[Gary Eickmeier]

I am recording my concert band on Sunday and I am thinking of putting a
second stereo pair further back in the audience (but not too close to any
individuals) to see if I can capture the ambience that they would hear that
far back. If I can mix it in in surround DTS that would be very interesting.
Barring that, I could just invert one channel of the surround pair and it
will decode to the rear in DPL II.

This rear sound would be delayed enough from the front sound to keep that up
front and not interfere with the good frontal soundstage. I think maybe a
wide spaced stereo pair of omnis.

Will let you know if it works!

Gary

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 1:44:53 PM UTC-5, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I am recording my concert band on Sunday and I am thinking of putting a
second stereo pair further back in the audience

are you using a multitrack (4 or more) recorder, or multiple stereo recorders that you intend to sync together?

It will be a little tricky to sync multiple recorders that accuratly.

Mark

[JackA]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 4:44:45 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 1:44:53 PM UTC-5, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I am recording my concert band on Sunday and I am thinking of putting a
second stereo pair further back in the audience

are you using a multitrack (4 or more) recorder, or multiple stereo recorders that you intend to sync together?

It will be a little tricky to sync multiple recorders that accuratly.

I believe that is how Pink Floyd recordings were created with synced recorders, more than 4.

Jack

Mark

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 11-11-2015 22:44, wrote:

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 1:44:53 PM UTC-5, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I am recording my concert band on Sunday and I am thinking of putting a
second stereo pair further back in the audience

are you using a multitrack (4 or more) recorder, or multiple stereo recorders that you intend to sync together?

It will be a little tricky to sync multiple recorders that accuratly.

I think he has a Zoom H6, so he doesn't have a problem. Please be aware
that recent digital clocks are accurate beyond anything I would have
thought possible.

Example: the sync of a pair of R44 recorders to get 8 track capability
is only a start stop sync, they run free on their own crystal.

Example2: 4 video cameras and an R44, all running free. All mixable. I
have experimented with first mixing a suitable complete audio track
using all available audio, sometimes a videocam will have some
introduction speak better than the main pair and sometimes a wee bit of
video cam audio is the perfect ambience enhancement and then making the
video edit on top of that using it as reference timeline as well as for
production audio. And making the audio tell the story of the concert
without the video and then adding and clipping the video as enhancement
thereof works well for me. It is in fact a simplification.

Some caution is relevant for very long takes. When I tried using two DAT
recordings of the same event 14 years ago to get a better ambience the
duration limit before the perspective changed due increased or er
reduced delay due to clock differences was about 4 minutes. But now sync
will be "ok'ish" for much longer contiguous recordings.

Mark

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[geoff]

On 12/11/2015 3:30 p.m., Peter Larsen wrote:

Some caution is relevant for very long takes. When I tried using two
DAT recordings of the same event 14 years ago to get a better ambience
the duration limit before the perspective changed due increased or er
reduced delay due to clock differences was about 4 minutes. But now
sync will be "ok'ish" for much longer contiguous recordings.


Even if 2 un-synched recorders, if rear channel is for ambience, then
the algorithms (ie Elastique) on modern software is so good that the
channels (and even main programme channels) can be time-stretched or
squashed to match the main programme.

Note any front/back delay on a significant event at the start, then pull
in/out the end so another significant event lines up, offset by the same
amount as the 'front' one.

Then listen first to verify the sound is good !

However this assumes that the device clocks if significantly different
are not just different, but stable !


geoff

[[email protected]]

Then listen first to verify the sound is good !

However this assumes that the device clocks if significantly different
are not just different, but stable !



yes of course it can be done and works very well when the material on different recorders is different and needs to be sync to within a few millisec which corresponds to a few feet of sound travel in air, ..no problem..

But if the different recorders have the same material and realive phasing is important to avoid comb filter effects and to ge surround sound and the sync needs to be sample time accuracte, it is a bit (pun) more difficult.

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 12/11/2015 3:30 p.m., Peter Larsen wrote:

Some caution is relevant for very long takes. When I tried using two
DAT recordings of the same event 14 years ago to get a better ambience
the duration limit before the perspective changed due increased or er
reduced delay due to clock differences was about 4 minutes. But now
sync will be "ok'ish" for much longer contiguous recordings.


