my studio space is mediocre - 17.5'x23'x8', carpet floor, with some
ringy kind of mess on isntruments that have lots of high-end content,
like flutes. i need to track some flute solos in there. i've tried
ORTF cards at a variety of distances, spaced cards, etc, and am now
wondering about trying omnis, since i tend to like omnis better than
cards for overall sound quality. i have avoided them in the past due
to my poor room acoustics. but now i plan to try close spaced pair
just to see what i get. i have read of some earthworks people who
suggest coincident or near-coincident omnis placed very close - a foot
or so out.

1. how would you guys suggest trying omnis on a solo flute in a
mediocre studio setting? very close spaced pair, like 1-2 feet out, 2
foot spread? or further out, like 4-5 feet out 3 feet spread? one
mic 1-2 feet in front, 2nd mic 2 feet out from the end of the flute?

2. since the space is mediocre, should i use some acoustic blankets
to baffle the room some? should i baffle behind the mics, or behind
the player, or both?

3. if the ringy mess is from the ceiling, how can i baffle the
ceiling?

thanks.

(jnorman)


my studio space is mediocre - 17.5'x23'x8', carpet floor, with some
ringy kind of mess on isntruments that have lots of high-end content,
like flutes. i need to track some flute solos in there. i've tried
ORTF cards at a variety of distances, spaced cards, etc, and am now
wondering about trying omnis, since i tend to like omnis better than
cards for overall sound quality. i have avoided them in the past due
to my poor room acoustics. but now i plan to try close spaced pair
just to see what i get. i have read of some earthworks people who
suggest coincident or near-coincident omnis placed very close - a foot
or so out.

1. how would you guys suggest trying omnis on a solo flute in a
mediocre studio setting? very close spaced pair, like 1-2 feet out, 2
foot spread? or further out, like 4-5 feet out 3 feet spread? one
mic 1-2 feet in front, 2nd mic 2 feet out from the end of the flute?

2. since the space is mediocre, should i use some acoustic blankets
to baffle the room some? should i baffle behind the mics, or behind
the player, or both?

3. if the ringy mess is from the ceiling, how can i baffle the
ceiling?

thanks.

Have you checked out the DPA website at http://www.dpamicrophones.com/ ?
They have an interesting "Application Guide" section, for example notes on
micing a solo flute....

" Two close miking techniques for the flute are quite common:

1. Approx. 5-10 cm away from the instrument, aiming half way the mouth piece
and the left hand. Breathing can be a problem in this position so an omni such
as 4006 or Compact omni 4051 or 4052 may be an advantage.

2. Due to it's polar character the flute can also be miked behind and slightly
above the head of the player, pointing at the finger holes. In fact in an
overdub situation a myriad of places around the head yield very good balance.
In this case a cardioid such as 4011 or Compact cardioid 4022 is recommended. "

That's single micing up close of course, but it might give you some idea
of "where the sound is." For A/B micing with omnis in general DPA usually
recommends a spacing between mics of 40-60 centimeters - about 16 to 24 inches
apart - but that might be too far apart up real close, without a spot mic.

I keep trying to get the Sabra-Som people to make a hex rod for their ST4
stereo bars that is longer than the standard 30 centimeters for spaced omni
micing or combined A/B + X/Y micing on one bar, but no luck so far... Must be
somewhere one can find the hex rods to extend them out.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Audioist / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

jnorman wrote:

1. how would you guys suggest trying omnis on a solo flute in a
mediocre studio setting? very close spaced pair, like 1-2 feet out, 2
foot spread? or further out, like 4-5 feet out 3 feet spread? one
mic 1-2 feet in front, 2nd mic 2 feet out from the end of the flute?

I might try that. But before doing it, I'd set it up and walk in and
talk in the location where the flautist would be. Maybe play a pennywhistle
or something. I think you'll find that the omnis turn a mediocre acoustic
into a really bad one.

2. since the space is mediocre, should i use some acoustic blankets
to baffle the room some? should i baffle behind the mics, or behind
the player, or both?

That will tend to make for a more dead mediocre sound. But listen to what
you get without it. Blankets will kill the top end reflections without
doing anything to kill midrange reflections and they won't do anything
to add longer reflections.

3. if the ringy mess is from the ceiling, how can i baffle the
ceiling?

THAT is when you pull out the figure-8 and turn it sideways!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
jnorman wrote:

3. if the ringy mess is from the ceiling, how can i baffle the
ceiling?

THAT is when you pull out the figure-8 and turn it sideways!

Why sideways? Does your average figure-8 reject better from the
side than from the top? Theoretically the rejection should be the
same.

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

"Hal Laurent"

"Scott Dorsey" wrote

jnorman wrote:
3. if the ringy mess is from the ceiling, how can i baffle the
ceiling?

THAT is when you pull out the figure-8 and turn it sideways!

Why sideways? Does your average figure-8 reject better from the
side than from the top? Theoretically the rejection should be the
same.

Actually I think the polar patterns of mics can be very different sounding
on the vertical axis compared to the horizontal axis. Like take an AKG 414B
ULS in cardiod, put it in a small space like a voiceover booth and compare how
it sounds standing up vertically as is normal (you can read the words on the
mic), to how it sounds on it's side (with the XLR sticking out horizontally.)

