[Sonnova]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:57:26 -0800, Simonel wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 25 2007, 11:43 am, Sonnova wrote:

. The second, somewhat paradoxically would
be a symphony orchestra. A stereo mike or a pair of cardioid mikes at
roughly
90 degrees to one another and mounted on a "T-Bar" approximately 7" apart
and
"flown" about 10 ft over the conductor's head and about 15 feet behind him
give a lovely stereo effect with great imaging. Also, I have found that if
there is a piano playing on-stage with the orchestra, (for Rachmaninoff's
3rd
Piano Concerto, for instance) and the lid is up. it is very probable that
accent mikes on the piano won't be necessary and the "mix" that the
conductor
is hearing on the podium is also perfect for the X-Y pair. They are, after
all, playing the part of our "surrogate ears" and should "hear" what we
would
hear were we there.

Somehow I missed this priceless paragraph before. I think I missed it
because I was taken back by your stating that JA is right - there is
no evidence that he subscribes to this philosophy, quite the
contrary.

I don't have my comment handy, but I think that I only said that JA was right
when he said that a single microphone technique could not suffice for all
situations.

You don't seem to have attracted any brickbats for this paragraph (I
wonder how many on this board care about symphonic music), but it's
very controversial. How many recordings are made this way today?

Some are. Most aren't. A good example would be to try to find some of the
French ORTF "air checks" of the French National Radio Orchestra recorded in
the early sixties, mostly conducted by Charles Munch. They were released on
CD by Disques Montaigne (TCE8730) and should still be available. Your jaw
will drop. Also try most of the DGG orchestral recordings from the late
1950's. They were made with the M-S technique with similar results. They
might be somewhat easier to find.


I haven't come across a single one. Yet, as you say, the imaging is the
best this way - you hear the instruments arranged in a real space with
specific locations, some BEHIND others, for example the brass and
winds behind the strings and if there is a chorus it is behind the
orchestra. This is pure magic, it sounds right and there is hardly any
listening fatigue with this method.

I have the recordings to prove it. It doesn't work in every situation, of
course, some need more than one pair of mikes and some solo instruments need
accenting - including vocals.

Even though this method is never used today for orchestras, I have
never seen engineers justify multimiking orchestras in any way I can
understand.

Maybe I can enlighten you on this. The justification is financial PERIOD. Set
up a microphone/channel for each instrument before the talent walks through
the door. Have them sit down, play the work, record each instrument without
any regard to level other than "out of the mud and out of the red". Then get
the expensive talent out of there as soon as possible. Then the cheaper
technical staff can sit down with the producer(s) and equivocate about
balances 'til the cows come home. Yes, it makes lousy recordings, No, strings
with microphones sitting 6 inches in front of them do not sound ANYTHING like
a string section heard from 10 ft away, and NO there is nothing that the
engineer can do in the "mix" to fix that.

They try to spot-mic an instrument not because of any
issue you might have with your stereo or surround-sound playback, nor
have I read anything about how this could be done, given the varied
acoustic of the playback systems. The justification for spot-miking
always seems to be because something can't be heard as they think it
ought in the hall. Might as well stick an extra ear up there on stage
when you attend the concert. While I might trust Bach or
Furchtwangler to do this rebalancing, I do not trust any audio
engineer this far (and spot-miking is a factor in listening fatigue.)

Simonel

[Tynan Agviðr[_2_]]

Even though this method is never used today for orchestras, I have
never seen engineers justify multimiking orchestras in any way I can
understand. They try to spot-mic an instrument not because of any
issue you might have with your stereo or surround-sound playback, nor
have I read anything about how this could be done, given the varied
acoustic of the playback systems. The justification for spot-miking
always seems to be because something can't be heard as they think it
ought in the hall. Might as well stick an extra ear up there on stage
when you attend the concert. While I might trust Bach or
Furchtwangler to do this rebalancing, Simonel


Very true. ..A quote from Marc Aubort(another hero of mine, the Head
Engineer of Elite Recordings) sums it up best:

"A timpani SHOULD should sound far away, not as if it were right in the
front row!!!" "Not everything should be heard as if it were right in front
of the listener! That is not how we hear it in the concert hall!"

