[lewdslewrate]

We have been asked to record a large school choir in a cathederal. A
step up from the school guitar band, both in our experience and
equipment needs. Due to big and gloopy reverberation in the church we
will get relatively close in to each section. We will put AKG 420 at
sides angled in, We will put AKG c535 proximal to soloists,....we
already have these mics.
We intend to buy, subject to advice either, a) Rode NT4 stereo or
NT5/NT55 as a pair or b) AKG C414 (suffix tbc) as a pair. The
new mics will be in AB or XY in front of choir. Do you have an
opinion about these mics for this application? They will see further
use in smallerchoir/ensemble recordings. We have Yamaha AW16g for
tracking and a HHB CDR882 for a direct recording. (We may well get
the NT$ anyway, unless someone says it is not good for this large area
of coverage.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 4 May 2010 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT), lewdslewrate
wrote:

We have been asked to record a large school choir in a cathederal. A
step up from the school guitar band, both in our experience and
equipment needs. Due to big and gloopy reverberation in the church we
will get relatively close in to each section. We will put AKG 420 at
sides angled in, We will put AKG c535 proximal to soloists,....we
already have these mics.
We intend to buy, subject to advice either, a) Rode NT4 stereo or
NT5/NT55 as a pair or b) AKG C414 (suffix tbc) as a pair. The
new mics will be in AB or XY in front of choir. Do you have an
opinion about these mics for this application? They will see further
use in smallerchoir/ensemble recordings. We have Yamaha AW16g for
tracking and a HHB CDR882 for a direct recording. (We may well get
the NT$ anyway, unless someone says it is not good for this large area
of coverage.

How many recording channels do you have available? Whatever else you
do, dedicate a couple of channels to a stereo pair slung in the best
position you can manage for overall coverage.

If you were thinking of mixing direct to stereo, and you don't have
the opportunity for some practice recordings, I'd be rather
pessimistic about your chances of a good result. Why not add
something like a Zoom R16 to your shopping list? Dirt cheap, an
impenetrable menu system - but it will record 8 tracks perfectly
cleanly so you can play around with the mix later!

[lewdslewrate]

On May 4, 1:14*pm, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2010 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT), lewdslewrate

wrote:
We have been asked to record a large school choir in a cathederal. *A
step up from the school guitar band, both in our experience and
equipment needs. *Due to big and gloopy reverberation in the church we
will get relatively close in to each section. *We will put AKG 420 at
sides angled in, We will put AKG c535 proximal to soloists,....we
already have these mics.
*We intend to buy, subject to advice either, *a) *Rode NT4 stereo or
NT5/NT55 as a pair * or * b) *AKG C414 (suffix tbc) as a pair. *The
new mics will be in AB or XY in front of choir. *Do you have an
opinion about these mics for this application? *They will see further
use in smallerchoir/ensemble recordings. *We have Yamaha AW16g for
tracking and a HHB CDR882 for a direct recording. *(We may well get
the NT$ anyway, unless someone says it is not good for this large area
of coverage.

How many recording channels do you have available? *Whatever else you
do, dedicate a couple of channels to a stereo pair slung in the best
position you can manage for overall coverage.

If you were thinking of mixing direct to stereo, and you don't have
the opportunity for some practice recordings, I'd be rather
pessimistic about your chances of a good result. *Why not add
something like a Zoom R16 to your shopping list? *Dirt cheap, an
impenetrable menu system - but it will record 8 tracks perfectly
cleanly so you can play around with the mix later!

Using an external power supply we can use x6 condenser mics with our
aw16g recorder. We would then mixdown as appropriate. My daughter
has a Tascam DR-1 and will have her own little shot at the gig with a
budget sony stereo mic (whole unit embedded in an improvised
suspension) It's now the mic purchase that is priority (your idea
appreciated though) Tempted by a stereo pair of AKG 414XLS/st.....

[Arny Krueger]

"lewdslewrate" wrote in message
...
We have been asked to record a large school choir in a cathederal. A
step up from the school guitar band, both in our experience and
equipment needs. Due to big and gloopy reverberation in the church we
will get relatively close in to each section. We will put AKG 420 at
sides angled in, We will put AKG c535 proximal to soloists,....we
already have these mics.

