by what method do you determine the proper spacing distance between a
pair of omnis? i have read the general rule about 1/3 the soundstage
width, which may be about right for a small ensemble on a stage. and i
have read the earthworks literature that talks about very closely
spaced pairs (like almost coincident, or only a couple of inches apart)
for close-micing solo instruments in the studio. i have also read of
omnis spaced 3 feet apart and 4 feet out for solo instruments. what
are your thoughts and experiences for both soloists in the studio and
small ensembles in a live venue? thanks.

From:
Date: 12/22/04 5:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: .com

by what method do you determine the proper spacing distance between a
pair of omnis? i have read the general rule about 1/3 the soundstage
width, which may be about right for a small ensemble on a stage. and i
have read the earthworks literature that talks about very closely
spaced pairs (like almost coincident, or only a couple of inches apart)
for close-micing solo instruments in the studio. i have also read of
omnis spaced 3 feet apart and 4 feet out for solo instruments. what
are your thoughts and experiences for both soloists in the studio and
small ensembles in a live venue? thanks.

The two most valuable tools in any pro recording persons tool box...His ears!

In article .com,
wrote:
by what method do you determine the proper spacing distance between a
pair of omnis? i have read the general rule about 1/3 the soundstage
width, which may be about right for a small ensemble on a stage.

This is for A-B miking, which is probably the most common earlier method
and one that you will hear on a lot of fifties and sixties classical
recordings. You can go wider than this if you employ a third center
microphone, too. Spaced triad used to be very common.

and i
have read the earthworks literature that talks about very closely
spaced pairs (like almost coincident, or only a couple of inches apart)
for close-micing solo instruments in the studio.

This is not really conventional stereo miking. When you are doing
this, you are up very close and you are trying to collapse the stereo
image so it is not exaggerated by being so close. Don't think of this
in the context of regular ambient miking where you are trying to capture
a full soundstage.

i have also read of
omnis spaced 3 feet apart and 4 feet out for solo instruments. what
are your thoughts and experiences for both soloists in the studio and
small ensembles in a live venue? thanks.

Again, these are trying to collapse the stereo image somewhat, because
the mikes are being placed closer than a listener normally would.

My personal feeling is that all of the widely-spaced omni systems sound
very artificial to me. There are amplitude differences between channels,
but the phase differences between channels are so great that all of the
phase-related imaging goes away completely to my ears.

I have always much preferred the effects I have got from baffled omni
systems like Schneider discs or Jecklin discs.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

For recording solo acoustic guitar just about my favorite choice is a
pair of miniature omnis very close to the instrument, and spaced just a
few inches apart. Eliminates much of any poor room reflections and
gives a strong yet natural sound with minimal proximity boost and no
weird twangy phase problems. Like Scott, I don't care for the
artificial sound from wide spacing.

I've occasionally experimented with things like clamps onto the guitar
body to hold the mics' positions, or, a real mad-scientist approach --
lavalier mics alligator clipped on either side of my glasses! This one
really attracts attention, seems Doc Brown might have used something
similar.... g

Anyway, it's fun for singing/playing at the same time -- the vocal is
perfectly centered in the stereo field, and the guitar level and tone
can be controlled easily by just moving your head around and
closer/farther to the instrument. Not as good a guitar tone as close
in front of the soundboard, though.

BTW, any recommendations of reasonably-priced miniature omnis --
Countryman, Shure, Audix, whatever ???

Steve

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
I have always much preferred the effects I have got from baffled omni
systems like Schneider discs or Jecklin discs.
--scott

Hey Scott. I've gotten some playtime with Jecklin disk setups, but I've
never used a Schneider disk... do you find any big difference btween the
two? If so, what?

Neil Henderson

Steve Scott wrote:

any recommendations of reasonably-priced miniature omnis --
Countryman, Shure, Audix, whatever ???

Take away the 'miniature' requirement and there are a bundle of options.

There's a guy on A.A.P.L.S. who swears by the Audix ADX5's. I haven't tried them yet but the price seems reasonable.

