| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 10:57:42 -0500, Len Moskowitz wrote
(in article ): Ty Ford wrote: I repeat, you have a SYSTEM that records 16Hz? I do: a matched pair of DPA 4003 mics, our Mic2496 and PDAudio handheld digital audio recorder. I was asking the person who posted the question in the first place. Ty -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:00:14 -0500, Lars Farm wrote
(in article 1gpxfu3.1c77c79byeu4iN%mail.addr.can.be.found@www .farm.se): Ty Ford wrote: I repeat, you have a SYSTEM that records 16Hz? I'm very puzzled by your repeated question. I take your question as an indication that frequencies down there usually can't be recorded. Pedal C, C# and D at least ought to be below 20Hz and is clearly part of the music. Music, not ambience or timbre or environment.... A (the lowest key on a piano) is 27,5 Hz and is within that same octave. I'm surprised that this is considered unrecordable. Very surprised. This really is part of the music and it is definitely perceptible live. Not just barely, but effortlessly and clearly. Then ... If our recording systems are so weak in this end of the spectrum that they can't even handle the fundamentals of an instrument why are we so concerned about what happens above 15 kHz? or above 20 kHz. No fundamentals there. Most humans can't even detect anything up there at all. Recorded or not. Surely the by man clearly perceptible should be much more important than that most man can't possibly detect? Still, the original question was just that. How does one record an organ? Is your answer - can't be done? Lars I'm sure it can, but not every component in every recording system can do it. Further, I'm guessing now, less than 10% of the repro systems could play it back. Further, further, if you could record frequencies that low, you'd probably also get a ton of LF crap that travelled miles to get to the mics. Go in, make a nice recording and don't sweat the 27.5 Hz. You'll probably have to start rolling off at 80Hz anyway. Take a pair of Sony MDR 7506. They'll let you know what's going on down to 60Hz very well anyway. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 18:58:13 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote: I take your question as an indication that frequencies down there usually can't be recorded. Pedal C, C# and D at least ought to be below 20Hz and is clearly part of the music. Music, not ambience or timbre or environment.... A (the lowest key on a piano) is 27,5 Hz and is within that same octave. I'm surprised that this is considered unrecordable. Very surprised. This really is part of the music and it is definitely perceptible live. Not just barely, but effortlessly and clearly. snip If you're going for an aurally accurate depiction of a large pipe organ playing any fortissimi, you must be able to get that low CCC (16 Hz), or forget it. Still, the original question was just that. How does one record an organ? Is your answer - can't be done? snip Many did back in the '50s, some with good results, some with not so good. Go in, make a nice recording and don't sweat the 27.5 Hz. You'll probably have to start rolling off at 80Hz anyway. Take a pair of Sony MDR 7506. They'll let you know what's going on down to 60Hz very well anyway. snip If you cannot record the 16' and 32' ranks of a pipe organ at all, why go? Those two pitch registers and the acoustic power they represent are 90% of the majesty of the instrument. dB |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ty Ford wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:00:14 -0500, Lars Farm wrote (in article 1gpxfu3.1c77c79byeu4iN%mail.addr.can.be.found@www .farm.se): Ty Ford wrote: I repeat, you have a SYSTEM that records 16Hz? The last organ I recorded had only 16'. So the pedal C was around 30Hz. I was actually recording a choir with a bit of organ at places and one solo organ piece. So, focus was on the choir, not on the organ. The solo organ thing was Franck Chorale III. The low pedal C is hit several times (and several pedal notes nearby too;-). The C recorded just fine and it also comes out just fine. My system has no problems. It's a fairly simple system compared to the truly good ones. B&W CM4 speakers, ordinary hifi amp, no sub-woofer. 