We intend to buy, subject to advice either, a) Rode NT4 stereo or
NT5/NT55 as a pair or b) AKG C414 (suffix tbc) as a pair. The
new mics will be in AB or XY in front of choir. Do you have an
opinion about these mics for this application?


I just finished recording 80 choirs and about 60 bands using a NT4 as my one
and only microphone in a number of high school auditoriums. None of these
rooms were anything like as reverberent as I would expect a cathedral would
be. This is festival recording of up to 4 groups per hour with basically no
opportunities to rehearse or optimize the setup. XY is really good for this
sort of thing.

If I were buying cardioid mics, I'd buy a pair of NT5s and a X/Y mic holder
instead of a NT4 because a NT4 is electrically and acoustically very
similar, but its nice to be able to use the investment for more than just XY
recordings. OTOH, if you're going to do nothing but XY recordings, the
prefab setup of the individual capsules in the NT4 is a bit of a time-saver.

When I was buying mics for XY recording a choir and ensemble instruments in
a highly reverberent environment, I chose hypercardioids (Samson C01 one
pair, and Audix OM5s the other). In that sort of space I also favor using an
external mixer and spot mics for the soloists and vocal sections that I
would want to highlight.

They will see further
use in smallerchoir/ensemble recordings. We have Yamaha AW16g for
tracking and a HHB CDR882 for a direct recording. (We may well get
the NT$ anyway, unless someone says it is not good for this large area
of coverage.

If you want good clarity from a choir and solists in a highly reverberent
space, I would recommend recording at least 4 separate channels. Failing
that, I would add a small external mixer to drive a 2 track recorder.

While I have no personal experience with it, the Zoom R16 that Laurence
mentioned, it looks like something that is very much worth investigating.

[Scott Dorsey]

lewdslewrate wrote:
We have been asked to record a large school choir in a cathederal. A
step up from the school guitar band, both in our experience and
equipment needs. Due to big and gloopy reverberation in the church we
will get relatively close in to each section. We will put AKG 420 at
sides angled in, We will put AKG c535 proximal to soloists,....we
already have these mics.
We intend to buy, subject to advice either, a) Rode NT4 stereo or
NT5/NT55 as a pair or b) AKG C414 (suffix tbc) as a pair. The
new mics will be in AB or XY in front of choir. Do you have an
opinion about these mics for this application? They will see further
use in smallerchoir/ensemble recordings. We have Yamaha AW16g for
tracking and a HHB CDR882 for a direct recording. (We may well get
the NT$ anyway, unless someone says it is not good for this large area
of coverage.

You aren't recording the choir, you're recording the room. So the mikes
and where you place them depend entirely on the room and how it sounds.

If the room is super-live, I'd suggest taking those C414s and putting them
in omni mode and using them in a Jecklin disc. They aren't anything like
optimal for the job, but they're the closest among the stuff you list.

The Jecklin disc allows you to get good results in a very live room, because
you can put it very close to the choir without individual voices standing
out. BUT... and this is a big but... it will make acoustical problems in
the room very evident, and it gives you no control whatsoever over slap echo
issues.

If the cathedral is long and skinny you could try a Blumlein pair with the
C414s in figure-8... this allows you to pull the mike pair way back and
eliminate reflections from the side walls, but it exaggerates reflections
from the rear. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on the
room.

