chamber ensemble question

[jnorman]

i need to do a 4 piece chamber ensemble in a studio setting - cello,
pedal harp, flute, and violin. i have 4 nice SD condensers to work
with. room is mediocre - not too live or too dead. should i do this
as an ORTF pair, with spots on the harp and cello, or should i just
individually mic each instrument? i would like to be able to try both
setups and see which one works best, but odds are i wont have any time
to fool around, so i would like to get your best advice from those of
you who have done stuff like this before.

also, what would the preferred soundstage be like for this group?
harp is the foundation, with the cello playing mostly pedal tones,
violin and flute are the lead lines. i guess the harp and cello
clustered in the middle, with flute and violin flanking on either
side? but i dont want the lead lines too far off to the sides...what
do you suggest?

thanks.

[P Stamler]

I would do it straight ORTF, assuming your SD condensers include one
more-or-less matched pair. And I'd ask them to sit as they normally sit for
performance, since they'll probably perform better that way, then place the
ORTF pair accordingly. Only if that's a disaster due to a bad room should you
close-mike; classical music usually sounds *terrible* when close-miked.

Peace,
Paul

[P Stamler]

I would do it straight ORTF, assuming your SD condensers include one
more-or-less matched pair. And I'd ask them to sit as they normally sit for
performance, since they'll probably perform better that way, then place the
ORTF pair accordingly. Only if that's a disaster due to a bad room should you
close-mike; classical music usually sounds *terrible* when close-miked.

Peace,
Paul

[Rob Reedijk]

jnorman > wrote:
> i need to do a 4 piece chamber ensemble in a studio setting - cello,
> pedal harp, flute, and violin. i have 4 nice SD condensers to work
> with. room is mediocre - not too live or too dead. should i do this
> as an ORTF pair, with spots on the harp and cello, or should i just
> individually mic each instrument? i would like to be able to try both
> setups and see which one works best, but odds are i wont have any time
> to fool around, so i would like to get your best advice from those of
> you who have done stuff like this before.

> also, what would the preferred soundstage be like for this group?
> harp is the foundation, with the cello playing mostly pedal tones,
> violin and flute are the lead lines. i guess the harp and cello
> clustered in the middle, with flute and violin flanking on either
> side? but i dont want the lead lines too far off to the sides...what
> do you suggest?

If they are formed in a sort of semi-circle, I would not use ORTF since
you could have some phase problems. I wouldn't dictate to the musicians
how they sit since this is often important to them in terms of how
they play together. Will there be a conductor?

I might go XY with your idea of spot mics.

Or, putting a mic near each instrument is not a terrible idea. You won't
get imaging, but you can still have a nice balanced stereo sound. Don't
be afraid of bleed. You want bleed since it glues it all together.

Rob R.

[Rob Reedijk]

jnorman > wrote:
> i need to do a 4 piece chamber ensemble in a studio setting - cello,
> pedal harp, flute, and violin. i have 4 nice SD condensers to work
> with. room is mediocre - not too live or too dead. should i do this
> as an ORTF pair, with spots on the harp and cello, or should i just
> individually mic each instrument? i would like to be able to try both
> setups and see which one works best, but odds are i wont have any time
> to fool around, so i would like to get your best advice from those of
> you who have done stuff like this before.

> also, what would the preferred soundstage be like for this group?
> harp is the foundation, with the cello playing mostly pedal tones,
> violin and flute are the lead lines. i guess the harp and cello
> clustered in the middle, with flute and violin flanking on either
> side? but i dont want the lead lines too far off to the sides...what
> do you suggest?

If they are formed in a sort of semi-circle, I would not use ORTF since
you could have some phase problems. I wouldn't dictate to the musicians
how they sit since this is often important to them in terms of how
they play together. Will there be a conductor?

I might go XY with your idea of spot mics.

Or, putting a mic near each instrument is not a terrible idea. You won't
get imaging, but you can still have a nice balanced stereo sound. Don't
be afraid of bleed. You want bleed since it glues it all together.

Rob R.

[Scott Dorsey]

jnorman > wrote:
>i need to do a 4 piece chamber ensemble in a studio setting - cello,
>pedal harp, flute, and violin. i have 4 nice SD condensers to work
>with. room is mediocre - not too live or too dead. should i do this
>as an ORTF pair, with spots on the harp and cello, or should i just
>individually mic each instrument? i would like to be able to try both
>setups and see which one works best, but odds are i wont have any time
>to fool around, so i would like to get your best advice from those of
>you who have done stuff like this before.

How does it sound in the room?

If it sounds good in the room, set up an ORTF pair in a place where it
sounds good and roll tape.

>also, what would the preferred soundstage be like for this group?
>harp is the foundation, with the cello playing mostly pedal tones,
>violin and flute are the lead lines. i guess the harp and cello
>clustered in the middle, with flute and violin flanking on either
>side? but i dont want the lead lines too far off to the sides...what
>do you suggest?

