Figure 8 in acoustic recordings (thinking of Schoeps MK8)

[ISedlacek]

I record most of my solo acoustic instruments as AB (and mostly with MK2 omnis). That results in spacy , magnificent solo sound, that I like.

But sometimes, with more instruments (recorded as playbacks), maybe a slightly different type of sound could be nice.

XY is unuseable for me (tried few times) - sounds small, boxy etc.

ORTF etc. does not seem to fit recording of one solo instrument (close miking).

When I had ribbons here for trying (Royer, AEA) - although I in the end did not like much the ribbon sound itself for my type of sound (always prefered Schoeps), Blumlein stereo sounded interesting (quite different then AB).

I just wonder - what about Schoeps MK8 (to use a pair as Blumlein). Does anybody have an experience with that ? Does MK8 sound as nice as other Schoeps capsules ? Could this be successfully used for recording acoustic instruments ?

[Omicron_9]

Greetings, Ivo....

Something with which I've been experimenting for recording solo, duet, trio scenarios is Blumlein thru a M/S matrix. Try it!

Regards,
-0.9

[ISedlacek]

) Do you mean M/S matrix software or hardware ? (I am not much experienced in that).

And supposing I would have a pair of Schoeps MK8 - is there any simple mic bar that would easily allow to place them in Blumlein position ?

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

I record most of my solo acoustic instruments as AB (and mostly with MK2 omnis). That results in spacy , magnificent solo sound, that I like.

But sometimes, with more instruments (recorded as playbacks), maybe a slightly different type of sound could be nice.

XY is unuseable for me (tried few times) - sounds small, boxy etc.

ORTF etc. does not seem to fit recording of one solo instrument (close miking).

When I had ribbons here for trying (Royer, AEA) - although I in the end did not like much the ribbon sound itself for my type of sound (always prefered Schoeps), Blumlein stereo sounded interesting (quite different then AB).

I just wonder - what about Schoeps MK8 (to use a pair as Blumlein). Does anybody have an experience with that ? Does MK8 sound as nice as other Schoeps capsules ? Could this be successfully used for recording acoustic instruments ?

Hi Ivo, haven't seen you post in a while.....

The Schoeps fig-8, like all Schoeps, is a very nice mic.

It should be great for a Blumlein pair.

Just be aware that the rear lobe drops off slightly at the 16kHz plot so if you use it for MS the RH channel will have a slight droop at 16kHz and above (though some Schoeps lovers seem to think this doesn't matter).

The other excellent single diaphragm fig-8s are:-
Sennheiser MKH 30 (fully symmetrical)
Neumann 120 (KM120, KM 120-A, KM 120-D - three different mics but basically the same capsule) (fully symmetrical polar-pattern)
MBHO MBC KA 800 A
Ambient EMESSER ATE 208

These are all the single-diaphragm fig-8 condensers I know of.

[Omicron_9]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

) Do you mean M/S matrix software or hardware ? (I am not much experienced in that).

And supposing I would have a pair of Schoeps MK8 - is there any simple mic bar that would easily allow to place them in Blumlein position ?

Ivo,

Either hardware or software. I use a Peter Engh Sonic Orbit; very handy.

-0.9

[MichaelPatrick]

Ivo, nice to see you again!

Here's a thread where Schoeps MK8 is discussed at some length. Which Figure-8 Mic For Mid-Side?

Pages 3 & 4 have some interesting comments from Jörg Wuttke at Schoeps in response to claims (by an unnamed individual on GS) that the capsule is deficient and Sennheiser's MKH30 is virtually perfect. There's also a link to Schoeps Polarflex plugin and a discussion of other spacial techniques that employ multiple capsules.

For your application I think M/S will be a revelation. The difference between M/S and a single mic is not subtle; you'll hear all the air around the instrument and it will immediately have a place in two --or nearly three-- dimensions. Focus is fully retained and you can adjust the relative amount of Side info you want, or eliminate it altogether during mixdown.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

Here's a thread where Schoeps MK8 is discussed at some length. Which Figure-8 Mic For Mid-Side?

Pages 3 & 4 have some interesting comments from Jörg Wuttke at Schoeps in response to claims (by an unnamed individual on GS) that the capsule is deficient and Sennheiser's MKH30 is virtually perfect.

