Classical quartet advice needed

[mosrite]

Hi Folks,

Advice needed from all you classical location producers / engineers out there. Thanks in advance. Heres the scenario:

Soon I will be producing / recording an exciting quartet session in a small church. Ive already recorded solo Viola in the acoustic and it sounds great but for that application I got away with the kit I already have. For the quartet I know that I am lacking but there are a few routes I can go. Anyway this is my recording chain at the moment:

Coles 4040 Ribbon mic to AMEK Dmcl Pre and AD.

As you will know the AMEK is super clean and quiet so suits the Coles in a lot of respects. It might not be the first choice for recording classical but Im sure its up there. The Coles sounded fantastic on solo Viola (from 10 ft) and I have no hesitation in using it with the quartet. BUT I need to record in stereo. So I have 2 good enough pres and AD's but only one good enough mic (I wont waste your time in mentioning the other mics I own, trust me they are not relevent!). I reckon I have 2 choices to obtain the stereo recording with my 2 channels:

1. MS configuration. I buy a great SD condensor and combine it with the Coles to achieve an MS recording. This could add an air and clarity (with the condensor) while still using the lovely tones of the Coles to capture the room.

2. I buy another Coles and set up in Blumlein in front of the quartet. Worried this might sound a bit too 'vintage' (for want of a better word - a bit of clarity might be nice with an SD condensor).

3. Buy a stereo pair of SD condensors for blumelein or other stereo config (would I miss the lushness of the Coles though? - remember only 2 channels!)

I think Ive decided on the MS unless someone can persuade me otherwise. If thats the case I need the SD condensor so here are my questions:

1. Should I go for a cardioid or omni capped mic? I know both can be used in MS and that omni will pick up lower octaves and will sound arguably more natural but will it affect the stereo in not being as directional? Has anyone tried both with an MS configuration?

2. Depending on the omni or cardioid matter will a Microtech Geffell m300 do this project justice? (professional musicians, great acoustic, potential commercial release) or is it important to bite the bullet and go for something like Schoeps or the Sennheiser MKH range?

Really appreciate any opinions you have,
Cheers,
Mosrite.

[T.RayBullard]

FWIW, try posting this in the remote recording section...thats where the location guys hang out. but...I do own the gefell M300 and also schoeps MK2S , MK4s...the gefell sounds great on bowed instruments, and I would not hesitate to use it for that application. you dont need schoeps to make a knockout recording. I use my gefells just as much as my schoeps. You have a great idea in combining the coles and M300. MG mics are world class.

teddy

Originally Posted by mosrite

Hi Folks,

Advice needed from all you classical location producers / engineers out there. Thanks in advance. Heres the scenario:

Soon I will be producing / recording an exciting quartet session in a small church. Ive already recorded solo Viola in the acoustic and it sounds great but for that application I got away with the kit I already have. For the quartet I know that I am lacking but there are a few routes I can go. Anyway this is my recording chain at the moment:

Coles 4040 Ribbon mic to AMEK Dmcl Pre and AD.

As you will know the AMEK is super clean and quiet so suits the Coles in a lot of respects. It might not be the first choice for recording classical but Im sure its up there. The Coles sounded fantastic on solo Viola (from 10 ft) and I have no hesitation in using it with the quartet. BUT I need to record in stereo. So I have 2 good enough pres and AD's but only one good enough mic (I wont waste your time in mentioning the other mics I own, trust me they are not relevent!). I reckon I have 2 choices to obtain the stereo recording with my 2 channels:

1. MS configuration. I buy a great SD condensor and combine it with the Coles to achieve an MS recording. This could add an air and clarity (with the condensor) while still using the lovely tones of the Coles to capture the room.

2. I buy another Coles and set up in Blumlein in front of the quartet. Worried this might sound a bit too 'vintage' (for want of a better word - a bit of clarity might be nice with an SD condensor).

3. Buy a stereo pair of SD condensors for blumelein or other stereo config (would I miss the lushness of the Coles though? - remember only 2 channels!)

