First try w/ "boojum/jnorman array" - 2 pairs, 1 bar

[DCtoDaylight]

After reading a recent thread here, I took a whack at recording a chamber concert with two pairs of mics on the same bar - a DIN pair in the middle, and omnis 18 inches (~45 cm) apart. The thread was started by jnorman, who's been using something along these lines, and boojum mentioned that he used it as well, so I've been thinking of it as a "boojum/jnorman array."

Here's a sample of what seems to me like the best mix - the omnis (Oktava 012s) at unity gain, and the cards (Toa KYs) -6db. The array was 8.5 feet above the stage, and about 5 feet back from the podium. No processing except a rolloff below 40Hz to get rid of room rumble.

Comments and suggestions welcomed and (as always) much appeciated!

[boojum]

It sounds great!!! LOL I am so biased. OK, it does sound great. Really.

The reason I started this way, but I use an ORTF in the center and a 40 cm distance between the omnis, was that is what Eargle uses. Eargle is very fond of an ORTF flanked by omni's. But Eargle uses quite a wider distance between the omnis. Reading Williams' papers on mic spacing for various mic patterns indicates that 40 cm is optimum for a wide sound stage when using omnis. For me it makes a super easy rig to jam at stage lip and works wonderfully for guerrilla recording of rock bands in saloons. Especially when I get a feed from the SBD. I think it worked very well for you, too. I'd love to see others experiment with it.

Here is a track from my favorite band, The Freak Mountain Ramblers, bass player Dave Reisch singing about his beloved's undergarments. <Sigh>

[sonare]

Great minds think alike-- this is very similar to the current "Faulkner Array" which you can search on this forum- a four-mic phased array on a wide stereo bar - two omnis at about 66cm or 67cm (26"), angled out, then two subcardioids inside the omnis at about 46cm or 47cm (18.5") overall spacing, again angled out. Balance one pair against the other pair and usually end up with one of the pair dominating by 6dB.

Rich

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by boojum

works wonderfully for guerrilla recording in saloons of rock bands

What do you see as the advantage of using the two pairs over
using a single pair?

[boojum]

Originally Posted by Brackish

What do you see as the advantage of using the two pairs over using a single pair?

The ORTF does not have the solid bottom octave or so omnis do. The omnis also pick up some of the room sound of ambiance. I usually use the whole of the omni sound spectrum but remixed one FMR pull with a low pass filter on the omnis and it seemed to sharpen up the localization which would make sense. The trade-off is that the DPA's have a crisp, clean top end. I can vary the ORTF against the omnis.

[boojum]

Originally Posted by sonare

Great minds think alike-- this is very similar to the current "Faulkner Array" which you can search on this forum- a four-mic phased array on a wide stereo bar - two omnis at about 66cm or 67cm (26"), angled out, then two subcardioids inside the omnis at about 46cm or 47cm (18.5") overall spacing, again angled out. Balance one pair against the other pair and usually end up with one of the pair dominating by 6dB.

Rich

Thanks for the compliment. I am sure Falkner is flattered. Well, I am, even if it is unjustified. Tony is a great mind; in my case I am the proverbial blind hog. The array has been easy to set up and work with. I want to try it on some choral work against some other arrays.

[Brackish]

To those using this array of "2 pairs, 1 bar", do you ever find
that there are phase issues when blending the pairs in post?

[boojum]

I have not noticed phase issues. The distance from the ORTF mic on each channel to the omni is ~11.5cm.

[joelpatterson]

Damn, you guys have cracked the secrets of the ancients or something!!!

[jnorman]

ha! sandy and i had a long discussion about this over coffee at Powell's books in portland the day i recorded marco granados at old church. i had started using this technique because most of the time, i never had an idea where i might have to setup my mics in a given venue (sometimes i had to set up very close and sometimes further away than i would like). sandy said he had also been using a similar setup for his bluegrass work due to working with odd player arrangements and noisy venues.

the combo of ORTF pair and spaced omni pairs gives a wide latitude and flexibility during post - all the way from using just the ORTF pair where you are further out from the performers or have an ambient venue, or just the omnis if you have to set up very close or have a fairly dry ambience - or the opportunity to blend the two pairs as needed to provide a balance between clean soundstage imaging of ORTF and the width, depth and ambience of spaced omnis.

