Re: stereo recording pop vocals (?)

[Scott Dorsey]

xy > wrote:
>when Pavorotti would sing live, I remember seeing him with two mics
>about 3 feet in front of him, shoulder width, chest height pointing up
>a bit and toed-in a bit.

Yes, because he's singing from way down deep, and a lot of the actual
sound is coming from his chest. So they mike his chest as well as his
mouth.

>Is there a practical application for recording a pop singer, and using
>some sort of stereo mic technique (ORTF, mid-side, coincident pair,
>etc.)? Or would that be kooky.

Stereo miking of singers is interesting, and I think on the second RAP
compilation I have a track that shows both the good and bad side. It
means you can get the sound of a real room on the vocals, but it also
means the vocalist has to stand absolutely still and not move a muscle.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"xy" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Is there a practical application for recording a pop singer, and using
> some sort of stereo mic technique (ORTF, mid-side, coincident pair,
> etc.)?

Nope.

> Or would that be kooky.
>

Yep.

[Carey Carlan]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

> Stereo miking of singers is interesting, and I think on the second RAP
> compilation I have a track that shows both the good and bad side. It
> means you can get the sound of a real room on the vocals, but it also
> means the vocalist has to stand absolutely still and not move a muscle.

Use a coincident pattern to minimize this, but, yes, they have to stand
still.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > when Pavorotti would sing live, I remember seeing him with two mics
> > about 3 feet in front of him, shoulder width, chest height pointing up
> > a bit and toed-in a bit.
> >
>
> ** Those two mics were probably combined to make a mono signal. As
> Pavorotti moved about slightly or sang facing different parts of the
> audience one or other mic would pick him up better.

******* Complete lunacy.

> Also, using multiple cardioid mics with outputs combined and co- sited
> creates a focussed area of high sound pickup directly in front with other
> areas deeply rejected - so one gets more gain before feedback for a voice
> in the hot spot in a PA system.

******* Another good theory that doesn't work in practice.

In previous discussions about microphones, Phil has already demonstrated
his reliance on theory and published data (enhanced by marketing deparment
artists) to state how microphones work. He has not demonstrated any
knowledge of how they work IN PRACTICE, where theory doesn't completely
apply. He seems to have no experience with live sound reproduction but
knows a good diaphragm when he sees one.

> Think if those Soviet Premiers addressing large crowds from a high balcony
> with six or eight identical mics in a line in front of them them.

******* Think of all those broadcast services that don't trust mic
splitters and you'll be closer to the truth.

I won't say here that Phil is a complete blithering idiot, but take what he
says about microphone performance with a grain of salt. His statements
suggest that he has never had to actually deal with real world microphones
and real world acoustics.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not necessarily. If you're trying to get a better sense of the acoustic in
which
> the artist is singing, it would make sense. Of course, pop recordings are
rarely
> "about" such things. And the use of stereo would cause image shift if the
singer
> didn't stay still.

Right. It was the "pop" qualifier. Unless you were involving the room
acoustics as an element I can't think of a good reason to do it.

[Harvey Gerst]

(Mike Rivers) wrote:

>I won't say here that Phil is a complete blithering idiot, but take what he
>says about microphone performance with a grain of salt. His statements
>suggest that he has never had to actually deal with real world microphones
>and real world acoustics.

No idiot is ever complete; it's an ongoing process, as shown here with Phil's
most recent post on this subject.

Interestingly, the only person on this ng who came close to agreeing with Phil
was Scott Dorsey who, by Phil's description, is an "audiophool", and not to be
taken seriously.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1091963693k@trad
> In article >
> writes:
>
>>> when Pavorotti would sing live, I remember seeing him with two mics
>>> about 3 feet in front of him, shoulder width, chest height pointing
>>> up a bit and toed-in a bit.
>>>
>>
>> ** Those two mics were probably combined to make a mono signal. As
>> Pavorotti moved about slightly or sang facing different parts of the
>> audience one or other mic would pick him up better.
>
> ******* Complete lunacy.
>
>> Also, using multiple cardioid mics with outputs combined and co-
>> sited creates a focussed area of high sound pickup directly in front
>> with other areas deeply rejected - so one gets more gain before
>> feedback for a voice in the hot spot in a PA system.
>
> ******* Another good theory that doesn't work in practice.
>
> In previous discussions about microphones, Phil has already
> demonstrated his reliance on theory and published data (enhanced by
> marketing deparment artists) to state how microphones work. He has
> not demonstrated any knowledge of how they work IN PRACTICE, where
> theory doesn't completely apply. He seems to have no experience with
> live sound reproduction but knows a good diaphragm when he sees one.
>
>> Think if those Soviet Premiers addressing large crowds from a high
>> balcony with six or eight identical mics in a line in front of them
>> them.
>
> ******* Think of all those broadcast services that don't trust mic
> splitters and you'll be closer to the truth.
>
> I won't say here that Phil is a complete blithering idiot, but take
> what he says about microphone performance with a grain of salt. His
> statements suggest that he has never had to actually deal with real
> world microphones and real world acoustics.

LOL!

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Interestingly, the only person on this ng who came close to agreeing with Phil
> was Scott Dorsey who, by Phil's description, is an "audiophool", and not to be
> taken seriously.

I think there are degrees of audiophoolery. While Scott's answer was
interesting, and perhaps he's even used the technique he described on
a singer, I've never seen Pav with two mics at different heights, but
occasionally two mics at a bit below chin level. I'll bet that both
are recorded but only one goes into the mix, though if he goes too far
off mic toward the other one, they might switch.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Phil Allison]

"Arny Krueger"

> LOL!