Mr. Aubort still uses a pair of Schoeps M221Bs and still works down to 2
track..These older guys know what is what!

I do not trust any audio
engineer this far (and spot-miking is a factor in listening fatigue.)


Nor do I...and the guys who know what they are doing(and whom I look up to
very much) dont trust themselves to do any balancing either!...Hence the
reason they stick to simple techniques, minimal in nature but effective.

[Tynan Agviðr[_2_]]

I kid you not. Oh,
yes, if there's a solo piano on stage, (as in a piano concerto) using
this technique obviates the need to separately mike the piano. It
comes out perfectly balanced with the rest of the orchestra and
anchored in space EXACTLY where it should be.

I dont doubt what you are saying at all. Unfortunately good sound and those
who are passionate about it seem to always take second seat to mediocrity
and mass appeal.

I hardly ever saw colleagues(classical persons
anyway) use cardiods as a main pair for work..only in bad enviroments
or for "photoshopping" rock/pop work..

They don't know what they are missing. Omnis give lousy stereo, IMHO.

Well, imaging is one thing, but spaciousness and full-frequency range
pickup are two other considerations. For something like a pipe organ, where
one is a bit away from the sound source; where the ambience is so
important...the use of an omni is a given, seems almost instinctual. One
always has to choose their poison(s) carefully, and ive found that omnis
and figure 8s work best to capture the sound as I hear it. If I go to a job
to check it out and the conditions are such that I cannot use omnis or 8s,
I normally dont take the job. I know that this is not the best way to
generate revenue..but for that, I have my voice.


Omnis dominated, especially in Germany
when I was there..spaced pairs, spaced pairs, always spaced pairs!!!

I certainly wouldn't record an orchestra that way. It's simply
wrong-headed as far as I'm concern and I have the recordings to prove
it. After all, you're two ears are NOT twenty feet apart and you don't
have three of them and they're not omnidirectional either.

The spaced pairs are not always so far apart..but yes,you are right. Most
of what I do is smaller ensembles, normally blumlein, jecklin, or carefully
spaced omnis.

Well, MS is a German invention

Alan Dower Blumlein was british, not German. British Patent # 394325 (June
14, 1933)
-by the way, The Life and Times of Alan Dower Blumlein was a great book. A
good friend gave me a copy and I just finished it. Highly reccomended.

Telefunken and B&O made two of the most famous stereo mikes and
they're European. ORTF uses a stereo spaced pair of cardioids. They're
exactly the same distance apart as what I use, but they are a little
more widely spaced at 110 degrees. Essentially, though, they're the
same Idea. The original "Decca tree" was similar, although it uses
more than two mikes. Blumlein is also a coincident pair, but a
coincident pair of figure-of-eight mikes. They work well in an empty
hall and can give the recording a nice ambient bloom.

Looks to me like Europe has a rich heritage of closely spaced
microphone techniques using cardioids.


I dont doubt they have a heritage of cardiod use..But these days, spaced
pairs dominate. I dont know why that is, but it is what it is!

-Tynan

[Simonel]

On Jan 2, 6:52*pm, Sonnova wrote:

You should hear some of my symphonic recordings. Made using a pair of Sony
C-37P microphones set to cardioid and mounted on a stereo 'T' bar about 7
inches (18 cm) apart with the capsules 90 degrees to one another and the mike
assembly hung about 10 ft (3 meters) above the conductor's head and roughly
15 ft (4.5 meters) behind him. I doubt that you've ever heard a commercial
recording with that kind of soundstage and imaging. It's uncanny. In a
darkened room, you can literally "see" the entire orchestra spread out before
you. The strings on the left, the cellos in the front row left of center, the
violas to the right, the woodwinds right behind the cellos and violas. the
brass, up high and in the extreme rear of the ensemble with the bass viols on
the far right and the percussion in the left rear behind the violins. When
the percussionist hits the triangle it shimmers and floats over the left side
of the orchestra, just as it does in a real concert hall. Also, because of
the pick-up pattern, much less of the audience intrudes in a live performance
recording. These recording are so realistic that they give listeners
goosebumps. I kid you not. Oh, yes, if there's a solo piano on stage, (as in
a piano concerto) using this technique obviates the need to separately mike
the piano. It comes out perfectly balanced with the rest of the orchestra and
anchored in space EXACTLY where it should be.

I hardly ever saw colleagues(classical persons
anyway) use cardiods as a main pair for work..only in bad enviroments or
for "photoshopping" rock/pop work..

They don't know what they are missing. Omnis give lousy stereo, IMHO.

Omnis dominated, especially in Germany
when I was there..spaced pairs, spaced pairs, always spaced pairs!!!

I certainly wouldn't record an orchestra that way. It's simply wrong-headed
as far as I'm concern and I have the recordings to prove it. After all,
you're two ears are NOT twenty feet apart and you don't have three of them
and they're not omnidirectional either.

(allergie to Coincident I think?...maybe Americans gravitate more towards
these coincident techniques??)

Well, MS is a German invention and it's coincident in that the mikes are very
close together - DGG used to record that way exclusively. Want to hear some
great stereo? Find the Von Karajan DGG Beethoven symphony set from the late
50's. Incredible orchestral sound.

Oops, there seems to be telepathy at work here.

However, the magical staging I was referring to (and that we were both
describing) was achieved with omnis (in various positions) - I have
quite a few orchestral recordings made with omnis with the results you
describe. The difference I think is that with cardioids you are
restricted to the position you are describing but you eliminate much
of the audience noise. With omnis you have more options where and how
to position the mics, but audience noise will be a problem if it's a
live performance.

I share Tynan's preference for omnis for orchestral stuff, but really
the #1 issue is the evil of spotmiking an orchestra - I can compromise
about the pick-up pattern.

Simonel

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:35:18 -0800, Tynan Agviðr wrote
(in article ):

I kid you not. Oh,
yes, if there's a solo piano on stage, (as in a piano concerto) using
this technique obviates the need to separately mike the piano. It
comes out perfectly balanced with the rest of the orchestra and
anchored in space EXACTLY where it should be.

I dont doubt what you are saying at all. Unfortunately good sound and those
who are passionate about it seem to always take second seat to mediocrity
and mass appeal.

I hardly ever saw colleagues(classical persons
anyway) use cardiods as a main pair for work..only in bad enviroments
or for "photoshopping" rock/pop work..

They don't know what they are missing. Omnis give lousy stereo, IMHO.

Well, imaging is one thing, but spaciousness and full-frequency range
pickup are two other considerations.

Both of which good cardioids can do very well.

For something like a pipe organ, where
one is a bit away from the sound source; where the ambience is so
important...the use of an omni is a given, seems almost instinctual.

Oh, I agree. Anyone who tells you that one size fits all in miking disparate
sound sources is suspect. There is no one mike nor one mike pick-up pattern,
nor one microphone placement technique. The successful recordist is flexible,
keeps in mind the source, the shape and size of the venue, the desired
result, and chooses his options accordingly.

One always has to choose their poison(s) carefully, and ive found that omnis
and figure 8s work best to capture the sound as I hear it. If I go to a job
to check it out and the conditions are such that I cannot use omnis or 8s,
I normally dont take the job. I know that this is not the best way to
generate revenue..but for that, I have my voice.

To each his own. There are many ways to skin a cat.


Omnis dominated, especially in Germany
when I was there..spaced pairs, spaced pairs, always spaced pairs!!!