Raymond wrote:
From:
Date: 12/22/04 5:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: .com

by what method do you determine the proper spacing distance between
a
pair of omnis? i have read the general rule about 1/3 the
soundstage
width, which may be about right for a small ensemble on a stage.
and i
have read the earthworks literature that talks about very closely
spaced pairs (like almost coincident, or only a couple of inches
apart)
for close-micing solo instruments in the studio. i have also read
of
omnis spaced 3 feet apart and 4 feet out for solo instruments. what
are your thoughts and experiences for both soloists in the studio
and
small ensembles in a live venue? thanks.

The two most valuable tools in any pro recording persons tool
box...His ears!

And then there's the most important tool that's flat out missing from
the tool box - the apprenticeship.

A question about other people's "thoughts and expereinces" doesn't mean
he doesn't listen. You think Al Schmidt or whoever didn't spend years
as an assistant watching and having some point of reference to start?

The acceptability of the answer "use your ears" on the newsgroup always
surprises me. Isnt' that a giventhat you lsting when your infron of
your monitors and discuss when infront of a computer?

The subtext of your answer strikes me as "don't ask a stupid question,
go figure it out for yourself" and in the context of the generosity and
sharing of infromation that goes on in this newsgroup... well that jsut
doesn't seem to fit. Maybe the subtext is "don't ask a question I don't
know the answer to"? I don't get it.

Even if listening isn't a given, it's not like there aren't going to be
multiple opinions on any question for him to try and then decide. The
answers are going to force listening.

Steve Scott wrote:

BTW, any recommendations of reasonably-priced miniature omnis --
Countryman, Shure, Audix, whatever ???

DPA 4060 & 4061. That's what we use in our High End Binaural mic set
(after matching them). Better sounding IMO than anything else that's
out there.

[Disclaimer: We are DPA dealers.]

--
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

Neil Henderson wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
I have always much preferred the effects I have got from baffled omni
systems like Schneider discs or Jecklin discs.

Hey Scott. I've gotten some playtime with Jecklin disk setups, but I've
never used a Schneider disk... do you find any big difference btween the
two? If so, what?

The bigger the baffle, the lower the frequency at which you get intensity
stereo effects. The smaller the baffle, the higher the frequency.

If you move the mike off-axis, you can get wider stereo imaging in front
than in back, or vice-versa. I like this for live concert work with the
mikes almost at the rear of the baffle, so the stage has good imaging and
the rear pickup from the audience is very diffuse.
--scott

Neil Henderson




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

Len Moskowitz wrote:
Steve Scott wrote:

BTW, any recommendations of reasonably-priced miniature omnis --
Countryman, Shure, Audix, whatever ???

DPA 4060 & 4061. That's what we use in our High End Binaural mic set
(after matching them). Better sounding IMO than anything else that's
out there.

I will second this, but I will say that the Countryman is not half bad
and that Beyer also makes some good lav mikes for the application.

[Disclaimer: We are DPA dealers.]

I'm not, and I don't even own any post-B&K models.
--scott

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:
I'm not, and I don't even own any post-B&K models.
--scott

I've read several references suggesting that the DPA mics are not as
good (or are at least different) than the B & K mics they replaced. Is
this your opinion? If so, what do you hear as the differences?

Thanks

Haolemon wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
I'm not, and I don't even own any post-B&K models.

I've read several references suggesting that the DPA mics are not as
good (or are at least different) than the B & K mics they replaced. Is
this your opinion? If so, what do you hear as the differences?

I have no real idea, because, as I said, I don't own any of the newer ones.
I do know that DPA still makes the old B&K models, but they also make a
bunch of cheaper mikes as well (which aren't as good, but are still good for
the price). I don't know if those older models are still made as well as
they were before the corporate change.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Len Moskowitz wrote:
DPA 4060 & 4061. That's what we use in our High End Binaural mic set
(after matching them). Better sounding IMO than anything else that's
out there.

I will second this, but I will say that the Countryman is not half bad
and that Beyer also makes some good lav mikes for the application.

