I have been making live concert recordings for some local classical
chamber ensembles (everything from baroque to really avant-garde) for
the last few years, but lately I have started doing some recording and
editing for solo albums of some artists. Since I am recording
classical, I am trying to recreate the sound of a concert...an ideal
concert.

I have used the standard setups: AB, XY, NOS ORTF ... most of what you
can conveniently do with a couple of cardioids. But I was interested
in what other people had done to use omnis (other than AB). I've
read a little about the Blumlein Difference Technique which seems very
similar to using Jecklin Disk. How are these different? I have heard
that you need a Blumlein shuffler to generate a better stereo image at
lower frequencies. Is this true? Any know of a shuffler other than
the one Waves has in there S1 package? These techniques are
interesting to me because they give stereo output from a pair of
near-coincident omnis. I don't have any figure-8 mics, so I can't
do MS or a Blumlein Pair.

I have a gig coming up with a baroque flute player (solo) and he wants
to record in a fairly small, dry room that has the two advantages of
being in a quiet neighborhood and being free. The thought is to record
there and then add in some convolution reverb to give the recording
some space.

Any suggestions on miking techniques? Thanks for the help.

The Jecklin Disk is worth a try I have used it frequently.... mine is a 12
inch diameter piece of 1/2 inch thick hard felt. Baroque Flute tends to be
recorded with
quite a bit of natural reverb..... to reflect the venues of the Baroque
era.... having a good portion of it be the natural variety will certainly
make it easier to get the desired result.....

Rgds:
Eric


"Paul Brown" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have been making live concert recordings for some local classical
chamber ensembles (everything from baroque to really avant-garde) for
the last few years, but lately I have started doing some recording and
editing for solo albums of some artists. Since I am recording
classical, I am trying to recreate the sound of a concert...an ideal
concert.

I have used the standard setups: AB, XY, NOS ORTF ... most of what you
can conveniently do with a couple of cardioids. But I was interested
in what other people had done to use omnis (other than AB). I've
read a little about the Blumlein Difference Technique which seems very
similar to using Jecklin Disk. How are these different? I have heard
that you need a Blumlein shuffler to generate a better stereo image at
lower frequencies. Is this true? Any know of a shuffler other than
the one Waves has in there S1 package? These techniques are
interesting to me because they give stereo output from a pair of
near-coincident omnis. I don't have any figure-8 mics, so I can't
do MS or a Blumlein Pair.

I have a gig coming up with a baroque flute player (solo) and he wants
to record in a fairly small, dry room that has the two advantages of
being in a quiet neighborhood and being free. The thought is to record
there and then add in some convolution reverb to give the recording
some space.

Any suggestions on miking techniques? Thanks for the help.

If you have two figure-8 mics, start with a Blumlein pair. I think you'll be
presently surprised at how it suppresses the excessive room reverb you get with
other miking techniques.

Paul Brown wrote:

I have used the standard setups: AB, XY, NOS ORTF ... most of what
you
can conveniently do with a couple of cardioids. But I was interested
in what other people had done to use omnis (other than AB).

Any suggestions on miking techniques? Thanks for the help.

I use ORTF, NOS and Jecklin Disc with omni mics.
found soundstage with ORTF has great L/R front / back,
great for large ensembles.
NOS has less front / back,
but works great with big band jazz (horns)
Jecklin Disc created some nice small jazz ensemble (3 piece)
recordings
( need to get in closer with omni )

directions for building your own jeclin disc
http://www.klankschap.nl/ndotb.pdf
and check out vertical microphone method
http://www.klankschap.nl/vmm.html

dale

As a direct answer to your question, I'd just like to point out that
omnidirectional microphones don't usually need to be set nearly as wide
apart as many articles and textbooks in the U.S. would have it
done--though this depends on the geometry of the setup (mainly the
width of the ensemble to be recorded, as "seen" by the microphones).
Placing some sort of acoustically opaque object between the two
microphones (e.g. Jecklin plate, sphere, ...) lets you put the
microphones even closer together, so as to lessen the artificial
"spaciness" of the pickup.

However, I also would like to mention that "omni vs. cardioid" is a
false dichotomy--that the range of techniques involving directional
microphones is by no means exhausted by the use of cardioids. The kind
of pickup which you call "XY," for example, is at its worst with
cardioids in certain respects, and will often be improved by using
super- or hypercardioids instead, or (again if the overall geometry
permits it) figure-8s.