Frankly, if I were looking at something in that price range, I would consider
the new Oktava 012 or the Audio-Technica AT4053. You don't get a figure-8
pattern with either, but they are both cleaner off-axis than any of the stuff
you list and they will give you the option of an omni capsule or a clean
hypercardioid. The 012 hyper is much wider than the AT, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[lewdslewrate]

On May 4, 3:21*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
lewdslewrate wrote:
We have been asked to record a large school choir in a cathederal. *A
step up from the school guitar band, both in our experience and
equipment needs. *Due to big and gloopy reverberation in the church we
will get relatively close in to each section. *We will put AKG 420 at
sides angled in, We will put AKG c535 proximal to soloists,....we
already have these mics.
*We intend to buy, subject to advice either, *a) *Rode NT4 stereo or
NT5/NT55 as a pair * or * b) *AKG C414 (suffix tbc) as a pair. *The
new mics will be in AB or XY in front of choir. *Do you have an
opinion about these mics for this application? *They will see further
use in smallerchoir/ensemble recordings. *We have Yamaha AW16g for
tracking and a HHB CDR882 for a direct recording. *(We may well get
the NT$ anyway, unless someone says it is not good for this large area
of coverage.

You aren't recording the choir, you're recording the room. *So the mikes
and where you place them depend entirely on the room and how it sounds.

If the room is super-live, I'd suggest taking those C414s and putting them
in omni mode and using them in a Jecklin disc. *They aren't anything like
optimal for the job, but they're the closest among the stuff you list.

The Jecklin disc allows you to get good results in a very live room, because
you can put it very close to the choir without individual voices standing
out. *BUT... and this is a big but... it will make acoustical problems in
the room very evident, and it gives you no control whatsoever over slap echo
issues.

If the cathedral is long and skinny you could try a Blumlein pair with the
C414s in figure-8... this allows you to pull the mike pair way back and
eliminate reflections from the side walls, but it exaggerates reflections
from the rear. *Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on the
room.

Frankly, if I were looking at something in that price range, I would consider
the new Oktava 012 or the Audio-Technica AT4053. *You don't get a figure-8
pattern with either, but they are both cleaner off-axis than any of the stuff
you list and they will give you the option of an omni capsule or a clean
hypercardioid. *The 012 hyper is much wider than the AT, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Our thanks for all this advice, it is genuinely helpful...i will spare
you decision process but tell you the decision.

We will use Beyerdynamic MC 930 stereo pair in ORTF

we will possibly use AKG 420 at edges/sides for outlying groups of
singers and a AKG c535 as a spot for soloists.....hopefully on a
horizontal line with ORTF pair......subject to resolving phase
issues. Our AW16g recorder (with 4 ch phantom power addition) has no
delay option...routing extra channels via Yamaha O1v (has delays) and
thence to AW16g concerns us due to latency issues....such things are
beyond our skills so far.

We will also use a Rode NT4 direct to a HHB recorder, this will be on
the same stand as the MC 930.

We appreciate the extra mics (420/535) may complicate things and may
discard them if this is the case. Previous school recordings have
been done on a basic home recorder with a simple stereo mic, so
hopefully even if only the MC930's are used, it will be an upgrade.

again, thanks for the thoughts and time invested by people who
responded.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 6 May 2010 02:26:52 -0700 (PDT), lewdslewrate
wrote:


we will possibly use AKG 420 at edges/sides for outlying groups of
singers and a AKG c535 as a spot for soloists.....hopefully on a
horizontal line with ORTF pair......subject to resolving phase
issues. Our AW16g recorder (with 4 ch phantom power addition) has no
delay option...routing extra channels via Yamaha O1v (has delays) and
thence to AW16g concerns us due to latency issues....such things are
beyond our skills so far.

You might be well advised to dump all tracks into a DAW when you get
home after the recording. Time alignment between the various mics can
then be easily adjusted (and getting that right can sometimes make an
enormous difference getting the sound into focus).

We will also use a Rode NT4 direct to a HHB recorder, this will be on
the same stand as the MC 930

Is this because you've run out of channels on your multitrack
recorder? Pity. It could be a useful resource in the mix.
Particularly if the Rode could be mounted in an alternative position.

How much time do you get between the rehearsal and the concert?
(Presumably there IS a final rehearsal at the venue?) Enough time to
do some listening? Though until you play with time alignment, you may
hate the effect of adding extra mics to the main stereo pair.