Other than noise floor, how would you characterise the (sonic)
difference between the 406x and the full sized DPA's (4003/4006)?

The difference in price is substantial and not everything is very
quiet... So would a pair of 406x be a usable alternative for much of
what a pair of 4006 would do or not?

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

Lars Farm wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Len Moskowitz wrote:
DPA 4060 & 4061. That's what we use in our High End Binaural mic set
(after matching them). Better sounding IMO than anything else that's
out there.

I will second this, but I will say that the Countryman is not half bad
and that Beyer also makes some good lav mikes for the application.

Other than noise floor, how would you characterise the (sonic)
difference between the 406x and the full sized DPA's (4003/4006)?

I have used only the high voltage DPAs, not the cheaper low voltage
models. The minis sound much grainier on the top end although the off-axis
response on the omnis is quite similar.

The difference in price is substantial and not everything is very
quiet... So would a pair of 406x be a usable alternative for much of
what a pair of 4006 would do or not?

Yes, it would be an okay lower end alternative. But if you are looking for
a general purpose cardioid in that price range, I would sooner point you at
the Josephson Series Five. But, there's no omni capsule available. I'd
also look at the A-T 4049/4053. None of these are small enough to use as
lav mikes.
--scott

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

Thanks for the omni recommendations, others welcome. I guess
"reasonably priced" is a pretty open description g How about maybe
$200 each?

Scott, I've owned a pair of AT4051a for quite a while, bought on your
referral among others. I've been very pleased with them, smooove and
musical. And that's why I'm asking about omni mics -- I've been trying
to decide if I should buy the 4049 caps ($200 or so each), or just look
at a different mic altogether for the omni.

Any experience with the 4049 vs comparable omnidirectional mics? I
don't absolutely have to have lavaliere-size, but I do appreciate the
small mics for placement near acoustic guitar, and as I mentioned maybe
even attached to the body. The ATs wouldn't allow that, obviously.
Steve

i have pairs of both DPA 4006s and the little 4061s, and they are
vastly different in tonal response. the pattern is amazingly omni on
the 4061, but it defintely exhibits a noticeable high0end lift - this
is great for acoustic guitar, and some other applications, but it ain't
so good for live ensemble work or for acoustic instruments that contain
significant high freq's like strings, woodwinds, etc. the larger 4006s
display a nicely "flat" freq response curve, and are useable on
literally anything, IME. for a less expensive, generally flat response
omni, i cannot recommend the AT4049 or its cardioid version the AT4051,
as they are both rather bright to me (i do own a pair of hte 4051s that
i use on some warmer sources). instead, check out the AKG c480/ck62
and its cardioid version the ck61 - wonderful mics that can be had for
a song and a dance compared to the DPA prices. i use the c480/ck61 on
all types of things, and have found it nearly interchangeable with my
DPA 4011s.

i have pairs of both DPA 4006s and the little 4061s, and they are
vastly different in tonal response. the pattern is amazingly omni on
the 4061, but it defintely exhibits a noticeable high0end lift - this
is great for acoustic guitar, and some other applications, but it ain't
so good for live ensemble work or for acoustic instruments that contain
significant high freq's like strings, woodwinds, etc. the larger 4006s
display a nicely "flat" freq response curve, and are useable on
literally anything, IME. for a less expensive, generally flat response
omni, i cannot recommend the AT4049 or its cardioid version the AT4051,
as they are both rather bright to me (i do own a pair of hte 4051s that
i use on some warmer sources). instead, check out the AKG c480/ck62
and its cardioid version the ck61 - wonderful mics that can be had for
a song and a dance compared to the DPA prices. i use the c480/ck61 on
all types of things, and have found it nearly interchangeable with my
DPA 4011s.

wrote:
AT4049 or its cardioid version the AT4051,
as they are both rather bright to me

Interesting, I don't think of the 4051 as bright at all... but I
usually run them through A Designs or Focusrite preamps at low
impedance. Thanks for the tips on the DPA differences and AKG.