I certainly wouldn't record an orchestra that way. It's simply
wrong-headed as far as I'm concern and I have the recordings to prove
it. After all, you're two ears are NOT twenty feet apart and you don't
have three of them and they're not omnidirectional either.

The spaced pairs are not always so far apart..but yes,you are right. Most
of what I do is smaller ensembles, normally blumlein, jecklin, or carefully
spaced omnis.

Well, MS is a German invention

Alan Dower Blumlein was british, not German. British Patent # 394325 (June
14, 1933)
-by the way, The Life and Times of Alan Dower Blumlein was a great book. A
good friend gave me a copy and I just finished it. Highly reccomended.

Blumlein and Mittle-Siete mking are NOT the same thing.

Telefunken and B&O made two of the most famous stereo mikes and
they're European. ORTF uses a stereo spaced pair of cardioids. They're
exactly the same distance apart as what I use, but they are a little
more widely spaced at 110 degrees. Essentially, though, they're the
same Idea. The original "Decca tree" was similar, although it uses
more than two mikes. Blumlein is also a coincident pair, but a
coincident pair of figure-of-eight mikes. They work well in an empty
hall and can give the recording a nice ambient bloom.

Looks to me like Europe has a rich heritage of closely spaced
microphone techniques using cardioids.


I dont doubt they have a heritage of cardiod use..But these days, spaced
pairs dominate. I dont know why that is, but it is what it is!

Maybe that's why I'm so disappointed in many modern orchestral recordings
from Europe.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:33:48 -0800, Tynan Agviðr wrote
(in article ):


Even though this method is never used today for orchestras, I have
never seen engineers justify multimiking orchestras in any way I can
understand. They try to spot-mic an instrument not because of any
issue you might have with your stereo or surround-sound playback, nor
have I read anything about how this could be done, given the varied
acoustic of the playback systems. The justification for spot-miking
always seems to be because something can't be heard as they think it
ought in the hall. Might as well stick an extra ear up there on stage
when you attend the concert. While I might trust Bach or
Furchtwangler to do this rebalancing, Simonel


Very true. ..A quote from Marc Aubort(another hero of mine, the Head
Engineer of Elite Recordings) sums it up best:

Before that he worked with the late Joanna Nikrenz and together they produced
some dynamite recordings for Vox and NoneSuch. Try their Skrowaczewski
recordings (with the Minnesota Orchestra) of Ravel's Orchestral works (some
of which are available on Mobile Fidelity (Bolero- UDSACD 4002, Daphnis et
Chloe- UDSACD 4008). Both of these originally were on a vinyl VoxBox set, and
the pressing were terrible. I had to buy about four sets before I could
composite a good one. Glad those aspects of the vinyl record era are gone
forever, but GOD, those recordings sounded good!

"A timpani SHOULD should sound far away, not as if it were right in the
front row!!!" "Not everything should be heard as if it were right in front
of the listener! That is not how we hear it in the concert hall!"

Mr. Aubort still uses a pair of Schoeps M221Bs and still works down to 2
track..These older guys know what is what!

I do not trust any audio
engineer this far (and spot-miking is a factor in listening fatigue.)


Nor do I...and the guys who know what they are doing(and whom I look up to
very much) dont trust themselves to do any balancing either!...Hence the
reason they stick to simple techniques, minimal in nature but effective.

[Tynan Agviðr[_2_]]

Simonel wrote in
With omnis you have more options where and how
to position the mics, but audience noise will be a problem if it's a
live performance.

For me, that is part of the charm of using omnis..not capturing coughs and
pages turning, or other things like that..but hearing the ambience,the
"silence" of the audience, the space around the instruments, how the hall
is reacting to this wall of sound..In my opinion, to use a cardiod in a
favorable acoustic is like seeing a beautiful girl,admiring her beauty, and
then suddenly being struck blind in one eye...

I share Tynan's preference for omnis for orchestral stuff, but really
the #1 issue is the evil of spotmiking an orchestra - I can compromise
about the pick-up pattern.

