Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
Recording with just the Zoom H6 and its own XY microphone module, some
tracks have some sort of electronic interference Regular beat of hash "fs fs fs fs fs etc." for a few seconds, then OK. They had a row of microphones set up for the Choral concert that night, wonder if RF from some wireless microphones or other device could get in. I will make sure to **** OFF my cel phone completely next time. Recorded at 24/96, editing on Audition 2. Gary Eickmeier |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
субота, 06. децембар 2014. 05.47.33 UTC+1, Gary Eickmeier је написао/ла:
Recording with just the Zoom H6 and its own XY microphone module, some tracks have some sort of electronic interference Regular beat of hash "fs fs fs fs fs etc." for a few seconds, then OK. They had a row of microphones set up for the Choral concert that night, wonder if RF from some wireless microphones or other device could get in. I will make sure to **** OFF my cel phone completely next time. Recorded at 24/96, editing on Audition 2. Gary Eickmeier Mobile phone. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
On 12/5/2014 11:48 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Recording with just the Zoom H6 and its own XY microphone module, some tracks have some sort of electronic interference Regular beat of hash "fs fs fs fs fs etc." for a few seconds, then OK. Somebody too close to a microphone or cable had a cell phone turned on. Next time, tell the folks to turn their phones all the way off (not just on vibrate) before the recording session. If they really need to take phone calls, they shouldn't be in the session. -- "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 Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
"Jeff Henig" wrote in message ... "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: Recording with just the Zoom H6 and its own XY microphone module, some tracks have some sort of electronic interference Regular beat of hash "fs fs fs fs fs etc." for a few seconds, then OK. They had a row of microphones set up for the Choral concert that night, wonder if RF from some wireless microphones or other device could get in. I will make sure to **** OFF my cel phone completely next time. Recorded at 24/96, editing on Audition 2. Gary Eickmeier Gary, most people would SHUT off their cell phones. What did you do, eat yours? Heh. (;^) OOPS - more interference! Gary |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... Somebody too close to a microphone or cable had a cell phone turned on. Next time, tell the folks to turn their phones all the way off (not just on vibrate) before the recording session. If they really need to take phone calls, they shouldn't be in the session. OK good - looks like it's unanimous. I got a new cell phone since the last successful concert recording and never suspected this could happen. I was the only one near the recorder, and these are live events and I have no control over the audience but they usually stay back from the first row where I am. Will shut the damn thing completely off next time (tomorrow). Gary |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
On 12/6/2014 1:06 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Will shut the damn thing completely off next time (tomorrow). Try it at home right now. Don't wait until tomorrow. -- "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 Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
On 6/12/2014 5:48 p.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Recording with just the Zoom H6 and its own XY microphone module, some tracks have some sort of electronic interference Regular beat of hash "fs fs fs fs fs etc." for a few seconds, then OK. They had a row of microphones set up for the Choral concert that night, wonder if RF from some wireless microphones or other device could get in. I will make sure to **** OFF my cel phone completely next time. Recorded at 24/96, editing on Audition 2. Gary Eickmeier Cell-phone nearby ? geoff |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
On 7/12/2014 7:06 a.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... Somebody too close to a microphone or cable had a cell phone turned on. Next time, tell the folks to turn their phones all the way off (not just on vibrate) before the recording session. If they really need to take phone calls, they shouldn't be in the session. OK good - looks like it's unanimous. I got a new cell phone since the last successful concert recording and never suspected this could happen. I was the only one near the recorder, and these are live events and I have no control over the audience but they usually stay back from the first row where I am. Will shut the damn thing completely off next time (tomorrow). Gary Nee-neeep, nee-neeep, nee-neeeeeeeep ...... nep ? geoff |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
