cardioids
and an omni yet as a backup, or don't you have room? I've had excellent
results using one with a choir, using a time shifted spot mic. for the
piano.

It sounded better and more natural than the XY pair with a rear pair
coincident to them that I was using for backup.

No, haven't gotten into Decca Trees. I can look it up though, and study it.
What I am after is WIDE and spacious. But right now, my back surgery
prevents carrying a lot of equipment to these live events, setting up
inconspicuously, learning how to refine the positioning with nothing but a
set of headphones.

Try these tracks.

http://www.oysterbroadcast.co.uk/shavington.html

Decca tree plus a spot pair on the piano, tree with centre mic about 6
feet behind the conductor, and about a foot above head height, piano
pair time delayed to match the 20 feet from piano to centre microphone,
which got rid of an annoying phasiness in the original mix, then
balanced to taste, no EQ applied. The tracks with the guitar and voice
solo were recorded the same way, but I had to fiddle a bit to lift the
solo, as the solo vocalist's spot mic failed. Grrr....

Three tall and 2 short microphone stands, one 8 channel recorder, a few
XLR cables and a snake were the gear used for those recordings. Add a
Zoom H2 on the centre stand for the backup XY recording, and Beyer DT100
headphones to monitor. The speakers to let the choir hear what they'd
sung were optional.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

The XY vs MS was interesting though. To switch from the MS to the XY, all I
had to do was rotate the mike stand 45 degrees! The rest is just the
processing of the MS, which is done on the Audition 2 by mixing and
inverting and leveling the two tracks. Next I must learn how to decrease the
M to get a wider soundstage. Don't want to cut out the middle man though.

Huh? How did you change the cardiod to figure-8?
---scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

Got it John - downloaded all of the tracks and will make them into a CD
after Friday's date and give a listen. This is the most illustrative way to
compare notes and teach technique! A picture would also be worth a thousand
words.

Thanks


"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2015 19:56, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2015 21:18, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
The next session with them, I used two coincident miking techniques, MS
and
XY. It helped a lot in reducing the problem. The sound came out about
equal
with either technique - less apparent soundstage width than with my
spaced
three mike technique.

Seriously, though, I'm glad you've sorted the problem out. Have you
tried
a proper Decca Tree setup as documented using 3 omnis or even 2
cardioids
and an omni yet as a backup, or don't you have room? I've had excellent
results using one with a choir, using a time shifted spot mic. for the
piano.

It sounded better and more natural than the XY pair with a rear pair
coincident to them that I was using for backup.

No, haven't gotten into Decca Trees. I can look it up though, and study
it.
What I am after is WIDE and spacious. But right now, my back surgery
prevents carrying a lot of equipment to these live events, setting up
inconspicuously, learning how to refine the positioning with nothing but
a
set of headphones.

Try these tracks.

http://www.oysterbroadcast.co.uk/shavington.html

Decca tree plus a spot pair on the piano, tree with centre mic about 6
feet behind the conductor, and about a foot above head height, piano pair
time delayed to match the 20 feet from piano to centre microphone, which
got rid of an annoying phasiness in the original mix, then balanced to
taste, no EQ applied. The tracks with the guitar and voice solo were
recorded the same way, but I had to fiddle a bit to lift the solo, as the
solo vocalist's spot mic failed. Grrr....

Three tall and 2 short microphone stands, one 8 channel recorder, a few
XLR cables and a snake were the gear used for those recordings. Add a Zoom
H2 on the centre stand for the backup XY recording, and Beyer DT100
headphones to monitor. The speakers to let the choir hear what they'd sung
were optional.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

The XY vs MS was interesting though. To switch from the MS to the XY, all
I
had to do was rotate the mike stand 45 degrees! The rest is just the
processing of the MS, which is done on the Audition 2 by mixing and
inverting and leveling the two tracks. Next I must learn how to decrease
the
M to get a wider soundstage. Don't want to cut out the middle man though.

Huh? How did you change the cardiod to figure-8?
---scott

Well, I'm glad you brought that up Scott. In anticipation of the ease of
making the switch between musical numbers (this was just a one hour gig), I
decided on two figure 8s. Another reason was that they would have identical
freq response for mixing together. So at switch techniques time, I simply
rotated from the mikes forward and sideways to 45/45.

For some maccabre reason, my channel check got messed up both times ( "left
channel, center, right channel check check) but I kept careful note of where
each was plugged in and it worked out fine.

Is there anything wrong with crossed figure 8s for MS? I was worried about
the rear lobes being opposite channel, but you don't hear them that way
after the mix to stereo, right? I know that you get different coverage
patterns wth different center mikes but you don't get mixed up channels, do
you?