30 Hz is no problem. My headphones - Sennheiser HD650 and HD240 - also both give me that bottom (albeit less majestic than the speakers...). Mics were Pearl DC96 from yesteryear (bought 1980) cardioid aimed at the choir and from the organ that was in the other end of the church... (Franck's Chorale III is a romantic piece and surprisingly it could take the distant mics pretty well) I'm (still) looking for a good set of omnis partly for organ (unable to decide km183? C482? or double price Schoeps/DPA/mkh120). There are other and larger organs in my neighborhood. Further, further, if you could record frequencies that low, you'd probably also get a ton of LF crap that travelled miles to get to the mics. Seems to me that this is true of the other end of the spectrum as well. Why bother with (non music) things two/three/four octaves above top pitch of an instrument when you happily ignore the bottom octaves (note plural) of the MUSICs content? Go in, make a nice recording and don't sweat the 27.5 Hz. You'll probably have to start rolling off at 80Hz anyway. I think you're trying to take me for a ride.... :-( Now, isn't it weird that your (and perhaps others) expectations are so low in one end of the spectrum and so high in the other. Top key on a piano is around 4kHz. We demand more than two octaves headroom above that in our recordings (16-20kHz). With 96kHz sample rate we demand three octaves headroom. With 192 kHz we'd get four octaves above topmost key on a piano... On the other end of the spectrum you expect no head (or foot-) room at all (what about difference tones giving content below bottom fundamental? you ignore them?). You don't even expect the last octave to record. You'll even happily strip off two octaves from the bottom. More even. I want the bottom C at 16 Hz. Next octave C is 32 Hz. Next octave C is 64 Hz and this octaves E is 82 Hz. You suggest rolling off at 80Hz. We're not talking subtle adjustments here. We're stripping more than TWO octaves from the instrument proper. That's NOT good enough! You're not really serious are you? It's some kind of joke that I'm missing. English is after all a foreign language...;-) sincerely Lars -- lars farm // http://www.farm.se lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 04:16:35 -0500, Lars Farm wrote
(in article 1gq0hah.n2wagj9cfx7aN%mail.addr.can.be.found@www. farm.se): Further, further, if you could record frequencies that low, you'd probably also get a ton of LF crap that travelled miles to get to the mics. Seems to me that this is true of the other end of the spectrum as well. Why bother with (non music) things two/three/four octaves above top pitch of an instrument when you happily ignore the bottom octaves (note plural) of the MUSICs content? Lars, HF doesn't travel that way or that far. Go in, make a nice recording and don't sweat the 27.5 Hz. You'll probably have to start rolling off at 80Hz anyway. I think you're trying to take me for a ride.... :-( Now, isn't it weird that your (and perhaps others) expectations are so low in one end of the spectrum and so high in the other. Top key on a piano is around 4kHz. We demand more than two octaves headroom above that in our recordings (16-20kHz). With 96kHz sample rate we demand three octaves headroom. With 192 kHz we'd get four octaves above topmost key on a piano... I doubt you really know anything about my spectral expectations. I'm trying to be practical here and it appears you are bent on being more theoretical. On the other end of the spectrum you expect no head (or foot-) room at all (what about difference tones giving content below bottom fundamental? you ignore them?). You don't even expect the last octave to record. You'll even happily strip off two octaves from the bottom. More even. I want the bottom C at 16 Hz. Next octave C is 32 Hz. Next octave C is 64 Hz and this octaves E is 82 Hz. You suggest rolling off at 80Hz. Again, I'm being practical. You're not recording this organ in an area completely devoid of other noises. If it is, go for it. I've just never recorded in a church that's so far away from humanity that it doesn't have noticeable LF ghosts. Those LF sounds from other sources will likely be quite audible during quieter passages. You want 'em fine by me. The other point is that there are very few reproduction systems capable of passing those frequencies. We're not talking subtle adjustments here. We're stripping more than TWO octaves from the instrument proper. That's NOT good enough! If no one can hear those frequencies on their playback systems, it doesn't matter to them. You're not really serious are you? It's some kind of joke that I'm missing. English is after all a foreign language...;-) I'm not joking at all. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
We're not talking subtle adjustments here. We're stripping more than TWO