On 7/12/2014 11:19 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/6/2014 1:06 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote: Will shut the damn thing completely off next time (tomorrow). Try it at home right now. Don't wait until tomorrow. Even better do it yesterday, then then the problem is averted ! geoff |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
Session turned out fine, working on the CD now. Simple two mike ORT-F
configuration with cardioid mikes at 90. Gary Eickmeier |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
"Gary Eickmeier" writes:
Session turned out fine, working on the CD now. Simple two mike ORT-F configuration with cardioid mikes at 90. 90? With cardioids? That's not quite ORTF - at least with regular cardioids. Hypers, maybe, but I'd still splay at 100 (which I do routinely with my M940 pairs). Regular ORTF needs 110 to get the smooth and proper left-to-right representation. And you did use 17 cm spacing, right? Now, if you want to use 90, switch to NOS, which calls for 30 cm spacing. I've found NOS useful for wide and shallow ensembles. Just used it a few days ago to give me some mix highlight capabilities for an entire wide and shallow row of percussion folks at the very rear of a big combo orchestra and wind band. Worked fine with a pair of C451s, especially on a way over-damped stage that really sucks the life out of stuff. Frank -- |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
"Frank Stearns" skrev i en meddelelse
... "Gary Eickmeier" writes: Session turned out fine, working on the CD now. Simple two mike ORT-F configuration with cardioid mikes at 90. 90? With cardioids? That's not quite ORTF No, ORTF is a wording that is often used outside what it is valid for, I have given up on explaing what it actually is. It is intended for longer mic to source distances than those I end up using. - at least with regular cardioids. Hypers, maybe, but I'd still splay at 100 (which I do routinely with my M940 pairs). Regular ORTF needs 110 to get the smooth and proper left-to-right representation. I get to disagree with you, my my my. You need to include the variable "opening angle", close to a wide source as little as 45 degrees can be what works. Which is to say that you can not specify stereo pair angle between capsules without also referencing intended stereo included image angle or simply "angular width of stage/ensemble" and or distance to said ensemble/stage. And you did use 17 cm spacing, right? Now, if you want to use 90, switch to NOS, which calls for 30 cm spacing. Cardioids spaced 30 centimeters, at a guess - I have a protractor based on the Stereophonic Zoom paper somewhere, another member of a now closed club designed it based on it - you could end up with parallel microphones. I've found NOS useful for wide and shallow ensembles. A friend often uses fig8's spaced 40 centimeters and parallel, we also tried it with cards, works very well. Just used it a few days ago to give me some mix highlight capabilities for an entire wide and shallow row of percussion folks at the very rear of a big combo orchestra and wind band. Worked fine with a pair of C451s, especially on a way over-damped stage that really sucks the life out of stuff. I have used the C451EB's with CK1's as close as they could get, ie. with XLR's touching and about 60 degrees angle when close to ensembles. Frank, there really is only one parameter that matters, it is decorrelation, it can be obtained via two tools: distance and angle, if you have the need for a wide included angle - a wide ensemble - you need to go to more correlation to avoid hole in the middle (!) and with a narrow ensemble you need to go to more decorrelation to spread them out and make them fill the stereo image up. You can trade angle for distance depending on how your actual microphone capsules work, with too wide an angle the offaxis response becomes the center image frequency response in which case distance may be the better decorrelation tool and - hey presto - we are back at agreeing as that is what you say you do. To complicate it all, main pair setup is different with and without supporting spot-microphones, it is ONE SYSTEM, be it somehow distributed over the ensemble or on one stick. A very neat property of MS setups, one that is often not understood, is that the center image gets on axis response instead of off-axis response. In the real world: leave all the papers on a chair - preferably outside the concert hall lest they confuse you - go set The Pair up, listen, tweak if you didn't get it right but try to not tweak more than three times, too much finagling scares the talent. Frank Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
"Peter Larsen" writes:
"Frank Stearns" skrev i en meddelelse ... "Gary Eickmeier" writes: Session turned out fine, working on the CD now. Simple two mike ORT-F configuration with cardioid mikes at 90. 90? With cardioids? That's not quite ORTF No, ORTF is a wording that is often used outside what it is valid for, I have given up on explaing what it actually is. It is intended for longer mic to source distances than those I end up using. Well, in answer to this and several comments below, about 12 years ago when I got back into large ensemble recording, I went through exhaustive and thorough evaluation of several stereophonic techniques. After going "outside the lines" with varying distances and angles, it turns out that the books are mostly right -- 110 degrees/17 cm/standard cardioid for ORTF, 90 degrees/30 cm/standard cardioid for NOS, and 100 degree/50 cm/omnis with diffraction spheres. Now, you can vary these all you want, and you'll even get nice results. But are the results remarkable? That is, can you do a test walk on a stage and get an extremely accurate image left/right and front/back? How does the ensemble sound? Everything where it should be? Various imaging aspects degrade as you stray from those standards. To a point, you *can* fuss with these standards to accommodate microphone peculiarities and the room, but get too far and perhaps it's time to step back and try another approach. Something with the room or mics is possibly biting you. And for image size, I prefer to fudge exactly where the pair is placed rather than mucking with the geometry. (AB gives good flexibility in this regard.) - at least with regular cardioids. Hypers, maybe, but I'd still splay at 100 (which I do routinely with my M940 pairs). Regular ORTF needs 110 to get the smooth and proper left-to-right representation. I get to disagree with you, my my my. You need to include the variable "opening angle", close to a wide source as little as 45 degrees can be what works. Which is to say that you can not specify stereo pair angle between capsules without also referencing intended stereo included image angle or simply "angular width of stage/ensemble" and or distance to said ensemble/stage. See above; in this instance meaning if there is an odd-ball stage or ensemble configuration, maybe it's worth looking at a different approach. (In the worst case scenario, perhaps you spot mic and create good image in post. It can be done, it's just annoying.) And you did use 17 cm spacing, right? Now, if you want to use 90, switch to NOS, which calls for 30 cm spacing. Cardioids spaced 30 centimeters, at a guess - I have a protractor based on the Stereophonic Zoom paper somewhere, another member of a now closed club designed it based on it - you could end up with parallel microphones. I've found NOS useful for wide and shallow ensembles. A friend often uses fig8's spaced 40 centimeters and parallel, we also tried it with cards, works very well. From my experiments, it seems unlikely that this would work as well as, say, the remarkable 50 cm omni pairs. (The imaging truly is eerie in its accuracy left-to-right and front-to-back.) But, one of these days I'll give it a try. I could see the 40 cm parallel fig 8s being helpful in a hall that has crap coming off the side walls. Just used it a few days ago to give me some mix highlight capabilities for an entire wide and shallow row of percussion folks at the very rear of a big combo orchestra and wind band. Worked fine with a pair of C451s, especially on a way over-damped stage that really sucks the life out of stuff. I have used the C451EB's with CK1's as close as they could get, ie. with XLR's touching and about 60 degrees angle when close to ensembles. Frank, there really is only one parameter that matters, it is decorrelation, it can be obtained via two tools: distance and angle, if you have the need for a wide included angle - a wide ensemble - you need to go to more correlation to avoid hole in the middle (!) and with a narrow ensemble you need to go to more decorrelation to spread them out and make them fill the stereo image up. Agreed, but that's were trouble can abound... The angles and distances are indeed interrelated. Screw with one and you can wind up with a hole in the middle, near mono, or subtle but still bad is an uneven or "non-linear" (if you will) imaging. There is no hole in the middle, and it feels good left-to-right, but things are not located where they should be. Or, worse than that, perhaps your left-to-right is good but now, unwittingly, the front-to-back image is messed up (or simply no longer exists). You can trade angle for distance depending on how your actual microphone capsules work, with too wide an angle the offaxis response becomes the center image frequency response in which case distance may be the better decorrelation tool and - hey presto - we are back at agreeing as that is what you say you do. To complicate it