Put them up the way they normally perform. Listen to what it sounds like
in the room. Make it sound that way on tape.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

jnorman > wrote:
>i need to do a 4 piece chamber ensemble in a studio setting - cello,
>pedal harp, flute, and violin. i have 4 nice SD condensers to work
>with. room is mediocre - not too live or too dead. should i do this
>as an ORTF pair, with spots on the harp and cello, or should i just
>individually mic each instrument? i would like to be able to try both
>setups and see which one works best, but odds are i wont have any time
>to fool around, so i would like to get your best advice from those of
>you who have done stuff like this before.

How does it sound in the room?

If it sounds good in the room, set up an ORTF pair in a place where it
sounds good and roll tape.

>also, what would the preferred soundstage be like for this group?
>harp is the foundation, with the cello playing mostly pedal tones,
>violin and flute are the lead lines. i guess the harp and cello
>clustered in the middle, with flute and violin flanking on either
>side? but i dont want the lead lines too far off to the sides...what
>do you suggest?

Put them up the way they normally perform. Listen to what it sounds like
in the room. Make it sound that way on tape.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Kuschel]

>
>Or, putting a mic near each instrument is not a terrible idea. You won't
>get imaging, but you can still have a nice balanced stereo sound. Don't
>be afraid of bleed. You want bleed since it glues it all together.
>
>Rob R.
>
>

You don't get stereo by close miking four instruments. You get multi mono.

Close miking a chamber group is an invitation to disaster.

First, you are invading the players' "space" and they don't like that.

Second there isn't anything that sounds much worse than a close mic'd string
instrument. You get a ton of hf information that distance attenuates.

Pull the microphones back, use XY, ORTF, a Blumlein pair or MS. A little
experimentation will determine which works best in the situation.

I like a Jecklin disc because with the omnis I get a lot fuller sound. Not for
beginners, and I am still not getting entirely what I am looking for with this
system, but it is a lot closer to what I hear in the room.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[Richard Kuschel]

>
>Or, putting a mic near each instrument is not a terrible idea. You won't
>get imaging, but you can still have a nice balanced stereo sound. Don't
>be afraid of bleed. You want bleed since it glues it all together.
>
>Rob R.
>
>

You don't get stereo by close miking four instruments. You get multi mono.

Close miking a chamber group is an invitation to disaster.

First, you are invading the players' "space" and they don't like that.

Second there isn't anything that sounds much worse than a close mic'd string
instrument. You get a ton of hf information that distance attenuates.

Pull the microphones back, use XY, ORTF, a Blumlein pair or MS. A little
experimentation will determine which works best in the situation.

I like a Jecklin disc because with the omnis I get a lot fuller sound. Not for
beginners, and I am still not getting entirely what I am looking for with this
system, but it is a lot closer to what I hear in the room.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[Richard Kuschel]

>
>Or, putting a mic near each instrument is not a terrible idea. You won't
>get imaging, but you can still have a nice balanced stereo sound. Don't
>be afraid of bleed. You want bleed since it glues it all together.
>
>Rob R.
>
>

You don't get stereo by close miking four instruments. You get multi mono.

Close miking a chamber group is an invitation to disaster.

First, you are invading the players' "space" and they don't like that.

Second there isn't anything that sounds much worse than a close mic'd string
instrument. You get a ton of hf information that distance attenuates.

Pull the microphones back, use XY, ORTF, a Blumlein pair or MS. A little
experimentation will determine which works best in the situation.

I like a Jecklin disc because with the omnis I get a lot fuller sound. Not for
beginners, and I am still not getting entirely what I am looking for with this
system, but it is a lot closer to what I hear in the room.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[Rob Reedijk]

Richard Kuschel > wrote:
>>
>>Or, putting a mic near each instrument is not a terrible idea. You won't
>>get imaging, but you can still have a nice balanced stereo sound. Don't
>>be afraid of bleed. You want bleed since it glues it all together.

> You don't get stereo by close miking four instruments. You get multi mono.
> Close miking a chamber group is an invitation to disaster.
> First, you are invading the players' "space" and they don't like that.
> Second there isn't anything that sounds much worse than a close mic'd string
> instrument. You get a ton of hf information that distance attenuates.
> Pull the microphones back, use XY, ORTF, a Blumlein pair or MS. A little
> experimentation will determine which works best in the situation.

> I like a Jecklin disc because with the omnis I get a lot fuller sound. Not for
> beginners, and I am still not getting entirely what I am looking for with this
> system, but it is a lot closer to what I hear in the room.

I never said close-mic'ing. Because I would never do that.