I think Ive decided on the MS unless someone can persuade me otherwise. If thats the case I need the SD condensor so here are my questions:

1. Should I go for a cardioid or omni capped mic? I know both can be used in MS and that omni will pick up lower octaves and will sound arguably more natural but will it affect the stereo in not being as directional? Has anyone tried both with an MS configuration?

2. Depending on the omni or cardioid matter will a Microtech Geffell m300 do this project justice? (professional musicians, great acoustic, potential commercial release) or is it important to bite the bullet and go for something like Schoeps or the Sennheiser MKH range?

Really appreciate any opinions you have,
Cheers,
Mosrite.

[mosrite]

Thanks for that reply. Ive posted to the remote section as suggested. Would like more of your info on the m300 though if you dont mind. A while back I did a shootout between the M300, Neumann KM184 and an Oktava MK012 (with cardioid cap). This wasnt on strings though (just acoustic guitar and voice). Findings, if my memory serves me, was thus:

Neumann KM184 - detailed but uninspiring.

Oktava MK012 - Very acceptable for the money but this is the problem when you dont do blind tests like this, im sure we were influenced slightly by the cost of it. On further listening on seperate occasions I have found there to be a harshness to the Oktava's sound.

MG m300 - This made the best impression as it sounded lush. Transients were super smooth and I remember even thinking that it sounded like the recording had gone through a very subtle bit of compression (but not in a bad way).

Anyway the m300 stood out on these tests but the tests, as you can tell, where by no means conclusive. A question remains though: is the m300 too seductive for some applications? Does it add something that, while very nice, isnt a true enough reflection of the source (especially when we are talking about classical recording) ?

[T.RayBullard]

I dont know what seductive means really in audio terms, but I try to stick to "sounds good" and "doesnt" Like I said, I love my M300s in orchestral applications. There was an interesting thread about tube preamps and mics here recently....how many classical albums that you love were made with a tube device in the chain? What does it matter if it adds a little sparkle? I for one love that sound, and would take schoeps, MGs and some tube mics over the sterility of the DPA 400X series any day. There has never been a true reflection of the source. It will NEVER sound like the source sounded completely, no matter how sterile, detailed, or expensive the gear....You obviously thought it sounded good to your ears(I love them too)so I think you have your answer...why not just throw the rules and notions you have out the window and forget about the "trueness to the source" stuff. I was initially reccomended the 300s by a very good friend of mine who is an engineer at MG and is also a location recording engineer. One of the best purchases I have ever made. ..but yes, emphatically yes..the 300s are excellent for that application...I own an akg426b, gefell M930s, schoeps, u87s, and at4050s...the 300s get used a LOT, and I do classical recording exclusively. thumbsup

Originally Posted by mosrite

Thanks for that reply. Ive posted to the remote section as suggested. Would like more of your info on the m300 though if you dont mind. A while back I did a shootout between the M300, Neumann KM184 and an Oktava MK012 (with cardioid cap). This wasnt on strings though (just acoustic guitar and voice). Findings, if my memory serves me, was thus:

Neumann KM184 - detailed but uninspiring.

Oktava MK012 - Very acceptable for the money but this is the problem when you dont do blind tests like this, im sure we were influenced slightly by the cost of it. On further listening on seperate occasions I have found there to be a harshness to the Oktava's sound.

MG m300 - This made the best impression as it sounded lush. Transients were super smooth and I remember even thinking that it sounded like the recording had gone through a very subtle bit of compression (but not in a bad way).

Anyway the m300 stood out on these tests but the tests, as you can tell, where by no means conclusive. A question remains though: is the m300 too seductive for some applications? Does it add something that, while very nice, isnt a true enough reflection of the source (especially when we are talking about classical recording) ?

[fifthcircle]

Ribbon mics sound great on string quartets... I own a Royer SF24 and use that pretty regularly.

My "quartet rig" changes a lot. In one venue, we use Sennheiser MKH80's that are hung from the ceiling. They tend to have a lot more "reach" than other similar microphones so I position them higher and further back. When I use stereo mics (AKG 426, Royer SF24, Schoeps CMT301, etc...), I usually like to position them low- even shoulder high and out only a couple feet out from the ensemble.

