Decca tree configuration

[scorpion]

Hi friends
Which is the best configuration for Decca Tree stand?
- 3 microphones omnis or
- left & right cardioid and central omni or
- 3 cardioid
The acústica of the stage is not the best.
Thank you.

[jnorman]

standard configuration for decca tree is 3 omnis in a triangular array, center mic forward, and designed to be used for a quite large group. however, this may not be the best choice for you in a less than optimal acoustic space. you might consider a center ORTF pair with omni flanks, and decide whether or not the use the flanks during post. this is fine for a dead acoustic. if the space is very live, or has unwanted resonant or slapback characteristics, i would suggest a single centered ORTF pair, enhanced by spot mics as needed.

you might get more responses if you post this in the "remote possibilities" forum.

[lalalandguy]

Never use Cardiods on a Decca congfiguration. Omni's all the way.

[Petrus]

Yes, but in the original Decca tree the omni mics were somewhat directional at higher frequences. And main pair is pointing out somewhat.

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by Petrus

Yes, but in the original Decca tree the omni mics were somewhat directional at higher frequences.

They still are in the "current" Decca tree configuration.
Usually Neumann M50/TLM50.
Of course anybody can use any characteristics and microphones he wants but I would not call this a Decca tree then. I also would not call Spaghetti Bolgnese Rigatoni al forno.

[hughesmr]

As I've mentioned in other threads, the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra uses a small tree (see Wes Dooley's website) consisting of DPA wide cards. Orchestra flanks are Schoeps MK2H.

[lalalandguy]

Originally Posted by jnorman

standard configuration for decca tree is 3 omnis in a triangular array, center mic forward, and designed to be used for a quite large group. however, this may not be the best choice for you in a less than optimal acoustic space. you might consider a center ORTF pair with omni flanks, and decide whether or not the use the flanks during post. this is fine for a dead acoustic. if the space is very live, or has unwanted resonant or slapback characteristics, i would suggest a single centered ORTF pair, enhanced by spot mics as needed.

you might get more responses if you post this in the "remote possibilities" forum.

ORTF?? please explain

[Teddy Ray]

ORTF

The French Radio Organization developed this technique. A high quality, matched pair of cardioid condenser microphones are placed 17 cm apart at an angle of 110 degrees. The distance from the ensemble will determine the amount of room reverberation - further away from the ensemble will have more reverb and closer placement will have less room sound. A good starting placement would be approximately 7 feet away and 9 feet up.

[Teddy Ray]

Also..

as for the "optimum" Decca Tree array, I have gathered from speaking from various engineers(some of whom were around during the "actual" Decca Decca tree days) that there was no hard, fast "standard", that it varied wildly , situation depending. I actually read that the Decca guys used to get quite a laugh out of hearing the so called "hard standards" for the technique because there was so much variation on the theme by the Decca guys themselves..

[ohmoka]

My mate used to work in Decca on the 60's. He was trained by Kenneth Wilkinson (The legendary engineer). As he told me they USUALLY had 3 omnis.
My advice.... even if you have a crappy room use omnis but dont go too high and far

[boojum]

How would using Boundary Layer Microphones vary the shape and size of a Decca Tree? Indeed, is it feasabile?

[big country]

all my LDC are Cardiod but pick up way more sound than some omni's

[Corran]

Originally Posted by ohmoka

My advice.... even if you have a crappy room use omnis but dont go too high and far

I've had this experience too. I have used a Decca Tree w/ all omnis, sometimes with a 7ft width and a 5ft depth and sometimes a 5ft width and 3ft depth (same room). The 7ft/5ft was too boomy (sounded just like the hall actually...) but the 5ft/3ft was much better and sounded really good. So, maybe tweak the size of the tree before using different polar patterns?

[JonesH]

Originally Posted by hughesmr

As I've mentioned in other threads, the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra uses a small tree (see Wes Dooley's website) consisting of DPA wide cards. Orchestra flanks are Schoeps MK2H.

I've found wide cards to be very useful when doing surround when you want some extra separation in the front channels. I've also experimented with baffling 4006:s for surround channels wich gives a similar effect to wide cards. I've only got access to two wide cards so I've made a compromise with a strauss packet consisting of a 4006 and a 4011 as the center mic. Worked out nicely but I find with the strauss packet idea one has to be extra careful with the angling.

[Roland]

I remember reading about some tests not long ago that suggested using a Stereo set-up in place of the usual Mono centre mic subjectively produced better results. Often what is missed about the Decca tree set-up is that the M50's were the special part of the equation. They have a sound that just compiments orchestras without changing the basic tonal characteristic, the tree, IMHO, has the advantage of giving you left/right/centre balance options, which can be handy. As pointed out above, Decca did many variations on the tree, including leaving out the centre mic altogether. Also most of the Decca recordings that are popular the M50's were heavily modified to solid state electronics because the valve circuits were deemed too noisy!


Regards



Roland

[fifthcircle]

There is a school of thought that says that a decca tree does not translate well to a basic stereo recording- rather its strength is with L-C-R and surround. A number of those folks will put a stereo pair in the center of the tree so you get a bit more natural pan/image from left to right with the advantages of that mic that is in front of the rest. Basically, to use your stereo pairs to control image rather than a mono fill to fill in the hole in the center that can be present with a tree's Left and right sides.

--Ben

[rumleymusic]

There is a school of thought that says that a decca tree does not translate well to a basic stereo recording-

I would be one to disagree with that school. The decca tree was around long before surround recordings, and it was designed to achieve both a directional and delay based medium for capturing the sound. I think a Decca tree has to be one of the most vivid sounding setups possible for a stereo recording. Sure it does not translate well to mono, but when even cheap cell phones have stereo speakers, who really cares?