Of course the microphones need to have smooth response, and the room
needs to be pleasant sounding and appropriate for the kind of music
being recorded, as always with "purist" recording methods.
--best regards

David Satz wrote:

As a direct answer to your question, I'd just like to point out that
omnidirectional microphones don't usually need to be set nearly as wide
apart as many articles and textbooks in the U.S. would have it
done--though this depends on the geometry of the setup (mainly the
width of the ensemble to be recorded, as "seen" by the microphones).
Placing some sort of acoustically opaque object between the two
microphones (e.g. Jecklin plate, sphere, ...) lets you put the
microphones even closer together, so as to lessen the artificial
"spaciness" of the pickup.


My all-purpose main mic pair consists of two diffuse-field omnis (AKG
CK62 DF/C460) at a distance of about 65 cm. For that touch of extra
separation, I point the capsules outwards, maybe 150° or so. This setup
works just perfectly for me (orchestra, choir, chamber ensembles etc.).
I really like the sound of it.


Daniel

"Daniel Fuchs" wrote in message

My all-purpose main mic pair consists of two diffuse-field omnis (AKG
CK62 DF/C460) at a distance of about 65 cm. For that touch of extra
separation, I point the capsules outwards, maybe 150° or so. This setup
works just perfectly for me (orchestra, choir, chamber ensembles etc.).
I really like the sound of it.


Maybe it's the 'difffuse field' factor I don't know about, but isn't it hard
to 'point' an omni anywhere, first having to decide which it the point of
reference on the mic for pointing ?

geoff

I would love to have a nice acoustic space available, but
unfortunately, I don't think that will be possible for this recording.
I guess after I do a sound check and apply the convolution reverb, if I
don't like the result (or the flutist doesn't like it), we can revisit
the venue issue. But I have found the convolution reverbs to be pretty
good. (In my background as a mechanical engineer, I have used
convolution integrals to solve dynamics problems, so I know the theory
is "sound". However, I haven't dealt with them in a discrete
manner.)

So how is the Jecklin Disk different from the Blumlein difference
technique? They both use an acoustic baffle between two omnis. Why
did Blumlein run his signal through a shuffler? I haven't heard of
that being done with the Jecklin Disk. How does this miking technique
sound over loudspeakers as opposed to headphones?

Paul

On 12/22/04 1:08 PM, in article
, "Paul Brown"
wrote:

So how is the Jecklin Disk different from the Blumlein difference
technique? They both use an acoustic baffle between two omnis.

Correction: the Blumlein technique is two coincident figure-8 mic's placed
90 degrees off-axis to each other.


Allen
--
Allen Corneau
Mastering Engineer
Essential Sound Mastering
Houston, TX

Yes, that was Blumlein's second stereo technique-the Blumlein pair.
But he developed an earlier technique (I think in 1931) that used two
omni's. Check out
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.b...r/Blumlein.htm and let me
know what you think. But I have read some stuff on the Blumlein
shuffler and I don't see why that would be necessary with a pair (90
deg fig-8).

Paul

ScotFraser wrote:

The point of reference for aiming an omni is perpendicular to the plane of the
diaphragm. Same as, surprise, aiming a cardioid.

For free-field omni mics that's true unless it has a nose cone or
acoustic pressure equalizer on it. Pressure omnis are usually aimed
parallel to the plane of the diaphragm.


--
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

So how is the Jecklin Disk different from the Blumlein difference
technique? They both use an acoustic baffle between two omnis. Why
did Blumlein run his signal through a shuffler? I haven't heard of
that being done with the Jecklin Disk. How does this miking technique
sound over loudspeakers as opposed to headphones?

Paul



A shuffler works well on a Jecklin disc.

I've used it but generally don't bother to take the time to do it.

Jecklin disc works welll over speakers and this is perhaps its biggest
advantage over binaural.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

Richard Kuschel wrote:

Jecklin disc works welll over speakers and this is perhaps its biggest
advantage over binaural.

This is true, but it's true of every other stereo miking configuration
too.
--scott

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

Thanks for the advice and insite. How does the shuffler change the
sound, just out of curiosity? Also, I am still trying to understand
how the Jecklin disk different from the Blumlein difference technique
(using two omnis)? I can't see any difference.

I will be building a Jecklin disk this week and then have the sound
check with a Baroque flute player soon. If people are interested, I
can post the results. I plan on using a number of different techniques
and then letting the flute player, the producer, and myself take some
time to listen and compare them to see what we like the best.


Paul

Richard Kuschel wrote:

Jecklin disc works welll over speakers and this is perhaps its biggest
advantage over binaural.

This is true, but it's true of every other stereo miking configuration
too.
--scott

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



What I like about Jecklin over other stereo techniques is that I don't get the
room reversal obtained with most other techniques.