Gary

[Tom McCreadie]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

.... The rest is just the
processing of the MS, which is done on the Audition 2 by mixing and
inverting and leveling the two tracks. Next I must learn how to decrease the
M to get a wider soundstage.

It's more convenient just to install and use the free Voxengo MSED plugin.
--
Tom McCreadie

Did Meat Loaf have many fans?
Sure - he sweated a lot.

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

The XY vs MS was interesting though. To switch from the MS to the XY, all
I
had to do was rotate the mike stand 45 degrees! The rest is just the
processing of the MS, which is done on the Audition 2 by mixing and
inverting and leveling the two tracks. Next I must learn how to decrease
the
M to get a wider soundstage. Don't want to cut out the middle man though.

Huh? How did you change the cardiod to figure-8?

Well, I'm glad you brought that up Scott. In anticipation of the ease of
making the switch between musical numbers (this was just a one hour gig), I
decided on two figure 8s. Another reason was that they would have identical
freq response for mixing together. So at switch techniques time, I simply
rotated from the mikes forward and sideways to 45/45.

In that case, what you have is neither ORTF nor M-S, but some sort of weird
spaced Blumlein thing.

Is there anything wrong with crossed figure 8s for MS? I was worried about
the rear lobes being opposite channel, but you don't hear them that way
after the mix to stereo, right? I know that you get different coverage
patterns wth different center mikes but you don't get mixed up channels, do
you?

Well, it's not M-S, that's the main problem. If you have two crossed figure-8
mikes mounted right on top of one another so there is effectively no space
between them (but they are not shading one another), you get traditional
Blumlein. The Blumlein array can be used with or without an M-S decoder, but
it's totally different than any other configuration and has a much narrower
angle of acceptance.

If you start moving the two figure-8s apart with conventional Blumlein, you
start getting some timing differences between channels but the rear image
becomes very blurry. I don't know WHAT would happen if you move them apart
and use an M-S decoder but I suspect it would not be good.

The Blumlein array is a very good choice in a long skinny room that is too
live, like some older churches. Slap echoes from the side walls are reduced,
you get ambience from the rear where it's mostly diffuse instead of coherent
slap, and the narrow angle of acceptance is not an issue.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Phil W[_3_]]

Tom McCreadie:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

.... The rest is just the
processing of the MS, which is done on the Audition 2 by mixing and
inverting and leveling the two tracks. Next I must learn how to decrease
the
M to get a wider soundstage.

It's more convenient just to install and use the free Voxengo MSED plugin.

Hopefully not too convenient and - even worse ;-) - it´s free and can not
only be used in 1 particular program...

http://www.voxengo.com/product/msed/

This one might also be useful - if handled with ca
http://www.voxengo.com/product/stereotouch/


Maybe it´s helpful to anyone...

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

The XY vs MS was interesting though. To switch from the MS to the XY,
all
I
had to do was rotate the mike stand 45 degrees! The rest is just the
processing of the MS, which is done on the Audition 2 by mixing and
inverting and leveling the two tracks. Next I must learn how to decrease
the
M to get a wider soundstage. Don't want to cut out the middle man
though.

Huh? How did you change the cardiod to figure-8?

Well, I'm glad you brought that up Scott. In anticipation of the ease of
making the switch between musical numbers (this was just a one hour gig),
I
decided on two figure 8s. Another reason was that they would have
identical
freq response for mixing together. So at switch techniques time, I simply
rotated from the mikes forward and sideways to 45/45.

In that case, what you have is neither ORTF nor M-S, but some sort of
weird
spaced Blumlein thing.

I didn't mention anything about ORTF - are you thinking of someone else's
post or some of my previous ones? I said I was doing two coincident
techniques, XY and MS, with two figure 8 mikes.


Is there anything wrong with crossed figure 8s for MS? I was worried about
the rear lobes being opposite channel, but you don't hear them that way
after the mix to stereo, right? I know that you get different coverage
patterns wth different center mikes but you don't get mixed up channels,
do
you?

Well, it's not M-S, that's the main problem. If you have two crossed
figure-8
mikes mounted right on top of one another so there is effectively no space
between them (but they are not shading one another), you get traditional
Blumlein. The Blumlein array can be used with or without an M-S decoder,
but
it's totally different than any other configuration and has a much
narrower
angle of acceptance.

Miscommunicating again. Coincident figure 8 mikes mounted one over the
other, used first in MS with the angles fore/aft and left/right, then 45/45
in Blumlein formation. At home, the MS configuration is converted to stereo
on the computer in the usual way.

If you start moving the two figure-8s apart with conventional Blumlein,
you
start getting some timing differences between channels but the rear image
becomes very blurry. I don't know WHAT would happen if you move them
apart
and use an M-S decoder but I suspect it would not be good.