[lewdslewrate]

On May 6, 11:02*am, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Thu, 6 May 2010 02:26:52 -0700 (PDT), lewdslewrate

wrote:

we will possibly use AKG 420 at edges/sides for outlying groups of
singers and a AKG c535 as a spot for soloists.....hopefully on a
horizontal line with ORTF pair......subject to resolving phase
issues. *Our AW16g recorder (with 4 ch phantom power addition) has no
delay option...routing extra channels via Yamaha O1v (has delays) and
thence to AW16g concerns us due to latency issues....such things are
beyond our skills so far.

You might be well advised to dump all tracks into a DAW when you get
home after the recording. *Time alignment between the various mics can
then be easily adjusted (and getting that right can sometimes make an
enormous difference getting the sound into focus).

We will also use a Rode NT4 direct to a HHB recorder, this will be on
the same stand as the MC 930

Is this because you've run out of channels on your multitrack
recorder? *Pity. *It could be a useful resource in the mix.
Particularly if the Rode could be mounted in an alternative position.

How much time do you get between the rehearsal and the concert?
(Presumably there IS a final rehearsal at the venue?) *Enough time to
do some listening? *Though until you play with time alignment, you may
hate the effect of adding extra mics to the main stereo pair.

Info about rehearsal still to come back...maybe only a short run
through in afternoon of the day. I agree we may hate the inclusion of
extra mics, however, if they are there and we can later play with
alignment....we can decide in comfort of own home so to speak.
Rode NT4: If we dropped AkG 420's &/or c535, we get extra tracks (even
considered using a plug-in impedance converter on HiZ guitar input on
DAW (DAW=aw16g, 2 dedicated channels with 48v, x4 channels we use an
external power supply)
Can you envisage the alternative position for the NT4, appreciating
you dont know set up/venue/etc....?

cheers
steve

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 May 2010 02:26:52 -0700 (PDT), lewdslewrate
wrote:


we will possibly use AKG 420 at edges/sides for outlying groups of
singers and a AKG c535 as a spot for soloists.....hopefully on a
horizontal line with ORTF pair......subject to resolving phase
issues. Our AW16g recorder (with 4 ch phantom power addition) has no
delay option...routing extra channels via Yamaha O1v (has delays) and
thence to AW16g concerns us due to latency issues....such things are
beyond our skills so far.

You might be well advised to dump all tracks into a DAW when you get
home after the recording. Time alignment between the various mics can
then be easily adjusted (and getting that right can sometimes make an
enormous difference getting the sound into focus).

We will also use a Rode NT4 direct to a HHB recorder, this will be on
the same stand as the MC 930

Is this because you've run out of channels on your multitrack
recorder? Pity. It could be a useful resource in the mix.
Particularly if the Rode could be mounted in an alternative position.

Just because a different digital recorder is used doesn't mean that the
tracks it records can't be brought back into the mix later on.

Never hand-synched tracks from different digital recorders? It is not
rocket science. Digital editing makes hand-synching tracks from different
digital recorders pretty easy. I've even synched tracks from different
performances... Now that takes work!

[Scott Dorsey]

lewdslewrate wrote:
We will use Beyerdynamic MC 930 stereo pair in ORTF

That's certainly a better choice than any of the other mikes you listed,
if you're going to take the cardioid route. Do a sound check and see
how well you can position the thing to get good balances without too
much hall noise.

we will possibly use AKG 420 at edges/sides for outlying groups of
singers and a AKG c535 as a spot for soloists.....hopefully on a
horizontal line with ORTF pair......subject to resolving phase
issues. Our AW16g recorder (with 4 ch phantom power addition) has no
delay option...routing extra channels via Yamaha O1v (has delays) and
thence to AW16g concerns us due to latency issues....such things are
beyond our skills so far.

When you bring up any of the other mikes into the main pair, the imaging
will be degraded. In the case of spot mikes on soloists, you may be willing
to sacrifice the imaging in order to get better balanced. In the case of
outriggers, I suspect you won't.

If you're recording four channels, you can do whatever delaying is
needed after the fact and worry about it then.

We appreciate the extra mics (420/535) may complicate things and may
discard them if this is the case. Previous school recordings have
been done on a basic home recorder with a simple stereo mic, so
hopefully even if only the MC930's are used, it will be an upgrade.

