decca tree vs line array?

[jnorman]

in a decca tree, why are the two flanking mics placed behind the center mic? in a line array, generally, the center mic (or ORTF pair) and flanking mics are all at the same distance. what are the benefits/drawbacks to each setup when used for a small chamber recording? thanks.

[3rd&4thT]

By putting the center mic forward, you have a stronger guarantee of mono compatibility. This is the mic that hears "first."

3rd&4thT

[mpdonahue]

Originally Posted by 3rd&4thT

By putting the center mic forward, you have a stronger guarantee of mono compatibility. This is the mic that hears "first."
3rd&4thT

Actually, it has more to do with making good stereo.
It's nothing more than our friend Haas working for us. By having the center mic a couple of milliseconds ahead you can use less of it and still get the same image stabilization when compared to the center of an M3. Less level, less comb filtering from summing mono to the sides=wider, more stable stereo image......
Now, if they had just gone with a true stereo pair in the center they would have made even better stereo records. The tree works great for surround, but I think there are better options for stereo.
All the best,
-mark

[pkautzsch]

If the reports I've read are correct (and they should be, as they source from Decca-related engineers), the triangular setup has to do with the fact that the center section of an orchestra sits a few feet farther back than the sides. So to be equally close to violins, violas, and celli, the center mic had to be a few feet into the orchestra.
When recording choirs or organs, these reports say, Decca used 3 mics in a line...

Seems logical to me. Take it with a grain of salt, though. It's only what I've read in a few independent sources

[3rd&4thT]

What I've never seen is info on how Decca recorded pianos. They do have a characteristic sound, but how they got it doesn't seem to get discussed.

3rd&4thT

[sonare]

A few years ago the Decca website used to feature "the Legendary Decca Sound" and actually had diagrams and mic lists for various CDs. For piano the main pair was two omnis on a 1m bar.

The sound signature could be the piano, the hall, or these plus a dozen other possible factors.

Putting a tree on a piano would be one of the least appropriate technique choices I could imagine.

Rich

[Roland]

Originally Posted by sonare

A few years ago the Decca website used to feature "the Legendary Decca Sound" and actually had diagrams and mic lists for various CDs. For piano the main pair was two omnis on a 1m bar.

The sound signature could be the piano, the hall, or these plus a dozen other possible factors.

Putting a tree on a piano would be one of the least appropriate technique choices I could imagine.

Rich

I've seen pictures of Decca sessions with a tree on the Piano! I would however say that Decca were reknown for their orchestral recordings, the solo piano ones, (in my personal experience) were never their particular forte.

Regards


Roland

[Don S]

I know they are most popular in use for orchestras. The center mic sits closer to the winds which usually get lost with simple spaced omni pattern. I could be totally wrong because I haven't done much research, but it seems to make sense. In an AES lecture by guru Richard King, he mentioned that he does not stick to the textbook measurements of the tree (the center 1 meter in front of the line), but moves the center mic sometimes very far into the orchestra depending on the situation.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Don S

I know they are most popular in use for orchestras. The center mic sits closer to the winds which usually get lost with simple spaced omni pattern. I could be totally wrong because I haven't done much research, but it seems to make sense. In an AES lecture by guru Richard King, he mentioned that he does not stick to the textbook measurements of the tree (the center 1 meter in front of the line), but moves the center mic sometimes very far into the orchestra depending on the situation.

This may be true, however, Decca always used to spot the woodwind with a pair of mic's so I suspect that as Mark said earlier in the thread that it was much more to do with getting a really solid centre image filling in the "hole" as so to speak whilst being able to define Left and Right strings (either firsts and seconds or firsts and cello's) with a sense of space.

Regards


Roland

[3rd&4thT]

Originally Posted by Roland

whilst being able to define Left and Right strings (either firsts and seconds or firsts and cello's) with a sense of space.

Regards

Roland

Apparently after their initial experimental phase of stereo recording, Decca became adamant about putting cello's on the right.

The Bax series on Lyrita was recorded by Decca and featured a few LPs with Sir Adrian Boult. It was reported that the Decca engineers were insistent on violins left, cellos right, and since Boult was used to splitting violins left and right he had considerable difficulties with the reseating and was a bit below form as a result. Though the recordings were gorgeous, the working relationship came to a quick end.