Never use Cardiods on a Decca congfiguration. Omni's all the way.

I have heard some excellent results with figure 8 ribbons in a decca tree configuration. Not traditional, but experimentation can yield surprisingly good results.

[fifthcircle]

Originally Posted by rumleymusic

I would be one to disagree with that school. The decca tree was around long before surround recordings, and it was designed to achieve both a directional and delay based medium for capturing the sound. I think a Decca tree has to be one of the most vivid sounding setups possible for a stereo recording. Sure it does not translate well to mono, but when even cheap cell phones have stereo speakers, who really cares?
.

Wasn't passing judgment... I know some very respected engineers that believe this. Just trying to pass ideas along.

As for the mono thing- it is indeed VERY important. Even in stereo, the world is still basically mono. Many car stereos sum to mono. Clock radios sum to mono. Phones with "stereo" speakers are mono by the time you actually hear the audio.

Not to mention the fact that when things are in phase, the sound gets bigger and the image clicks. Aboslutely make sure your phase coherency works in mono.

--Ben

[Remoteness]

IMO, you must achieve excellent mono compatibility to perceive the best stereo imaging.

[rumleymusic]

IMO, you must achieve excellent mono compatibility to perceive the best stereo imaging.

I suppose that is a good position to take, if it works in mono, it will most definitely work in stereo. Though that kind of rules out spaced pairs and multi micing techniques for the purist. Phase is how we decipher a stereo image when using spaced omni microphones.

Wasn't passing judgment... I know some very respected engineers that believe this. Just trying to pass ideas along.

I know, I wasn't trying to blast you or anything like that, and I shouldn't have said "who cares", because it is an important factor to consider. Just wanted to point out how well the Decca tree has been used on countless recordings, even with a small phase issue in stereo. I can see how it would also be a great (possibly better) tool for surround recordings, having LCR for the front of the tree, and two directional mics for the rear left and right.

[Remoteness]

Yes, but I always reference in mono when mutli-mic'ng.

[rumleymusic]

Yes, but I always reference in mono when mutli-mic'ng.

Interesting. On a related note, having found little on the topic. Do you have a technique, or program you use to calculate and compensate for delay with spot mics in relation to the main mics?

[Remoteness]

My ears for the most part.
It's nice to have a second pair of ears that you trust to help verify your findings.

Originally Posted by rumleymusic

Interesting. On a related note, having found little on the topic. Do you have a technique, or program you use to calculate and compensate for delay with spot mics in relation to the main mics?

[rumleymusic]

My ears for the most part.
It's nice to have a second pair of ears that you trust to help verify your findings.

I suppose ears are the only tool one need trust, though I was looking for shortcuts.
No time delay/distance calculations for the first reflection point of the spot mics, delay plugins, anything like that?

[Gutbucket]

As a (hopefully) respectful amateur recordist I mostly follow the forum to tap the knowledge and insights of the professional involved rather than posting my thoughts, but occasionally I make an exception. I do like the open, spacious sound of my recordings made with Decca tree'ish techniques, but mostly wanted to post to concur on two practical aspects of the technique which I've found particularly useful:

Originally Posted by Roland

...the tree, IMHO, has the advantage of giving you left/right/centre balance options, which can be handy.

I find this balancing ability to be a very valuable tool which can often improve on a straight A-B spaced omni pair by firming up the phantom center without compromising soundstage width when mixing to stereo.

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

There is a school of thought that says that.. its strength is with L-C-R and surround.

One reason I often use Decca tree arrays (in various bastardized implementations) is that I can get great sounding stereo and the L/C/R channels of surround material from the same mic array.

Regards,
Lee

[leland]

I once used a (quasi) Decca tree formation consisting of 2 figure of 8 Sennheiser MKH30s and one MKH80 in omni mode. It happened to be what I had available at the time.... and I had to fly it from the ceiling in the Cadogan hall in London.

The results sounded pretty good to my ears, but the trauma of hanging homemade Decca tree rigs in a 50 foot high ceiling put me off doing live classical concert recordings this way ever again..... hanging a spaced pair of omnis would have been so much easier..... I can see why the radio guys do it this way, even if it might be not as mono-compatible.

I can post a sample if anyone is interested...

[mljung]

Originally Posted by leland

I once used a (quasi) Decca tree formation consisting of 2 figure of 8 Sennheiser MKH30s and one MKH80 in omni mode. It happened to be what I had available at the time.... and I had to fly it from the ceiling in the Cadogan hall in London.

I can post a sample if anyone is interested...

I would love to hear it..!

[leland]

Here you go then....

An excerpt from Shostakovich Symphon no. 9 by the Orion Symphony Orchestra. The staging and imaging is a bit unusual as the stage was really too small for this amount of musicians.... the percussion was underneath the balcony on the extreme stage left (to the right from the conductor's perspective)

They did some Britten stuff that had really bizarre imaging as all the horns had to move over stage right (conductor's left) to make room for the choir. The vocal soloists were at the extreme front of the stage on the extreme edges left and right. The image overbalanced to the left way too much. But you couldn't compensate once the rig was up.... no time and no crew to help. You can see it on the pic in the previous post. They reset a bit for the Shostakovich, fortunately.

It was !*@?!* nightmare day.... I was actually making the flying rig on site right to the last minute... and my specially ordered extra length mic cables never got delivered so I had to daisy chain shorter ones hoping they wouldn't come apart. It was a real make do and mend situation. Never again!

Mp3 and 24 bit wav. The imaging of the mp3 suffers a lot compared to the wav, even tho it's a reasonably high bit rate. 24 bit file on mediafire - link below.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/2zntmm...t_-_finale.wav