String quartet recording for CD, film and theater

[Sheikyearbouti]

Originally Posted by 0VU

You've got to love the people who "would never do other than..."!

I completely agree with this. Every recording situation is unique. If one is experienced enough to know his equipment, he/she should make a judgment accordingly. If I have to chose between Schoeps, DPA, Sennheiser, Gefell or Neumann, which one is the best? Maybe Royer? Maybe not!
As well, I don't think that near-coincident pairs are better than AB and vise-versa. Or that MS or XY is the one, etc.

If we want to be painters and not machines, than we should be able to chose the "right" technique, spacing, placement every next time we do a record.

As to this job, please read the thread before you post.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Good news is that after a long talk with the composer I have decided to go for mono spots. I will be able to use a good amount of the main pair in the mix. I'll put 4 x MK8s as spots and an extra Audio Technica AT4080 ribbon on the cello. I am afraid that the MK8 will miss too much of the low end. Backup options stay.

I'll go for MK2 and MK21 main pairs on one bar (with MK4 as backup).

After I saw detailed schematics of the theater and photos, I think that a mix of the main pair in all speakers of the quadro + a spot in each corner will be best for what my client wants. Spots might be treated with IRs form the hall (I'll get as well some through the main pair with speaker at instrument's positions pointing towards where they usually radiate the most). Summing will be done on in the box and on a Neve VR just for fun!

I might as well put the MK21's for the front and MK2's for the back speakers in quadro (not necessary - just speculating - that will be decided on spot once the theatrical performance takes place).

I will not go for room mics as the place can be noisy during the day for such. Instead I'll have two main pairs to chose from and the IR verb + spots. No real surround mix will be needed.

I'll adjust the spacing for the main pairs depending on the distance from the quartet but if appropriate I'll try the 4 mic Faukner array as described here. With such spacing/angle both the MK21's and MK2's should give a very similar stereo width and if so than they really could be used as front and back in the theater (delivering a very similar but still different sound with more clarity at the front and more verb at the back). That of course may not work at all
According to the 'faukner array' thread both pairs can be mixed. So all this should give me a lot of flexibility, new knowledge and hopefully very good results!

[Rolo 46]

Originally Posted by 0VU

You've got to love the people who "would never do other than..."!

Nothing quite like flexibility or responding to circumstances/needs of the job in hand.

Have you read this thread? It's not a 'purist' 'classical' job. A pair isn't going to work for this.

Its not a job spec 0VU, its a post on a forum where opinions should be tolerated.
As I posted, Kronos use DPA instrument mics to great effect on their recordings. Music for video is always better done to playback rather than live, especially if the 'composer' wants to manipulate the individual tracks.
I ve just been doing quartet work with a DS60 and the results are exciting and close but with the plus of natural acoustics and self balance.
Surely nothing wrong with posting that dear boy or suggest Air Lyndhurst.
Roger

[Remoteness]

"Music for video is always better done to playback rather than live, especially if the 'composer' wants to manipulate the individual tracks."

Really?

I mean, "always better," Really?

I'd be out of business if this was the case.

[Douglas Whates]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

Recorded at 96kHz 24 bit on the Skywalker Sound scoring stage using a matched pair of Sanken CO-100K microphones.

Great link, thanks!

[Rolo 46]

Originally Posted by Remoteness

"Music for video is always better done to playback rather than live, especially if the 'composer' wants to manipulate the individual tracks."

Really?

I mean, "always better," Really?

I'd be out of business if this was the case.

Music in film is mostly playback, it enables total visual freedom, its a visual medium after all.
Once pictures are involved in sound recording many compromises must be met, a pre recorded track overcomes tracking noise, ballasts, fans ,camera noise,lamp whistles and set clutter.
Its quite possible to record a good master on set and then play back for picture acquisition.
Editors prefer this option to.
Roger

[Remoteness]

We went from 'Music for Video' to 'Music in Film.'

Yes, video is not as noisy as film can be.

In any event I agree, capturing a great performance on set and then using the best take as playback definitely gives the director much more visual options while reducing the audio compromises for the sound recording department.

I too prefer capturing the best possible sound on set (without picture) than to compromise mic placement and such during a take.

Originally Posted by Rolo 46

Music in film is mostly playback, it enables total visual freedom, its a visual medium after all.
Once pictures are involved in sound recording many compromises must be met, a pre recorded track overcomes tracking noise, ballasts, fans ,camera noise,lamp whistles and set clutter.
Its quite possible to record a good master on set and then play back for picture acquisition.
Editors prefer this option to.
Roger

[Sheikyearbouti]

Great gig. The recording went very well. Of course not at all as I expected it to be Some nice findings. Will post a report soon. Cheers

[Sheikyearbouti]

Yesterday I met the composer and we listened to the recording. He said that it is the first time that he gets exactly what he wanted to and that the sound is great. I am very happy with the result too. As well I will have a great degree of flexibility and that is very cool.

