Several questions concerning Decca tree

[3rd&4thT]

Originally Posted by TonyF

The Tree spacings, angles and tweaks were fine-tuned for Neumann M50's which are not true omni mics except at low frequencies where they (the tube originals) recreate a low-end weight and extension like no other mic I have ever used.

Thank you Tony, fascinating insights. All the more inexplicable then that they monitored on tiny Tannoys with no bass, and didn't realize they had traffic rumble until they got the tapes back to HQ. Killed some potential edits because of stop/go traffic on different takes.

Originally Posted by TonyF

For me the Tree works best in acoustics which are not overreverberant, .

Ah, that would explain why they went around with those heavy black drapes so often. For all that we associate the classic Decca sound with vast amounts of reverb, the decay times are usually fairly short.

Cheers,
3rd&4thT

[Nobilmente]

Originally Posted by TonyF

I have been having more success (with modern mic types) using a four-mic phased array on a wide stereo bar - two omnis at about 66cm or 67cm, angled out, then two subcardioids inside the omnis at about 46cm or 47cm overall spacing, again angled out. I balance one pair against the other pair and usually end up with one of the pair dominating by 6dB.

Thanks very much for your info on this technique and the fact that it's been working well, it will certainly be something I will use.

I'm encouraged too that it's not 100 miles from the ORTF flanked by omnis. I was concerned about problems with phase, but I'll try this as well now. Anything to get some omnis in on the act!

Thank you very much, very much appreciated.

[mljung]

Originally Posted by TonyF

So ... once you move away from mics like M50's with a sliding polar diagram which is a function of frequency you are not really doing anything especially "DECCA Tree". Not to say it isn't fun, and not to say it doesn't sound good, but a DECCA Tree it is not. Many modern omnis are much more 'omni' than an M50, and consequently the functionality of the mic trio is quite a lot different.

***

I have been having more success (with modern mic types) using a four-mic phased array on a wide stereo bar - two omnis at about 66cm or 67cm, angled out, then two subcardioids inside the omnis at about 46cm or 47cm overall spacing, again angled out. I balance one pair against the other pair and usually end up with one of the pair dominating by 6dB.

Thanks for posting Tony - much appreciated

I have experimented with a lot of three and four mics main arrays [+five for surround].
Until now I have generally preferred three as in a Decca Tree although I work with smaller spacings and tend to use directional mics in the center. So even though the original ideas was developed from the Decca Tree, it's something different!

Tony - your four phased array sounds interesting but as other has mentioned; don't you have any phase issues using two stereo pairs so close together?

And what about your old Faulkner phased array system using two parallel Fig8's, do you still use this sometimes?

I remember trying this out some years back as the center in a smaller "Tree" setup [used in combination with two omnis moved back about 40cm from the Fig8's and spread about 80cm]. The recording of the rehearsals went very well, but one of the figure of eights began buzzing during the live recording [because of very high humidity in the old church where the recording took place]. Anyhow I managed to get a pretty fine recording of the rest three mikes...

I really like the basic method of using arrays from three to five mics and mix afterwords, for both flexibility and sound quality, the Decca Tree has for me been a very good place to begin my own experiments..!

[Janne_L]

Here is a pipe organ recording, made with DPA 4003 and a Pearl TL4 stereo mic. It is a Decca Tree
with DPA on flanks (space 144cm) and TL4 (forward 72cm) in the middle.

DPA is panned hard L,R and stereo TL4 XY, TL4 is mixed approximately 2.54 db lower than the DPA.

I will made a super decca tree, which is 2.50 and 1.25 cm, it will be very interesting to hear how it works on the organ.



https://sakerlagring.telia.se/USER/F...older=10528363

[RichS]

Originally Posted by Janne_L

Here is a pipe organ recording, made with DPA 4003 and a Pearl TL4 stereo mic. It is a Decca Tree
with DPA on flanks (space 144cm) and TL4 (forward 72cm) in the middle.

DPA is panned hard L,R and stereo TL4 XY, TL4 is mixed approximately 2.54 db lower than the DPA.

I will made a super decca tree, which is 2.50 and 1.25 cm, it will be very interesting to hear how it works on the organ.



https://sakerlagring.telia.se/USER/F...older=10528363

A very nice recording of some very nice playing!!!