all, main pair setup is different with and without supporting spot-microphones, it is ONE SYSTEM, be it somehow distributed over the ensemble or on one stick. Indeed. That's why spots are used carefully, and with appropriate delays. Generally, I use two pairs on the one main stick: one ORTF which has the property of "reaching in" to an ensemble when that's needed in post, and the 50 cm omnis. Lush and wondeful, they do 90+% of the work. A very neat property of MS setups, one that is often not understood, is that the center image gets on axis response instead of off-axis response. With better microphones, this should be a non-issue. And with omnis, the LF and overall linearity is generally better. As a bonus, the local idiot cable system (if you're doing sound for orchestra broadcasts) can actually lose an entire channel and you'll still have reasonable sound. And while I like some of the flexibility of MS, it (and XY) never provided the front-to-back imaging that I've found with the 50 cm omnis. In the real world: leave all the papers on a chair - preferably outside the concert hall lest they confuse you - go set The Pair up, listen, tweak if you didn't get it right but try to not tweak more than three times, too much finagling scares the talent. Of course. I always do fussing out of view of the clients. I've got protractors for ORTF, NOS, and AB. I can be set to run with two pairs in just a moment or two. And I'll have repeatable and predictable results. But, as always, YMMV. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message ... "Peter Larsen" writes: "Frank Stearns" skrev i en meddelelse ... "Gary Eickmeier" writes: Session turned out fine, working on the CD now. Simple two mike ORT-F configuration with cardioid mikes at 90. 90? With cardioids? That's not quite ORTF No, ORTF is a wording that is often used outside what it is valid for, I have given up on explaing what it actually is. It is intended for longer mic to source distances than those I end up using. Well, in answer to this and several comments below, about 12 years ago when I got back into large ensemble recording, I went through exhaustive and thorough evaluation of several stereophonic techniques. After going "outside the lines" with varying distances and angles, it turns out that the books are mostly right -- 110 degrees/17 cm/standard cardioid for ORTF, 90 degrees/30 cm/standard cardioid for NOS, and 100 degree/50 cm/omnis with diffraction spheres. Now, you can vary these all you want, and you'll even get nice results. But are the results remarkable? That is, can you do a test walk on a stage and get an extremely accurate image left/right and front/back? How does the ensemble sound? Everything where it should be? Various imaging aspects degrade as you stray from those standards. To a point, you *can* fuss with these standards to accommodate microphone peculiarities and the room, but get too far and perhaps it's time to step back and try another approach. Something with the room or mics is possibly biting you. And for image size, I prefer to fudge exactly where the pair is placed rather than mucking with the geometry. (AB gives good flexibility in this regard.) - at least with regular cardioids. Hypers, maybe, but I'd still splay at 100 (which I do routinely with my M940 pairs). Regular ORTF needs 110 to get the smooth and proper left-to-right representation. I get to disagree with you, my my my. You need to include the variable "opening angle", close to a wide source as little as 45 degrees can be what works. Which is to say that you can not specify stereo pair angle between capsules without also referencing intended stereo included image angle or simply "angular width of stage/ensemble" and or distance to said ensemble/stage. See above; in this instance meaning if there is an odd-ball stage or ensemble configuration, maybe it's worth looking at a different approach. (In the worst case scenario, perhaps you spot mic and create good image in post. It can be done, it's just annoying.) And you did use 17 cm spacing, right? Now, if you want to use 90, switch to NOS, which calls for 30 cm spacing. Cardioids spaced 30 centimeters, at a guess - I have a protractor based on the Stereophonic Zoom paper somewhere, another member of a now closed club designed it based on it - you could end up with parallel microphones. I've found NOS useful for wide and shallow ensembles. A friend often uses fig8's spaced 40 centimeters and parallel, we also tried it with cards, works very well. From my experiments, it seems unlikely that this would work as well as, say, the remarkable 50 cm omni pairs. (The imaging truly is eerie in its accuracy left-to-right and front-to-back.) But, one of these days I'll give it a try. I could see the 40 cm parallel fig 8s being helpful in a hall that has crap coming off the side walls. Just used it a few