F tha 3:1 rule

[DrDeltaM]

Screw rules
Just make it sound good

[5down1up]

that rules is a cool idea

you can have tons of combinations even with just one mic and its patterns ( if there are some of course ) .
would love to read more bout it instead of " the holy pre thread number 6.341.789 "

[logichead]

The 3:1 rule comes from a time before it was possible to easily time align signals. Today you can slap a sample delay on a track and start shifting.


Best...H

[tINY]

Hell, tracks are cheap these days, use 8 to 15 omni mics randomly thrown around the room and record them all. You can change delay, phase, level, and EQ later and fix it in the mix....





-tINY

[5down1up]

set it up right till you like it , thats where the time should be spend . and you safe a lot of your nervs & time !

if you really know what your doing , you might be able to fix it .

i am not ... so at least i make sure i like the sound i record .

you cant make step2 before step1

[Chris Parsons]

3:1 dosen't have anything to do with stereo right? It's just a rule of thumb if you are mixing to mono.

I think...

[SpaceChild]

Originally posted by Chris Parsons
3:1 dosen't have anything to do with stereo right? It's just a rule of thumb if you are mixing to mono.

Yeah, in practice. The 3:1-rule is for minimizing phase problems which usually aren't perceived as problems when the channels are panned wide around the stereo field. But the problems are still there. Besides, you are potentially 'mixing to mono' every time the material is played on radio.


Spacey

[PaRaNoId]

the main reason i posted this was that after trying so many different types of "typical" stereo configs and drum mic setups, including the whole polarity-switching thing...I found that odd setups, with complete disreguard for sound theory and mic teqnique gave me the most realistic sounds. For example, alot of times when using a top and bottom snare mic, i will leave both polarities alone. It thins out the sound, but sometimes its all the EQ i need for a particular mix. Another example- omni and subcardioid mic patterns are crazy unpredictable when and where they might cancel each other out. General theory would say not to use omnis in an XY pattern (especially in a smaller rooom). But ya know what? I use that excat config more often than not...Why? Cuz it sounds better when compared to cardioids in spaced pair or even an ORTF at distance.

I laugh at the fact that at 99% of all live performances and on "studio" music videos (on drum kits) you see a spaced pair being used with LDCs. Why is it? Probably because it looks cool or something. Because that's they way they learned to do it and like a sheep are just going with the herd. (herd of sheep? flock?) I'm rambling and I'm cutting myself off...

[SpaceChild]

How are those related to the 3:1-rule?


Spacey

[PaRaNoId]

the 3:1 rule as I understand it explains that when miking something in stereo, the mics should be three times as far way from each other; as they are from the source. This supposedly helps reduce phase cancellations AND summing-to-mono weirdness. My discussion of the mic tecniques are referring to NOT following this rule. I hope I cleared things up!

[SpaceChild]

Yeah, no worries, I was just being daft. In your post you just mentioned that when 'using a top and bottom snare mic, i will leave both polarities alone' and using 'omnis in an XY pattern.' Both techniques where you're not necessarily breaking the 3:1-rule by doing what you do. But it's alright, I think we all got it anyway


Spacey

[tINY]

Um, omni's in a x-y config????

Did you ever try that one with the phase reversed on one of the mics?





-tINY

[PaRaNoId]

what are you trying to say there tiny?

And yes I've tried it! (not with any usable results though....)