I have to use other techniques in some rooms because the room does not have a
decent sound, but other stereo omni miking techniques would not work well
either.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

In article ,
(Richard Kuschel) wrote:


Richard Kuschel wrote:

Jecklin disc works welll over speakers and this is perhaps its biggest
advantage over binaural.

This is true, but it's true of every other stereo miking configuration
too.
--scott

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



What I like about Jecklin over other stereo techniques is that I don't get the
room reversal obtained with most other techniques.

I have to use other techniques in some rooms because the room does not have a
decent sound, but other stereo omni miking techniques would not work well
either.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

What Richard said! Especially with regard to room reversal. I've used
Blumlein till I'm blue in the face, MidSide till my midi chain has blown
up and I keep coming back to two stereo microphone techniques - ORTF/NOS
and my home made Jecklin disc which my clients know as my powder puff
microphone!

ORTF/NOS where the room is not so good and Jecklin where I have a good room.

Mike

"Mike Clayton" wrote in message news:m.clayton-
What Richard said! Especially with regard to room reversal. I've used
Blumlein till I'm blue in the face, MidSide till my midi chain has blown
up and I keep coming back to two stereo microphone techniques - ORTF/NOS
and my home made Jecklin disc which my clients know as my powder puff
microphone!

ORTF/NOS where the room is not so good and Jecklin where I have a good
room.

I tend to prefer ORTF, too (DEFINITELY over X-Y, at any rate), and I also
have a homemade Jecklin - have you ever tried using it with a good pair of
cardioids just for the helluvit to see what happens? I've tried it with a
pair of -184's one time on drums & it came out pretty damn good, if I must
say so myself. (OK, so I know it's technically not a "jecklin"
configuration, but what can I say? I like to experiment sometimes just to
see what happens).

Neil Henderson

In article , "Neil
Henderson" wrote:

I tend to prefer ORTF, too (DEFINITELY over X-Y, at any rate), and I also
have a homemade Jecklin - have you ever tried using it with a good pair of
cardioids just for the helluvit to see what happens? I've tried it with a
pair of -184's one time on drums & it came out pretty damn good, if I must
say so myself. (OK, so I know it's technically not a "jecklin"
configuration, but what can I say? I like to experiment sometimes just to
see what happens).

Neil Henderson

Haven't tried cardioids on the Jecklin, Neil, but I use Schoeps omnis on
it, and before that I used AKG C480 omnis. Both gave me great results.

Have you tried NOS - mikes at 90 degrees and a foot apart at the heads,
using hypercardioids? The hyper trick courtesy of the late Gabe Wiener,
theory being that the off axis response of a hyper is somewhat flatter
than that of an equivalent cardioid. Works for me.

--
Mike Clayton

"Mike Clayton" wrote in message
...

Haven't tried cardioids on the Jecklin, Neil, but I use Schoeps omnis on
it, and before that I used AKG C480 omnis. Both gave me great results.

Have you tried NOS - mikes at 90 degrees and a foot apart at the heads,
using hypercardioids? The hyper trick courtesy of the late Gabe Wiener,
theory being that the off axis response of a hyper is somewhat flatter
than that of an equivalent cardioid. Works for me.

Hmmm, never tried that, nor even heard of it - at least that I can recall -
the closest I've come to that is when I was messing with some SM-81's (and
that mic's got a pretty wide pattern, IIRC) some time ago & ended up with a
similar arrangement (but I don't think it was nearly a foot - more like
maybe 8 inches apart, max; which seemed to work pretty well for the room I
was in at the time - was just trying to find the positioning that rocked &
that seemed to do it). Got a good hyper that you can recommend for such
tasks?

What does it do? Meaning what kind of characteristics is it supposed to
impart?

Neil

In article , "Neil
Henderson" wrote:

Hmmm, never tried that, nor even heard of it - at least that I can recall -
the closest I've come to that is when I was messing with some SM-81's (and
that mic's got a pretty wide pattern, IIRC) some time ago & ended up with a
similar arrangement (but I don't think it was nearly a foot - more like
maybe 8 inches apart, max; which seemed to work pretty well for the room I
was in at the time - was just trying to find the positioning that rocked &
that seemed to do it). Got a good hyper that you can recommend for such
tasks?

I've used AKG Blueline hypers, AKG C480B hypers and latterly Schoeps
CMC641 supercardioids.

What does it do? Meaning what kind of characteristics is it supposed to
impart?

For my ears it gives a more accurate stereo location. You have to pull a
little further back than with the ORTF set as the included angle is not as
wide. And you get a better rendering of the room. The NOS setup was
proposed by the Netherlands public broadcasting chain. Try it sometime,
but in a good room.

--
Mike Clayton