If you record one mike per channel, you can put up extra mikes and then
decide not to use them when you hear everything.

But the key is to get the main pair in the right place the first time,
so you don't have to worry about anything else. You do that by having
a brief soundcheck and listening on a pair of speakers, not headphones,
until you can judge the balance between direct and reflected sound and
the balance between the different sections.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 6 May 2010 04:05:49 -0700 (PDT), lewdslewrate
wrote:

How much time do you get between the rehearsal and the concert?
(Presumably there IS a final rehearsal at the venue?) *Enough time to
do some listening? *Though until you play with time alignment, you may
hate the effect of adding extra mics to the main stereo pair.

Info about rehearsal still to come back...maybe only a short run
through in afternoon of the day. I agree we may hate the inclusion of
extra mics, however, if they are there and we can later play with
alignment....we can decide in comfort of own home so to speak.
Rode NT4: If we dropped AkG 420's &/or c535, we get extra tracks (even
considered using a plug-in impedance converter on HiZ guitar input on
DAW (DAW=aw16g, 2 dedicated channels with 48v, x4 channels we use an
external power supply)
Can you envisage the alternative position for the NT4, appreciating
you dont know set up/venue/etc....?

I meant you'd hate the extra mics UNTIL you'd had a chance to adjust
timing. This wouldn't get done between rehearsal and performance,
and, anyway, you probably won't have decent monitoring conditions
there.

If I was in the building, I could walk around for a bit, sniff the air
a few times and say "try them THERE" with a fair chance of success!
(Unless I said, "Christ! You'll never get a decent recording in this
echo-box! :-) But it's hard not being there.

The same rule as micing any instrument could be a starting point - as
far back as the largest dimension of the instrument, and high enough
to see all of it without obstruction.

[Mark]

On May 6, 10:59*am, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Thu, 6 May 2010 04:05:49 -0700 (PDT), lewdslewrate



wrote:
How much time do you get between the rehearsal and the concert?
(Presumably there IS a final rehearsal at the venue?) *Enough time to
do some listening? *Though until you play with time alignment, you may
hate the effect of adding extra mics to the main stereo pair.

Info about rehearsal still to come back...maybe only a short run
through in afternoon of the day. *I agree we may hate the inclusion of
extra mics, however, if they are there and we can later play with
alignment....we can decide in comfort of own home so to speak.
Rode NT4: If we dropped AkG 420's &/or c535, we get extra tracks (even
considered using a plug-in impedance converter on HiZ guitar input on
DAW (DAW=aw16g, 2 dedicated channels with 48v, x4 channels we use an
external power supply)
Can you envisage the alternative position for the NT4, appreciating
you dont know set up/venue/etc....?

I meant you'd hate the extra mics UNTIL you'd had a chance to adjust
timing. *This wouldn't get done between rehearsal and performance,
and, anyway, you probably won't have decent monitoring conditions
there.

If I was in the building, I could walk around for a bit, sniff the air
a few times and say "try them THERE" with a fair chance of success!
(Unless I said, "Christ! You'll never get a decent recording in this
echo-box! :-) But it's hard not being there.

*The same rule as micing any instrument could be a starting point - as
far back as the largest dimension of the instrument, and high enough
to see all of it without obstruction. *

OK let me ask this question about getting the correct balance of
direct and reflected sound....

would the OP not be better off erring on the side of micing too close
and getting too much direct and not enough reflected...

I say this because it is easy to add reverb after the fact (yes it's
artificial) but very difficult to remove it.

Mark

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 6 May 2010 17:53:10 -0700 (PDT), Mark
wrote:

OK let me ask this question about getting the correct balance of
direct and reflected sound....

would the OP not be better off erring on the side of micing too close
and getting too much direct and not enough reflected...

I say this because it is easy to add reverb after the fact (yes it's
artificial) but very difficult to remove it.

If everyone can be isolated into their own microphone - fine. But
with a limited number of microphones, getting too close will give
coverage and phase issues.