Even if 2 un-synched recorders, if rear channel is for ambience, then
the algorithms (ie Elastique) on modern software is so good that the
channels (and even main programme channels) can be time-stretched or
squashed to match the main programme.

A fair rule is that with two digital recorders that are frame-accurate in
synch but not sample-accurate, you can get away with spot mikes on one and
ambient mikes on the other but you can't split stereo pairs across the two
recorders. I don't like putting surround channels on a different machine
than front channels, but I agree that a few milliseconds error on the surround
channels won't matter the way they will across a stereo pair. There is
really no accurate front-to-back imaging anyway since we don't listen with
our heads to the side so there is no need for it.

However this assumes that the device clocks if significantly different
are not just different, but stable !

There is very stable, and there is mostly stable... for lipsynch on film
it only has to be mostly stable...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

My main problem may be to get the rear mikes enough away from the chattering
audience to just get the applause and music ambience and not the talking and
coughing. So I could attech them to a second recorder and hang them from
the balcony or put them on stands at each side of orchestra seating. I
dunno, just very difficult to keep them sonically relevant but not in
anyone's way.

Gary


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
geoff wrote:
On 12/11/2015 3:30 p.m., Peter Larsen wrote:

Some caution is relevant for very long takes. When I tried using two
DAT recordings of the same event 14 years ago to get a better ambience
the duration limit before the perspective changed due increased or er
reduced delay due to clock differences was about 4 minutes. But now
sync will be "ok'ish" for much longer contiguous recordings.


Even if 2 un-synched recorders, if rear channel is for ambience, then
the algorithms (ie Elastique) on modern software is so good that the
channels (and even main programme channels) can be time-stretched or
squashed to match the main programme.

A fair rule is that with two digital recorders that are frame-accurate in
synch but not sample-accurate, you can get away with spot mikes on one and
ambient mikes on the other but you can't split stereo pairs across the two
recorders. I don't like putting surround channels on a different machine
than front channels, but I agree that a few milliseconds error on the
surround
channels won't matter the way they will across a stereo pair. There is
really no accurate front-to-back imaging anyway since we don't listen with
our heads to the side so there is no need for it.

However this assumes that the device clocks if significantly different
are not just different, but stable !

There is very stable, and there is mostly stable... for lipsynch on film
it only has to be mostly stable...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 13/11/2015 9:23 a.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:
My main problem may be to get the rear mikes enough away from the chattering
audience to just get the applause and music ambience and not the talking and
coughing.

But that, apparently, *is* the ambiance at that gig. I'd flag the whole
idea if I couldn't find a spot away from chatterers, shufflers,
coughers, farters, sing-alongers, etc (insert whichever applies).

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 4:56:30 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 13/11/2015 9:23 a.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:
My main problem may be to get the rear mikes enough away from the chattering
audience to just get the applause and music ambience and not the talking and
coughing.

But that, apparently, *is* the ambiance at that gig. I'd flag the whole
idea if I couldn't find a spot away from chatterers, shufflers,
coughers, farters, sing-alongers, etc (insert whichever applies).

geoff

well thats the nice thing about having the audience tracks recorded on seperate tracks...

you can mix it in as appropriate, or not, "in post"...for example during the applause..
Mark

[JackA]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 5:05:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 4:56:30 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 13/11/2015 9:23 a.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:
My main problem may be to get the rear mikes enough away from the chattering
audience to just get the applause and music ambience and not the talking and
coughing.

But that, apparently, *is* the ambiance at that gig. I'd flag the whole
idea if I couldn't find a spot away from chatterers, shufflers,
coughers, farters, sing-alongers, etc (insert whichever applies).

geoff

well thats the nice thing about having the audience tracks recorded on seperate tracks...

you can mix it in as appropriate, or not, "in post"...for example during the applause..
Mark

My first RockBand multi-tracks had an audience, sometimes, singing along. It blew my mind, I thought it was actually tracks for the song (The Who - Who Are You). But I caught on, hearing the same thing later on other songs, they were added to emulate YOU going on tour, playing live!...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...es/whoru-b.mp3

Jack

[Trevor]

On 13/11/2015 8:56 AM, geoff wrote:
On 13/11/2015 9:23 a.m., Gary Eickmeier wrote:
My main problem may be to get the rear mikes enough away from the
chattering
audience to just get the applause and music ambience and not the
talking and
coughing.