Simonel


My mentor, a very famous Recording Engineer in Europe..once said to me: "If
you ever approach a recording and discover that the situation makes it
impossible to use omnis, just go home and go to sleep.." "you will
accomplish more that way" ..That has stuck with me for life. I dont
compromise any more. Life is too short to compromise. I feel terribly sorry
for the person that must engineer for a living under one of the big labels
(even classical). It must be awful.

-Tynan

[Tynan AgviÐr]

Well, imaging is one thing, but spaciousness and full-frequency range
pickup are two other considerations.

Both of which good cardioids can do very well.

They can, but they generally dont do as well as omnidirectionals.In my
opinion, of course


To each his own. There are many ways to skin a cat.

Amen. You can say that again. Dogma is deadly like, man.


Blumlein and Mittle-Siete mking are NOT the same thing.

Ja, any fool with half an idea about professional Audio, or basically
anyone that hasnt lived under a rock for the past decade knows that..To
imply that I am ignorant of this glaring fact is a bit offensive. I
suggest you read the Patent mentioned previously and the Book about Alan
Blumlein. His inventions were many, and extended far outside of the
technique that is his namesake.(128 Patents in all on various subjects
from Audio to Radar transmission systems) MID-SIDE miking was his
creation too. Germans did invent Jecklin Disc(OSS), which I also love,
though! See below:

"In this patent (British #394,325), Blumlein examines the physiology of
the human binaural hearing process and the spatial illusion produced by
ãtwo or more loudspeakersä; describes the use of multiple
microphones÷including the crossed figure-8 (now known as the Blumlein
technique) and ****!!!Mid-Side stereo-miking method!!!!!s;**** details a
dual 45/45-degree phono cutter head for producing stereo record masters;
and proposes a means of transmitting stereo radio"

"Some years back I delivered a paper at the annual convention of the
Audio Engineering Society on a "Mid-Side Boundary Layer" technique I had
devised. It was an adaptation of the classic ****!!!Mid-Side" stereo
arrangement described by the great British inventor, Alan Blumlein!!!!
**** in a patent dating back to 1935 (as it happens, the year of my
birth). Blumlein proposed placing a figure-of-eight microphone sideways,
facing away from the sound source, and pairing it with a directional mike
placed midway on top of it, pointing forward at the sound source."

"In the same patent of 1933, Blumlein also described a mathematical
transformation of these crossed bidirectionals, ****!!!!which he termed
the Mid/Side
technique!!!!****. Also employing the bidirectional microphone as the
essential contributor to
the stereophonic imaging, this “Side” microphone was oriented laterally,
with the null-
axis aimed directly at the sound source. The “Mid” microphone had its
principal
pickup axis aimed directly at the sound source, hence again co-aligned
with the null
axis of the bidirectional microphone."""
MID
+Side
-Side
THE MID-SIDE TECHNIQUE

Maybe that's why I'm so disappointed in many modern orchestral
recordings from Europe.



I dont like many modern recordings either. Primarily because modern
engineers are incompetent idiots with no idea of how to do their
jobs..not because of any polar pattern use. A good engineer can work with
any polar pattern...I prefer omnis and fig 8s, but I would never say that
I dont like any recordings made with cardiods. That is bordering on
dogmatic and dangerous, and would be quite foolish to say.

Opus 3, Waterlily, Delos, and Proprius...the final 4 as far as I am
concerned. They seem to do no wrong. Check the Opus 3 samplers and the
Proprius CANTATE DOMINO and Jazz at the Pawnshop recordings..be amazed.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 07:39:18 -0800, Tynan AgviÐr wrote
(in article ):


Well, imaging is one thing, but spaciousness and full-frequency range
pickup are two other considerations.

Both of which good cardioids can do very well.

They can, but they generally dont do as well as omnidirectionals.In my
opinion, of course


To each his own. There are many ways to skin a cat.

Amen. You can say that again. Dogma is deadly like, man.