Coincident.

The Blumlein array is a very good choice in a long skinny room that is too
live, like some older churches. Slap echoes from the side walls are
reduced,
you get ambience from the rear where it's mostly diffuse instead of
coherent
slap, and the narrow angle of acceptance is not an issue.
--scott

Good to know! Thanks,

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Phil W" wrote in message
...
Tom McCreadie:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

.... The rest is just the
processing of the MS, which is done on the Audition 2 by mixing and
inverting and leveling the two tracks. Next I must learn how to decrease
the
M to get a wider soundstage.

It's more convenient just to install and use the free Voxengo MSED
plugin.

Hopefully not too convenient and - even worse ;-) - it´s free and can not
only be used in 1 particular program...

http://www.voxengo.com/product/msed/

This one might also be useful - if handled with ca
http://www.voxengo.com/product/stereotouch/


Maybe it´s helpful to anyone...

Thanks to both - will do some more MS tomorrow and try the plug-ins. Which
reminds me - I wonder if there is any sort of MS decoder built into
Audition. It has so many other features, might be worth a look. But I guess
if these plug-ins are available it probably doesn't have.

Gary

[Tom McCreadie]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Is there anything wrong with crossed figure 8s for MS? I was worried about
the rear lobes being opposite channel, but you don't hear them that way
after the mix to stereo, right? I know that you get different coverage
patterns wth different center mikes but you don't get mixed up channels, do
you?

Sounds arriving from the auditorium rear quadrant are of inverted polarity - the
speaker cones sucking backwards instead of pumping forwards - but 'absolute
polarity' is difficult to detect anyway. Additionally however, sounds from the
rear quadrant result in a lateral image reversal from the front speakers
playback. But those rearwards-arriving sounds will typically consist of lower
level ambience and reflections.

Sounds arriving from the two "ambiophonic" side quadrants develop a conflicting
polarity signal at the mics and thus give rise to weird, unclear imaging' (or a
pleasant phasiness, if you're an optimist :-)) . The weaker the fig8 M signal,
the wider the two ambiophonic signal sectors and the narrower the SRA of the
array (or in Scott's terminology: "angle of acceptance")

Conventional Blumlein equates to 1:1 MS with two fig8's. It's SRA is indeed
narrower than that from ORTF (76° vs 96° resp. ), but it's not all that
different from that of NOS (81°).

If you're keen to get your head round this MS - XY stuff, I recommend you get
hold of the paper:
"XY and MS Stereo Recording Techniques" (by Sennnheiser's Manfred Hibbing)

Also, you may get additional insight by actually calculating the Relative
Voltages that the "virtual XY mics" (i.e. after MS decoding) would be sending
out to their respective L- and R speakers. FWIW, here's a link to a pdf of
graphical data that I'd calculated and recently posted elsewhere.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ing_graphs.pdf

The above was for 9 different scenarios:
- three M patterns: cardioid, supercardioid, fig8
- each one at three M/S ratios: M at +6dB, 0dB, -6dB

Happy wrestling :-)
--
Tom McCreadie

Did Meat Loaf have many fans?
Sure - he sweated a lot.

[Tom McCreadie]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Thanks to both - will do some more MS tomorrow and try the plug-ins. Which
reminds me - I wonder if there is any sort of MS decoder built into
Audition. It has so many other features, might be worth a look. But I guess
if these plug-ins are available it probably doesn't have.

In Edit mode of Audition 3 (probably the same in Audition 2), you just use the
channel mixer:

First record your MS as if it were a plain XY stereo wave file.
Then in AA:
Effects - Stereo Imagery - Channel Mixer
New Left Channel = Left +50% ; Right +50%
New Right Channel = Left +50% ; Right -50%
Done,

Save that mix setting as a convenient preset.
It's not too hard to figure out combinations to reflect other M/S ratios.
--
Tom McCreadie

Tinnitus is a pain in the neck

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Tom McCreadie" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Is there anything wrong with crossed figure 8s for MS? I was worried about
the rear lobes being opposite channel, but you don't hear them that way
after the mix to stereo, right? I know that you get different coverage
patterns wth different center mikes but you don't get mixed up channels,
do
you?

Sounds arriving from the auditorium rear quadrant are of inverted
polarity - the
speaker cones sucking backwards instead of pumping forwards - but
'absolute
polarity' is difficult to detect anyway. Additionally however, sounds from
the
rear quadrant result in a lateral image reversal from the front speakers
playback. But those rearwards-arriving sounds will typically consist of
lower
level ambience and reflections.