Unfortunately there was even more external noise than I noticed during the recce...
And as on the day I was asked very clearly to deliver a very dry sound from the main pair, I ended up with a Jecklin disk with the MK2 caps just about 2m - 2.5m above the ensemble. In addition I put a second pair of MK21's back in the hall at about 6-7m for flexibility. All was spotted with MK4's but the cello for which I had an Audio Technica AT4080 and an MK8.

Faukner array would have been way too spaced for this distance and pointless really, so I had to abandon the idea. Despite of looking contra-intuitive for the task, I chose the omni mk2 to the mk21 for the close pair as I think that it sounds warmer and translates better that sharp close sound. The disk gave a very good L to R separation too.

So here is the interesting part. I have a lot of experience with mk2, mk21, mk4 caps but almost none with mk8 (used it only twice as a side for MS). The mic sounds very thin as a spot mic. Even for violin where the roll-off on the FRC given by Schoeps (no distance specified) starts just a bit above the lowest fundament of the violin. In terms of spill, the results were great. In terms of sound - not at all. Very, very thin. Switching to MK4 immediately solved the problem. Yes, spill was much more and not that natural, but the sound felt more direct and definitely fuller. So I guess that mk22 would have been ideal here, but I couldn't get hold of those.

AT4080 sounds great on cello and has this big, and I mean BIG, low end. Standard spot position close to the floor - lovely!
An interesting observation is that although the mk8 and the 4080 were one next to another, the MK8 had more spill into it (see reason for editing). That was the case even after boosting a lot at the HF area of the AT to match the MK8 sound. I am happy that I have both as I can mix to taste the more realistic high end of the mk8 with the big warm sound of the AT.

As the place was very noisy I am still not sure how usable will be the hall pair (which otherwise works very well when blended with the close one). Thus I took IRs from the place. Very useful!
I used the Waves IR1 and it is the first time I can say that I have a very, very convincing results with artificial reverb. To make things even more coherent, I took impulses from both pairs while placing the speaker on the chairs where the musicians were seated. One for each musician pointing the speaker as if it is the actual instrument radiating. Now I can add the same reflections to the spots as if they were picked by the main and hall pair. And it really works very well.

In addition I got a few more impulses from a distance and some with huge spacing (up to 10m). Those work great if one wants to exaggerate the stereo image and make it enormous without changing the localisation of the instruments (but just putting a touch of room feel at the extremes of the image).

For now unfortunately I can't post any samples. I know for sure that after the release in Feb 2012 this will be possible but we are talking about the distant future... till than, you'll have to trust my words blindly.

Thanks for the help

Best
Nik

[didier.brest]

Originally Posted by Sheikyearbouti

Switching to MK4 immediately solved the problem. Yes, spill was much more and not that natural, but the sound felt more direct and definitely fuller. So I guess that mk22 would have been ideal here, but I couldn't get hold of those.

Why ? The mk22 would have deliver still more spill than the mk4, the directivity of which is tighter.

[klaukholm]

The mk8 is bright, for a darker fig 8 sound an sf1 or similar will be preferrable.
I am sorry they did not work out for you sonically, but I am glad they provided the isolation you were looking for. That is why one brings alternate options to these kind of gigs.
Sounds like you and the composer are happy with the final results which is good news.

[Tom McC]

Originally Posted by Sheikyearbouti

The mic sounds very thin as a spot mic. Even for violin where the roll-off on the FRC given by Schoeps (no distance specified) starts just a bit above the lowest fundament of the violin. In terms of spill, the results were great. In terms of sound - not at all. Very, very thin.

I've often caved in and boosted the Mk8's bottom end in post - using an equalization curve a bit gentler than simply the inverse of the Schoeps published response curve. But the Mk8 can be fairly susceptible to stand- or wind-borne noises, so one has to be vigilant against exacerbating any 'deep whumps' that slipped through.

[Sheikyearbouti]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

Why ? The mk22 would have deliver still more spill than the mk4, the directivity of which is tighter.

Hey Didier, my bad. I was answering in another thread and must have gotten confused.

I guess what I meant to say, having in mind the success of the AT ribbon, is that some more ribbons as spots would have been ideal in this situation - fig8, good low end, nice sound at this distance. The MK8 was really so thin and I put them as close as I could to the violins.

[Roland]

My experience with the mk 8 has always left me dissapointed. I suspect that they are probably more aimed at the TV market where the roll off (3db an octave from around 200hz) is probably desirable in an MS set-up, for music, it's had me (in the past) reaching for corrective eq. On a sound basis, I have no problem with them, but, the lack of bass makes them a difficult choice when others (Sennheiser MHK30's, various ribbons and other dual capsule type condensors) offer a better solution.

As an MS set-up for dialogue on set, they might be pretty unbeatable.

[Rolo 46]

Mr Willet will say the MK8 are non symmetrical....
Stereo dialog is now dead and buried Im afraid.
Luckily I have collected 4 x MKH 30 cos no one in tele does MS any more.
I love em
Ribbon like to my ears.
Roger