I've never used DPA, we used to use quite a few B&K measurement mics at
my "real" engineering lab, have switched to PCB. But many of these
roll off pretty quick anywhere from 2-10 kHz, not always very usable on
musical instruments.

Steve

hi steve - after using neumann km184s for a long time before buying the
AT4051s, i didnt think ofhte 4051s as bright either, especially in
comparison to the little neumanns. but after using schoeps cmc64s, akg
c480/ck61s, and DPA 4011s, it became much more clear how much even the
ATs emphasize the upper mids (you can of course see this by looking at
the response curves for those mics). now, i am completely hooked on
"flat" mics (though dorsey will probably tell you that nothing is flat,
and even within the general category of flat mics, there can be quite a
bit of tonal variation, such as the senn mkh40s vs the DPA or schoeps,
all of which sound quite different). i am in agreement with the
schoeps philosophy that mics should be as neutral and invisible as
possible, and thus useable on any type of source. after using such
nice mics for a few years, i have sold all my neumanns, rode tube mics,
royer ribbons, etc etc, - every mic that i had originally selected for
its specific "color" for specific applications.

Haolemon wrote:

I've read several references suggesting that the DPA mics are not as
good (or are at least different) than the B & K mics they replaced. Is
this your opinion? If so, what do you hear as the differences?

The owners of DPA are former Bruel & Kjaer employees. One of them (Ole)
was involved with the technical development the B&K pro audio mics.

We have a very old B&K 4003 here that we use interchangeably with two
other 4003s, one a less-old B&K and the other a new DPA. They were
selected to match each other well; they sound identical.

Over the years, we've been able to use pretty much the whole range of
DPA microphones. Their fine quality hasn't changed one iota since the
Bruel & Kjaer days, and the newer DPA products uphold that tradition.

[Disclaimer: Core Sound is a DPA dealer.]



--
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

wrote:
...
that mics should be as neutral and invisible as
possible, and thus useable on any type of source. after using such
nice mics for a few years, i have sold all my neumanns, rode tube
mics,
royer ribbons, etc etc, - every mic that i had originally selected
for
its specific "color" for specific applications.

Yes, I was referencing things like MC012, SM57, Beta 87a, etc. I've
been gradually heading the same way, I'm fortunate to work with such
high quality instruments and singers now that I'm losing interest in
the character mics too. Although I won't give up the ADK A-48 for
female vocals and the superb AEA R84 for male.

That's what is driving my use of omnis -- I can get very close to the
source and not fight all the problems from rooms and directional mics.
Acoustic guitars in particular are just so much easier with close
omnis. So it sounds like maybe from your experience of going a similar
direction in tone, the AT4049a-EL might not get what I want. And I
don't want to pay for Schoeps or DPA.

The ones I clipped on the side of my head were Radio Shack lapel mics,
hadn't tried them in years but find I can still make them work
occasionally... maybe those are all I need g

Steve

Steve Scott wrote:
Thanks for the omni recommendations, others welcome. I guess
"reasonably priced" is a pretty open description g How about maybe
$200 each?

Scott, I've owned a pair of AT4051a for quite a while, bought on your
referral among others. I've been very pleased with them, smooove and
musical. And that's why I'm asking about omni mics -- I've been trying
to decide if I should buy the 4049 caps ($200 or so each), or just look
at a different mic altogether for the omni.

I'd say that the 4049 capsules are probably as good as anything else you
will find in that range.

Any experience with the 4049 vs comparable omnidirectional mics? I
don't absolutely have to have lavaliere-size, but I do appreciate the
small mics for placement near acoustic guitar, and as I mentioned maybe
even attached to the body. The ATs wouldn't allow that, obviously.
Steve

Omnis are easy to build, which means that even cheap omni electrets are
pretty decent. It's a lot easier to build an omni with flat response and
even off-axis response than it is to build a cardioid. One of the first
things you'll notice going to even a cheap omni is the low end difference.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Steve Scott wrote:

I've never used DPA, we used to use quite a few B&K measurement mics at
my "real" engineering lab, have switched to PCB. But many of these
roll off pretty quick anywhere from 2-10 kHz, not always very usable on
musical instruments.

