Jecklin Disk Test Run - Would Like Some Feedback

[Liquid Shadow]

Hey guys, finally I had the chance to test out my home-brew Jecklin Disk on a grand piano. Here's the construction of the disk:

Another DIY Jecklin Disk - PICTURE DIARY!

What I did in this file is basically I had a friend playing/practicing while I move the rig to different distances. The piano is a 9ft Steinway (New York) and the space is a medium-sized recital hall. You can hear me call out the distances in the file (3-8 feet). Please ignore 6ft, it was invalid because I accidentally knocked the mics out of alignment, so "6ft 2" is the correct one.

Personally I like everything under 6ft, once it goes above that the higher registers start to lose focus.

All comments are welcome. I would also like some comment on the stereo image, if it's too narrow etc.

The mics are Studio Projects C4 SDC pair with omni capsules.

Thanks!

[hughesmr]

Thanks for this post. BTW, what were your capsule spacings on the JD?

In that hall, I actually like the sound best at 3-4 ft. Beyond 4ft, the image narrows too much for my taste, and the room reflections start to take over. I think 3.5ft might have been close to ideal.

Only wish the playing had used more of the full compass of the piano, since with JD one has to fight that pile-up of LF in the middle when recording in a diffuse field position.

[Liquid Shadow]

Hey thanks for taking a listen!

The capsules are spaced about 20cm apart.

I know what you mean about the LF though. I actually have low-shelving filters on these mics, one at 75Hz and 150Hz, do you think engaging them would help?

[boojum]

No, not piano!!! LOL For every recording engineer there are at least two opinions about how to record a piano. ;o)

OK, not fooling, an excellent exercise with the Jecklin. Thanks for doing it. I am a real weenie and prefer to start exactly as the design suggests and branch out form there. The JD does anticipate that 40mm or 50mm spheres will be on the mics to add directionality and a peak in response. That said, it is great to hear the changes in sound as you recede from the subject. Thanks for doing the work and sharing it with us.

[MichaelPatrick]

Wonderful exercise for the recording and the disc construction!

It sounds great and I agree that it's best under 6 feet. Around 4 feet sounds great.

[Mark A. Jay]

It's always interesting to hear the room acoustics as a function of location. I think this would make an even more interesting experiemnt if you had the luxury of having several JD's, placed a long a line, at various distances, and have it all recorded simultaneously. That way we could listen in a sort of A / B / C sense and only be listening the the affect the room has on the perceived sound, as recorded through several identical JDs.

I've done something similar in the past, namely, placing multiple binaural head mannequin mics in a venue and recording them simultaneously. It can be most enlightening to solo the various mannequin heads to see what works best in that space (rather, in a given space) and for a given genre of music.

Still, I like the sound (generally speaking) that one can get with a JD approach used on a piano; as a personal preference I actually prefer the 3 and 4 ft versions that are in the file. That's just my preference...nothing more.

In any case, thanks for having taken the time to do this, and thanks for having shared.

[Liquid Shadow]

Thanks for your input Mark. Seems that the general concensus is around the 4ft mark, which I agree as well. What do you think about the frequency balance?

[Mark A. Jay]

Originally Posted by Liquid Shadow

Thanks for your input Mark. Seems that the general concensus is around the 4ft mark, which I agree as well. What do you think about the frequency balance?

I think the spectral balance is good - perhaps the lower mids are a bit elevated, but (as you know), recording a source that is 'dimensionally large' means that the timbre is very much a function of distance, angle, and surfaces; like always, boundary conditions define pretty much every situation. Also, timbre is quite subjective, so what may need tweaking in one person's opinion may be wholly correct as-is in other listeners' ears..

I don't see why you could not experiment a bit here - if you like the timbre that you obtain at a given distance but prefer the imaging at another, you could judiciously re-EQ the one with better imaging (but not as favorable timbre) to sound more like the other location (the one with the preferred timbre).

This is one of the nice 'fringe benefits' of recording with additonal mics - you may never use them as part of the mix (or you just might...), but they are a quick reference point (obtained by use of the solo button) to remind you of how influential (or not) are the room acoustics. I like having those available (and having natural reverb in them) as a sort of measuring stick.

[Liquid Shadow]

That's great advice Mark, thanks. I'm wondering if I would be a beneficial to engage the low shelving filters on my mics, either at 75Hz or 150Hz.

Regarding multiple rigs, I'm actually thinking in the future I would use a DIN or ORTF setup maybe around 5ft behind the JD.

Haha I haven't use the JD in a live concert situation yet, but I can already imagine when the audience sees that thing on stage they are going to be like "wtf is that disk thingy?"

[Mark A. Jay]

Originally Posted by Liquid Shadow

That's great advice Mark, thanks. I'm wondering if I would be a beneficial to engage the low shelving filters on my mics, either at 75Hz or 150Hz.