But that, apparently, *is* the ambiance at that gig. I'd flag the whole
idea if I couldn't find a spot away from chatterers, shufflers,
coughers, farters, sing-alongers, etc (insert whichever applies).

The only way to ensure that is to record a gig without an audience.
Works well if you just want hall ambiance. Audience applause is easily
dubbed in if necessary.

Trevor.

[Richard Kuschel]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 11:44:53 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I am recording my concert band on Sunday and I am thinking of putting a
second stereo pair further back in the audience (but not too close to any
individuals) to see if I can capture the ambience that they would hear that
far back. If I can mix it in in surround DTS that would be very interesting.
Barring that, I could just invert one channel of the surround pair and it
will decode to the rear in DPL II.

This rear sound would be delayed enough from the front sound to keep that up
front and not interfere with the good frontal soundstage. I think maybe a
wide spaced stereo pair of omnis.

Will let you know if it works!

Gary

For ambience , I use a pair of figure 8 microphones aimed to the sides. They will pick up a lot of reverb and not so much of the performing ensemble.
I try to keep them within 20 feet of the main microphone array (usually M/S or ORTF), but if I must place them further back, I can easily correct it in post.
There isn't much that will reduce the audience sound unless the surround mic's can be placed really high.

I use one recorder, but two would work if the clocks are relatively stable.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Well, I chickened out for practical reasons, but may try again later or
during a rehearsal in a good hall. I do want audience in it, because they
sometimes have sing-a-longs. I'm thinking two mikes at each side of the
hall, suspended high as possible or take it straight back from the recorder
and main mikes and put the rear mikes on a post and aim them straight to the
sides to pick up mostly difference signal. A lot of taping down, though....

Gary


"Richard Kuschel" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 11:44:53 AM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier
wrote:
I am recording my concert band on Sunday and I am thinking of putting a
second stereo pair further back in the audience (but not too close to any
individuals) to see if I can capture the ambience that they would hear
that
far back. If I can mix it in in surround DTS that would be very
interesting.
Barring that, I could just invert one channel of the surround pair and it
will decode to the rear in DPL II.

This rear sound would be delayed enough from the front sound to keep that
up
front and not interfere with the good frontal soundstage. I think maybe a
wide spaced stereo pair of omnis.

Will let you know if it works!

Gary

For ambience , I use a pair of figure 8 microphones aimed to the sides.
They will pick up a lot of reverb and not so much of the performing
ensemble.
I try to keep them within 20 feet of the main microphone array (usually
M/S or ORTF), but if I must place them further back, I can easily correct
it in post.
There isn't much that will reduce the audience sound unless the surround
mic's can be placed really high.

I use one recorder, but two would work if the clocks are relatively
stable.

[John Williamson]

On 17/11/2015 08:20, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Well, I chickened out for practical reasons, but may try again later or
during a rehearsal in a good hall. I do want audience in it, because they
sometimes have sing-a-longs. I'm thinking two mikes at each side of the
hall, suspended high as possible or take it straight back from the recorder
and main mikes and put the rear mikes on a post and aim them straight to the
sides to pick up mostly difference signal. A lot of taping down, though....

I've had surprisingly good results using a Zoom H2 in 4 channel mode not
too far from the stage. The directionality of the various mics on that
let me add in just the right amount of room to the sound.

I suspect that the new Zoom H2n, which has an extra mic pointing upwards
would do an even better job, as it's claimed to be specified for
soundfield recording.

Unfortunately, having just bought an H4N, partly so I can try a mid/
side setup as well as the crossed cardioids, I can't afford to buy one
to find out.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/17/2015 3:20 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Well, I chickened out for practical reasons, but may try again later or
during a rehearsal in a good hall. I do want audience in it, because they
sometimes have sing-a-longs. I'm thinking two mikes at each side of the
hall, suspended high as possible

You don't want them as high as possible, maybe 6-8 feet above the
audience's heads (unless that's as high as possible). There was a time
when we could get away with putting figure-8 mics for audience pick-up
on top of the on-stage speaker cabinets and pointing them out toward the
audience, adjusting for minimum stage pickup. But these days the
on-stage sound is too loud to get away with that in most instances.


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