AB, Jecklin, ORTF, stereo zoom for Organ?

[Petrus]

I made some organ test recordings with Sennheiser MKH8020 and 8040 pairs. 8020 omnis were on a 35 cm Jecklin disk with 38 cm spacing, 8040 cardioids were sitting under the disk in ORTF configuration (actually 20 cm distance as I did not have a spacer and the cables get in the way).

When comparing these the omnis certainly have more low extension, which is a must with 32 foot organs. On the other hand the stereo image is a bit muddy (compared to ORTF) and the sound is darkesh, some sparkle is lacking.

I wonder if this is caused by the Jecklin disk which is blocking some of the higher frequences.

The ORTF pair alone sounds fine, but needs more lows. Mixing the omni pair with low shelf filter into the cardioid pair actually gives a quite nice result. More lows, more room reverb.

This brings the question of the day: Would it work even better to tape the 8020 and 8040 together and use them as a hypocardioid with "stero zoom" arrangement? I was thinking about 45 cm distance and 110 degree angle, mics positioned fairly far from the organ, maybe 2/5 or even 1/2 way from the instrument. This arrangement would of course give also a basic 45 cm AB pair, when recorded on separate tracks.

I think I'll try it on the next gig. I have no possibility to test before the concert, but I think the onmi pair will work perfectly well anyway and cardioid focus could be dialed in if needed.

Opinions, experiences?

[audio ergo sum]

The combined approach gives you the greatest flexibility for postproduction.

For organs I would always see to have some widely spaced omni pair as foundation of the mix.
Two reasons:
-For envelopment you want low frequencies with at least some degree of decorrelation, only to be achieved with widely spaced omnis.
-Spacing wide gives you some averaging over LF room modes at least laterally, which have a huge effect on timbre in organ recordings.
So an arrangement with widely spaced omnis for LF response and envelopment and ORTF or even Blumlein for focus and imaging could work great, particularly if you don't know the perfect sweet spot in a church, which in itself also depends on the repertoire etc.
I would never use Jecklin, that is a wrong concept IMO. Jecklin amplifies the inherent flaws of delta time recording, (angular imaging distortion over frequency)

[Petrus]

How wide is your widely spaced omnis?

I could add a pair of 4060 omnis with a thin carbon fibre rod up to 280 cm wide easily into the same stand.

[audio ergo sum]

> 2 m in my experience.

for the cardioids, I would experiment with making the angle of the ORTF smaller than 110 deg. Basically you want the cardioids to point at the (edges of the) organ, so their biggest sensitivity is used for direct sound and not lateral reflections.

[ghellquist]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

> I would experiment with making the angle of the ORTF smaller than 110 deg. Basically you want the cardioids to point at the (edges of the) organ, so their biggest sensitivity is used for direct sound and not lateral reflections.

Hmm. Warning as this is not really the standard practice and the description is slightly off the actual working of things. It might work perfectly in a specific instance though.

Remember that the 110 degree setting is more or less where the sensitivity of the cardioids is down enough to make things straight ahead sound as strong as other things within the roughly 90 degree optimum recording angle*) of the ORTF pair. When you decrease the angle from 110 degrees, the combined effect of the two mics will make things in the centre stronger, and finally when the angle is zero degrees you have only a mono cardioid setup left. If on the other hand, you increase the angle, things in the middle will be less and less prominent. All this can be used to good effect of course but as is witnessed by other prominent methods known under other names, one example is DIN.

// Gunnar

*) All things recorded should be within a 90 to 100 degree angle as seen from the mic position in order to get a good stereo image. This is adjusted by moving the mic stand back or forth. If the mic stand is too close some of the edges will basically be recorded in only mono. Aah, the fun of remote recording, soo many parameters to change in order to get the perfect sound.


// Gunnar

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by ghellquist

...When you decrease the angle from 110 degrees, the combined effect of the two mics will make things in the centre stronger, and finally when the angle is zero degrees you have only a mono cardioid setup left...

Not true. You still have time difference. And you can adjust those.
And we are talking here about an array where an ORTF variant is added to widely spaced omnis.

I think everybody here is sufficiently informed about the effects of combining and trading off of level and time differences in stereo recording.

Last thing: Imaging is worth nothing, if you get a less than optimal timbre. (as you do often when you point directional microphones at a source of reflected sound e.g. the side walls)

[pkautzsch]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

Not true. You still have time difference. And you can adjust those.
And we are talking here about an array where an ORTF variant is added to widely spaced omnis.

I think everybody here is sufficiently informed about the effects of combining and trading off of level and time differences in stereo recording.

Last thing: Imaging is worth nothing, if you get a less than optimal timbre. (as you do often when you point directional microphones at a source of reflected sound e.g. the side walls)

How precise do we want the image to be in an organ recording? Depending on the organ, imaging might not be a good idea at all.
When listening to an organ recording, I don't want to hear the C from hard left and the C# from hard right. I might, however, like to hear different stops in different spots. Pun intended.

