I am pondering about the following thing. I plan to make several
recordings in some nice acoustic spaces (churches, castles etc.). The
music will be played by one (me) or maximum two musicians (violin,
viola, flutes + "spheric" accompanying instruments like zither,
dulcimer, tuned glass etc.). I have 3 pairs of Schoeps (MK4V, MK21 and
MK2) and 4 channels of Millennia HV3B.
I will use a laptop and would like to record in 96 kHz. The thing is
that to record just on a stereo pair, would be technically very easy,
whereas using 2 pairs would bring complications (removing Lynx from
the big computer, using Magma and many other problems coming from this
direction).
So I am thinking, would it be worth it ? My idea was to use a main
pair (MK21) and a distant pair (MK2). I never tried that before. I
wonder whether this would bring better result than using just a
stereo pair. Maybe some phase issues ? But if using two pairs could
be really better and more euphonic the using one pair, it would be
worth the troubles.
Thanks for your advice and sharing the experience.

Ivo

"Ivo" wrote in message
om...
I am pondering about the following thing. I plan to make several
recordings in some nice acoustic spaces (churches, castles etc.). The
music will be played by one (me) or maximum two musicians (violin,
viola, flutes + "spheric" accompanying instruments like zither,
dulcimer, tuned glass etc.). I have 3 pairs of Schoeps (MK4V, MK21 and
MK2) and 4 channels of Millennia HV3B.
I will use a laptop and would like to record in 96 kHz. The thing is
that to record just on a stereo pair, would be technically very easy,
whereas using 2 pairs would bring complications (removing Lynx from
the big computer, using Magma and many other problems coming from this
direction).
So I am thinking, would it be worth it ? My idea was to use a main
pair (MK21) and a distant pair (MK2). I never tried that before. I
wonder whether this would bring better result than using just a
stereo pair. Maybe some phase issues ? But if using two pairs could
be really better and more euphonic the using one pair, it would be
worth the troubles.
Thanks for your advice and sharing the experience.

Back in the '70's I did a lot of chamber music recording in Churches and
Estates, and used the technique of a near and distant ORTF pair pretty
extensively. In an ambient environment, it allows you to set up and mix the
right wetness into the recording quickly, so long as you know how to
transfer the headphone sound into typical living room sound. This generally
can be done quickly during a brief musical sound check. On occasion, I
actually changed the balance piece to piece to fit the music being played.

Since you are both performing and playing, if you can record to four track
this technique will allow you to make the adjustments afterwards, using your
own room/monitors and can serve as a safety valve against less than optimum
single spaced pair placement.

In general, I set the "near" pair (Schoeps) a bit closer/dryer than I
normally would for a single pair pickup, and then the "rear" pair
(Neumann's) elsewhere in the hall (sometimes at the back of a deep Naive) to
pick up the ambience.

In article ,
Ivo wrote:
I am pondering about the following thing. I plan to make several
recordings in some nice acoustic spaces (churches, castles etc.). The
music will be played by one (me) or maximum two musicians (violin,
viola, flutes + "spheric" accompanying instruments like zither,
dulcimer, tuned glass etc.). I have 3 pairs of Schoeps (MK4V, MK21 and
MK2) and 4 channels of Millennia HV3B.
I will use a laptop and would like to record in 96 kHz. The thing is
that to record just on a stereo pair, would be technically very easy,
whereas using 2 pairs would bring complications (removing Lynx from
the big computer, using Magma and many other problems coming from this
direction).
So I am thinking, would it be worth it ? My idea was to use a main
pair (MK21) and a distant pair (MK2). I never tried that before. I
wonder whether this would bring better result than using just a
stereo pair. Maybe some phase issues ? But if using two pairs could
be really better and more euphonic the using one pair, it would be
worth the troubles.
Thanks for your advice and sharing the experience.

My personal experience is that a single pair will give you much better
imaging. Every time you try and bring the distant pair up, you find things
getting screwy. Pretty much every shortcut to avoid getting mike placement
correct in the first place, like dual pairs or outriggers, is a very poor
compromise.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In my opinion, mixing should always be done ex post facto. It's safer that way.

In addition, whether you use a coincident or spaced pair, you're going to get
"too much" reverberation from just one mic pair.

There's nothing wrong with recording ambiance tracks. (They might come in handy
later on surround DVD-A SACD.) But keep them separate.