The original poster stated that his recording room has some problems, that
are difficult to control. I have had great success by, let's say, "near-
mic'ing". This allows you to get a fuller sound by being back a bit, plus
it takes advantage of bleed. It allows for a complexity in the ambient
sound. For example, since the mic on the harp may be a good 8 or 10 feet
from the violin, it will pick up a very nice other dimension that will
compliment the "near-mic" on the violin.

You WILL NOT get any real stereo imaging. But I stated that. On the
other hand you won't get that "four musicians in a straight line" that
happens when you close mic and pan. You can still get a nice stereo
depth.

Honestly, I think that people focus too much on imaging. I love good
imaging. But it is the least important criteria when it is compared
to relative levels of instruments, tonal character, dry-ambient mix,
phase, low noise and distortion, etc.

Imaging is the the cherry on top. But it is pointless when it is on top
of nothing.

Rob R.

[Rob Reedijk]

Richard Kuschel > wrote:
>>
>>Or, putting a mic near each instrument is not a terrible idea. You won't
>>get imaging, but you can still have a nice balanced stereo sound. Don't
>>be afraid of bleed. You want bleed since it glues it all together.

> You don't get stereo by close miking four instruments. You get multi mono.
> Close miking a chamber group is an invitation to disaster.
> First, you are invading the players' "space" and they don't like that.
> Second there isn't anything that sounds much worse than a close mic'd string
> instrument. You get a ton of hf information that distance attenuates.
> Pull the microphones back, use XY, ORTF, a Blumlein pair or MS. A little
> experimentation will determine which works best in the situation.

> I like a Jecklin disc because with the omnis I get a lot fuller sound. Not for
> beginners, and I am still not getting entirely what I am looking for with this
> system, but it is a lot closer to what I hear in the room.

I never said close-mic'ing. Because I would never do that.

The original poster stated that his recording room has some problems, that
are difficult to control. I have had great success by, let's say, "near-
mic'ing". This allows you to get a fuller sound by being back a bit, plus
it takes advantage of bleed. It allows for a complexity in the ambient
sound. For example, since the mic on the harp may be a good 8 or 10 feet
from the violin, it will pick up a very nice other dimension that will
compliment the "near-mic" on the violin.

You WILL NOT get any real stereo imaging. But I stated that. On the
other hand you won't get that "four musicians in a straight line" that
happens when you close mic and pan. You can still get a nice stereo
depth.

Honestly, I think that people focus too much on imaging. I love good
imaging. But it is the least important criteria when it is compared
to relative levels of instruments, tonal character, dry-ambient mix,
phase, low noise and distortion, etc.

Imaging is the the cherry on top. But it is pointless when it is on top
of nothing.

Rob R.

[ScotFraser]

<< How does it sound in the room?
If it sounds good in the room, set up an ORTF pair in a place where it
sounds good and roll tape.>>

Actually, I would find where it sounds good in the room, then move the stereo
pair in about 10% to 20% from there, because our ears perceive the
direct/diffuse ratio differently than mics do.


Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< How does it sound in the room?
If it sounds good in the room, set up an ORTF pair in a place where it
sounds good and roll tape.>>

Actually, I would find where it sounds good in the room, then move the stereo
pair in about 10% to 20% from there, because our ears perceive the
direct/diffuse ratio differently than mics do.


Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< You don't get stereo by close miking four instruments. You get multi mono.>>

This is true.

<<Close miking a chamber group is an invitation to disaster. >>

Only if (A) one don't know what one is doing, (B) one mics each instrument too
closely, like less than 3 or 4 feet away, & (C) one conceives chamber music's
only permissible venue to be highly reverberant classical music halls. If the
repertoire is 19th century or earlier, I agree with your premise about
impending disaster, but if it is contemporary music it may, depending on the
writing, benefit from a more hands-on approach to recording.

<<First, you are invading the players' "space" and they don't like that. >>

Studio savvy players are OK with that, although I'm never putting a mic within
a player's range of movement.

<<Second there isn't anything that sounds much worse than a close mic'd string
instrument. You get a ton of hf information that distance attenuates. >>

Miking from off of the player's left shoulder, from under the body of the
fiddle or straight down the length of the neck alleviates much of the high
frequency exaggeration that attends close miking. Again, I'm calling a mic that
is 3 feet away a close mic here.


Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< You don't get stereo by close miking four instruments. You get multi mono.>>

This is true.

<<Close miking a chamber group is an invitation to disaster. >>

Only if (A) one don't know what one is doing, (B) one mics each instrument too
closely, like less than 3 or 4 feet away, & (C) one conceives chamber music's
only permissible venue to be highly reverberant classical music halls. If the
repertoire is 19th century or earlier, I agree with your premise about
impending disaster, but if it is contemporary music it may, depending on the
writing, benefit from a more hands-on approach to recording.