The problem in a church acoustic is often that the distance required
for full coverage can put the mic well past the critical distance
where reverberant sound overwhelms direct sound. Some music is
written with this sort of acoustic in mind and can sound effective
(though the live experience often beats the recorded one:-).
Unfortunately, only too often music quite unsuited to this environment
is attempted. The prime example is some churches' continuing attempts
to force traditional rock amplification into a cathedral acoustic.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

lewdslewrate wrote:

issues. Our AW16g recorder (with 4 ch phantom power addition) has no

If you're recording four channels, you can do whatever delaying is
needed after the fact and worry about it then.

Not with that crap recorder, you can't get the tracks out of it, only the
mix. And it is not particularly clean sounding, tried one with an option to
but cheaply when I got tired of not being able to get usable DAT tapes. Not
only would I not buy it, I would not accept it as a gift. It was a good,
well thought out sonic implement when new, but it is too many years ago that
it was new and too much has improved with other stuff. A Fostex MR8HD
(harddisk version!) is a less bad budget choice, it does get the polarity
wrong, but that is an easy fix, and sounds best with input gain set low. It
DOES allow 4 simultanous channels and _has_ a simple procedure for importing
files to your pc via usb. It has phantom and I was surprised how good a
recording I got when I finally put a high gain mic pre in front of it so
that I could turn input sensitivity way down to line level.

If you record one mike per channel, you can put up extra mikes and
then decide not to use them when you hear everything.

But the key is to get the main pair in the right place the first time,
so you don't have to worry about anything else.

+1

You do that by having
a brief soundcheck and listening on a pair of speakers, not
headphones, until you can judge the balance between direct and
reflected sound and
the balance between the different sections.

It is easy to hear whether the focus is right on headphones, but it takes
time to learn what to listen for, be it with headphones or with
loudspeakers. It has to be "in focus", "not loose", "not sharp/harsh" and
the amount of room reverb should be right and reverb should arrive after the
direct sound vaulting the recorded space nicely around the ensemble. Those
cues apply for loudspeaker as well as for headphone listening.

Manfrotto has a lightweight lighting stand that doubles as a good mic stand
for main pairs made up of small mics and allows a reasonable mic elevation.
You are likely to need to to up to 8 to 11 feet range, depending on distance
and size of ensemble, height adjusts ensemble front to rear row balance and
amound of ambience. Remember to get the setup center line (ensmble and mic
pair) a foot or so off of the room center line if at all possible.

They also have some small ones that are great for having along as soloist
stands .... even a cute petite one that is at good stick to put a piano on
in a very discrete manner.

--scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Just because a different digital recorder is used doesn't mean that
the tracks it records can't be brought back into the mix later on.

Never hand-synched tracks from different digital recorders? It is not
rocket science.

Actually it is not that easy because of time base differences, those have to
be addressed. I tried combining two different DAT recordings made for
comparing mic pairs into one, using one pair as "main" and one as
"ambience", it would have required stretching, didn't have the computer
power to do it reasonably fast then .... perhaps worth a retry, it sounded
great but within minutes the perspective changed due to the changed offset
of the ambience.

Digital editing makes hand-synching tracks from
different digital recorders pretty easy. I've even synched tracks
from different performances... Now that takes work!

Well yes, but it is simpler if there is some degree of isolation than if
there has to be correlation between the tracks.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

lewdslewrate wrote:

On May 4, 3:21 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
lewdslewrate wrote:

We have been asked to record a large school choir in a cathederal.

Single pair, small capsules. Spot mikes for soloists, an arms lenght away -
makes the soloists feel important and you still have the option of not using
those tracks if the main pair gets everything, I have gotten away with
recording Elija with a single pair.

Josephson C42's are nice on choir in a reverberant room, I am VERY happy
with mine, just use a Brucks Sputnik setup on choir and got an absolutely
wonderful recording.

If possible then put a pair of a-b omnis on a tall stick at "some distance",
feel free not to use the tracks but they are handy to have. And spots and
ambience additions may be useful in terms of making a 5.1 mix an option.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

"Peter Larsen" writes:

lewdslewrate wrote:

snips...