octaves from the instrument proper. That's NOT good enough! BRBR While I'm not sure what Ty's organ recording philosophy is, I do hope you realize that a roll off starting at 80Hz does not remove 2 octaves of spectrum. An 80Hz roll off will be down 3db at 80Hz &, depending on the filter characteristics, more likely down 9db at 40 & down 12db at 20. Not removed, just lessened, & quite possibly just what's needed to overcome the LF buildup caused by the acoustics of a highly reverberent large space, while being more likely to actually play back reasonably on a mid quality home speaker. Scott Fraser |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
ScotFraser wrote:
We're not talking subtle adjustments here. We're stripping more than TWO octaves from the instrument proper. That's NOT good enough! While I'm not sure what Ty's organ recording philosophy is, I do hope you realize that a roll off starting at 80Hz does not remove 2 octaves of spectrum. An 80Hz roll off will be down 3db at 80Hz &, depending on the filter characteristics, more likely down 9db at 40 & down 12db at 20. Not removed, just lessened, & quite possibly just what's needed to overcome the LF buildup caused by the acoustics of a highly reverberent large space, while being more likely to actually play back reasonably on a mid quality home speaker. Fair enough. Trying to improve S/N is a worthy cause, as long as it doesn't mean dropping the signal... An organ without the two bottom octaves is a mutilated instrument. Not all organs are placed in major cities in noisy environments with tubes running perpetually through the ground. Some places have sparse train schedules. Quite a few are in quieter environments, like smaller towns or even rural areas. They may not be the most spectaular organs. Some might even lack the desired 32' ranks. Most have the 16' in some incarnation. Some are quite respectable and well worthy of recording. Some of our organists are very good and well worthy of recording. sincerely Lars -- lars farm // http://www.farm.se lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ty Ford wrote:
HF doesn't travel that way or that far. OK. Go in, make a nice recording and don't sweat the 27.5 Hz. You'll probably have to start rolling off at 80Hz anyway. I'm trying to be practical here and it appears you are bent on being more theoretical. I like theory and practice to go hand in hand. That's what physics and engineering is all about. If theory and practice disagree then either theory or practice is wrong. Again, I'm being practical. You're not recording this organ in an area completely devoid of other noises. If it is, go for it. I've just never recorded in a church that's so far away from humanity that it doesn't have noticeable LF ghosts. Those LF sounds from other sources will likely be quite audible during quieter passages. You want 'em fine by me. Should we avoid live organ concerts to? If we pick up more LF than is actually there then our techniques or equipment needs to improve! This is the topic of this thread. How does one record an organ properly? Cut away more than two octaves of the instrument proper as not good enough. We would never accept that we rolled off the two topmost octaves of a piano - from 1 kHz - and everything above it, but you happily suggests that from the other end of the instrument... Traffic is a problem, more so in some churches than others, but I dare say it is a problem well over 100Hz too... As for HVAC. We don't have [AC] in our churches (or homes or houses). For climate reasons... The few hot days that would benefit from cooling are nicely handled by the massive cool stone volumes of our churches anyway. Forced [V]entilation in churches isn't particularly common either and can be turned off if present. This is also for climate reasons and the shape of the very large rooms. If outside is much cooler than the inside and the house is high then there is always sufficient self-ventilation. [H]eating is usually central heating via water radiators and they are not dead silent, but rarely a big problem. Heating could be by electrical radiator (silent). Never by fan-driven contraptions. So, with a bit of foresight HVAC can be controlled. Still, I agree that there is a higher noise floor at low freq than at high. The other point is that there are very few reproduction systems capable of passing those frequencies. It is obvious that a hefty organ can not be reproduced faithfully on a low-fi equipment. Not all recordings are for the mass market. Not all recordings are intended for the beach or the car or as background noise at the office or in shops. Does that mean we should never record organ? sincerely Lars -- lars farm // http://www.farm.se lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 09:29:40 -0500, Lars Farm wrote