days ago to give me some mix highlight capabilities for an entire wide and shallow row of percussion folks at the very rear of a big combo orchestra and wind band. Worked fine with a pair of C451s, especially on a way over-damped stage that really sucks the life out of stuff. I have used the C451EB's with CK1's as close as they could get, ie. with XLR's touching and about 60 degrees angle when close to ensembles. Frank, there really is only one parameter that matters, it is decorrelation, it can be obtained via two tools: distance and angle, if you have the need for a wide included angle - a wide ensemble - you need to go to more correlation to avoid hole in the middle (!) and with a narrow ensemble you need to go to more decorrelation to spread them out and make them fill the stereo image up. Agreed, but that's were trouble can abound... The angles and distances are indeed interrelated. Screw with one and you can wind up with a hole in the middle, near mono, or subtle but still bad is an uneven or "non-linear" (if you will) imaging. There is no hole in the middle, and it feels good left-to-right, but things are not located where they should be. Or, worse than that, perhaps your left-to-right is good but now, unwittingly, the front-to-back image is messed up (or simply no longer exists). You can trade angle for distance depending on how your actual microphone capsules work, with too wide an angle the offaxis response becomes the center image frequency response in which case distance may be the better decorrelation tool and - hey presto - we are back at agreeing as that is what you say you do. To complicate it all, main pair setup is different with and without supporting spot-microphones, it is ONE SYSTEM, be it somehow distributed over the ensemble or on one stick. Indeed. That's why spots are used carefully, and with appropriate delays. Generally, I use two pairs on the one main stick: one ORTF which has the property of "reaching in" to an ensemble when that's needed in post, and the 50 cm omnis. Lush and wondeful, they do 90+% of the work. A very neat property of MS setups, one that is often not understood, is that the center image gets on axis response instead of off-axis response. With better microphones, this should be a non-issue. And with omnis, the LF and overall linearity is generally better. As a bonus, the local idiot cable system (if you're doing sound for orchestra broadcasts) can actually lose an entire channel and you'll still have reasonable sound. And while I like some of the flexibility of MS, it (and XY) never provided the front-to-back imaging that I've found with the 50 cm omnis. In the real world: leave all the papers on a chair - preferably outside the concert hall lest they confuse you - go set The Pair up, listen, tweak if you didn't get it right but try to not tweak more than three times, too much finagling scares the talent. Of course. I always do fussing out of view of the clients. I've got protractors for ORTF, NOS, and AB. I can be set to run with two pairs in just a moment or two. And I'll have repeatable and predictable results. But, as always, YMMV. Frank Mobile Audio I guess I will have to call it N.O.S. What I used was an existing bracket that usually holds 3 or 4 mikes (all 90 from each other) and put two on it at about 40 cm apart. I thought that the 90 degrees was the magic number for good center fill with cardioids. So if I look down the barrel of each mike it is pointing just outside the angle of the entire orchestra. I am positioned at front row center, which is fairly distant from the orchestra, I would guess around 60 ft. I just played it once so far, and it seems to image fine, left, center and right fairly even all across, but with no "pinpoint" imaging at that distance. But not for the audience either! Gary |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
"Frank Stearns" skrev i en meddelelse
... Many words of wisdom snipped ... I have used the C451EB's with CK1's as close as they could get, ie. with XLR's touching and about 60 degrees angle when close to ensembles. Frank, there really is only one parameter that matters, it is decorrelation, it can be obtained via two tools: distance and angle, if you have the need for a wide included angle - a wide ensemble - you need to go to more correlation to avoid hole in the middle (!) and with a narrow ensemble you need to go to more decorrelation to spread them out and make them fill the stereo image up. Agreed, but that's were trouble can abound... The angles and distances are indeed interrelated. Screw with one and you can wind up with a hole in the middle, near mono, or subtle but still bad is an uneven or "non-linear" (if you will) imaging. There is no hole in the middle, and it feels good left-to-right, but things are not located where they should be. Or, worse than that, perhaps your left-to-right