Michael - you seem to go OTT on this as nothing in that thread says that "the capsule is deficient and Sennheiser's MKH30 is virtually perfect", and Jörg Wuttke did not actually answer the question about measurement distance at all. I know Jörg Wuttke pretty well and have discussed these things with him on several occasions.

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

There's also a link to Schoeps Polarflex plugin and a discussion of other spacial techniques that employ multiple capsules.

The Polarflex plug-in actually looks very good as it is tailored specifically to the Schoeps microphones that are designed to be used with it.

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

For your application I think M/S will be a revelation. The difference between M/S and a single mic is not subtle; you'll hear all the air around the instrument and it will immediately have a place in two --or nearly three-- dimensions. Focus is fully retained and you can adjust the relative amount of Side info you want, or eliminate it altogether during mixdown.

Agreed - and the advantage of doing Blumlein in MS is that you can alter the width of the array without altering the polar-pattern of the mics.

[Tom McC]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

I just wonder - what about Schoeps MK8 (to use a pair as Blumlein). Does anybody have an experience with that ?

Wih a small stereo bar plus one mic thread-adapter nut as a spacer, one can quickly set up a 90 deg. Blumlein array.

But for a neater profile, easier pointing, and arguably some sonic gains, I prefer to run two Mk8's in MS mode, then decode in post. In this setup, the S mic body is horizontal, capsules ponting L & R, while the M mic body is vertical, usually with capsule end uppermost, and capsules of course pointing front & back. (Visualize a large capital letter L, inverted around its horiz. axis - for a sound coming from left of your screen)

I don't do much solo miking. For ensemble miking etc, I find Blumlein a rather low-tolerance ("knife-edge") technique, with less latitude permissible for mic placement. You need the time to set things up properly. but when you knock it off, it can be rewarding. Many classical performers though, do tend to be unimpressed ...they generally just seem to listen out for their own voice- or instrument tone (thus omni's), and don't give doodley about arcane stuff like hair-on-the back-your-neck imaging :-) A mild drawback of a Fig-8 is the thin tone. You may wish to equalize the low end..but then with care to avoid exacerbating a second drawback - proneness to thunks from stand-borne resonances or air currents.

[Petrus]

Originally Posted by Tom McC

A mild drawback of a Fig-8 is the thin tone. You may wish to equalize the low end..but then with care to avoid exacerbating a second drawback - proneness to thunks from stand-borne resonances or air currents.

Has anyone experiments with mixing a "subwoofer" omni mic to Bluemlein pair? As the lowest frequencies are practically nondirectional a mono omni should suffice. I have been thinking about taping a DPA4060 to a Soundfield SPS200 and boost the below 100 Hz range a bit with that... Soundfield alone was definitely thin compared to a pair of Senn 8020.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Petrus

Has anyone experiments with mixing a "subwoofer" omni mic to Bluemlein pair? As the lowest frequencies are practically nondirectional a mono omni should suffice. I have been thinking about taping a DPA4060 to a Soundfield SPS200 and boost the below 100 Hz range a bit with that... Soundfield alone was definitely thin compared to a pair of Senn 8020.

Interesting concept .....

An omni does tend to go very low and directional mics do tend to roll off at around the 50Hz mark (give or take) and the SPS200's capsules are cardioids.

I have not done it, but it is certainly worth a thought, especially as, due to the construction of the SPS200, you can get an omni very very close - enough to be coincident I would think.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Michael - you seem to go OTT on this as nothing in that thread says that "the capsule is deficient and Sennheiser's MKH30 is virtually perfect", and Jörg Wuttke did not actually answer the question about measurement distance at all. I know Jörg Wuttke pretty well and have discussed these things with him on several occasions.

John - I'll gladly join you in a discussion of your theoretically perfect MKH30 if you will be kind enough to start a thread on that topic. The title of this thread says "thinking of Schoeps MK8" because Ivo likes and uses Schoeps (this is well-known to any observant GS reader).

Nearly identical interruptions have appeared multiple times on GS where the Schoeps mic gets mentioned. Please consider opening a thread to grind the axe and I'll join you there to make some sparks.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

John - I'll gladly join you in a discussion of your theoretically perfect MKH30 if you will be kind enough to start a thread on that topic. The title of this thread says "thinking of Schoeps MK8" because Ivo likes and uses Schoeps (this is well-known to any observant GS reader).