(in article 1gq1bwj.4rq0sr1hlw2faN%mail.addr.can.be.found@www .farm.se): Ty Ford wrote: HF doesn't travel that way or that far. OK. Go in, make a nice recording and don't sweat the 27.5 Hz. You'll probably have to start rolling off at 80Hz anyway. I'm trying to be practical here and it appears you are bent on being more theoretical. I like theory and practice to go hand in hand. That's what physics and engineering is all about. If theory and practice disagree then either theory or practice is wrong. Ah, OK then we really have nothing left to discuss. You see black and white. I see many shades of gray, including black and white. You will never understand my points of view. Please don't even try. Just go about your way and say we never met (please). Smiles, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 23:15:19 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote: Ah, OK then we really have nothing left to discuss. You see black and white. I see many shades of gray, including black and white. You will never understand my points of view. Please don't even try. snip Why should he? You obviously don't have a clue as to how to properly record a pipe organ in a large building! dB |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ty Ford wrote:
Just go about your way Perhaps you missed the beginning of the thread? The OP asked for advise on how to record an organ in a cathedral. I ANALYSED THE PROBLEM: (1) I found a floor plan for that particular cathedral (2) I described that part of the problem was very low frequencies emitted by the instrument. I said: I thought 32' took you to a very low C at 16Hz? You then invalidated my analysis of the problem by challenging the solution the OP (and I) was asking for help on...: You have a system that records 16 Hz? I ask for help. You invalidate some sought for solution. Weird! If you are willing to help us and share your experiences of recording a full size pipe organ (with all its pipes). I'm all ears. sincerely Lars -- lars farm // http://www.farm.se lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
DeserTBoB wrote:
and would probably have less reverb. Note also, if the floor plan is to scale, that the whole structure is haphazardly constructed and the walls aren't exactly parallel!! Either by design or by vino, but from a recordists viewpoint it is a nice feature. As for the organ being side placed rather than end placed, yes it is probable, but the entrance end of the church is wide enough for an organ to be there and have windows either side as I recall the plan, so I decided not to assume but rather ask the questionee. It is sad that said questionee does not bother to supplement. dB Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi,
I have recorded a number of large pipe organs, including the one in the Sydney Opera House. I have found that either a spaced cardiod pair, or a M/S pair (one cardios, one figure of 8) give good results. The M/S pair allows some manipulation of the stereo width. In the Opera House I used the mic winches to place the mocs level with the middle of the organ. (The Opera House Organ is in a case which (IMHO) reduces the amound of sound that enters the audiorium, placing the mics closer to the organ gives a very good sound). In other circulstances I generally use a 3-4 metre high mic stand, and adjust the postition to produce the best sound. I have only a limited range of mics available but the AKG 414's have consistently given excellent results. Peter. Comments: Organ stop lengths 32', 16' etc. are a nominal figure and relate to the pitch of the lowest pipe. A stopped pipe sounds an octave lower than an open pipe of the same physical length. So a 16' stopped pipe would nomally be only 8 ft in physical length. With reed stops it also common to use 1/2 or 1/4 length resonators. So the 64' stop on the Sydney Town Hall Organ, is actually only 16' long. With the lowest pipes the main effect for the listeners is a low rumble and the harmonics of the pipe. Diego wrote: I'm going to record a big church organ. Here's a picture of the instrument: http://makeashorterlink.com/?R24D3552A Since it won't be very easy to move or change microphones due to the height of the instrument, I'd like some advices about the best recording tecnique to use. These are the microphones I have: 2 Schoeps MK2S 2 Schoeps MK21 2 Neumann KM 184 2 AKG 414 B-ULS I'm also going to build a Jecklin disk for some experiments, and I'm wondering if could be a good idea to use it for this recording. Note that: - the church is large and very reverberant but I don't worry about reverb, - I'd like to preserve (perhaps also highten) the stereophonic play of the pipes - the biggest pipe is a 32 foot pipe that reaches the frequency of 88 Hz. Thanks for the help and sorry for my english! Diego |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 05:13:32 -0500, Lars Farm wrote