[JEGG]

A few things to consider:

The 8020 is an "in between" omni-which is probably best for most people, in that it is neither flat nor "diffuse equalized" by mechanics or internal EQ. You could make it less dark with some EQ, or EQ+redirecting where the mic is pointed. (Adding a little pressure ring to the 8020 similar to the one that comes with the MKH20s would very slightly brighten and clarify things below the "air band" on axis. Only if wanted. I don't think this is necessary-just a "BTW.")

Also- a J disk is intended to be used with a shuffler- especially with the material you're recording! You would have a lot more stereo going on in the lower end.

And speaking of shufflers, maybe you could try MS with the 8020 with an MKH30. MS with MKH30 would also provide spaciousness below the frequencies of an "unshuffled" J disk.

If you like the sound of cardioids in ORTF with EQ, then there is no reason not to use this method. After all, the mic's are already equalized electronically, no reason not to help it along with more (goes for any mic, really).

Edit: if you have an extended range relatively flat figure 8 mic around, even if it's a dual diaphragm like the 414, you should try it with the 8020-it will be an educational experience.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

I think everybody here is sufficiently informed about the effects of combining and trading off of level and time differences in stereo recording.

This is true, but it is also true that there are widely varying preferences surrounding this issue.

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

Last thing: Imaging is worth nothing, if you get a less than optimal timbre. (as you do often when you point directional microphones at a source of reflected sound e.g. the side walls)

When you hear an organ in a decent room, your ears, most often, are pointed at the side walls. The organ (at least ones built by good builders) are architectural instruments, and the architectural boundaries are very much taken into account. Builders ears are pointed at the side walls.

Many pleasing organ recordings are a result of about 50/50 direct and reflected sound. Using cardioids, say, in ORTF, results is something near that mix, depending on where they are positioned.

In fact with many cardioids (not Schoeps or the EQ'd MKH40), there is an 8k polar anomaly-which, when used in an ORTF arrangement-ends up being pointed at the organ and not the wall. Point is, this 8k thing can help or hurt the walls or the source. It's an additional consideration.

When straight ahead omnis are used, they are getting things from the walls, though w/ reduced HF. When diffuse omnis are used, they are often not pointed straight ahead, but positioned and aimed in a suitable direction. Sometimes the peaky omnis are helpful when pointed directly at side walls-if you want to emphasize side wall reflections. When when the peaky ones are pointed at the source-they get the walls with flat response. When omni plus 8 is used, the 8, of course, is pointed toward the side walls.

The point of all of this is that mic's are often pointed at the walls in various ways, and intentionally so. The side walls are wanted. Other times, it's another surface or a combination of surfaces.

Every situation is different. Some places the walls are nice, others not- one can't generalize too much. So you do what you do to get the sound you want.

And it sounds like the OP is doing just that.

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by JEGG

...
When you hear an organ in a decent room, your ears, most often, are pointed at the side walls. The organ (at least ones built by good builders) are architectural instruments, and the architectural boundaries are very much taken into account. Builders ears are pointed at the side walls.

...

That often used argument is a fallacy. You can't compare human listening while being there to a microphone picking up the sound and listening to it through speakers.

95% of what we hear while being there is influenced by our brains processing with visual and other cues.

Those cues are missing when we listen through speakers (or headphones).

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

That often used argument is a fallacy. You can't compare human listening while being there to a microphone picking up the sound and listening to it through speakers.

Well, it's interesting to note how many stereo and surround arrays are pointed directly at the side walls. Not to mention the 2 Schoeps spheres, the Neumann sphere (not in production) and the KU-100. Some of these, the KU-100, for example were not necessarily designed for loudspeaker listening, though engineers have found them very useful for creating an almost three dimensional sound stage for loudspeaker listening. The "sphere heads" and "dummy heads" are pointed directly at the sides, and the sphere increases this directionality.

Do you think Mr. Blumlein was in error with both ideas about MS recording, involving:
1. Various mid patterns with a figure 8 pointing directly to the sides?

2. Using "Blumlein" in his preferred method, which was an 8 pointed directly toward the front (wall), the rear wall, and directly at both side walls? (Then mixing as MS)

Post Mr. Blumlein, what about the more recent numerous stereo arrays which involve pointing cardioids-in other cases hypercardioids- directly at the side walls? (There are a lot of these by very respected people!)

Are all of these people in error?

I don't think so.

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

95% of what we hear while being there is influenced by our brains processing with visual and other cues.

Are you then advocating pointing any sort of microphone anywhere, because the listener at home doesn't see the source?

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

Those cues are missing when we listen through speakers (or headphones).

No, they are certainly not missing.

I'm not advocating for a specific method of recording, only to say that sometimes, if not often, pointing a mic at a side wall is not a bad thing.

And that was your assertion: pointing a mic at a side wall is not good practice.