Blumlein and Mittle-Siete mking are NOT the same thing.

Ja, any fool with half an idea about professional Audio, or basically
anyone that hasnt lived under a rock for the past decade knows that..To
imply that I am ignorant of this glaring fact is a bit offensive.

Didn't mean to offend. It just seemed to me like your previous statement
inferred that they were the same.

I suggest you read the Patent mentioned previously and the Book about Alan
Blumlein. His inventions were many, and extended far outside of the
technique that is his namesake.(128 Patents in all on various subjects
from Audio to Radar transmission systems) MID-SIDE miking was his
creation too. Germans did invent Jecklin Disc(OSS), which I also love,
though! See below:

"In this patent (British #394,325), Blumlein examines the physiology of
the human binaural hearing process and the spatial illusion produced by
ãtwo or more loudspeakersä; describes the use of multiple
microphones÷including the crossed figure-8 (now known as the Blumlein
technique) and ****!!!Mid-Side stereo-miking method!!!!!s;**** details a
dual 45/45-degree phono cutter head for producing stereo record masters;
and proposes a means of transmitting stereo radio"

Yes, I read a book about Alan Blumlein when I was a teenager.

"Some years back I delivered a paper at the annual convention of the
Audio Engineering Society on a "Mid-Side Boundary Layer" technique I had
devised. It was an adaptation of the classic ****!!!Mid-Side" stereo
arrangement described by the great British inventor, Alan Blumlein!!!!
**** in a patent dating back to 1935 (as it happens, the year of my
birth). Blumlein proposed placing a figure-of-eight microphone sideways,
facing away from the sound source, and pairing it with a directional mike
placed midway on top of it, pointing forward at the sound source."

I didn't say that Blumlein didn't originate MS, I merely said that MS and the
miking technique that bears his name aren't the same thing.

"In the same patent of 1933, Blumlein also described a mathematical
transformation of these crossed bidirectionals, ****!!!!which he termed
the Mid/Side
technique!!!!****. Also employing the bidirectional microphone as the
essential contributor to
the stereophonic imaging, this “Side” microphone was oriented laterally,
with the null-
axis aimed directly at the sound source. The “Mid” microphone had its
principal
pickup axis aimed directly at the sound source, hence again co-aligned
with the null
axis of the bidirectional microphone."""
MID
+Side
-Side
THE MID-SIDE TECHNIQUE

Maybe that's why I'm so disappointed in many modern orchestral
recordings from Europe.



I dont like many modern recordings either. Primarily because modern
engineers are incompetent idiots with no idea of how to do their
jobs..

I'll agree with that. It's what happens when whole generations become fixated
on one music type at the expense of all others. Most modern recording
engineers are rockers. While their personal music tastes are certainly their
own business, they make it quite plain that they got into recording at least
partially to be a part of the "pop scene" and that recording pop musicians is
all that they are interested in. Not only do they know little of nothing
about other types of music, they are actually disdainfully ignorant of them,
especially those forms of music that respond well to minimalist miking
techniques that afford them little opportunity to knob twiddle.

It used to be (like in the 50's and 60's) that most recording engineers knew
how to record classical and big-band jazz, while most pop consisted of an
orchestra backing a vocalist (ala Sinatra, Como, et al). Many classical
recording engineers, such as Louis Layton at RCA, C.Robert Fine at Mercury,
and Arthur Haddy at British Decca (London Records in the USA) actually became
well-known figures in the audio world.

not because of any polar pattern use. A good engineer can work with
any polar pattern...I prefer omnis and fig 8s, but I would never say that
I dont like any recordings made with cardiods. That is bordering on
dogmatic and dangerous, and would be quite foolish to say.

I have quite a few recordings made with Omnis that are quite good. What I
said is that I wouldn't use them for an orchestral recording because I find
X-Y and M-S BETTER,

Opus 3, Waterlily, Delos, and Proprius...the final 4 as far as I am
concerned. They seem to do no wrong. Check the Opus 3 samplers and the
Proprius CANTATE DOMINO and Jazz at the Pawnshop recordings..be amazed.