(in article 1gq4a2p.kedv6b7ihtp2N%mail.addr.can.be.found@www. farm.se): I ask for help. You invalidate some sought for solution. Weird! If you are willing to help us and share your experiences of recording a full size pipe organ (with all its pipes). I'm all ears. sincerely Lars I already did. You were too busy taking what I said WAY too personally and then deciding that 16Hz was a necessity. Unless I misread the original post, this is not a science experiment, it's an audio recording in a big, nasty space. Find the right spot to place the right mics and hit record. If you're doing this for a client, where you'll actually get paid, the only things you need to ask are, how direct do you want the sound and how much of the noisy contraption you call a pipe organ do you really want to hear (Some people are more fascinated by the sound of all the relays, pumps and other moving parts than they are by the music. Nutty, but true.) and what''s the frequency response of your sound system? You'll NEVER capture the exact sound of the beast anyway. To get even close, you'd need, among other things, a pretty massive surround record system. And, theoretically, even if you could capture the beast, few systems existing in the known universe could play it back. It's reality. I didn't make the rules, science did. Stop trying to flog the messenger and go make the damn recording given your limitations. Me. I'd try Blumlein in the primary field. Or that 4-channnel Schoeps DSP-4p contraption I reviewed a year or so ago. The review is in my archives. Smiles, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some very life like recordings of theatre organs have been made with 3
channels. mic the left and right lofts seperately and then a center mic about 1/4 way farther back between the side mics for ambiance fill. Ive used RCA 77DX ribbon mics on theatre organs with warmth and hi end definition that sounds great. just a 50+ year broadcast engineer of doing remotes and on location recording. dnw -- --- don ward ward |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
"don ward" wrote in message
... Some very life like recordings of theatre organs have been made with 3 channels. mic the left and right lofts seperately and then a center mic about 1/4 way farther back between the side mics for ambiance fill. Ive used RCA 77DX ribbon mics on theatre organs with warmth and hi end definition that sounds great. just a 50+ year broadcast engineer of doing remotes and on location recording. But, what could you know? ;-) You need to make it much more complicated to appeal to some in this crowd. 77DX indeed! Why that mic has all the undesirable characteristics of both dynamic and ribbon mics: Low level, not enough top end, big, heavy. Send them all to me immediately for recycling into lamps for the studio lobby. Heh, heh. Steve King |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ty Ford wrote:
deciding that 16Hz was a necessity. Without recording, can we agree that the instrument itself is designed to reach down to a low C and that music is written to make use of this? Be it a 32' on a big organ or a 16' on a somewhat smaller organ. [...] the noisy contraption you call a pipe organ [...] Ah..., this could be the source of our dispute:-) To me it is the King of all instruments...;-) [...] and what''s the frequency response of your sound system? Perhaps I'm less concerned by this than you. Recording is one thing. Playback another. There might be better playback systems tomorrow... I don't mind if it doesn't play well on a cheap playback system. After all, we are talking about a King. The King of instruments. It is natural that the requirements of a King are high...;-) You'll NEVER capture the exact sound of the beast anyway. Agreed. If I had, I wouldn't ask. I'd tell you how to do it;-) Thanks for your reply! Lars -- lars farm // http://www.farm.se lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lars Farm" wrote in message news:1gq8lyh.19ipiosorbls0N%mail.addr.can.be.found @www.farm.se... Ty Ford wrote: deciding that 16Hz was a necessity. Without recording, can we agree that the instrument itself is designed to reach down to a low C and that music is written to make use of this? Be it a 32' on a big organ or a 16' on a somewhat smaller organ. [...] the noisy contraption you call a pipe organ [...] Ah..., this could be the source of our dispute:-) To me it is the King of all instruments...;-) [...] and what''s the frequency response of your sound system? Perhaps I'm less concerned by this than you. Recording is one thing. Playback another. There might be better playback systems tomorrow... I don't mind if it doesn't play well on a cheap playback system. After all, we are talking about a