<<First, you are invading the players' "space" and they don't like that. >>

Studio savvy players are OK with that, although I'm never putting a mic within
a player's range of movement.

<<Second there isn't anything that sounds much worse than a close mic'd string
instrument. You get a ton of hf information that distance attenuates. >>

Miking from off of the player's left shoulder, from under the body of the
fiddle or straight down the length of the neck alleviates much of the high
frequency exaggeration that attends close miking. Again, I'm calling a mic that
is 3 feet away a close mic here.


Scott Fraser

[Richard Kuschel]

>
><< You don't get stereo by close miking four instruments. You get multi
>mono.>>
>
>This is true.
>
><<Close miking a chamber group is an invitation to disaster. >>
>
>Only if (A) one don't know what one is doing, (B) one mics each instrument
>too
>closely, like less than 3 or 4 feet away, & (C) one conceives chamber music's
>only permissible venue to be highly reverberant classical music halls. If the
>repertoire is 19th century or earlier, I agree with your premise about
>impending disaster, but if it is contemporary music it may, depending on the
>writing, benefit from a more hands-on approach to recording.
>
><<First, you are invading the players' "space" and they don't like that. >>
>
>Studio savvy players are OK with that, although I'm never putting a mic
>within
>a player's range of movement.
>
><<Second there isn't anything that sounds much worse than a close mic'd
>string
>instrument. You get a ton of hf information that distance attenuates. >>
>
>Miking from off of the player's left shoulder, from under the body of the
>fiddle or straight down the length of the neck alleviates much of the high
>frequency exaggeration that attends close miking. Again, I'm calling a mic
>that
>is 3 feet away a close mic here.
>
>
>Scott Fraser
>


Agreed, I answered in a rather simplistic manner.

The original poster had no experience with a chamber group and in this
situation I have seen beginners place the microphones 6 inches from the
instruments.

It didn't sound as though the original poster knew how to set up spot
microphones to get the best sound for the situation and I know that you took a
lot of time to determine what worked best for you and Kronos Quartet.


BTW , how are those KM84's working?
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[ScotFraser]

<< The original poster had no experience with a chamber group and in this
situation I have seen beginners place the microphones 6 inches from the
instruments. >>

Ouch. That hurts just reading about it.

<<It didn't sound as though the original poster knew how to set up spot
microphones to get the best sound for the situation and I know that you took a
lot of time to determine what worked best for you and Kronos Quartet. >>

Definitely for a beginner I agree that stereo miking is the best starting
point. Increasing familiarity with the instruments & music will then allow one
to deviate creatively from the classical approach, but as you say, it must be
well thought out.


Scott Fraser

[Rob Reedijk]

Buster Mudd > wrote:
> Rob Reedijk > wrote in message >...
>> Honestly, I think that people focus too much on imaging. I love good
>> imaging. But it is the least important criteria when it is compared
>> to relative levels of instruments, tonal character, dry-ambient mix,
>> phase, low noise and distortion, etc.

> Wow. Couldn't disagree more. Imaging is the most important criteria,
> the number one priority in creating an engaging audio experience. If I
> can't close my eyes & hear a palpable three-dimensional soundstage, it
> doesn't matter how pristine those tracks are: Suspension of disbelief
> absolutely requires a believable conveyance of soundstage.

While I obviously don't agree with you, I can respect that.
We all have different priorities. Different problems in sound recording
bother us all in differing amounts.

> (Note that I do not insist it be an ACCURATE conveyance of soundstage;
> it merely has to be BELIEVABLE.)

Then, in the case of the original poster, you want it to be believable that
you are actually in a studio setting of a mediocre sounding room!

"Wow, it was so realistic because I could actually hear the subway
underground, the HVAC rumbling, and pongy resonance of a real standing
wave! It was like I was really there!"

(Okay, I am just having fun with it. The poster never described these
problems).

Rob R.

[Buster Mudd]

Rob Reedijk > wrote in message >...
> Buster Mudd > wrote:
>
> > (Note that I do not insist it be an ACCURATE conveyance of soundstage;
> > it merely has to be BELIEVABLE.)
>
> Then, in the case of the original poster, you want it to be believable that
> you are actually in a studio setting of a mediocre sounding room!
>

That would be both Believable *and* Accurate. If that were the case
with the OP's room, I think he'd definitely prefer some Believable
Innacurate soundstage conveyance!

[Len Moskowitz]

jnorman > wrote:

>i need to do a 4 piece chamber ensemble in a studio setting - cello,
>pedal harp, flute, and violin. i have 4 nice SD condensers to work
>with. room is mediocre - not too live or too dead. should i do this
>as an ORTF pair, with spots on the harp and cello, or should i just
>individually mic each instrument?

IMO, do it with a pair of good quality omnis and a Schneider (or
Jecklin) Disk,

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912