The ambience mics should be located at the same position as the front mics, but
pointing backwards or to the sides. Putting them at the rear of the hall makes
no sense -- your head can't be at the front and rear at the same time. (This is
one of the reasons multi-channel recordings tend to sound "incoherent.")

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
In my opinion, mixing should always be done ex post facto. It's safer that
way.

In addition, whether you use a coincident or spaced pair, you're going to
get
"too much" reverberation from just one mic pair.

There's nothing wrong with recording ambiance tracks. (They might come in
handy
later on surround DVD-A SACD.) But keep them separate.

The ambience mics should be located at the same position as the front
mics, but
pointing backwards or to the sides. Putting them at the rear of the hall
makes
no sense -- your head can't be at the front and rear at the same time.
(This is
one of the reasons multi-channel recordings tend to sound "incoherent.")


In my experience, separate mics placed elsewhere can be used just fine.

If the final mix requires enough added ambiance to screw up the sound, then
the front mics are too close and "dry". The front pair should sound
reasonable good on its own, and the rears mixed in just to wetten things a
bit as desired. Since ambiance is by definition diffuse and not phase
coherent, then so long as the general left-right orientation of the pair is
not mixed up, the imaging, which is largely determined by the front mics,
does not get screwed up.

In my experience, separate mics placed elsewhere can be used just fine.

I didn't say they couldn't be used -- I said they didn't sound right.


If the final mix requires enough added ambiance to screw up the sound,
then the front mics are too close and "dry".

Two-mic stereo recordings tend to sound overly reverberant, regardless of how
close they are to the performers.


Since ambiance is by definition diffuse and not phase-coherent, then so
long as the general left-right orientation of the pair is not mixed up, the
imaging, which is largely determined by the front mics, does not get
screwed up.

How do you define imaging? The failure of the rear channels to "cohere" with the
front is an objective, observable fact. The added ambience can also color the
sound quite unnaturally.

Nice to hear that from experienced persons. We have also two ears in
the end ... And it makes my life easier too :-)


(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Ivo wrote:
I am pondering about the following thing. I plan to make several
recordings in some nice acoustic spaces (churches, castles etc.). The
music will be played by one (me) or maximum two musicians (violin,
viola, flutes + "spheric" accompanying instruments like zither,
dulcimer, tuned glass etc.). I have 3 pairs of Schoeps (MK4V, MK21 and
MK2) and 4 channels of Millennia HV3B.
I will use a laptop and would like to record in 96 kHz. The thing is
that to record just on a stereo pair, would be technically very easy,
whereas using 2 pairs would bring complications (removing Lynx from
the big computer, using Magma and many other problems coming from this
direction).
So I am thinking, would it be worth it ? My idea was to use a main
pair (MK21) and a distant pair (MK2). I never tried that before. I
wonder whether this would bring better result than using just a
stereo pair. Maybe some phase issues ? But if using two pairs could
be really better and more euphonic the using one pair, it would be
worth the troubles.
Thanks for your advice and sharing the experience.

My personal experience is that a single pair will give you much better
imaging. Every time you try and bring the distant pair up, you find things
getting screwy. Pretty much every shortcut to avoid getting mike placement
correct in the first place, like dual pairs or outriggers, is a very poor
compromise.
--scott

"Ivo" wrote in message
om

I am pondering about the following thing. I plan to make several
recordings in some nice acoustic spaces (churches, castles etc.). The
music will be played by one (me) or maximum two musicians (violin,
viola, flutes + "spheric" accompanying instruments like zither,
dulcimer, tuned glass etc.). I have 3 pairs of Schoeps (MK4V, MK21 and
MK2) and 4 channels of Millennia HV3B.

I will use a laptop and would like to record in 96 kHz. The thing is
that to record just on a stereo pair, would be technically very easy,
whereas using 2 pairs would bring complications (removing Lynx from
the big computer, using Magma and many other problems coming from this
direction).

Or Plan "B", use one of the 4-channel audio interfaces that works with a
laptop.

So I am thinking, would it be worth it ? My idea was to use a main
pair (MK21) and a distant pair (MK2). I never tried that before. I
wonder whether this would bring better result than using just a
stereo pair.

A 4 channel recording of 4 microphones certainly gives you more
after-the-fact options.

Maybe some phase issues ?

Not if you follow the 3-to-1 rule.

But if using two pairs could
be really better and more euphonic the using one pair, it would be
worth the troubles.

IMO & IME it is. See my other recent post other about recording a piano
where I posted 3 mixdowns of the same recording.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
In my experience, separate mics placed elsewhere can be used just fine.