The freefield omni capsules for the B&K lab mikes are lots of fun for
recording. If you have any of the old 1" ones kicking around, let me know.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

The freefield omni capsules for the B&K lab mikes are lots of fun for
recording. If you have any of the old 1" ones kicking around, let me
know.

Like Scott, we have a few B&K 4145s here. They're really fine recording
mics.

--
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

Mike wrote

And then there's the most important tool that's flat out missing from
the tool box - the apprenticeship.

A question about other people's "thoughts and expereinces" doesn't mean
he doesn't listen. You think Al Schmidt or whoever didn't spend years
as an assistant watching and having some point of reference to start?

The acceptability of the answer "use your ears" on the newsgroup always
surprises me. Isnt' that a giventhat you lsting when your infron of
your monitors and discuss when infront of a computer?

The subtext of your answer strikes me as "don't ask a stupid question,
go figure it out for yourself" and in the context of the generosity and
sharing of infromation that goes on in this newsgroup... well that jsut
doesn't seem to fit. Maybe the subtext is "don't ask a question I don't
know the answer to"? I don't get it.

Even if listening isn't a given, it's not like there aren't going to be
multiple opinions on any question for him to try and then decide. The
answers are going to force listening.


So just what is your point here Mike? That you don't like my obvious answer to
the question? Or do you think that I don't care about any John Doe that asks
question's (stupid or not)? Or do you think that there is some magic formula to
any microphone placement approach?
OK, for your information Mike I'll give you a more detailed answer...."The most
important tool in any recording persons tool box is his ears". If you don't get
it then I don't know how to explain it any more simply than that so to bad.

The two most valuable tools in any pro recording persons tool
box...His ears!

I've done that a lot. The results we "Sounds like crap." "Sounds like
crap." "Sounds like crap." "Still sounds like crap." "Oh yeah, that too."
"Okay, now that sounds like unusable crap..." etc.

However, I have had some success tweaking and experimenting with standard
set-ups.

If there's a thousand ways to record something, chances are only three or
four are going to sound really good. It's nice to not have to try all the
other 996 first. Thus, the wonderful invention of shared knowledge.


And then there's the most important tool that's flat out missing from
the tool box - the apprenticeship.

Amen.

Lacking good apprenticeship opportunities in my area, here's the book on
mic technique I've found the most helpful so far:

"The Microphone Book"
John Eargle
Focal Press
ISBN 0-240-80445-7


-- "If you want to make a record, you've got to break a few mics."

Try the current edition....

2nd edition of John Eargle's The Microphone Book ISBN 0-240-51961-2
first available December 2004

http://books.elsevier.com/us/booksca...F7HNEVT87A3EVD

Rgds:
Eric
www.webermusic.com

"Ken Lacouture" wrote in message
...
The two most valuable tools in any pro recording persons tool
box...His ears!

snip.....
Lacking good apprenticeship opportunities in my area, here's the book on
mic technique I've found the most helpful so far:

"The Microphone Book"
John Eargle
Focal Press
ISBN 0-240-80445-7


-- "If you want to make a record, you've got to break a few mics."

Ken wrote
The two most valuable tools in any pro recording persons tool
box...His ears!

I've done that a lot. The results we "Sounds like crap." "Sounds like
crap." "Sounds like crap." "Still sounds like crap." "Oh yeah, that too."
"Okay, now that sounds like unusable crap..." etc.

However, I have had some success tweaking and experimenting with standard
set-ups.

If there's a thousand ways to record something, chances are only three or
four are going to sound really good. It's nice to not have to try all the
other 996 first. Thus, the wonderful invention of shared knowledge.


And then there's the most important tool that's flat out missing from
the tool box - the apprenticeship.

Amen.

Lacking good apprenticeship opportunities in my area, here's the book on
mic technique I've found the most helpful so far:

So didn't your ears tell you that the placement you used that sounded good was
the correct placement?
Like I said, use your ears to find the best spot to place microphones.