What is the preferred pickup characteristic of mics for coincident use, such
as with an ORTF holder?
I have a pair of old Audio-Technica AT33R hypercardioid condensers, and
(coming soon), some Marshal MXL603s subcardioids.

I recorded a smal ensemble with the AT-33's; a violinist, harmonium, and
vocalist, using the AT-33's in ORTF config, but was not completely satisfied
with the result. To my ears, the mics were not as clean as I hoped. The
Marshalls are newer technology, and should be better, but will subcardioid
mics work in a coincident configuration?

As a further question, I will also have access to some MXL2003's. These seem
to be recommended for close-up instrument recording. Further suggestions as
to their application would be appreciated. Which are more generally useful?
the 2003, or the 603s?

Is it standard practice to do a single coincident config, while also micing
the instruments individually, and time-aligning into the mix for stereo
ambience?

Does anyone like any of the inexpensive tube mics?

For ORTF you generally want cardiod, not hyper or otherwise. You can
use Omnis, but cardiod is the usual choice.

The AT33's are to narrow in their pickup characteristics to be useful
in this configuration. The Marshall's aren't "newer" technology,
really, and are actually substandard to Audio Technica's level of
quality and performance as well as bang for the buck.

I am not familiar enough with Marshall microphones to comment on
applications, but they are a decent enough inexpensive mic if used
based on their actual characteristics, how they actually sound, what
they are really doing to the sounds they pick up.

You can mic up anything any way you want. You can use coincident pairs
and also close mic, put all into separate tracks and choose which is
better or a blend of all choices. It depends upon what you are striving
to do, what kind of sound you are trying to achieve/capture/create.

As far as inexpensive tube mics... I don't use them because they are
generally below the level of quality I prefer. Sometimes you really do
get what you pay for, in the most negative sense of the word, when you
buy inexpensive.

The advice that has been given time and again, I will echo: save your
money, be patient, and buy better gear. Yes, you may have less gear,
but the gear you have will be better quality and more versatile if you
make good choices.

--Fletch

soundhaspriority wrote:
What is the preferred pickup characteristic of mics for coincident use, such
as with an ORTF holder?

For a real ORTF (which is not coincident), strictly speaking you want
cardioids. The actual spec on file with the ORTF specifies cardioids.

However, it depends on the room. If you want to get closer, you will
want wider pattern mikes, splayed out a little more. If you want to
get back, you will want narrower mikes, pulled in a little.

I have a pair of old Audio-Technica AT33R hypercardioid condensers, and
(coming soon), some Marshal MXL603s subcardioids.

In the real world, off-axis response trumps actual pattern any day. Use
the mike that has the best response off-axis and then live with the placement
that gives you.

I recorded a smal ensemble with the AT-33's; a violinist, harmonium, and
vocalist, using the AT-33's in ORTF config, but was not completely satisfied
with the result. To my ears, the mics were not as clean as I hoped. The
Marshalls are newer technology, and should be better, but will subcardioid
mics work in a coincident configuration?

No, the Marshalls are actually older technology and probably don't have
as good pattern control as the AT. None of these are particularly good
microphones for the job.

As a further question, I will also have access to some MXL2003's. These seem
to be recommended for close-up instrument recording. Further suggestions as
to their application would be appreciated. Which are more generally useful?
the 2003, or the 603s?

For the most part, the 2003 will be worse off-axis than the others. None
of these mikes is really optimized for distant miking.

Is it standard practice to do a single coincident config, while also micing
the instruments individually, and time-aligning into the mix for stereo
ambience?

You're often forced to do stuff like this in the real world, either because
you don't have the setup time to do it right, or because you want things to
be exaggeratedly close-sounding, or because the orchestral balances are
screwy to begin with. So yes, it's sort of a standard practice even though
it's very suboptimal.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:
What is the preferred pickup characteristic of mics for coincident use,
such
as with an ORTF holder?

For a real ORTF (which is not coincident), strictly speaking you want
cardioids. The actual spec on file with the ORTF specifies cardioids.

However, it depends on the room. If you want to get closer, you will
want wider pattern mikes, splayed out a little more. If you want to
get back, you will want narrower mikes, pulled in a little.

I have a pair of old Audio-Technica AT33R hypercardioid condensers, and
(coming soon), some Marshal MXL603s subcardioids.

In the real world, off-axis response trumps actual pattern any day. Use
the mike that has the best response off-axis and then live with the
placement
that gives you.