[sonare]

IMHO an EXCELLENT recording! It is always rather a tough thing to strike a good balance between detail, blend, brilliance, weight, etc on organ-- even in a good acoustic. Was there a ruckpositiv? The tonal palette between good European and good American organ design is always a surprise-- usually refreshing, depending on rep.

My only thought (which might go away if we could hear the large ensemble stuff at 320kbs) is that the mixtures sound a little hard and glassy. Did you try using only a pair of 4003 with 1m spacing? Which grids are you using?

Rich

[0VU]

Originally Posted by mljung

Tony - your four phased array sounds interesting but as other has mentioned; don't you have any phase issues using two stereo pairs so close together?

Not to speak for Tony but as this is very similar to the four mic array I've been playing with on and off for the last decade or so - same polar patterns and more or less similar spacing - I hope he doesn't mind me throwing in a few things I've found along the way. (And taking comfort from knowing that if someone with Tony's experience is experimenting with it, I might not have been barking up completely the wrong tree all this time (Or I might. Either way, it's a pretty useful and quite adaptable setup, if not as technically elegant as some.))

I've found that so long as one pair or the other clearly dominates the balance (as it normally seems to work out) I don't get much, if anything, in the way or correlation problems. Not surprisingly, with a difference of about 6dB or so, things are quite stable and the whole seems to function nicely as a coherent array but as the contribution of the two pairs becomes more equal, correlation becomes more problematic with the usual consequences for imaging and colouration. Obviously, there's a lot of interaction between spacing, angles, and mic characteristics but some of these have a more marked effect than others. To some extent, mixing and matching the relative polar patterns of the chosen mics can help manage the combination but, ime, adjusting angle and spacing, and particularly, careful positioning of the array within the room together with avoiding a balance that is too much neither one pair nor the other is the simplest way of making it work. It's the usual thing of getting a few of the right mics in the right places to do the job instead of fighting against having to fake something with fifty mics in the wrong places. Sadly I do more than I'd like of the latter!

So far I haven't been able to pin down a single setup as being consistently better than the others. My spacings vary a bit according to size of ensemble, acoustics and combination of mics. I'm normally working with a mixture of Neumanns KM130/131/143 and/or Schoeps MK2/2H/2S/MK21 with spacings of 650-700mm on omnis and 440-490mm on subcardioids. I've tried running everything wider but the image was never good and playing with ORTF/NOS-like spacings for the subcardioids with the omnis at 650-750mm, I could never make the two pairs integrate predictably to behave or sound like one array, as opposed to a couple of badly positioned pairs.

Playing around with adding diffraction spheres or other attachments to the omnis is interesting as it opens up a few more options with blending polar patterns and angles/distances. However I found more 'pure' omnis (very small diaphragm/things like adding nose cones to DPAs) were less effective than I expected - still playing with that though.

[3rd&4thT]

Originally Posted by 0VU

I've found that so long as one pair or the other clearly dominates the balance (as it normally seems to work out) I don't get much, if anything, in the way or correlation problems. Not surprisingly, with a difference of about 6dB or so, things are quite stable

together with avoiding a balance that is too much neither one pair nor the other is the simplest way of making it work.

Thanks for your post, but I'm sorry, I am confused. Either one pair does dominate the balance, or it doesn't? Does a difference of 6 db qualify as dominating?

Cordially,
3rd&4thT

[Janne_L]

Originally Posted by sonare

IMHO an EXCELLENT recording! It is always rather a tough thing to strike a good balance between detail, blend, brilliance, weight, etc on organ-- even in a good acoustic. Was there a ruckpositiv? The tonal palette between good European and good American organ design is always a surprise-- usually refreshing, depending on rep.

My only thought (which might go away if we could hear the large ensemble stuff at 320kbs) is that the mixtures sound a little hard and glassy. Did you try using only a pair of 4003 with 1m spacing? Which grids are you using?

Rich

Hello!
I used DD0251 Free-field Grid, the 16 bit .wav file is on the same link now, < 90 mb
Njet! didn't make any recording with 1 m space.

[MBBCFP]

Originally Posted by MBBCFP

Today, I made a modified Decca tree using 3/4" steel conduit from Home Depot and On-Stage mic hangers. It is a full-scale tree with an additional rear pair for surround. See this link to DPA's site. The hangers allow me to position the mics as needed for this or any space. The tree cost me under $20.00 to build. The hangers were $6.99 each X 5.

Here is the tree in "action."