My recommendations for your situation would be to either get a second Coles and go blumlein or get a good set of condensers and do an X-Y or ORTF pair. Each can work well, but it just depends on what sound you want. The mics you should use are a personal choice. I like Schoeps, Sanken CU31's, Neumann 140's, Sennheiser MKH... You may like something else.

--Ben

[pkautzsch]

I've achieved great results with both Schoeps MK4 and Neumann 184.
What is more important than the mic choice (as long as they're somewhat the same league) is the placement.
For a quartet, I expect the instruments to be clearly localisable. So: no spaced omnis.
For classical music, I expect a good representation of the room and of depth. So: no coincidence like XY or MS (even though in a German forum there just was a discussion about Blumlein and its naturalness).
So for smaller ensembles like quartets my first choice is equivalence like ORTF. And my first mic choice really is the 184s, and if these don't work I take the Schoeps (which normally I use for the back sections of an orchestra and for rather close soloists).

If you do MS, listen to it with an omni first, and if that's too reverberant take a cardioid.

[mosrite]

how many classical albums that you love were made with a tube device in the chain? What does it matter if it adds a little sparkle? I for one love that sound, and would take schoeps, MGs and some tube mics over the sterility of the DPA 400X series any day. There has never been a true reflection of the source. It will NEVER sound like the source sounded completely, no matter how sterile, detailed, or expensive the gear

With the greatest respect I do realise this. But surely the trick, in some circumstances, is to get as close to the source as we perceive. And surely a circumstance like that would be recording very good instruments in a very good space with very good musicians. Any extreme colouration would perhaps detract from hearing the nuances of the room, instruments etc. Of course Im sure once you get to a certain level in mics its a given that the sound captured will be a good enough rendition of the original source and any added colour is preferencial. But bring measurement mics into the equation, where do they stand if not in an attempt to be able to closely capture the source? But you are probably right if I liked the mic when I first heard it then its probably the one. Having said that I have never heard it in MS with a Coles recording a quartet in a church and Im thinking just because a mic sounds good on an acoustic guitar in a booth doesnt mean it would be first choice for that quartet scenario.

no coincidence like XY or MS

Could you please tell me why no MS in your opinion?

I like Schoeps, Sanken CU31's, Neumann 140's, Sennheiser MKH

All these mics are a lot more expensive than the m300's. What would I be getting from these that I wouldnt from the m300? I know its easy to answer a question like that when there is a gulf in quality between mics but that is not apparently the case hear.

Thanks.

[T.RayBullard]

Originally Posted by mosrite

All these mics are a lot more expensive than the m300's. What would I be getting from these that I wouldnt from the m300? I know its easy to answer a question like that when there is a gulf in quality between mics but that is not apparently the case hear.

Thanks.

Ive used the neumann 140s quite a bit..I dont like them nearly as much as the 300s.
the skm140 is basically the interchangeable cap version of the 184. Gefells to my ears have a better low/mid response..and to me, get the nod for overall versatility.the km84s I loved but dont care for the km140 or km184
Gefell= the real Georg Neumann Sound.
http://www.gprime.com/html/microphon...ry/history.htm

[pkautzsch]

I don't like any coincident techniques for ensembles, because I think there is a need of some decorrelation between L and R to get the illusion of space and width. Anything with time differences has a certain amount of decorrelation.
In short: Decorrelation produces the illusion of depth and spaciousness.
This is why room mics can be spaced somewhat like 10 ft.

On the other hand, decorrelation makes a lot of mud, so the localisation on the stereo base is not really exact. Thus, I don't like too much decorrelation for smaller ensembles when I want each player's position to be distinguishable.
When I have 14 1st violins and 12 2nd, I don't want to hear every single player. So: decorrelation.
Don't mix up decorrelation with phase inversion. This is not the same.