Nearly identical interruptions have appeared multiple times on GS where the Schoeps mic gets mentioned. Please consider opening a thread to grind the axe and I'll join you there to make some sparks.

Michael - I have no axe to grind at all, it's you who seem to be reading into what I post more than what I say.

I answered Ivo's post above perfectly correctly and I am not knocking Schoeps at all, as you seem to think.

I said that the Schoeps fig-8 was perfect for what he said he wanted to do.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in pointing out that the rear lobe is slightly down at 16kHz as Schoeps themselves clearly say this themselves and is something that anyone wanting to use it as a side mic. in MS should decide for themselves whether it is important or not.

I have said many many times that, IMHO, Schoeps, Neumann, Sennheiser, DPA, Gefell and (probably) MBHO are all top makes and pretty well equal in quality - there are differences that make some better for some situations than others, which is why most will have microphones from several manufacturers and will choose what is best at the time.

So please will you stop inferring I am anti-Schoeps, I am certainly not! They are great mics. But discussing certain technical points of microphones is what Gearslutz is all about. I have never said any mic. is wonderful or perfect - or another is rubbish or sub-standard in any of my posts at any time on any forum - I restrict what I say to published specs and my own experience and try to keep very subjective things out of it altogether as what may work perfectly for someone in a certain room at a certain time may be very wrong for someone else in a different room at a different time.

Please don't let your love of Schoeps cloud your thinking - most of the time I am not saying what you seem to think I am saying. Sorry.

Let's close this now.

[Larry Elliott]

Originally Posted by Petrus

Has anyone experiments with mixing a "subwoofer" omni mic to Bluemlein pair? As the lowest frequencies are practically nondirectional a mono omni should suffice. I have been thinking about taping a DPA4060 to a Soundfield SPS200 and boost the below 100 Hz range

There is a recordist I know that has an array of two hypercardoids and an omni, all Schoeps, that he uses for choral recordings. seems to work quite well

[ISedlacek]

Oh my, I did not know that we enter a hot ground by that )

Schoeps are practical to me because I would need only capsules (bodies I have), so it would be also the cheapest solution ...

[grawk]

I really like the mk8 when used in conjunction with an mk21H subcard in midside.

[Sheikyearbouti]

Hi Ivo,

Recently I used the mk8 a few times NOT in an MS configuration. I have to say that I really don't like the sound. The low frequency loss is huge. The mics sound very skinny unless they are really close to the instrument. So if you mean something like 25cm from an acoustic guitar, yes, you should be fine. But the moment you are out there at 1m or more, the mics just sound as if they have been treated with a HPF (see plots on Schoeps web - I believe they are measured at 1m - as pointed above, there was a massive thread on this).

For me this is a real disaster - well, unless you really want to get rid of that low end for some reason.

On the contrary, I have the experience that most ribbons are equalized differently and have much more low end to offer. I am not too sure why is that. But doing Blumlein with 4038 or AT4080 have delivered much better results for me. Same with TLM170 or U89.

The other thing with fig8s is that you can get a very good stereo picture and you don't necessarily have to keep them coincident. You could go near-coincident or spaced and it will give different results. In Blum bear in mind that your back L&R will be swapped.

I personally prefer now to use ribbons as spots where fig8 is needed (both classical and rock, etc.). Or U89, TM170...

My opinion only.

Hope this helps.

[Rolo 46]

I adore 8's and omnis
We have debated the Shoepes MK8/CCM8
It rolls off steeply
Possibly for MS boom function and LF overload
S provides post EQ
Sennheiser eqs the capsule
I appreciate both.

[Earcatcher]

Originally Posted by Petrus

Has anyone experiments with mixing a "subwoofer" omni mic to Bluemlein pair? As the lowest frequencies are practically nondirectional a mono omni should suffice. I have been thinking about taping a DPA4060 to a Soundfield SPS200 and boost the below 100 Hz range a bit with that... Soundfield alone was definitely thin compared to a pair of Senn 8020.

That's exactly what I did in the recordings I posted in this thread: Early classical music live recording The omni was a boundary layer mic (BLM3) from Schoeps. Gave me a beautiful deep viol and bass.

[boojum]

I have run Mk8 + Mk4 MS with DPA 4061's in 38cm AB. The DPA's do fill in the bass nicely, and allow further image manipulation than just what can be done in MS.

