Conquering the Thrumming Bass

[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 are: 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 are: 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 care:
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 care:
> 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/697690/MS-to-XY_imaging_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/697690/MS-to-XY_imaging_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 care:
> 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

[Scott Dorsey]

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Scott Dorsey" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> PStamler > wrote:

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

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

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

> Look up British Patent 394,325

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

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Tom McCreadie]

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

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

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

The word usage "shuffling" has morphed into a few other meanings and
interpretations over the decades. Some folks restrict it to the sum & difference
matrixing; others to the adding of a low end equalization hump onto the
intermediate M channel to increase perceived bass width...spatial
equalization...Gerzon...Griesinger.. etc.
>
>
>>Oh, and on a separate issue, a pair of Figure-8 mics mounted about 8" apart=
>>, both facing forward, constitute what's known as a "phased array". It's a =
>>term that was introduced, along with the technique, by the British recordin=
>>g engineer Tony Faulkner, who made some best-selling classical albums using=
>> it in the 1980s, including the one on Hyperion that made Hildegarde of Bin=
>>gen famous. Mono compatibility is only so-so, but the recording is otherwis=
>>e very nice sounding. It's probably easier to use now that the results are =
>>distributed digitally, rather than on LPs -- back in the 80s cutting discs =
>>from phased array recordings was difficult due to phase issues.=20
>
>This is a "near coincident figure-8" configuration. It can be made to work
>but placement is difficult and I would generally not recommend it except in
>a few special cases where you need the low frequency phase imaging but have
>to deal with room echoes from the side.
>
>Look up British Patent 394,325.
>--scott

[Gary Eickmeier]

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

OK, I sure did not realize that distinction. I just thought XY was shorthand
for coincident.
>
>
>
> Oh, and on a separate issue, a pair of Figure-8 mics mounted about 8"
> apart, both facing forward, constitute what's known as a "phased
> array". It's a term that was introduced, along with the technique, by
> the British recording engineer Tony Faulkner, who made some
> best-selling classical albums using it in the 1980s, including the
> one on Hyperion that made Hildegarde of Bingen famous. Mono
> compatibility is only so-so, but the recording is otherwise very nice
> sounding. It's probably easier to use now that the results are
> distributed digitally, rather than on LPs -- back in the 80s cutting
> discs from phased array recordings was difficult due to phase issues.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

Tom McCreadie wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> I understand all of the parameters, but not yet what those graphs are
>> telling me (about what that would SOUND like).
>
> Nobody but Superman can tell what things will sound like by
> inspecting graphs.
>
> In general though, sounds from the ambiophonic regions can on
> 2-speaker playback give a wide spacious illusion, but their actual
> imaging will be vague and woozy. Some folks experience it as
> unsettling and confusing..and in some circumstances the 'imaging'
> even seems to collapse back into the centre.
>
> Why not accumulate some "walkaround" test recordings, when the hall's
> quiet, before the band and audience arrive?

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

Gary

PS however - there are a few test discs that have some well done tracks of
walkarounds like that. I'm not at home right now to look them up, but John
Eargle's Surround Spectacular and Test Disc has some surround test tracks
and Bruce Bartlett's book
http://www.amazon.com/Recording-Music-Location-Capturing-Performance/dp/1138022373/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
has a test disc inside it that is very good on showing the sound of variouis
miking techniues.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

Peter Larsen wrote:
> "Gary Eickmeier" > skrev i en meddelelse
> ...
>
>> This is fantastic! Is Audition compatible with this VST stuff?
>
> Yes, in case you didn't know Audition is an audio editor that can
> also do multitrack and in some versions handles midi and it will
> handle directx plugins as well as vst's, but at least versions 1,
> 1.5, 2 and 3 only can be expected to handle 32 bit executable
> plug-ins.
> There is no plug in required for adjusting ms-stereo, you simply
> adjust the level of track 2, the difference track, in relation to the
> level of track 1, the sum track, you can't do it while listening, but
> I can't see that as really an issue, at least not large enough to pay
> for a plug in.

Yes, as I say, that is how I have been doing it - brute force! I do the S
inverting in Audition and carefully label everything and lay the tracks down
in Multitrack.The output then gets mixed down, at various levels, into two
channel. After the mixdown, I can then level some more and EQ as desired.
>
> MS encode and decode can btw. also be configured on any mixing desk
> with a channel polarity switch, so you could also set it up in
> Auditions multitrack view and then have it adjustable while listening.
>
>> Gary
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

[Tom McCreadie]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

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

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

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

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

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> Tom McCreadie wrote:
> > Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> >> I understand all of the parameters, but not yet what those graphs are
> >> telling me (about what that would SOUND like).
> >
> > Nobody but Superman can tell what things will sound like by
> > inspecting graphs.
> >
> > In general though, sounds from the ambiophonic regions can on
> > 2-speaker playback give a wide spacious illusion, but their actual
> > imaging will be vague and woozy. Some folks experience it as
> > unsettling and confusing..and in some circumstances the 'imaging'
> > even seems to collapse back into the centre.
> >
> > Why not accumulate some "walkaround" test recordings, when the hall's
> > quiet, before the band and audience arrive?
>
> Yah, that's the trick. Seems no matter how early I arrive, the chairman is
> about 10 minutes behind me.
>
> Gary
>
> PS however - there are a few test discs that have some well done tracks of
> walkarounds like that. I'm not at home right now to look them up, but John
> Eargle's Surround Spectacular and Test Disc has some surround test tracks
> and Bruce Bartlett's book
> http://www.amazon.com/Recording-Music-Location-Capturing-Performance/dp/11
> 38022373/ref=dp_ob_title_bk has a test disc inside it that is very good on
> showing the sound of variouis miking techniues.
>
> Gary