[rumleymusic]

To those using this array of "2 pairs, 1 bar", do you ever find
that there are phase issues when blending the pairs in post?

I use the method quite frequently for larger ensembles. Phase has never been a negative problem. The nice thing about these omni/(directional) combinations is you can really focus in on the back sections of the orchestra without using spots.

One thing you do have to think about is the combination of microphones. Mr Faulkner uses Schoeps 2's and 21's, but from people I talked to, if you replace the omni with something like DPA or Josephson, the sounds will clash. You definitely need complimentary mics to get the best result.

[DCtoDaylight]

Originally Posted by jnorman

the combo of ORTF pair and spaced omni pairs gives a wide latitude and flexibility during post - all the way from using just the ORTF pair where you are further out from the performers or have an ambient venue, or just the omnis if you have to set up very close or have a fairly dry ambience - or the opportunity to blend the two pairs as needed to provide a balance between clean soundstage imaging of ORTF and the width, depth and ambience of spaced omnis.

This aspect actually saved my bacon on this recording. It was One Of Those Shows - my long-planned mic placement got overruled the day before (long story), and then my assistant bailed on me an hour before he was supposed to arrive at my place. With one thing and another I didn't have anywhere near enough time to futz with mic placement; the curtain was at 7:30 and I was stowing the ladder at 7:23.

So, even though I'd had good results with a DIN pair in this location before, this particular setup wasn't aimed as well as it could have been, with the result that the bass and 'cellos were kind of weak. The omnis really came to the rescue there, while the cards provided some nice crispness on the violins and violas, just as boojum notes.

Maybe not the secret of the ancients, but wow, I was glad to have the concept available!

And for what it's worth, Logic's goniometer shows very good phase coherence pretty much all the way through - the only time it dips a bit below 0 is when an instrument is playing solo. But it sounds OK to my ear.

[mathieujm]

Nice sample DCtodaylight.
Was it the natural reverb ?

JMM

[DCtoDaylight]

Originally Posted by mathieujm

Nice sample DCtodaylight.
Was it the natural reverb ?

JMM

Thanks! And yes, it's all natural - the room is a church sanctuary that really has a very nice sound for small ensembles. The only real downside is the HVAC equipment located next to the stage.

[DCtoDaylight]

Originally Posted by boojum

It sounds great!!! LOL I am so biased. OK, it does sound great. Really.

The reason I started this way, but I use an ORTF in the center and a 40 cm distance between the omnis, was that is what Eargle uses. Eargle is very fond of an ORTF flanked by omni's. But Eargle uses quite a wider distance between the omnis. Reading Williams' papers on mic spacing for various mic patterns indicates that 40 cm is optimum for a wide sound stage when using omnis. For me it makes a super easy rig to jam at stage lip and works wonderfully for guerrilla recording in saloons of rock bands. Especially when I get a feed from the SBD. I think it worked very well for you, too. I'd love to see others experiment with it.

Hey, thank you, sir! I'm normally a big fan of the NOS array, but in this case I was so close to the stage that the DIN's wide angle was needed. I'm interested in how close you're getting with an ORTF - the imaging in that sample you posted is awesome, so you don't seem to be having any issues with losing the sides of the stage.

I think I'm going to keep using this approach - seems like a 4-channel snake is in my future!

[sonare]

Originally Posted by Brackish

To those using this array of "2 pairs, 1 bar", do you ever find
that there are phase issues when blending the pairs in post?

There would be if they weren't on the same bar-- but in fact Tony calls this a "phased array" and the fact that they are in phase (like an antennae array) enables more "reach." If you recall the wavelength for 20kHz is 0.68in it makes getting the mics in line rather important.

Rich

[sonare]

Originally Posted by DCtoDaylight

seems like a 4-channel snake is in my future!

see Faulkner array and insta-snake in action

[jnorman]

yeah - i have been looking for a 4-ch snake, but havent quite found the right thing yet... the instasnake has boxes at both ends which is not convenient for me. i want the cleanest profile i can get running down the stand.