[tenor39]

Originally Posted by BigRay

I dont know what seductive means really in audio terms, but I try to stick to "sounds good" and "doesnt" Like I said, I love my M300s in orchestral applications. There was an interesting thread about tube preamps and mics here recently....how many classical albums that you love were made with a tube device in the chain? What does it matter if it adds a little sparkle? I for one love that sound, and would take schoeps, MGs and some tube mics over the sterility of the DPA 400X series any day. There has never been a true reflection of the source. It will NEVER sound like the source sounded completely, no matter how sterile, detailed, or expensive the gear....You obviously thought it sounded good to your ears(I love them too)so I think you have your answer...why not just throw the rules and notions you have out the window and forget about the "trueness to the source" stuff. I was initially reccomended the 300s by a very good friend of mine who is an engineer at MG and is also a location recording engineer. One of the best purchases I have ever made. ..but yes, emphatically yes..the 300s are excellent for that application...I own an akg426b, gefell M930s, schoeps, u87s, and at4050s...the 300s get used a LOT, and I do classical recording exclusively. thumbsup

Sterility of DPA mic's? I beg to differ. Would you care to explain that? That's a pretty blanket generalization and one that MANY classical engineers would dispute. By your own preferences I would say that you prefer a "colored" or idealized sound, but I would never say that it was "wrong". If you don't like "trueness of the source" why don't you just use orchestra loops? You may paint your picture any way that you wish, but don't judge those of us that wish to capture things as they trully are. I happen to find most Neumann's tubby in the lower mids/upper bass, but I would never say that one that uses them is "artificial". Let's hear some of your work to associate with your statements.

[T.RayBullard]

I dont have anything to prove to you, and didnt say DPA 400X users were wrong...that isnt my place. DPAs are certainly outstanding and have a reputation that speaks volumes. I *personally* prefer mics that add a little something extra, hence my using schoeps. With all due respect, I dont care what MANY classical engineers prefer in terms of mics...I am guided by my own ears, and my ears prefer schoeps omnis to DPA omnis. But I didnt say it was wrong to use DPAs...Who am I??Who are you??I was just discussing an idea...free thought is encouraged, no? whats the big deal if someone says something against a group of mics? I didnt call you an asshole for using them...They obviously are spectacular...detailed, fast, accurate all come to mind, but having used the 4003 and 4006..I dont care for them as much as my schoeps. ...I agree with the neumann statement...Hope no one takes offense to that ! Relax.....And I love the fetcode...thanks for the reccomendation.thumbsup I come in peace, friend.

Originally Posted by tenor39

Sterility of DPA mic's? I beg to differ. Would you care to explain that? That's a pretty blanket generalization and one that MANY classical engineers would dispute. By your own preferences I would say that you prefer a "colored" or idealized sound, but I would never say that it was "wrong". If you don't like "trueness of the source" why don't you just use orchestra loops? You may paint your picture any way that you wish, but don't judge those of us that wish to capture things as they trully are. I happen to find most Neumann's tubby in the lower mids/upper bass, but I would never say that one that uses them is "artificial". Let's hear some of your work to associate with your statements.

[tenor39]

Originally Posted by BigRay

I dont have anything to prove to you, and didnt say DPA 400X users were wrong...that isnt my place. DPAs are certainly outstanding and have a reputation that speaks volumes. I *personally* prefer mics that add a little something extra, hence my using schoeps. With all due respect, I dont care what MANY classical engineers prefer in terms of mics...I am guided by my own ears, and my ears prefer schoeps omnis to DPA omnis. But I didnt say it was wrong to use DPAs...Who am I??Who are you??I was just discussing an idea...free thought is encouraged, no? whats the big deal if someone says something against a group of mics? I didnt call you an asshole for using them...They obviously are spectacular...detailed, fast, accurate all come to mind, but having used the 4003 and 4006..I dont care for them as much as my schoeps. ...I agree with the neumann statement...Hope no one takes offense to that ! Relax.....And I love the fetcode...thanks for the reccomendation.thumbsup I come in peace, friend.

First off, I guess I need to stop posting after my second glass of Merlot... I may have been reading things into your statement. That being said, I was responding to your use of the word "sterile" to describe the sound of a whole series of mic's. "They obviously are spectacular...detailed, fast, accurate all come to mind"...is this your definition of "sterile"? This is why I brought into the discussion the opinions of others. You were generalizing rather than speaking from *personal* experience. Indeed, you should always go with what sounds the best to you. My apologies for being too dogmatic, here. BTW, I would still love to hear some of what you're doing, if you're so inclined.