[studer58]

Like several of the contributors to this thread I've also tried the cardioid and omni pairs on one bar method with success...yet according to theory it should lead to some aural confusion...perhaps ? If I recall there should be the same direct to reverberant sound ratio between an omni placed at 1 metre and a cardioid recording the same event at about 1.8 metres. However with that degree of divergence in distance between the 2 pairs, on separate stands, you'd rightly expect to experience some 'smearing' or phasing between the 2 pairs...unless the 2 sets of waveforms were slipped atop one another and lined up in the computer (assuming here that they were recorded as discrete pairs and not submixed down together 'on the spot' at the event). I'm not disputing the success of the "2 pairs on one bar" method (it's worked for me too !)....but suggesting that the correct placement of one pair would necessarily involve the incorrect placement of the second pair, if the 1 to1.8 ratio is to be adhered to ? As the teachers say: compare and contrast

[pkautzsch]

Originally Posted by studer58

If I recall there should be the same direct to reverberant sound ratio between an omni placed at 1 metre and a cardioid recording the same event at about 1.8 metres.

It's 1.4 mtrs, to be exact.

However with that degree of divergence in distance between the 2 pairs, on separate stands, you'd rightly expect to experience some 'smearing' or phasing between the 2 pairs...

Actually, the two pairs will pick up quite different kinds of sound, as there is a room to be included in our expectations. If it was only direct sound, you'd be perfectly right.
In a typical main pair setup, an omni pair would be, say, 3 mtrs from the source. The cardioid pair would then, to pick up the same direct/reverb ratio, have to be positioned 4.2 mtrs from source. These 1.2 mtrs mean quite a difference in sound, and you'll never get the two waveforms to match exactly. You don't need to either, usually. You might of course delay the closer pair by approx. 4 ms in order to have transients match - but as the reverb and the ensemble's internal balance is so different between both pairs, the signals aren't exactly correlated.
But what's the point in recording two pairs with the same d/r ratio? You'd typically want to blend direct and reverb to taste and therefore put up one "dry" and one "wet" pair. That's what the two-pairs-on-one-bar approach is about.

but suggesting that the correct placement of one pair would necessarily involve the incorrect placement of the second pair, if the 1 to1.8 ratio is to be adhered to ? As the teachers say: compare and contrast

As stated above, it's not about same d/r ratio, but about one drier and one wetter pair, or about more bass in omnis, or less audience coughs in cardioids.

[boojum]

FWIW - Even beginners can dream: I am currently playing with a Williams tree array for cards. The setup I am just now playing with is quite compact. Off the top of my head the outrigger cards are ~1' apart and the forward card is ~8" from the outriggers. The outriggers are angled at 80 deg from the forward mic. The distances between mics are approximate as I am too lazy to run upstairs and look in the book.

I liked the effect I got. I recorded some local guys at a bluegrass jam in a local American Legion hall. I am going to try it again on Saturday in a "real" venue, a saloon, where the will be another bluegrass group, a better one, and I will run the card tree plus a feed from the soundboard. The sbd guy is too dense to pan the instruments and runs everything "straight up" so it is two channels of mono. A month ago the guy had one channel phase inverted! Yikes. They pay this fellow.

I can post samples if anyone cares to hear them. Understand that I am learning. This board is my master class.


Cheers

[Trev@Circle]

Originally Posted by TonyF

I have been having more success (with modern mic types) using a four-mic phased array on a wide stereo bar - two omnis at about 66cm or 67cm, angled out, then two subcardioids inside the omnis at about 46cm or 47cm overall spacing, again angled out. I balance one pair against the other pair and usually end up with one of the pair dominating by 6dB.

Great post! Any chance of a photo?

Thanks in advance!

[KINGSWAY]

Just a brief historical footnote to this discussion.
Since it's inception at the Broadhurst Studios of Decca in 1954, the original array was of
three Neumann Km 56s and continued in this guise, with the addition of M50 outriggers
in Vienna, until the end of the Solti Ring. Meanwhile in the U.K., the array of 56s had been replaced with M50s by 1960, led by Kenneth Wilkinson co-inventor of the tree.
There are alternatives to the M50 which I have successfully used :
Km 84, M49, TLM 170. The centre microphone level is fairly crucial, and following the
Decca pan law should be set at -3db compared to left and right. The pans of the tree
when used with outriggers are also of paramount importance ,if one wishes to create
a stable stereo image.

[3rd&4thT]

Fascinating. Thanks.