I didn't say they couldn't be used -- I said they didn't sound right.


And I meant they can be used with no difficulty or adverse effect on the
sound, if used as I described.


If the final mix requires enough added ambiance to screw up the sound,
then the front mics are too close and "dry".

Two-mic stereo recordings tend to sound overly reverberant, regardless of
how
close they are to the performers.


Simply not true. I can easily create a terrible sounding, in-your-face
recording using any two pairs of cardiod mics. Normally, you use such a
pairing in a way that *does* allow some room sound in...so the music sounds
natural. But overly reverberant? Not in my experience.

Since ambiance is by definition diffuse and not phase-coherent, then so
long as the general left-right orientation of the pair is not mixed up,
the
imaging, which is largely determined by the front mics, does not get
screwed up.

How do you define imaging? The failure of the rear channels to "cohere"
with the
front is an objective, observable fact. The added ambience can also color
the
sound quite unnaturally.


Imaging - the instruments are in their nature place in the soundstage, have
"body" and a sense of air surrounding them, and sound as do real instruments
playing in that space when reproduced in room, in a fine stereo system.

Of course, too much ambience can color the sound unnaturally. Thats where
care and experience come in.

Bill, I was using "purist" mic techniques (ORTF and X-Y) in the mid-'70's,
when it was as out-of-fashion as it has ever been. Because it sounded
better and more lifelike. Believe me, if the above approach messed up the
"reality" of the sounds I captured, I'd have been the first to abandon its
use ever-thereafter. It didn't.

Or Plan "B", use one of the 4-channel audio interfaces that works with a
laptop.

Well, I would like to find one. Having 4 ch of Mytek/Lavry and 4ch
Millennia I am not interested in any fancy all in one interface, I
just need 4 AES EBU inputs to connect to a laptop. Seems it simply
does not exist.

Ivo wrote:

I am pondering about the following thing. I plan to make several
recordings in some nice acoustic spaces (churches, castles etc.).
The music will be played by one (me) or maximum two musicians
(violin, viola, flutes + "spheric" accompanying instruments
like zither, dulcimer, tuned glass etc.). I have 3 pairs of Schoeps
(MK4V, MK21 and MK2) and 4 channels of Millennia HV3B.

The MK21 is the subcardioid, right?

I will use a laptop and would like to record in 96 kHz. The thing
is that to record just on a stereo pair, would be technically very
easy, whereas using 2 pairs would bring complications

Yes.

(removing Lynx from the big computer, using Magma and many other
problems coming from this direction). So I am thinking, would it
be worth it?

IMO only if you make it a full 4-track recording.

My idea was to use a main pair (MK21) and a distant pair (MK2).

I'd use them vice versa then.

I never tried that before.

"Never tried that before" is not a good start on something that is to be
set up with you thinking and concentrating about something else,
hopefully for a good concert, and run unattended.

I wonder whether this would bring better result than using just a
stereo pair.

Not better than as single stereo pair correctly placed. It could however
be a better strategy for coping with mics that didn't get quite
correctly placed and it would allow you to default to having the main
pair "too close". Rear pair should be about 10 meters away for a simple
guideline. Do not put them exactly on church room centerlines, 10 cm off
to one side is likely to be better and beware of focusing ceiling
structures .....

Maybe some phase issues ? But if using two pairs could
be really better and more euphonic the using one pair, it would be
worth the troubles.

People come to listen to the concert, you will detract from that if you
are too busy recording instead of just performing. Keep it simple and
use a single pair, use the pair you are most used to setting up.

Thanks for your advice and sharing the experience.

Ivo


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Two-mic stereo recordings tend to sound overly reverberant,
regardless of how close they are to the performers.

Simply not true. I can easily create a terrible sounding, in-your-face
recording using any two pairs of cardiod mics. Normally, you use such a
pairing in a way that *does* allow some room sound in... so the music
sounds natural. But overly reverberant? Not in my experience.

I'm going to be unkind and suggest that you aren't making any kind of rational
comparison between what you hear standing in front of the mics, and what comes
out of the speakers on playback.

Simply-miked recordings sound overly reverberant because the ambient sound is
not correctly reproduced. It comes from the same direction as the direct sounds,
which leads to all sorts of psychoacoustic problems. This is easily
demonstrated. If anyone wants to know how, I'll post an explanation.