is good but now, unwittingly, the front-to-back image is messed up (or simply no longer exists). A-B setups often have a charming panorama. Interestingly it was a 5.1 evening in the danish AES chapter that made me understand how stereo pairs work because one of the lecturers had 3-d models of their behaviour and explained that the off axis loss of stereo separation used correctly helped get the stage rectangular in the panorama instead of inverse V lying down shaped. Generally, I use two pairs on the one main stick: one ORTF which has the property of "reaching in" to an ensemble when that's needed in post, and the 50 cm omnis. Lush and wondeful, they do 90+% of the work. Visually I think it tends to be messy when deployed at a concert, but it is a known good way to keep yer options open, I try to keep my location setup as light as possible since there is only me to carry it. A very neat property of MS setups, one that is often not understood, is that the center image gets on axis response instead of off-axis response. With better microphones, this should be a non-issue. And with omnis, the LF and overall linearity is generally better. As a bonus, the local idiot cable system (if you're doing sound for orchestra broadcasts) can actually lose an entire channel and you'll still have reasonable sound. You need to go to 1/8 inch capsules if you want off axis linearity and then you end up with a noise issue. And while I like some of the flexibility of MS, it (and XY) never provided the front-to-back imaging that I've found with the 50 cm omnis. This is true in most cases albeit with the caveat that reflections from - for instance - a glass ceiling - can lead to image blur. So many over here in B&K-land use omnis as per the dpa brochure that I intentionally aim for "gout americain". But I did use omni setups most of the time at a chamber music festival this august because of a request for room discretion. Something that got me a wee bit of a Crystal Clear Records sound ... not a bad place to be. In the real world: leave all the papers on a chair - preferably outside the concert hall lest they confuse you - go set The Pair up, listen, tweak if you didn't get it right but try to not tweak more than three times, too much finagling scares the talent. Of course. I always do fussing out of view of the clients. I've got protractors for ORTF, NOS, and AB. I can be set to run with two pairs in just a moment or two. And I'll have repeatable and predictable results. But, as always, YMMV. It is like cooking, you can standardize the prescribed way to do it, but the produce you work with (the musicians) as well the the stoves (rooms) vary and it becomes an intuitive process. When I use spotmiking on a concert grand I have found that I tend to use quite different setups for different pianos, keyboard operators and works, listen for the spot to be in! Frank Mobile Audio Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I guess I will have to call it N.O.S. What I used was an existing bracket that usually holds 3 or 4 mikes (all 90 from each other) and put two on it at about 40 cm apart. I thought that the 90 degrees was the magic number for good center fill with cardioids. So if I look down the barrel of each mike it is pointing just outside the angle of the entire orchestra. I am positioned at front row center, which is fairly distant from the orchestra, I would guess around 60 ft. I just played it once so far, and it seems to image fine, left, center and right fairly even all across, but with no "pinpoint" imaging at that distance. But not for the audience either! A 40cm/90 cardioid array gives a theoretical SRA of 68, so if your orchestra seating was spread through almost 90, you might percieve a slight bunching up. or funny localization of the outermost edge players? Wow - front row center, yet still 60 ft from the orchestra! Must be a big hall..or is there a moat to stop the fans storming the stage? :-) -- Tom McCreadie |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
Peter Larsen wrote:
"Frank Stearns" skrev i en meddelelse ... A very neat property of MS setups, one that is often not understood, is that the center image gets on axis response instead of off-axis response. With better microphones, this should be a non-issue. And with omnis, the LF and overall linearity is generally better. As a bonus, the local idiot cable system (if you're doing sound for orchestra broadcasts) can actually lose an entire channel and you'll still have reasonable sound. You need to go to 1/8 inch capsules if you want off axis linearity and then you end up with a noise issue. You can try something like the Earthworks which do indeed have similarly sized capsules. And if you do this, you may find that you don't really want off-axis linearity as much as you thought you did. A little bit of beaming can actually help out with something like a Jecklin disc although it's no help for a spaced triad hung over an orchestra. It is like cooking, you can standardize the prescribed way to do it, but the produce you work with (the musicians) as well the the stoves (rooms) vary and it becomes an intuitive process. When I use spotmiking on a concert grand I have found that I tend to use quite different setups for different pianos, keyboard operators and works, listen for the spot to be in! Indeed. It's important for the novice to familiarize themselves with the standard stereo miking configurations first, though, before then finding out about variations. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