On it's side in a voiceover booth it sound a lot better to me.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Audioist / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Hal Laurent wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
jnorman wrote:

3. if the ringy mess is from the ceiling, how can i baffle the
ceiling?

THAT is when you pull out the figure-8 and turn it sideways!

Why sideways? Does your average figure-8 reject better from the
side than from the top? Theoretically the rejection should be the
same.

In the case of the 77DX, the null plane is kind of irregular and it's
better on the sides than above and below. On the Beyers it's pretty
even.
--scott

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

THAT is when you pull out the figure-8 and turn it sideways!

Why sideways? Does your average figure-8 reject better from the
side than from the top? Theoretically the rejection should be the
same.

Whoa! I've been championing the lateral figure of eight for a while now. Try
it yourself.

In what book of patterns do you find other than an overview? There's a HUGE
mic to mic difference in what comes in the end of side address mics.
Sometimes very little, sometimes a lot, sometimes a lot of UGLY.

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

In the case of the 77DX, the null plane is kind of irregular and it's
better on the sides than above and below. On the Beyers it's pretty
even.
--scott BRBR

Intuitively, it would seem pretty natural to assume that an end address figure
8 would have a more even null than a side address mic, given the acoustic
occlusion of the body.

Scott Fraser

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Hal Laurent wrote:
Why sideways? Does your average figure-8 reject better from the
side than from the top? Theoretically the rejection should be the
same.

In the case of the 77DX, the null plane is kind of irregular and it's
better on the sides than above and below. On the Beyers it's pretty
even.

I don't have any of those. The only figure-8s I own are U87, U89,
C414-U/BLS (did I spell that right?), and AT4050. Oh, and a couple
of Oktava ML-52s, but I don't like them much.

Unlike most home studios, I have ten-foot ceilings, so ceiling reflections
aren't usually my primary concern. Recording a singing guitar player is
another matter. I'll have to try the sideways thing next time I do that.

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

Hal Laurent wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Hal Laurent wrote:
Why sideways? Does your average figure-8 reject better from the
side than from the top? Theoretically the rejection should be the
same.

In the case of the 77DX, the null plane is kind of irregular and it's
better on the sides than above and below. On the Beyers it's pretty
even.

I don't have any of those. The only figure-8s I own are U87, U89,
C414-U/BLS (did I spell that right?), and AT4050. Oh, and a couple
of Oktava ML-52s, but I don't like them much.

I bet you find a similar effect with the U87 and U89.

The pattern on the ML-52 is really goofy and really varies with frequency
a lot. But changing the transformer out (as per the latest Tape Op) makes
a huge improvement in overall sound even if it doesn't help the pattern.
Taking out the pop baffle in front of the ribbon helps both.

Unlike most home studios, I have ten-foot ceilings, so ceiling reflections
aren't usually my primary concern. Recording a singing guitar player is
another matter. I'll have to try the sideways thing next time I do that.

Try it both ways and see if you can hear a difference. On the C414, I
bet you can't, but on the U87 I bet you can.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Hal Laurent wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Hal Laurent wrote:
Why sideways? Does your average figure-8 reject better from the
side than from the top? Theoretically the rejection should be the
same.

In the case of the 77DX, the null plane is kind of irregular and it's
better on the sides than above and below. On the Beyers it's pretty
even.

I don't have any of those. The only figure-8s I own are U87, U89,
C414-U/BLS (did I spell that right?), and AT4050. Oh, and a couple
of Oktava ML-52s, but I don't like them much.

I bet you find a similar effect with the U87 and U89.

Unlike most home studios, I have ten-foot ceilings, so ceiling
reflections
aren't usually my primary concern. Recording a singing guitar player is
another matter. I'll have to try the sideways thing next time I do that.

Try it both ways and see if you can hear a difference. On the C414, I
bet you can't, but on the U87 I bet you can.

I don't use the U87 much since I got the U89's, but I'll check it out with
them.

Do you have a guess for the technical reasons for these disparities? Is it
the
shape of the housings? The design of the capsule?

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

Hal Laurent wrote:

Do you have a guess for the technical reasons for these disparities? Is it
the
shape of the housings? The design of the capsule?

My bet is that it's all due to the grille and housings. But I have never
seen real polar plots on several axes of the U87 with and without the
housing and grille removed. It would be interesting to see.

I have recently done this with a Chinese microphone that has a new grille
design which totally screws up the mike pattern on both axes, and it is
scary how much the case can contribute to changes in off-axis response
(and therefore to rejection on a figure-8).
--scott


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

Do you have a guess for the technical reasons for these disparities? Is it
the
shape of the housings? The design of the capsule?

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

Mechanical. Think about it. In side address, the obstructions of the body (or
lack thereof) are far less of a consideration than when attempting end
address.

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

grille-off tests might be revealing, but the only time I tried it, the
RF buzz was overpowering.... how do you do it; use a large mesh screen?

----------------

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Hal Laurent wrote:

Do you have a guess for the technical reasons for these disparities? Is it
the
shape of the housings? The design of the capsule?


My bet is that it's all due to the grille and housings. But I have never
seen real polar plots on several axes of the U87 with and without the
housing and grille removed. It would be interesting to see.

I have recently done this with a Chinese microphone that has a new grille
design which totally screws up the mike pattern on both axes, and it is
scary how much the case can contribute to changes in off-axis response
(and therefore to rejection on a figure-8).
--scott