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

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

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

[Richard Kuschel]

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

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


http://shop.performancerecordings.com/product.sc?productId=6

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

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

He doesn't have ears at knee level.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Richard Kuschel" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

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

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


> http://shop.performancerecordings.com/product.sc?productId=6

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

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

> He doesn't have ears at knee level.

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

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[hank alrich]

Jeff Henig > wrote:

> Tom McCreadie > wrote:

> > Why not accumulate some "walkaround" test recordings, when the hall's quiet,
> > before the band and audience arrive?
>
> Huh. I've never recorded a space without a performer.
>
> Curious: What do you use for impulse material when you do that? Finger
> snaps and claps or something?

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

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

[Tom McCreadie]

Jeff Henig wrote:

>Tom McCreadie > wrote:
>> Why not accumulate some "walkaround" test recordings, when the hall's quiet,
>> before the band and audience arrive?
>>Huh. I've never recorded a space without a performer.
>
>Curious: What do you use for impulse material when you do that? Finger
>snaps and claps or something?

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

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

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

[Frank Stearns]

Jeff Henig > writes:

>Tom McCreadie > wrote:
>> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>> I understand all of the parameters, but not yet what those graphs are
>>> telling me (about what that would SOUND like).
>>
>> Nobody but Superman can tell what things will sound like by inspecting graphs.
>>
>> In general though, sounds from the ambiophonic regions can on 2-speaker playback
>> give a wide spacious illusion, but their actual imaging will be vague and woozy.
>> Some folks experience it as unsettling and confusing..and in some circumstances
>> the 'imaging' even seems to collapse back into the centre.
>>
>> Why not accumulate some "walkaround" test recordings, when the hall's quiet,
>> before the band and audience arrive?

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

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

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

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

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > skrev i en meddelelse
>
>> This is a "near coincident figure-8" configuration. It can be made to
>> work
>> but placement is difficult and I would generally not recommend it except
>> in
>> a few special cases where you need the low frequency phase imaging but
>> have
>> to deal with room echoes from the side.
>
>Some day you are bored try setting up a pair of omnis in AB, parallel, with
>some 40 to 50 centimeters between them. I think it should be less, but
>haven't been able to test, but I do know that a compared uses that setup
>when suppressing side and ceiling reflections is required and what he brings
>home sounds very well indeed.

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

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

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

>> Look up British Patent 394,325
>
>Thanks. A day spent in a patent library can be a fun day well spent.
>Everybody should for instance read Adolphe Sax's patents and be surprised
>over what his aim with the invention was - something to emulate strings with
>that could be used outdoors in rain in military style orchestras.

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

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

John -

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

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

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

Gary

[John Williamson]

On 25/01/2015 21:26, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> John -
>
> Finally got time to listen, and it is pretty much a flawless recording.
> There is some low frequency noise poking in once in a while that sounds most
> like microphone stands being adjusted, but I enjoy those kinds of sounds
> once in a while. Piano and chorus are REAL and well spread out, but not
> beyond my speakers
>
That's what I was aiming for, a realistic sound stage on a two speaker
system. The noise is most likely someone quietly wandering round the
room or the pianist tapping her feet or the pedals, the main stands were
well away from any one and not touched once they'd been set up.

> I am having some fun experimenting with my MS techniques and the post
> processing thereof. I first mix the songs by making each track the same
> loudness, in other words Mid and Side the same. I get good stereo, much
> like with the Blumlein placement and config. Then I take the Mid down by 5
> dB to get the signal wider and it works - boy, does it work.
>
A week after I did that gig, I bought a matched pair of adjustable
figure 8/ cardioid/ omni microphones. M/S using those would have been my
preferred second choice of method. The XY pair wasn't as good as the
Decca tree.

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


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
b.com...
> "Richard Kuschel" > skrev i en meddelelse
> ...
>
>>I have been following this conversation on mic techniques for some time
>>now.
>> Might I suggest a CD that gave me a lot of insight into recording for
>> stereo?
>> "Demonstration of Stereo Microphone Technique" by James Boyk.
>
>> I learned a lot from this demonstration. It shows the strength and
>> weakness of many stereo microphone techniques
>
>
>> http://shop.performancerecordings.com/product.sc?productId=6
>
>> As far as "thrumming" bass is concerned, much of it is due to the room
>> and the fact that the bass player cannot hear himself.
>
>> Get that speaker off the floor and into the player's ear and the sound
>> tends to get a lot better in a hurry.
>
>> He doesn't have ears at knee level.
>
> He doesn't have one, he has his bass and then it is amplified via the pair
> of shoeboxes on sticks that are their pa, that is how I understood the
> description once we got one. And that is the entire problem. He should NOT
> be in their pa, he should ONLY be in his own amplifier.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

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

Gary