Yes, but after you mixdown to stereo (resulting in two stereo channels) the
result is an XY pair equivalent, with varying patterns depending on which M
mike you chose - right? With a Blumlein pair of figure 8 mikes, you might
become concerned (well, not YOU but a general newbie like me) about a sound
coming from direct Left, say, getting picked up by both the left mike and
the rear lobe of the Right mike duking it out with each other to make it
come from center. But the L sound would be picked up exactly out of phase
with each other from the mikes, or maybe 90° out, but I suppose that is what
your graphs down below are for isn't it? Interesting stuff, and if you can't
quite wrap your head around what some of these combinations of microphones
and MS mixes will SOUND like, you can always "do the experiment" and do some
sound checks from all around and see how it imiages back in the studio. My
problem is I listen in surround sound and want to make that most effective.
I want it to come out WIDE and SPACIOUS. MS recordings from others have done
it for me in the past, so I am trying to duplicate that in my own
recordings. I have also done some discrete surround recordings and some
Dolby stereo with encoded rear channel.

Sounds arriving from the two "ambiophonic" side quadrants develop a
conflicting
polarity signal at the mics and thus give rise to weird, unclear imaging'
(or a
pleasant phasiness, if you're an optimist :-)) . The weaker the fig8 M
signal,
the wider the two ambiophonic signal sectors and the narrower the SRA of
the
array (or in Scott's terminology: "angle of acceptance")

Conventional Blumlein equates to 1:1 MS with two fig8's. It's SRA is
indeed
narrower than that from ORTF (76° vs 96° resp. ), but it's not all that
different from that of NOS (81°).

If you're keen to get your head round this MS - XY stuff, I recommend you
get
hold of the paper:
"XY and MS Stereo Recording Techniques" (by Sennnheiser's Manfred Hibbing)

I have the New Stereo Soundbook by Ron Streicher, recommended by Scott,
which is very good on the basics.

Also, you may get additional insight by actually calculating the Relative
Voltages that the "virtual XY mics" (i.e. after MS decoding) would be
sending
out to their respective L- and R speakers. FWIW, here's a link to a pdf
of
graphical data that I'd calculated and recently posted elsewhere.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ing_graphs.pdf

The above was for 9 different scenarios:
- three M patterns: cardioid, supercardioid, fig8
- each one at three M/S ratios: M at +6dB, 0dB, -6dB

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

Happy wrestling :-)

Thanks Tom!

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Phil W" wrote in message
...
Tom McCreadie:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

.... The rest is just the
processing of the MS, which is done on the Audition 2 by mixing and
inverting and leveling the two tracks. Next I must learn how to decrease
the
M to get a wider soundstage.

It's more convenient just to install and use the free Voxengo MSED
plugin.

Hopefully not too convenient and - even worse ;-) - it´s free and can not
only be used in 1 particular program...

http://www.voxengo.com/product/msed/

This one might also be useful - if handled with ca
http://www.voxengo.com/product/stereotouch/


Maybe it´s helpful to anyone...

This is fantastic! Is Audition compatible with this VST stuff? And look at
the Shinechilla plug in - there is that graph again, peaking at 100 and
falling off above and below. Can someone talk to me again about this little
tidbit? Looks like some sort of ideal curve that your recordings should
shoot for. Not sure why. It is a frequency analysis curve, showing which
freqs appear the most and least often in a good recording - right? Kind of
like a histogram???

Gary

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Thanks to both - will do some more MS tomorrow and try the plug-ins. Which
reminds me - I wonder if there is any sort of MS decoder built into
Audition.

The channel mixer can do it, but the preset was not in 2.0 and 3.01. I think
I already posted the settings ... anyway, here's another spoonful, from AA
1.5's presets:

LR to Mid-Side (aka known as "sum and difference")

new left channel: 50 percent left, 50 percent right

new right channel: 50 percent left, -50 percent right

Mid-Side to LR:

new left channel: 100 percent left, 100 percent right

new right channel: 100 percent left, -100 percent right

It has so many other features, might be worth a look. But I guess if these
plug-ins are available it probably doesn't have.

There is a gazillion plug-ins doing what daw software already does.

Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[PStamler]

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.

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"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.

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]

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.

I'd respectfully disagree with you there, Paul. To my mind, XY is a general
description of a Coincident array of ANY Directional mics (identical pair), at
ANY angle. The key element is that the stereo is purely intensity-based.

Many XY recordings involved cardioids, of course, as they are a commonly
available capsule. But that 110° angle has no special significance for
coincident miking - it was simply the optimum angle that the ORTF guys settled
on for their near-spaced cardioid technique.

In a strict classification sense, Blumlein can be viewed as a particular sub-set
of XY. Nobody, though, uses the words 'XY' when referring to Blumlein....except
me just now. :-)
--
Tom McCreadie

[Tom McCreadie]

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?
--
Tom McCreadie