I recorded a smal ensemble with the AT-33's; a violinist, harmonium, and
vocalist, using the AT-33's in ORTF config, but was not completely
satisfied
with the result. To my ears, the mics were not as clean as I hoped. The
Marshalls are newer technology, and should be better, but will subcardioid
mics work in a coincident configuration?

No, the Marshalls are actually older technology and probably don't have
as good pattern control as the AT. None of these are particularly good
microphones for the job.

What is a good mic for the job? Since the Marshalls are supposedly almost
omni, how about using them to construct a baffled coincident array?

soundhaspriority wrote:

What is a good mic for the job?

What is your budget? For around $500 each you can pick up the AT 4053, or
the Josephson Series 4 mike. Both are respectable mikes... certainly not the
best you can find but good starter sets for orchestral work.

Since the Marshalls are supposedly almost
omni, how about using them to construct a baffled coincident array?

They aren't as omni as all that. And they are wonky off-axis, which
defeats the whole purpose of using baffled omnis. The reason you use
baffled omnis is that it lets you get directionality out of pressure
response omnis (which, all things considered, will have better low end
and better off-axis response than comparable cardioids).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

For the most part, the 2003 will be worse off-axis than the others. None
of these mikes is really optimized for distant miking.

Do you have data to support that or have you done comparative listening
tests varying the angle?

As far as pattern, it doesn't matter as much as people usually opine.
Using XY, the extreme of hypercardiod is a figure 8 and with that
pattern one gets a Blumlein configuration.

While you will hear a difference comparatively with varied patterns, it
isn't about good or bad, better or worse but more about preference.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:

For the most part, the 2003 will be worse off-axis than the others. None
of these mikes is really optimized for distant miking.

Do you have data to support that or have you done comparative listening
tests varying the angle?

I've heard the opposite; the 2003, as a subcardioid, is actually pretty good
off-axis.

Bob Cain wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

For the most part, the 2003 will be worse off-axis than the others. None
of these mikes is really optimized for distant miking.

Do you have data to support that or have you done comparative listening
tests varying the angle?

I have actual plots on a mike built with the same capsule as the 2003,
but I don't have actual measurements on the poster's specific 2003. Since
they are all tensioned a little differently, the patterns are all a little
different.

As far as pattern, it doesn't matter as much as people usually opine.
Using XY, the extreme of hypercardiod is a figure 8 and with that
pattern one gets a Blumlein configuration.

Right. But the pattern needs to be uniform with frequency as much as
possible. Since most of the sound sources are off-axis, the response
to the sides is critical.

While you will hear a difference comparatively with varied patterns, it
isn't about good or bad, better or worse but more about preference.

Well, if I have figure-8 pair, I am going to need to place it a lot farther
back to get the same ambience than I will need to place a Jecklin pair of
omnis. This has other side effects, of course (including giving you the
ability to deal with standing waves between the ceiling and floor, and
tight nulls to deal with slap echos from the floor).

In a long narrow room with a live ceiling, the Blumlein is probably going
to be a win. In a short, wide room with a nice reverb decay, the Jecklin
pair is probably going to be a win.

BUT, if you have your choice between mikes of similar patterns, the mikes
that are most accurate off-axis will be a win.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

soundhaspriority wrote:
"Bob Cain" wrote in message
m...
Scott Dorsey wrote:

For the most part, the 2003 will be worse off-axis than the others. None
of these mikes is really optimized for distant miking.

Do you have data to support that or have you done comparative listening
tests varying the angle?

I've heard the opposite; the 2003, as a subcardioid, is actually pretty good
off-axis.

Try it and see. Jingle keys on-axis, then 90' away, and listen to the
playback. It should sound more muffled on the side, but not more smeary.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:
"Bob Cain" wrote in message
om...
Scott Dorsey wrote:

For the most part, the 2003 will be worse off-axis than the others.
None
of these mikes is really optimized for distant miking.

Do you have data to support that or have you done comparative listening
tests varying the angle?

I've heard the opposite; the 2003, as a subcardioid, is actually pretty
good
off-axis.

Try it and see. Jingle keys on-axis, then 90' away, and listen to the
playback. It should sound more muffled on the side, but not more smeary.
--scott
--
I'm sorry, I was thinking of the 603s. The 2003, as a large capsule mic,
can't be even off axis.