Josephson C42's are nice on choir in a reverberant room, I am VERY happy
with mine, just use a Brucks Sputnik setup on choir and got an absolutely
wonderful recording.

Okay. Have not heard of this one, and a quick web search didn't turn up any
snapshots, nor could I find a detailed description...

What is a "Brucks Sputnik"?

Ya got me on this one...

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[John Williamson]

Frank Stearns wrote:
"Peter Larsen" writes:

lewdslewrate wrote:

snips...

Josephson C42's are nice on choir in a reverberant room, I am VERY happy
with mine, just use a Brucks Sputnik setup on choir and got an absolutely
wonderful recording.

Okay. Have not heard of this one, and a quick web search didn't turn up any
snapshots, nor could I find a detailed description...

What is a "Brucks Sputnik"?

Ya got me on this one...

Put an apostrophe in as in "Bruck's sputnik"

Four matched cardioids on the smallest square frame possible, all
pointing out at 90degrees to each other.

I've just had nice results from a Zoom H2 on a small choir in a small
church using all four mics in this way.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Frank Stearns wrote:

"Peter Larsen" writes:

lewdslewrate wrote:

snips...

Josephson C42's are nice on choir in a reverberant room, I am VERY
happy with mine, just use a Brucks Sputnik setup on choir and got an
absolutely wonderful recording.

Okay. Have not heard of this one, and a quick web search didn't turn
up any snapshots, nor could I find a detailed description...

What is a "Brucks Sputnik"?

you can try to see if you can get to

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/dig...20061608007455

drop me a line if you can't and I'll send you a blurry closeup of the setup.

Ya got me on this one...

Jerry Bruck of New York came up with using this setup for discrete 4 channel
recordings, I haven't tested my recording with that playback mode for
practical reasons. I think his setup was "4 cards at 90 degrees angle
between'm", but I always adapt the actual inter-mic angle of an "ortf-type"
setup anyway, so I just configured one pair for the choir and one for way
too remote organ recording, tweaking mid-side ratio in post helped somewhat.
I also delayed the ambience-pair a reasonable amount so that it didn't just
flatten the perspective.

For additional info I think it should be the jaes-archives you should
search, 1979 or 1980 or 1981 perhaps.

A characteristik feature of the original sputnik - wikipedia must know - was
its bundle of backwards pointing antennae, quite probably 4, thus the name
of the setup.

Frank
Mobile Audio

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

Peter Larsen wrote:

issues. Our AW16g recorder (with 4 ch phantom power addition) has no

If you're recording four channels, you can do whatever delaying is
needed after the fact and worry about it then.

Not with that crap recorder, you can't get the tracks out of it, only the
mix. And it is not particularly clean sounding

You can always make a mix consisting of a single track. And
while it may not be particularly clean sounding, it's
probably fine for filling in, or as a last ditch backup.
I'll admit that it's probably more work to use it than it's
worth, but it's not difficult to set up and have available
just in case.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 May 2010 17:53:10 -0700 (PDT), Mark
wrote:

OK let me ask this question about getting the correct balance of
direct and reflected sound....

would the OP not be better off erring on the side of micing too close
and getting too much direct and not enough reflected...

I say this because it is easy to add reverb after the fact (yes it's
artificial) but very difficult to remove it.

If everyone can be isolated into their own microphone - fine.

The human voice tends to be "hot" and unpleasant to listen to if there is no
reverb at all. The intelligibility is very good, but it is basically
unnatural because we are used to listening in reverberent environments.
There's a basic dichotomy between recording a technical lecture and
recording an opera.

A lecture needs to have reverb carefully controlled, while an opera recorded
in an anechoic chamber, or recorded exclusively with close micingusually
sounds strange. Recording the singing in an opera with very little reverb
is now completely feasible using wireless headset micrphones . If you do
this, it is a good idea to have some reverb on tap during the mixdown.

But with a limited number of microphones, getting too close will give
coverage and phase issues.

Agreed. The 3:1 rule needs to be honored.

The problem in a church acoustic is often that the distance required
for full coverage can put the mic well past the critical distance
where reverberant sound overwhelms direct sound.