[WiFiJeff]

Originally Posted by Petrus

Has anyone experiments with mixing a "subwoofer" omni mic to Bluemlein pair? As the lowest frequencies are practically nondirectional a mono omni should suffice. I have been thinking about taping a DPA4060 to a Soundfield SPS200 and boost the below 100 Hz range a bit with that... Soundfield alone was definitely thin compared to a pair of Senn 8020.

I did my first Blumlein recording with a Studio Projects LSD2 and liked it so much I quickly upgraded to an AKG C426B. After five years or so with the AKG, I started this October using a Josephson C700S, which is exactly a Blumlein pair (from M/S figure-8s) with a third omni channel. So far the Blumlein pair has kept me happy enough, but I clearly could low-pass the omni recording, or add it unEQed in to change the Mid-mic pattern as Josephson contemplates in its manual.

I'd love to hear from anyone with experiences mixing an omni channel (low-passed or neat) into a Blumlein pair, particularly for classical chamber music groups and piano.

Jeff

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by WiFiJeff

I did my first Blumlein recording with a Studio Projects LSD2 and liked it so much I quickly upgraded to an AKG C426B. After five years or so with the AKG, I started this October using a Josephson C700S, which is exactly a Blumlein pair (from M/S figure-8s) with a third omni channel. So far the Blumlein pair has kept me happy enough, but I clearly could low-pass the omni recording, or add it unEQed in to change the Mid-mic pattern as Josephson contemplates in its manual.

I'd love to hear from anyone with experiences mixing an omni channel (low-passed or neat) into a Blumlein pair, particularly for classical chamber music groups and piano.

Jeff

Jeff, on some future horizon I hope to find a Josephson C700S for my locker, or at least some other fine multi-pattern mic.

I like the idea of adding an omni LF pickup to a Blumlein array but centering all the LFs doesn't sound natural to me, and I think that's why Blumlein invented the shuffler. Unfortunately there is no serious development of shufflers - at least not any that leverage modern DSP technology to solve the acoustic inability of all coincident techniques to localize LFs and capture some of the dynamic motion of long waves.

[David Spearritt]

Ivo, please just try to borrow two MK8's, put them in the Schoeps UMS20 bar in blumlein and eq the bass a little. Just try it. Forget the naysayers.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Ivo, please just try to borrow two MK8's, put them in the Schoeps UMS20 bar in blumlein and eq the bass a little. Just try it. Forget the naysayers.

[panatrope]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Ivo, please just try to borrow two MK8's, put them in the Schoeps UMS20 bar in blumlein and eq the bass a little. Just try it. Forget the naysayers.

And while you are experimenting, also have a go (in the right circumstances) at the Faulkner array spaced 20cm, pointing parallel. (See relevant thread here.)

In M-S, don't worry about the MK8 LF fall-off - it just means the low end energy from the M mic stays in the centre, rather than splitting it left and right.

An MK21 as M mic gives an improvement in the bottom end but needs to be a bit closer to the source to keep the balance of direct to reverberant sound the same. And yes, despite Jerry Bruck's protestations, you can even try an omni as the M mic. Listen to it in mono when placing it for best balance, add S to taste, best possible bottom end. In extremis, it ends up as two back-to-back cardioids, but with a much better defined middle compared to two separate cardioid mics.

The two fig-8 and omni combination can end up a bit like a 2D B-format Soundfield (minus the Z-channel) Record all three capsules separately and in post you can create quad - effectively 4 co-incident cardioids at 90 degrees. And yes, low-pass filter the omni to feed the sub! I've often considered placing a C414 above my C426B to try this out - the right occasion hasn't yet presented itself.

[grrrayson]

At the risk of being slightly off-topic, I have to also recommend giving M/S a try.

I, like you, generally don't like XY.

I've come to use a Schoeps M/S pair (with cmc64 and and cmc68) as my default ambience pickup and also sometimes as a main close pickup (on non-classical but acoustic recordings, very often in non-studio situations). I find it much more useful and spacious-sounding than XY (with the possibility of slight manipulation of the S level) and the phase coherence lends a focused yet spacious sound in situations that don't benefit from the slight blur of a spaced pair.