Regarding multiple rigs, I'm actually thinking in the future I would use a DIN or ORTF setup maybe around 5ft behind the JD.

Haha I haven't use the JD in a live concert situation yet, but I can already imagine when the audience sees that thing on stage they are going to be like "wtf is that disk thingy?"

First, filters... the short answer is: try it. Personally, I do all filtering in post - I never use filtering during acquisition unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

As for audience bemusement (at your JD mic rig), this is precisely why, if I place a mannequin head microphone (KU 100 et al) on-stage or close, I drape it in an acoustically permeable cloth; better that it remain unseen if at all possible so that poeple don't say things like "what the **** is that thing?".

One thing you might want to experiment with (from an aesthetic perspective) is setting up an ORTF as close to the JD as possible, and then using either or both (even depending upon the tune of course) in the mix. If you conduct the experiment using a JD and an ORTF along a line but at different distances, you are really eavaluating two variables (distance and differences in frequency and polar responses) rather than one. That is, if you wanted to hear the effect of the room as a consequence of distance, then you could set up three ORTF pair (using the same type mic), in a line, and record them simultaneously.

I have done this myself (for recording), though with a binaural head mannequin microphone rather than a JD, and the result has often been quite good. A pal of mine once did the very thing you are describing (JD + ORTF) and he did some great stuff using that approach. Granted, sometimes it didn't work so well, but other times, I thought it sounded great.

Anyway, you can find an example of binaural + ORTF (using a Nuemann KU-100 and two Audio Technica AT37's respectively) here: Cowboy Junkies Live at The Ark on 2009-10-05 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

[Liquid Shadow]

That's pretty cool Mark.

I would love to experiment more, but it's all down to my budget, I only have a SDC pair plus another LDC. In the next couple of years I'm going to try to save up for 2 pairs of Earthwork mics.

[Liquid Shadow]

Oh man you know what I just realized. I just saw that you're from Royal Oak Michigan. I'm from Belleville Michigan. So close! haha.

[Mark A. Jay]

Originally Posted by Liquid Shadow

That's pretty cool Mark.

I would love to experiment more, but it's all down to my budget, I only have a SDC pair plus another LDC. In the next couple of years I'm going to try to save up for 2 pairs of Earthwork mics.

eBay.

It's been a great place for me to find the gear that I really wanted, but could never seem to afford. I'm always willing to pay 30-40 percent or so of MSRP to get what I want - especially when there are a lot of folks out there with just too much gear (I know...can you ever really have too much gear?) and are willing to part with some of what they have in order to get the latest and greatest.

[Petrus]

Originally Posted by Mark A. Jay

One thing you might want to experiment with (from an aesthetic perspective) is setting up an ORTF as close to the JD as possible, and then using either or both (even depending upon the tune of course) in the mix.

I suggest taping the JD omnis and cardioids together (as pairs, of course) and then testing the effect of dialing from pure OSS to kind of ORTF (or DIN or what ever depending on the angle) in post. I have tried this with 60 cm AB recording of an ogan and found out that mixing the cardioids in at -3 dB level improved the localisation without effecting the space given by the omnis (Senn 8020 and 8040 taped together with gaffer tape).

I have a feeling that these experiments with JD, DIY spheres with JD and synthetic, adjustable wide cardioids mixed from omni/card combos are breaking a new ground!

[Mark A. Jay]

Originally Posted by Petrus

I suggest taping the JD omnis and cardioids together (as pairs, of course) and then testing the effect of dialing from pure OSS to kind of ORTF (or DIN or what ever depending on the angle) in post. I have tried this with 60 cm AB recording of an ogan and found out that mixing the cardioids in at -3 dB level improved the localisation without effecting the space given by the omnis (Senn 8020 and 8040 taped together with gaffer tape).

I have a feeling that these experiments with JD, DIY spheres with JD and synthetic, adjustable wide cardioids mixed from omni/card combos are breaking a new ground!

Agreed. I guess what I suggested (but didn't explicitly state) was aimed at making the signals from two distinct methods (JD and ORTF or as you pointed out, some other angle) available that were acquired in approximately the same space.

So really, what I was suggesting was giving the options of combining signals from two different sets of boundary conditions, in varying degrees. Granted, if the ORTF was close to the JD and in a 'large' space, then for all purposes, they are 'almost' in the same location. What I was attempting to convey was also aimed at making the cardiods not be affected by the boundary conditions (shadowing etc) caused by the "D" in JD.

However, my logic here is a bit flawed in any case because to make the approximation (between boundary conditions) as close as possible the microphones would have to have the same frequency responses - and they won't due to different types of elements. Still, you could equalize one to the other - I have done this myself when doing hybrid mixes - it's what I like to refer to as 'timbre matching'.

What you suggest has some interesting potential though because it's yet another hybrid approach, and in my opinion, worth trying just to see how things go using that approach.

Interesting...