Bill, I was using "purist" mic techniques (ORTF and X-Y) in the mid-'70's,
when it was as out-of-fashion as it has ever been. Because it sounded
better and more lifelike. Believe me, if the above approach messed up the
"reality" of the sounds I captured, I'd have been the first to abandon its
use ever-thereafter. It didn't.

Oh, but it does. It simply isn't as bad as multi-miking or other systems.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Simply-miked recordings sound overly reverberant because the ambient sound
is not correctly reproduced. It comes from the same direction as the
direct sounds, which leads to all sorts of psychoacoustic problems. This
is easily demonstrated. If anyone wants to know how, I'll post an
explanation.

Please do.

/L


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se

Ivo wrote:

Or Plan "B", use one of the 4-channel audio interfaces that works
with a laptop.


Well, I would like to find one. Having 4 ch of Mytek/Lavry and 4ch
Millennia I am not interested in any fancy all in one interface, I
just need 4 AES EBU inputs to connect to a laptop. Seems it simply
does not exist.

Requires a couple of boxes but you could use an RME HDSP PCI card (with Multiface or Digiface) combined with their ADI-4DD.

http://www.rme-audio.com/english/hdsp/cardpci.htm
http://www.rme-audio.com/english/adi/adi4dd.htm



Lynx is considering a laptop interface but that's still a ways off.

Simply-miked recordings sound overly reverberant because the
ambient sound is not correctly reproduced. It comes from the
same direction as the direct sounds, which leads to all sorts
of psychoacoustic problems. This is easily demonstrated.
If anyone wants to know how, I'll post an explanation.

Please do.

Think of me as Art Baker... You asked for it!

I started making live recordings in the late '70s. I'd bought four Pearl TC-4v
mics (an incredible bargain at $1000 -- still have 'em) and a Pioneer RT-2000
deck. (Not exactly the world's greatest tape recorder, but I got four channels
for less than $1000.)

In 1977, I took a job with Barclay Recording & Electronics in Pennsylvania.
There were plenty of orchestras and other musical groups in the area, and my
connections with our customers made it easy to find people who wanted their
performances recorded.

My first recordings -- which used two coincident mics -- came as a major
surprise. The playback differed muchly from what I heard in front of the mics,
in several significant ways.

To wit... More distant. More reverberant (sometimes to the extent of the main
sound "swimming" in reverb). Inaccurate instrumental timbre. A cooler overall
balance.

These effects were not a quirk of the equipment I used. Commercial single-point
recordings (qa, Sheffield) sound much the same.

So what was it? I had my suspicions, which were partly confirmed when I started
experimenting with Ambisonic recording and playback. Ambisonic recordings have
these problems much, much less than stereo recordings. Ambisonic playback does
not "lump" the direct and ambient sound into the output of one speaker -- it
accurately reproduces it from the correct original direction (more or less, but
rather more than less).

Final confirmation came in the late '80s when I was reviewing ambience
synthesizers for Stereophile. The JVC unit had four ambience outputs -- two for
the sides, two for the rear. Recognizing that not everyone would be able to fit
six speakers in their listening room, JVC added a rear-panel switch that blended
the side outputs into the front (which were unmodified pass-throughs).

Hmmm... This permitted an interesting experiment.

What would happen if I compared the side ambience coming from separate speakers
immediately to the side of the front speakers, with both the front channels and
side ambience coming through only the front speakers?

At the time I had six B&W 801 speakers. The "side" ambience speakers sat close
the mains. I moved them even closer -- actually touching.

I then made the comparison. BINGO!

When the ambience came from the "side" speakers -- despite their extreme
"propinquity" to the main speakers -- they did NOTHING to the main sound, other
than adding ambience.

But when the ambience came from the main speakers, it screwed up the sound in
EXACTLY THE SAME WAY I heard simply miked recordings doing it.

The reason? I here offer a plausible (but overly tautological) explanation.
Sounds arriving within the fusion range (ie, delayed up to about 20ms) from
different directions than the direct sounds are heard as ambience -- even if the
angle of arrival is only a few degrees different. But delayed sounds arriving
from the same direction as the direct sounds COMB with them, producing the
colorations I heard.

Now, get this... The effect is at least partly reversible! Adding extra speakers
and playing synthesized ambience through them actually REDUCES the subjective
coloration caused by the "combed" ambience.

All this is easily demonstrated.