I was lucky enough to score an amazing deal on a Millennia MSD-2 (Millennia Custom Shop) but many relatively inexpensive hardware M/S units are now available. I used to decode in software after recording but I strongly prefer to get the sound and then record the sound as I want it (i.e. in this case decode analog on the way in). Also, being able to adjust the width at the origin of the source is very useful. I almost always turn up the S mic just a little. In any case, software decoding works perfectly so you should try it that way to see if you like it enough to warrant purchasing a hardware unit.

I do have to say that I did a voice test between the mk4, mk8, and mk21 capsules and the mk8 was noticeably thinner—to the point where I would probably want EQ if I were using two in a Blumlein pair or simply shy away from that configuration. However, as mentioned before, you can use any other capsule from cardioid to omni as the M mic in an M/S setup and increase bass response that way. Also, the thinner bass response either doesn't matter in an S mic or (as I tend to think) is actually desirable, as people often high-pass filter side information anyway.

In summary: adding an mk8 capsule to your current Schoeps system would require a minimal investment and offer many different sonic options. That deserves at least a try.

I have unfortunately not used an mk8 pair as a Blumlein pair so I cannot comment on that configuration. I'd love to own another mk8 capsule down the road to try this—even if I don't end up liking the dual mk8 Blumlein configuration, I can see myself using two M/S pairs often enough that the purchase would make sense for me in any case. And I read somewhere that the mk8 sounds great on hihat, which I have not yet tried but would like to (for those producers that insist I put up a hihat mic, which I almost never do of my own accord).

By the way, I got into M/S after working with a well-known engineer in the jazz realm known for being on the purist side of acoustic recording.

I hope this is helpful.

Regards,

Grayson

P.S. As for the hullabaloo about the two sides of the mk8 sounding different: disregard. It sounds absolutely beautiful.

P.P.S. Rycote makes an awesome M/S mount.

[Tom McC]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

I like the idea of adding an omni LF pickup to a Blumlein array but centering all the LFs doesn't sound natural to me, and I think that's why Blumlein invented the shuffler.

My understanding is that Blumlein originally developed his shuffler in order to _create_ a (virtual) Fig-8 patten! No high-quality, commercial Fig-8's existed at the time he started his research, so he had to "roll his own" by shuffling the signals of two closely-spaced omni capsules.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Tom McC

My understanding is that Blumlein originally developed his shuffler in order to _create_ a (virtual) Fig-8 patten! No high-quality, commercial Fig-8's existed at the time he started his research, so he had to "roll his own" by shuffling the signals of two closely-spaced omni capsules.

Tom, I guess I was thinking of the EMI-vintage "shuffler" and not Blumlein's original use of the term for an omni AB-20.

BTW, I just did some research and found this page at Phaedrus Audio about their SHUpHLER

Here's what it says:

Despite being discussed since the earliest days of stereophony, there remains much confusion about the term Stereo Shuffling. This is not surprising because the term actually refers to two, quite separate and different techniques.

Simply put, the earliest use of the term (coined by no less than Alan Blumlein himself), refers to the processing of near-spaced omni' microphone signals so that they reproduce correctly on loudspeakers.

The second Shuffler was invented some twenty years later for the processing of crossed, cosine (figure of eight) microphone signals to give better realism.

Why use the same name? Well the later "Shuffler" was invented by the EMI team who had worked with Alan Blumlein before he was killed in WW2. Perhaps they sought to honour him in adopting the term which derived from him?

Great stuff. Mick Hinton (DAV) has a hardware shuffler and it looks like he's not alone. These guys have done some serious work on their analog system!

Thanks for clarifying and helping me learn something new about something old. From now on I'll call the shuffler for crossed-8 mics a "stereosonic shuffler" as the Phaedrus guys recommend.

[Sheikyearbouti]

Hi Michael, great finding - this looks like a little magic box. Did you hear the samples provided? The improvement in the image and depth is remarkable.

[aracu]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

I record most of my solo acoustic instruments as AB (and mostly with MK2 omnis). That results in spacy , magnificent solo sound, that I like.

Try an MK2 w/ 8 MS, you might like the imaging, excellent side mic. 2 of the MK8's will sound light compared to the omnis.

Omni mid is especially nice very close to the source or even
within an ensemble.

[apple-q]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Ivo, please just try to borrow two MK8's, put them in the Schoeps UMS20 bar in blumlein and eq the bass a little. Just try it. Forget the naysayers.