"Tom McCreadie" wrote in message ... A 40cm/90 cardioid array gives a theoretical SRA of 68, so if your orchestra seating was spread through almost 90, you might percieve a slight bunching up. or funny localization of the outermost edge players? I must confess listening in Expanded mode of my receiver in surround sound. Puts the full stage width back in to most recordings. The Lissajous pattern was quite small but very round. What does that tell me? I'm thinking equal amounts of L, C, and R and in phase and out of phase signal. Wow - front row center, yet still 60 ft from the orchestra! Must be a big hall..or is there a moat to stop the fans storming the stage? :-) -- Tom McCreadie My distance estimator might be a little rusty from my photography days. There is the orchestra on the main stage easily 20 ft back of the lip, then there is the apron that sticks out another 20, so let's say at least 40, maybe 50 ft. Should have used my camera to focus on them and see if there is a distance scale! Gary Eickmeier |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
"Gary Eickmeier" writes:
snips I guess I will have to call it N.O.S. What I used was an existing bracket that usually holds 3 or 4 mikes (all 90 from each other) and put two on it at about 40 cm apart. I thought that the 90 degrees was the magic number for It's related to the distance between the microphones. Not sure what would happen at 40 cm, especially being that far away. good center fill with cardioids. So if I look down the barrel of each mike it is pointing just outside the angle of the entire orchestra. I am positioned at front row center, which is fairly distant from the orchestra, I would guess around 60 ft. I just played it once so far, and it seems to image fine, left, center and right fairly even all across, but with no "pinpoint" imaging at that distance. But not for the audience either! Imaging probably does break down at that distance, at least for microphones. But human hearing in good condition should readily be able to identify positions along even that narrow arc, even with a lot of room reverb (well, up to a point, anyway). I'm not sure what you have, either. Can you adjust those bracket for 30 cm? You might try that, see what you get. Personal preference: I rank NOS as less real than ORTF or AB, but slightly better than XY or MS. YMMV. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
"Peter Larsen" writes:
"Frank Stearns" skrev i en meddelelse ... Many words of wisdom snipped ... Words of equal wisdom snipped. A-B setups often have a charming panorama. Interestingly it was a 5.1 evening in the danish AES chapter that made me understand how stereo pairs work because one of the lecturers had 3-d models of their behaviour and explained that the off axis loss of stereo separation used correctly helped get the stage rectangular in the panorama instead of inverse V lying down shaped. I would have loved to have seen that. Anything on line about this? Generally, I use two pairs on the one main stick: one ORTF which has the property of "reaching in" to an ensemble when that's needed in post, and the 50 cm omnis. Lush and wondeful, they do 90+% of the work. Visually I think it tends to be messy when deployed at a concert, but it is a known good way to keep yer options open, I try to keep my location setup as light as possible since there is only me to carry it. I recently took on an audio-enthused 18 year old to do the heavy lifting. The appearance isn't bad. Everything is matte black; I make sure the big knobs of the Avenger stand are turned upstage so that most in the audience can't see those; the wires also go upstage, mostly out of sight. The pairs are typically 5-8 feet above the conductor's head, thus clearing that visual. The stand pipe is perhaps 7/8" in diameter at the fattest. The 940s are among the smallest large diaphragm packages out there; the 183s are fairly small. So while you notice the rig, it's far less obnoxious, than, say, placing a Decca tree with M49s or M50s on one of the crank-up Avengers. A very neat property of MS setups, one that is often not understood, is that the center image gets on axis response instead