Simply-miked recordings sound overly reverberant because the
ambient sound is not correctly reproduced. It comes from the
same direction as the direct sounds, which leads to all sorts
of psychoacoustic problems. This is easily demonstrated.
If anyone wants to know how, I'll post an explanation.

Please do.

Think of me as Art Baker... You asked for it!

I started making live recordings in the late '70s. I'd bought four Pearl TC-4v
mics (an incredible bargain at $1000 -- still have 'em) and a Pioneer RT-2000
deck. (Not exactly the world's greatest tape recorder, but I got four channels
for less than $1000.)

In 1977, I took a job with Barclay Recording & Electronics in Pennsylvania.
There were plenty of orchestras and other musical groups in the area, and my
connections with our customers made it easy to find people who wanted their
performances recorded.

My first recordings -- which used two coincident mics -- came as a major
surprise. The playback differed muchly from what I heard in front of the mics,
in several significant ways.

To wit... More distant. More reverberant (sometimes to the extent of the main
sound "swimming" in reverb). Inaccurate instrumental timbre. A cooler overall
balance.

These effects were not a quirk of the equipment I used. Commercial single-point
recordings (qa, Sheffield) sound much the same.

So what was it? I had my suspicions, which were partly confirmed when I started
experimenting with Ambisonic recording and playback. Ambisonic recordings have
these problems much, much less than stereo recordings. Ambisonic playback does
not "lump" the direct and ambient sound into the output of one speaker -- it
accurately reproduces it from the correct original direction (more or less, but
rather more than less).

Final confirmation came in the late '80s when I was reviewing ambience
synthesizers for Stereophile. The JVC unit had four ambience outputs -- two for
the sides, two for the rear. Recognizing that not everyone would be able to fit
six speakers in their listening room, JVC added a rear-panel switch that blended
the side outputs into the front (which were unmodified pass-throughs).

Hmmm... This permitted an interesting experiment.

What would happen if I compared the side ambience coming from separate speakers
immediately to the side of the front speakers, with both the front channels and
side ambience coming through only the front speakers?

At the time I had six B&W 801 speakers. The "side" ambience speakers sat close
the mains. I moved them even closer -- actually touching.

I then made the comparison. BINGO!

When the ambience came from the "side" speakers -- despite their extreme
"propinquity" to the main speakers -- they did NOTHING to the main sound, other
than adding ambience.

But when the ambience came from the main speakers, it screwed up the sound in
EXACTLY THE SAME WAY I heard simply miked recordings doing it.

The reason? I here offer a plausible (but overly tautological) explanation.
Sounds arriving within the fusion range (ie, delayed up to about 20ms) from
different directions than the direct sounds are heard as ambience -- even if the
angle of arrival is only a few degrees different. But delayed sounds arriving
from the same direction as the direct sounds COMB with them, producing the
colorations I heard.

Now, get this... The effect is at least partly reversible! Adding extra speakers
and playing synthesized ambience through them actually REDUCES the subjective
coloration caused by the "combed" ambience.

All this is easily demonstrated.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Simply-miked recordings sound overly reverberant because the
ambient sound is not correctly reproduced. It comes from the
same direction as the direct sounds, which leads to all sorts
of psychoacoustic problems. This is easily demonstrated.
If anyone wants to know how, I'll post an explanation.

Please do.

Think of me as Art Baker... You asked for it!

Thank you. [explanation snipped]

I started making live recordings in the late '70s. I'd bought four Pearl TC-4v
mics (an incredible bargain at $1000 -- still have 'em) and a Pioneer RT-2000
deck. (Not exactly the world's greatest tape recorder, but I got four channels
for less than $1000.)

Funny coincidence. I bought a pair of Pearl DC-96 that same year... and
a Revox B77. I still have and use the Pearl microphones.

/L


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Simply-miked recordings sound overly reverberant because the
ambient sound is not correctly reproduced. It comes from the
same direction as the direct sounds, which leads to all sorts
of psychoacoustic problems. This is easily demonstrated.
If anyone wants to know how, I'll post an explanation.

Please do.

Think of me as Art Baker... You asked for it!

Thank you. [explanation snipped]

I started making live recordings in the late '70s. I'd bought four Pearl TC-4v
mics (an incredible bargain at $1000 -- still have 'em) and a Pioneer RT-2000
deck. (Not exactly the world's greatest tape recorder, but I got four channels
for less than $1000.)

Funny coincidence. I bought a pair of Pearl DC-96 that same year... and
a Revox B77. I still have and use the Pearl microphones.

/L


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se