King. The King of instruments. It is natural that the requirements of a King are high...;-) You'll NEVER capture the exact sound of the beast anyway. Agreed. If I had, I wouldn't ask. I'd tell you how to do it;-) Thanks for your reply! Lars -- lars farm // http://www.farm.se lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se {the noisy contraption you call a pipe organ} When I'm in a church beit large or small that has a pipe organ, I expect to hear the natural sound of the instrument that sometimes includes wind leaks, blower noise, swell shades opening closing noise, console pneumatics thumping with register changes and on some smaller organs chest magnets clicking. This is the natural sound of a particular instrument. The same holds true for a theater pipe organ. I have recorded Wurlitzer and other pipe organs in empty theaters late at night with no outside traffic noise and I could plainly hear wind leaks, swell shade squeaks, trems chugging, and console stop pneumatics thumping every time the combination action was operated. I expected to hear this and so does most theater organ aficionados. This in my view in no way detracts from the music being played. George |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:27:13 -0500, Lars Farm wrote
(in article 1gq8lyh.19ipiosorbls0N%mail.addr.can.be.found@www .farm.se): Ty Ford wrote: deciding that 16Hz was a necessity. Without recording, can we agree that the instrument itself is designed to reach down to a low C and that music is written to make use of this? Be it a 32' on a big organ or a 16' on a somewhat smaller organ. Why not. [...] the noisy contraption you call a pipe organ [...] Ah..., this could be the source of our dispute:-) To me it is the King of all instruments...;-) My bad. In my world, I don't worship any instruments. [...] and what''s the frequency response of your sound system? Perhaps I'm less concerned by this than you. Recording is one thing. Playback another. There might be better playback systems tomorrow... I don't mind if it doesn't play well on a cheap playback system. After all, we are talking about a King. The King of instruments. It is natural that the requirements of a King are high...;-) Ah, well, then there are the King's (emperor's) new clothes.  You'll NEVER capture the exact sound of the beast anyway. Agreed. If I had, I wouldn't ask. I'd tell you how to do it;-) Thanks for your reply! Lars Thanks for your lively discourse. Please do try the schoeps system or the Blumlein and let us know how that pleases the king. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
try the 414's in omni as spaced pairs. Not the best use of 414's and probably the last microphones and placement that I would try on a pipe organ. He already has much better omnis than 414's. They work ok in figure 8, but omni isn't a forte of the 414. Ever since getting my Neumann's and Schoeps, the use of the 414's that I own has diminished greatly. Richard H. Kuschel "I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Richard Kuschel" wrote in message ... try the 414's in omni as spaced pairs. Not the best use of 414's and probably the last microphones and placement that I would try on a pipe organ. He already has much better omnis than 414's. They work ok in figure 8, but omni isn't a forte of the 414. Ever since getting my Neumann's and Schoeps, the use of the 414's that I own has diminished greatly. Some of the very best I've heard used 3 Sennheiser MKH20's in a spaced array. Norm Strong |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
wrote: "Richard Kuschel" wrote in message ... try the 414's in omni as spaced pairs. Not the best use of 414's and probably the last microphones and placement that I would try on a pipe organ. He already has much better omnis than 414's. They work ok in figure 8, but omni isn't a forte of the 414. Ever since getting my Neumann's and Schoeps, the use of the 414's that I own has diminished greatly. Some of the very best I've heard used 3 Sennheiser MKH20's in a spaced array. Norm Strong Next week I'm to engineer a session at the local Town Hall organ. I'll be using 3 Schoeps omnis spaced about 2 metres apart. Previous projects on the same organ have ranged from 2 414s on bi, two AKG C480b omnis and the last one was two Schoeps omnis. Will be using 3 this time as I did the Town hall organ in the next door city with 3 omnis and got excellent results. -- Mike Clayton |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| on topic: we need a rec.audio.pro.ot newsgroup! | Pro Audio | |||
| Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio | |||
| Linux is dead...It doesn't even have a pulse. | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