I have Jazz at the pawnshop and it is VERY good. Almost palpable. My only
complaint is that there is too much ambience in the form of night-club
revelers in the recording for my tastes. I would have tried to reduce that.
OTOH, I realize that the night-club audience is part of that recording's
"schtick", but I would have done it differently.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 5, 10:39 am, "Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:
To imply that I am ignorant of this glaring fact is a bit offensive.
I suggest you read the Patent mentioned previously and the
Book about Alan Blumlein.

See http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1286awsi/ ,
which has a link to the Blumlein home page.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Tynan AgviÐr]

Didn't mean to offend. It just seemed to me like your previous
statement inferred that they were the same.


If I implied that, my mistake. You didnt really offend me deeply, but
that statement was offensive.


I didn't say that Blumlein didn't originate MS, I merely said that MS
and the miking technique that bears his name aren't the same thing.

I misinterpreted what you were saying. No problem.

It used to be (like in the 50's and 60's) that most recording
engineers knew how to record classical and big-band jazz, while most
pop consisted of an orchestra backing a vocalist (ala Sinatra, Como,
et al). Many classical recording engineers, such as Louis Layton at
RCA, C.Robert Fine at Mercury, and Arthur Haddy at British Decca
(London Records in the USA) actually became well-known figures in the
audio world.

Agreed. Also, the limitations of equipment back then actually forced the
people to learn what they were using inside and out. These days if some
kid with a cracked copy of pro tools doesnt get "his recordings as loud
as that All American Rejects Album" he moves on to another cracked
program..Same thing with inexperienced engineers who think that the key
to good sound is whatever equipment they are using rather than assuming
the burden completly themselves(blame the carpenter, not the tools).... I
sort of wish that I didnt have all these choices available to me,
personally. We grow better and achieve much more when circumstances force
us to be inventive.

"Bemalte Blumen duften nicht."
I have quite a few recordings made with Omnis that are quite good.
What I said is that I wouldn't use them for an orchestral recording
because I find X-Y and M-S BETTER,

Opus 3, Waterlily, Delos, and Proprius...the final 4 as far as I am
concerned. They seem to do no wrong. Check the Opus 3 samplers and
the Proprius CANTATE DOMINO and Jazz at the Pawnshop recordings..be
amazed.


I have Jazz at the pawnshop and it is VERY good. Almost palpable. My
only complaint is that there is too much ambience in the form of
night-club revelers in the recording for my tastes. I would have tried
to reduce that. OTOH, I realize that the night-club audience is part
of that recording's "schtick", but I would have done it differently.

See, I love the Ambience. I feel that as long as it doesnt take away from
the recording(as in be too loud to obscure the song)..it is great. It is
a live recording...the crowd ambience helps document that fact.

[Tynan AgviÐr]

wrote in :

On Jan 5, 10:39 am, "Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:
To imply that I am ignorant of this glaring fact is a bit offensive.
I suggest you read the Patent mentioned previously and the
Book about Alan Blumlein.

See http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1286awsi/ ,
which has a link to the Blumlein home page.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile



How nice of you to make an appearance, Mr. Atkinson. Why, weve already
rolled out the red carpet for you.

Nice link. I think that far too many people only know Mr. Blumlein for the
microphone recording technique that bears his name...Quite a pity ! the
legacy he left behind, the body of research..the awarded patents..the man
was nothing short of a genius. Where are the A.D. Blumleins of today?