3rd&4thT

[7rojo7]

I like an xy over an omni for center and add whatever it needs after. I prefer to multi-track so I can ping my setup and align phase accurately (specially if I'll need spots, big stage). If I'm not multi tracking, I'll simplify everything and respect critical distance over anything else. It is possible, in the right space and if everything is performed well, to do all with just one array, and this may take a lot of playing (pickups etc...). Live concert is another story, I put up stuff I know I'll use for only 2 passages e basta. or only for the recetitivo where there's only a cello and harpsichord and singers with their backs to the audience or on some godforsaken part of the stage (directors!!!!!!!!)
My omni is usually -6dB and my xy tends to be at 110 instead of 90, but up close, it works
Anyway, I find that mono compatibility really helps the stereo image in the end and who cares is me

[Nobilmente]

Originally Posted by KINGSWAY

Just a brief historical footnote to this discussion.
Since it's inception at the Broadhurst Studios of Decca in 1954, the original array was of
three Neumann Km 56s and continued in this guise, with the addition of M50 outriggers
in Vienna, until the end of the Solti Ring. Meanwhile in the U.K., the array of 56s had been replaced with M50s by 1960, led by Kenneth Wilkinson co-inventor of the tree.
There are alternatives to the M50 which I have successfully used :
Km 84, M49, TLM 170. The centre microphone level is fairly crucial, and following the
Decca pan law should be set at -3db compared to left and right. The pans of the tree
when used with outriggers are also of paramount importance ,if one wishes to create
a stable stereo image.

Thanks very much for this insight, I'm glad this thread started again, if only to learn of your experiences above.

[3rd&4thT]

Originally Posted by KINGSWAY

....continued in this guise, with the addition of M50 outriggers
in Vienna, until the end of the Solti Ring.

Would you happen to know what mics Decca used for voice recording in those opera sessions? My memory of "The Golden Ring" documentary is that they were LDC's.

Thanks,
3rd&4thT

[Larry Elliott]

Originally Posted by 3rd&4thT

Would you happen to know what mics Decca used for voice recording in those opera sessions? My memory of "The Golden Ring" documentary is that they were LDC's.

Thanks,
3rd&4thT

All M50's for soloist and chorus.

Larry

[3rd&4thT]

Originally Posted by Larry Elliott

All M50's for soloist and chorus.
Larry

M50's in busy halls with soloists 5 or more feet away? I guess if you rolled off the bottom that might be manageable. But to this day, many listeners find those voices over-reverberant.

After the mid 60's, Decca's boomy bass disappeared from their opera recordings. Compare the Tebaldi and Nilsson Tosca's, or the Simionato and Souliotis Cavalleria's - the same room, but in both cases the later recording a lot less roomy.

At some point (Culshaw's departure?) they decided to experiment with recording the voices differently. The first Solti Magic Flute tried shotgun mics, and the Souliotis Macbeth used some button mics which looked kind of silly on tall stands.

Maybe their supply of working M50's was beginning to thin out.

Cheers,
3rd&4thT

[KINGSWAY]

For the duration of the Solti Ring the vocal Microphones were Neumann
M49s. As new microphones became available they were assessed for
their suitability, in many respects a case of natural evolution.
The vocal microphone of choice to succeed the M49 was the KM64 which
was used on many of the classic Decca opera recordings from the mid 60s
until about 1977. There was a brief experimentation with shotgun microphones
by one engineer which did not last long. I hope that this helps to clarify matters.

[sonare]

This thread has raised as many questions as it has answered. For instance-- I know a colleague who owns a pair of M50s that were part of the tree for at least some of the Ring. The provenance of these mics is beyond question.

In the book "Ring Resounding" there are pictures of the three vocal mics with cards on the rear-- and at a distance it is well nigh impossible to tell an M49 from an M50. One can certainly see the need to do this with M50-- but M49?

Rich

[3rd&4thT]

Originally Posted by KINGSWAY

I hope that this helps to clarify matters.

Indeed it does.

Thanks,
3rd&4thT

[KINGSWAY]

The picture in Ring Resounding shows the baffles which were common
practice, in Vienna, at the time. Even M49s were thought to benefit from this
treatment. . There are pictures of this system used with Flagstad in
Vienna from 1957.However, the problems of colouration soon consigned this
system to history.
I would question the M50s used on the Ring: as Decca still owns all it's M50s
and has no intention of letting them go, they are priceless considering the
artists that they have recorded.