Agreed. Contemporary church acoustics have 4 conflicting acoustical
requirements to meet. From most live to most controlled they a

(1) Very live for congregational singing, choir, piano and organ.

(2) Traditional concert hall acoustics for orchestral music and some
contemporary music.

(3) Traditional dramatic theatre acoustics for drama and other contemporary
music.

(4) Boardroom acoustics for the sermon and announcements.

Some music is
written with this sort of acoustic in mind and can sound effective
(though the live experience often beats the recorded one:-).

IOW traditional church music.

Unfortunately, only too often music quite unsuited to this environment
is attempted. The prime example is some churches' continuing attempts
to force traditional rock amplification into a cathedral acoustic.

Bingo!

While they were very reverberent many of the traditional cathedrals did have
a pleasant sound that was often carefully cultured.

A lot of contemporary (built over the last century) churches simply sound
bad, whether due to incompent design, slipshod execution, and ignorant
maintenance. I know of recent ca. $10 milliion projects where acoustics and
media were never seriously considered. The designs were primarly based on
appearance.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
Arny Krueger wrote:

Just because a different digital recorder is used doesn't mean that
the tracks it records can't be brought back into the mix later on.

Never hand-synched tracks from different digital recorders? It is not
rocket science.

Actually it is not that easy because of time base differences, those have
to
be addressed. I tried combining two different DAT recordings made for
comparing mic pairs into one, using one pair as "main" and one as
"ambience", it would have required stretching, didn't have the computer
power to do it reasonably fast then .... perhaps worth a retry, it sounded
great but within minutes the perspective changed due to the changed offset
of the ambience.

I've used time base stretching/matching, and it does help greatly to resolve
this issue. Yes, considerable computer power was dissipated, but that's
cheap and readily available these days. Not so much in the past.

Digital time bases may not match perfectly, but they are often very stable.

Digital editing makes hand-synching tracks from
different digital recorders pretty easy. I've even synched tracks
from different performances... Now that takes work!

Well yes, but it is simpler if there is some degree of isolation than if
there has to be correlation between the tracks.

Agreed. Agressive editing is facilitied when the tracks are as isolated as
possible. Most of the work I've done involved close-miced vocals.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mark wrote:

OK let me ask this question about getting the correct balance of
direct and reflected sound....

would the OP not be better off erring on the side of micing too close
and getting too much direct and not enough reflected...

That depends on the room.

I say this because it is easy to add reverb after the fact (yes it's
artificial) but very difficult to remove it.

Yes, the problem it that adding fake reverb still can't really blend all the
voices together into one... they still sound separated if you mike too closely.

But yes, it's better to err on the close side than the far away side especially
if you have a room you know is a problem. But there is only so much error you
can deal with.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Peter Larsen wrote:

issues. Our AW16g recorder (with 4 ch phantom power addition) has no

If you're recording four channels, you can do whatever delaying is
needed after the fact and worry about it then.

Not with that crap recorder, you can't get the tracks out of it, only the
mix. And it is not particularly clean sounding

You can always make a mix consisting of a single track. And
while it may not be particularly clean sounding, it's
probably fine for filling in, or as a last ditch backup.
I'll admit that it's probably more work to use it than it's
worth, but it's not difficult to set up and have available
just in case.

Okay, well, skip the delays. Folks did spotmiking for most of a century
before delays became available.

(Well, not QUITE that long if you count the trick of using sel-sync for
the mains and the repro head only for the spots, but that's kind of limited
anyway.)
--scott

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

[Anahata]

On Fri, 07 May 2010 12:26:37 +0100, Peter Larsen wrote:

The AW16G is not crap in any and all contexts, it is useful
for what it is made for (basement track building recording), but this is
not its league. A large choir in an ambient space is a recording that
rewards using better equipment

Pity it's not an AW1600 - the successor to the AWG16G with 8 phantom
powered mic inputs (instead of 2) and 24 bit capability.

Its still probably has rather indifferent mic preamps, but that's less of
an issue if you are using condensers.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827