-Tynan

[Ray Thomas]

Simonel wrote in
With omnis you have more options where and how
to position the mics, but audience noise will be a problem if it's a
live performance

I disagree with this, even though my preference is for using small-spacing
(eg from head spacing to around 15" max) omni mics pairs whenever possible.
With such omni pairs you have fewer options for getting correct placement
as, in the most critical situations, even a few inches of siting the mics
further back from the optimum balance point (ie the point at which
direct:ambient ratio of sound is ideal) results in a sound which is too
washy with room reverberance and becomes indistinct. Thus there is MORE onus
on the engineer to get omni pair placement 'just right' than there is with a
similar pair of XY stereo cardioid mics, which can be placed at about 1.8
times the distance from the 'sound source' to derive the same ratio of
direct: ambient sound as the omni pair. Let me re-state, my preference is
always for an omni pair when I record, but wish to emphasize that correct
placement of them is not a trivial or 'forgiving' process. A curious
phenomenon however, is how forgiving the human ear is capable of being, when
it is placed anywhere within the concert hall (but perhaps not in one's
preferred seat !)...we seem to be able to make adjustments for the variable
ambience and reduced HF perception (the treble muting due to distance) in
our brains which microphones are far more critical of. All hail the
ear/brain interpretive mechanism !

Ray Thomas

"Tynan Agviðr" wrote in message
...
Simonel wrote in
With omnis you have more options where and how
to position the mics, but audience noise will be a problem if it's a
live performance.

For me, that is part of the charm of using omnis..not capturing coughs and
pages turning, or other things like that..but hearing the ambience,the
"silence" of the audience, the space around the instruments, how the hall
is reacting to this wall of sound..In my opinion, to use a cardiod in a
favorable acoustic is like seeing a beautiful girl,admiring her beauty,
and
then suddenly being struck blind in one eye...

I share Tynan's preference for omnis for orchestral stuff, but really
the #1 issue is the evil of spotmiking an orchestra - I can compromise
about the pick-up pattern.

Simonel


My mentor, a very famous Recording Engineer in Europe..once said to me:
"If
you ever approach a recording and discover that the situation makes it
impossible to use omnis, just go home and go to sleep.." "you will
accomplish more that way" ..That has stuck with me for life. I dont
compromise any more. Life is too short to compromise. I feel terribly
sorry
for the person that must engineer for a living under one of the big labels
(even classical). It must be awful.

-Tynan

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:27:38 -0800, Ray Thomas wrote
(in article ):

Simonel wrote in
With omnis you have more options where and how
to position the mics, but audience noise will be a problem if it's a
live performance

I disagree with this, even though my preference is for using small-spacing
(eg from head spacing to around 15" max) omni mics pairs whenever possible.
With such omni pairs you have fewer options for getting correct placement
as, in the most critical situations, even a few inches of siting the mics
further back from the optimum balance point (ie the point at which
direct:ambient ratio of sound is ideal) results in a sound which is too
washy with room reverberance and becomes indistinct. Thus there is MORE onus
on the engineer to get omni pair placement 'just right' than there is with a
similar pair of XY stereo cardioid mics, which can be placed at about 1.8
times the distance from the 'sound source' to derive the same ratio of
direct: ambient sound as the omni pair. Let me re-state, my preference is
always for an omni pair when I record, but wish to emphasize that correct
placement of them is not a trivial or 'forgiving' process. A curious
phenomenon however, is how forgiving the human ear is capable of being, when
it is placed anywhere within the concert hall (but perhaps not in one's
preferred seat !)...we seem to be able to make adjustments for the variable
ambience and reduced HF perception (the treble muting due to distance) in
our brains which microphones are far more critical of. All hail the
ear/brain interpretive mechanism !

What I'd like to know is how you obtain any stereo image at all using omni's
spaced that close together without some form of a baffle between them. I have
a single-point Avantone CK-40 stereo mike (looks exactly like the highly
regarded Telefunken ELA-M-270 http://tinyurl.com/2bbmaj) which has
switchable patterns: Omni/Cardioid/Figure-of-eight. When I select omni, I get
dead mono, and why shouldn't I? Both capsules are directly coincident (one
atop the other) and both have the same pick-up pattern irrespective of which
way they are pointed.