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by JEGG

Well, it's interesting to note how many stereo and surround arrays are pointed directly at the side walls. Not to mention the 2 Schoeps spheres, the Neumann sphere (not in production) and the KU-100. Some of these, the KU-100, for example were not necessarily designed for loudspeaker listening, though engineers have found them very useful for that. The "sphere heads" and "dummy heads" are pointed directly at the sides, and the sphere increases this directionality.

Yes, and these arrays are not in wide use because they often - particularly in less than ideal rooms - give inferior results. q.e.d.

Do you think Mr. Blumlein was in error with both ideas about MS recording, involving:
1. Various mid patterns with a figure 8 pointing directly to the sides?

Why should he have been in error. That system just does not work well, when the sound coming from that direction is not what you want to hear...

2. Using "Blumlein" in his preferred method, which was an 8 pointed directly toward the front (wall), the rear wall, and directly at both side walls? (Then mixing as MS)

Well, you forgot the main source of the sound that is inbetween the microphone and the front wall, the musicians

And someones preferred method is another ones avoided method.

3. What about the more recent numerous stereo arrays which involve pointing cardioids directly at the side walls, in some other cases pointing hypercardioids directly at the side walls? (There are a lot of these!)

See above. Many of these systems do give inferior results, when the room does not support it. Also many of these side pointing mics are intended to mix in as lateral side fillers in surround arrays, a completely different issue.

Are you then advocating pointing any sort of microphone anywhere, because the listener at home doesn't see the source?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

Yes, and these arrays are not in wide use because they often - particularly in less than ideal rooms - give inferior results. q.e.d.

They are in wide and continual use.

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

Why should he have been in error. That system just does not work well, when the sound coming from that direction is not what you want to hear...

Blumlein proposed a number of methods. Each method has great strengths and weaknesses. Two of his proposals, his "Blumlein array" and MS are known for their precision in location.

I must admit, I haven't heard anyone claim that Blumlein was in error.

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

Well, you forgot the main source of the sound that is inbetween the microphone and the front wall, the musicians

The side lobes are pointed at the side walls. That is your troublesome issue. The musicians cover a relatively small portion of a wall, and the same if an audience is present. You still have four lobes pointed at walls.

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

And someones preferred method is another ones avoided method.

Errr, that is exactly my point. But we have found something to agree on!

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

See above. Many of these systems do give inferior results, when the room does not support it. Also many of these side pointing mics are intended to mix in as lateral side fillers in surround arrays, a completely different issue.

No, they do not give inferior results. They are designed to fix problems or explore other options in stereo arrays.

I am not referring to the arrays designed for surround. I am referring to stereo arrays.

Have a nice day. (I'm serious, this is not meant to be dismissive. And I am certain there are many more issues on which we would agree than disagree.)

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by JEGG

They are in wide and continual use.
...

Not in the professional world from the top down, where they only are used occasionally for the rare niche application.

Their simplicity of setup attracts a lot of dilettants and enthusiasts though.

These arrays can give great results in certain applications, but rarely in real world the room and arrangement of sound sources around them can be shaped so their limits are not working against them.

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by JEGG

...Two of his proposals, his "Blumlein array" and MS are known for their precision in location.

...

Absolutely. Probably the best regarding precise imaging . But location/imaging is so much less important than timbre in almost any case... Usually compromises have to be made.

[pkautzsch]

Originally Posted by JEGG

Do you think Mr. Blumlein was in error with both ideas about MS recording, involving:
1. Various mid patterns with a figure 8 pointing directly to the sides?

2. Using "Blumlein" in his preferred method, which was an 8 pointed directly toward the front (wall), the rear wall, and directly at both side walls? (Then mixing as MS)

Sorry, but de-matrixed MS hasn't got anything to do with mics pointing to the sides.
The result of mixing a front-aimed mic with a side-aimed will be (you guessed it...) a pattern aimed in between straight ahead and straight to the sides. That's why MS and XY can be converted into each other.

Are you then advocating pointing any sort of microphone anywhere, because the listener at home doesn't see the source?

I think he's suggesting exactly the opposite.
In fact, our mind virtually points our hearing (NOT our ears, but the whole auditive processing behind them) to whatever we want to listen to. Our eyes play a big role in this "virtual pointing process", so if we don't have the visual cues, this needs to be compensated somehow on the audio side.

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by Petrus

...
This brings the question of the day: Would it work even better to tape the 8020 and 8040 together and use them as a hypocardioid with "stero zoom" arrangement? I was thinking about 45 cm distance and 110 degree angle, mics positioned fairly far from the organ, maybe 2/5 or even 1/2 way from the instrument. This arrangement would of course give also a basic 45 cm AB pair, when recorded on separate tracks.
...

This can work great AFAIK, but with the mics further apart (>80 cm) and both parallel, no angle between L and R, particularly if you plan to be "fairly far" from the organ.