of off-axis response. With better microphones, this should be a non-issue. And with omnis, the LF and overall linearity is generally better. As a bonus, the local idiot cable system (if you're doing sound for orchestra broadcasts) can actually lose an entire channel and you'll still have reasonable sound. You need to go to 1/8 inch capsules if you want off axis linearity and then you end up with a noise issue. For test and measurement, yes. Take a look at the polar pattern of the KM183s. Not too bad, all things considered. There's also a newer, smaller diaphragm "Solution D" series that I've heard (amazing). If I ever win the lottery, I'd get a pair or two. But the irony in both cases is that the diffraction spheres intentionally make the omnis much more "beamy" above 10 KHz. That's part of how the system works. Remove the spheres, and things still work, but the imaging is not as defined and sharp. And while I like some of the flexibility of MS, it (and XY) never provided the front-to-back imaging that I've found with the 50 cm omnis. This is true in most cases albeit with the caveat that reflections from - for instance - a glass ceiling - can lead to image blur. So many over here in B&K-land use omnis as per the dpa brochure that I intentionally aim for "gout americain". But I did use omni setups most of the time at a chamber music festival this august because of a request for room discretion. Something that got me a wee bit of a Crystal Clear Records sound ... not a bad place to be. Sounds interesting. Anything online of that event? In the real world: leave all the papers on a chair - preferably outside the concert hall lest they confuse you - go set The Pair up, listen, tweak if you didn't get it right but try to not tweak more than three times, too much finagling scares the talent. Of course. I always do fussing out of view of the clients. I've got protractors for ORTF, NOS, and AB. I can be set to run with two pairs in just a moment or two. And I'll have repeatable and predictable results. But, as always, YMMV. It is like cooking, you can standardize the prescribed way to do it, but the produce you work with (the musicians) as well the the stoves (rooms) vary and it becomes an intuitive process. When I use spotmiking on a concert grand I have found that I tend to use quite different setups for different pianos, keyboard operators and works, listen for the spot to be in! It's nice to get as dialed in as you can as the event it tracked, but I still love the finesse of post get things just where they need to be. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
It's nice to get as dialed in as you can as the event it tracked, but I still love the finesse of post get things just where they need to be. Frank Mobile Audio -- . Heres a method I've been using you might like. 3 cardiod mics mounted on one stand about 10 feet above the conductor and about 5 feet out into the audience. Left mic aimed at the left edge of the band, right mic to the right and middle mic straight ahead. The 3 mics feed a small mixer. Left mic panned hard left, right mic, hard right. Middle mic panned center. Now you can adjust the level of the middle mic to fill in the hole as you like. My recorder is only 2 tracks so I have to make that mix adjustment decision during tracking, I find about -3 to -6 dB to be good. If you have a multi-track recorder, you can of course record each mic separatly and make the mix decision in post. Mark |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Flippin Frappin Frips and Fraps
- how did you position the mikes there? High stand or hanging? If hanging, how the devil do you do that? I really really really wish I could hang my mikes and point them where I want them and connect them to some station below. on a high stand extended way up. I bought a cute little one to three mic bracket on ebay that screws onto the top of the mic stand and then provides three receptacles to atttach 3 mic clips. They are handheld type condensor mics mounted in the mic clips, so the capsules end up roughly in a triangle each about 6 inches from the mounting point. Not coincident. I gaffed together 3 mic cables with color coded ends so I can easily set this up. I just recently switched to this arrangment. Previously I had been using 3 separate mic stands, one mic near the left instruments, percussion etc, and one mic all the way to the right near the horns and one mic in the center, panned left right and center of course. (left and right are from the audience perspective) I'm still debating with myself which method I prefer. I think I actually prefer the sound of the 3 widely spaced mics. With the 3 mics in the center, the center instruments seem to dominate and the percussion and the horns are a little weaker and most distant than I would like. I don't detect any imaging problems either way. Mark |