[T.RayBullard]

No, I was speaking from personal experience. Ive owned the DPA 4061s, and used the 4003 and 4006 , 4011 and 4022 a great deal. Sterile=clean as a whistle, detailed, accurate ,but no "mojo"...Thats my definition anyway. I dont comment on mics I havent used. Its all good! No worries. You say tomato, I say tomato, etc..

Originally Posted by tenor39

First off, I guess I need to stop posting after my second glass of Merlot... I may have been reading things into your statement. That being said, I was responding to your use of the word "sterile" to describe the sound of a whole series of mic's. "They obviously are spectacular...detailed, fast, accurate all come to mind"...is this your definition of "sterile"? This is why I brought into the discussion the opinions of others. You were generalizing rather than speaking from *personal* experience. Indeed, you should always go with what sounds the best to you. My apologies for being too dogmatic, here. BTW, I would still love to hear some of what you're doing, if you're so inclined.

[mosrite]

Oh dear it looks like I opened a can of worms!

Its interesting to hear from people approaching recording from different angles though and the great thing is that no one is really wrong. But I would still like some answers on a couple of points if anyone could help. And to hear different opinions / approaches is always appreciated

1. pkautzsch, thanks for your informative reply. Is there anyone out there who would defend the use of an MS technique on a quartet and why?

2. What can a Schoeps, Sennheiser MKH or DPA mic give you that a MG m300 cannot in this scenario? (I dont believe that it can just be down to standardisation or an unwritten rule book)

3. Are there any commercial classical recordings that people know have been recorded with the aid of an MG m300 (if so I would love to hear them) ?

Thanks again,
Mosrite.

[ghellquist]

Mosrite,
I am not sure if you like to drink good wines. Not necessarily the extre expensive ones, but at least a good selection of quality.

To me mics is like wine, they are all different but they can all be just right depending on the circumstances. Well maybe not all as there are some lemons out there to be aware of (as there are wines that gives you a terrible headache and colors your lips blue). As the wines are different they fit to different occasions and different foods. Some may complement a charcoal grilled stake perfectly, others bring out the finer nuances of a bowl of strawberrys.

Once up among the good mics, the difference is to me really what they fit with, they tend to do a good job all of them. Room is in my short experience very important. Some rooms cry out for omnis, in others they will not work at all. Sometimes Blumlein is perfect, most often it is a desperate job to find that exact position where it works. Cardoids in ORTF so far seems to be the safe bet, although not necessarily always the very best.

The ensemble is also very important. Sometimes you want to bring out the held-back shine of an orchestra, sometimes they tend to be too bright and you want them the highs to be subdued a bit.

The music also makes a difference. I recently recorded an orchestra + Steinway C in a very reverbant church. The piano ended up with an SF24 much too close for taste really. The resulting sound was very good for the Mozart piano concerto but much to thin for the Rachmaninov that came after.

So basically what I am trying to say is that it depends. I have not used the M300 but I imagine them to be really good mics. I can very much imagine them to be first choice in some combinations of room + ensemble + music.

There is often an alternative in renting mics. If you rent them for a weekend the cost will generally be very low as compared to buying them. And you also get to find out if it is worth the money (I know where my money sleeps at nights, in the mic locker).

Gunnar

[mosrite]

Gunnar,

Thanks for your reply. Great analogy! (hadn't thought of that one before)

I would dearly love to put this post to rest. I feel my questions regards the m300 have been answered, to conclude:

"the m300 is a world class mic that, in some situations, would be the perfect choice for recording a classical ensemble. Its a different flavour to the Sennheiser MKH's, DPAs' and Schoeps of this world but is in no way inferior, just different (unlike perhaps a Rode mic that could be claimed inferior - different league etc)"

BUT I would still love to know if anyone would defend the use of MS recording for a quartet in a small church?

Thanks folks, nearly there!