** You'll keep.




............. Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers"
Hardly Believable;


> > Interestingly, the only person on this ng who came close to agreeing
with Phil
> > was Scott Dorsey who, by Phil's description, is an "audiophool", and not
to be
> > taken seriously.
>
>
> I think there are degrees of audiophoolery. While Scott's answer was
> interesting, and perhaps he's even used the technique he described on
> a singer, I've never seen Pav with two mics at different heights, but
> occasionally two mics at a bit below chin level. I'll bet that both
> are recorded but only one goes into the mix, though if he goes too far
> off mic toward the other one, they might switch.
>



** A few hours ago that last idea was described by the Rivers Parrot as:

" ******* Complete lunacy "


Anyone for hypocrisy ??????????????????




.............. Phil

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> This hero worship of me has to stop. It's becoming embarrassing.

You get used to it quickly. I have.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Rob Reedijk]

Ben Bradley > wrote:

> You could mount the microphones on a boom mounted to the singer's
> head, then the singer would stay still in the stereo image but the
> room tone would change as the singer moves.

I know you are joking, but I saw Prince a couple of weeks ago, and while
this was in mono...

The show was in the round. During the acoustic set, he had a special stool
he sat on that had the mic stand attached to it. So as he would rotate,
because he was in the round, the mic would move with him. I understand
the practical reasons for doing this---better mic technique than possible
with a headset mic---but it looked so silly that I spend the first song
trying to hold back the laughter.

The most spinal tap moment, though was the end of the concert. It being
in the round, with no access through the floor, the musicians had to exit
by walking across the floor through the audience. His Purpleness, of
course, magically disappeared...or so it seemed...

Because when the musicians walked off the stage, following them, was
a large roadcase being pushed by 3 or 4 roadies!

Personally, I think he should get a Pope-mobile.

BTW, the concert was fantastic.

Rob R.

[Roger W. Norman]

If Pav's movement was enough to need to use one mic's output over the other,
even at the same physical distance from the source there'd be phase
problems, minute as they might be. You can't just simply cut one syllable
into two different sources and not notice some physical change in the
characteristics and fading between the two would make it even more obvious,
so your proposal of the purpose doesn't match the function of the output,
which would be simply to have a mono source with two mics of different
physical characteristics. It would have nothing to do with physical
coverage of the vocal "area" and would induce more problems than simply
allowing for one mic and having the singer slightly off-axis during the
performance.

But even more appropriate it would be either for a failsafe or for two
different functions as Mike said. One for production/recording and one for
some sound reinforcement application, depending on where this particular
performance took place. Certainly in a decent room Pav doesn't require
amplification, so my bet is that in any performance situation he might find
himself in, the mics were ganged as a failsafe. It's certainly what I would
do, and something that I probably will do now that my wife has her first
operatic recital under her belt. But she needs no mic to be heard, just
recorded, and neither does Pavoratti.

So whether Mike's context was correct or not, your supposition is most
likely erroneous on your best day.

And, not only have I worked with Mike, but so has JoVee and Scott Dorsey,
and all of us have found Mike to be a tremendous resource, not only in
information on this newsgroup, but also in live work together, where
recording is the order of the day whilst providing FOH, stage management,
stage monitoring and stage tech solutions for more hours of the day than you
have correct suppositions in your posts. And then doing all of the above
day after day in a seemingly never ending cycle. So you may cast
aspersions, but the fact is that Mike is a Go To guy, knows his ****, is the
epitome of professionalism, and a great person to work with. Never is there
a question of his ability to handle any problem that exhibits itself, and do
so in a timely and professional manner.

Now find someone that will give you the same testimony and maybe we'll try
to look harder into your posts to see if you just didn't say what you meant,
but mostly I don't believe you'll have those testiments to back up your
experience.

--
-----------

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio


"Phil Allison" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rivers"
> Phil Allison :
>
> ** Replacing the MISSING context AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > ... though if he goes too far off mic toward the other one, they
might
> switch.
> >
> >
> > > ** A few hours ago that last idea was described by the Rivers Parrot
> as:
> > > " ******* Complete lunacy "
>
> >
> > Please quote yourself as indicating that your proposal was to use two
> > microphones to get different tonality.
>
>
> ** Please go screw yourself you cheating, snipping maniac.
>
>
> Here is the context:
>
> > " ** Those two mics were probably combined to make a mono signal. As
> > Pavorotti moved about slightly or sang facing different parts of the
> > audience one or other mic would pick him up better.
>
> ******* Complete lunacy. "
>
>
>
>
> .......... Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

I guess Bruce Swedien would be the person to reference on that because he
mostly uses stereo miking, EXCEPT on vocals. At least with the work I'm
familiar with of his.

I find no reason to stereo mic a vocalist, but I have no problems doubling a
vocal track. If I were to use multiple mics, it would be due to the
characteristics of each mic that may compliment the others while being mixed
to mono. In fact, on one of my songs, JoVee and I set up the 4050, the
Neumann 105 and a C535 just to compare them and I ended up using all three
mics mixed to mono. It's kind of strange thing to me, but I can no longer
sing, so anything that helps helps.

--
-----------

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio


"David Morgan (MAMS)" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ben Bradley" > wrote in message
...
> > On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 13:22:31 GMT, Carey Carlan >
> > wrote:
> >
> > (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
> > :
> > >
> > >> Stereo miking of singers is interesting, and I think on the second
RAP
> > >> compilation I have a track that shows both the good and bad side. It
> > >> means you can get the sound of a real room on the vocals, but it also
> > >> means the vocalist has to stand absolutely still and not move a
muscle.
> > >
> > >Use a coincident pattern to minimize this, but, yes, they have to stand
> > >still.
> >
> > You could mount the microphones on a boom mounted to the singer's
> > head, then the singer would stay still in the stereo image but the
> > room tone would change as the singer moves.
>
> But would the listener become disoriented?
>
>