[rumleymusic]

Well the mics are only in phase within a very small front axis window. Anything approaching the mics from a side angle is going to reach the mics at different times, and by definition, be "out of phase". It is just not a big problem, probably because the directional characteristics of the microphones at high frequencies provide enough isolation to avoid phase cancellations, or, in the case of the Faulkner method, the phase discrepancies are actually beneficial to the sound.

It is one of those "problem on paper but not in practice" issues. Not all phase issues are bad.

[sonare]

Originally Posted by jnorman

yeah - i have been looking for a 4-ch snake, but havent quite found the right thing yet... the instasnake has boxes at both ends which is not convenient for me. i want the cleanest profile i can get running down the stand.

Why not use enough 4ch snake to go from mics to the base of the stand and then the CAT5? Unless there is a snake available that is as slender. When using my 800 Twins I utilize one homebrew cable for each mic to the base where ech breaks out into a pair of XLRs and then Instasnake to the recorder.

Rich

[jnorman]

i was looking at something like this:
30' - 4 CHANNEL SNAKE w/ MOGAMI 2931 & NEUTRIK GOLD XLR - eBay (item 310179373607 end time Mar-28-11 18:11:03 PDT)

[DCtoDaylight]

Originally Posted by jnorman

i was looking at something like this:
30' - 4 CHANNEL SNAKE w/ MOGAMI 2931 & NEUTRIK GOLD XLR - eBay (item 310179373607 end time Mar-28-11 18:11:03 PDT)

That seems similar to what RedCo can do - I priced a comparable 50-foot one and it was a few bucks more.

The Insta-Snake does seem like a cool solution, and very extendable into different situations. Mounting the box on a flown mic bar does seem like a bit of a challenge, but I'm definitely going to think about it!

[Larry Elliott]

I use this configuration a lot. If I could work out how to post a pic I would.

A comment though - it is not correct to call the inner pair ORTF as they are space and angled quite different to the ORFT spec.

Like Rich I too use that Insta Snake cable for this array.

[sonare]

I should add that my main objective with the Instasnake was cable diameter and extendability (for being able to go 350-500ft) not total cost . I need to investigate "normal" options further.

For going 500ft easily and reasonably the CAT5 does have advantages. However, Starquad may be an option if HF rolloff due to capacitance (varies by brand) or crosstalk are not problems. Perhaps someone could calculate HF rolloff for 150ft? The level of mic signals would probably not cause crosstalk issues.

FWIW Royer makes their 12ft 5pin stereo mic cable out of Starquad.

Rich

[DCtoDaylight]

Originally Posted by Larry Elliott

A comment though - it is not correct to call the inner pair ORTF as they are space and angled quite different to the ORFT spec.

You mean a Faulkner array, right? That's definitely not ORTF. But I think what boojum and jnorman have described does use ORTF, or a cousin like NOS or DIN (which I used in the recording I posted).

[jnorman]

dc - correct. i do use an ORTF configuration in the center.

[boojum]

Originally Posted by DCtoDaylight

Hey, thank you, sir! I'm normally a big fan of the NOS array, but in this case I was so close to the stage that the DIN's wide angle was needed. I'm interested in how close you're getting with an ORTF - the imaging in that sample you posted is awesome, so you don't seem to be having any issues with losing the sides of the stage.

I think I'm going to keep using this approach - seems like a 4-channel snake is in my future!

The sample I posted was with the array at stage lip. The drummer is about six feet back from the mics. The stage is shallow and wide. I must try this elsewhere. I do not think it is the Swiss Army knife of recording. But if I cannot set up the way I would want to I would feel pretty safe with this rig. Nothing can replace careful mic placement but this'll get you by in a pinch.

What I also like about it is that it presents little sight line disturbance. Saloon keepers and musicians like this aspect, too.

[sonare]

Originally Posted by DCtoDaylight

a cousin like NOS or DIN

ORTF I know-- NOS I know-- but what is a DIN mic array (aside from Deutsches Institut für Normung)?

Rich

[DCtoDaylight]

Originally Posted by sonare

ORTF I know-- NOS I know-- but what is a DIN mic array (aside from Deutsches Institut für Normung)?

Rich

90 degree angle, 20 cm (~8 inches) apart! It's like a wide-angle lens....good when you have to be close.

[sonare]

Just curious-- what is the subjective spatial difference with DIN vs NOS? Remind me of the height and distance from the ensemble, please.

Rich