The only explanation I can think of at the moment is that with Decca's moment-by-moment gain riding, cello's were more easily rebalanced when spread across the right rather than centered with the woodwinds, but there may be another reason.

3rd&4thT

[mpdonahue]

Originally Posted by 3rd&4thT

Apparently after their initial experimental phase of stereo recording, Decca became adamant about putting cello's on the right.
<snip>
The only explanation I can think of at the moment is that with Decca's moment-by-moment gain riding, cello's were more easily rebalanced when spread across the right rather than centered with the woodwinds, but there may be another reason.
3rd&4thT

I suspect that it has far less to do with any engineering/production decision and more to do with marketing. High on the left and low on the right made for more "Gee Whizz" factor. This made stereo records more easily discernible from their mono brethren.

All the best,
-mark

[loujudson]

Originally Posted by jnorman

in a decca tree, why are the two flanking mics placed behind the center mic? in a line array, generally, the center mic (or ORTF pair) and flanking mics are all at the same distance. what are the benefits/drawbacks to each setup when used for a small chamber recording? thanks.

This may be a quibble, but a "Line Array" is a modern speaker system, not anything to do with mics. If you have seen the term used for mics, can you quote it?

L

[jnorman]

hi lou - in john eargle's "the microphone book", there is a chapter about mic arrays, and the first thing he discusses (p333, i think) is the discrete line array - usually 4 omnis in a straight line across the front of the stage. additionally, there are highly specialized "line array" mics made by a few manufacturers, like gefell.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by jnorman

hi lou - in john eargle's "the microphone book", there is a chapter about mic arrays, and the first thing he discusses (p333, i think) is the discrete line array - usually 4 omnis in a straight line across the front of the stage. additionally, there are highly specialized "line array" mics made by a few manufacturers, like gefell.

In 29 years of recording I've never heard of them, I think it might be info to Gefell too. Reminds me of a line in the film "Billoxi blues" (sp?) where he says that he realises the power of words, once they are written down, people automatically believe them. Personally I've always referred to them as either a stereo pair with flankers or a curtain of 3/4 mics.

Regards



Roland

[3rd&4thT]

Originally Posted by mpdonahue

I suspect that it has far less to do with any engineering/production decision and more to do with marketing. High on the left and low on the right made for more "Gee Whizz" factor. This made stereo records more easily discernible from their mono brethren.

All the best,
-mark

You are absolutely right about the WhizzBang effect on sales of putting the high strings on the left and low strings on the right. It also made mixing 3-track much easier, if you put low brass on the left with the violins and high brass and percussion on the right with cellos.

However, if I'm remembering my Decca history correctly, Kenneth Wilkinson added the outriggers to the tree in 1959. This added a helluva lot more hall, requiring more active spotlighting than had been necessary before, when it was just tree-and-spots.

Listen to these 2 clips, the same composer, the same conductor, the same tenor, the same hall, similar music and presumably much the same production team. You will find the difference startling. My apologies for the file compression grit; turn 'em up anyway.

In fairness, it's possible that heavy drapes were hung for Butterfly and not for Boheme. Decca did that when the hall threatened to get too lively; you can see it in session photos and the Golden Ring documentary. But even if they did that here, it's not enough to account for the difference in sound.

It's also my understanding that Wilkinson introduced the Decca faders, in which the engineer rested each finger in a little cup on each fader, and rebalanced according to frequent cues by making squid-like motions - another definition entirely for "digital sound."

I was just wondering if that might have influenced Decca's inflexible orchestral seating policy.

3rd&4thT

[mpdonahue]

Originally Posted by jnorman

hi lou - in john eargle's "the microphone book", there is a chapter about mic arrays, and the first thing he discusses (p333, i think) is the discrete line array - usually 4 omnis in a straight line across the front of the stage. additionally, there are highly specialized "line array" mics made by a few manufacturers, like gefell.

I think that "Highly Specialized" is John's (R.I.P) secret code for omni directional...........

All the best,
-mark

[jnorman]

hi roland - here is a link to the gefell KEM-970 line array microphone as shown on the mercenary audio website:
Mercenary Audio - Microtech Gefell KEM 970 Line Array Microphone

i assume that the other responders know who john eargle is/was, and can verify for themselves what i referenced in his microphone book regarding line arrays.

i am a little surprised at a couple of these comments...

[jnorman]

hi mark - i think by "highly specialized", i really meant "very expensive". the gefell kem 970 is $12,000....