Recording Haydn concert for harpsichord

[oncloudnine]

Hi,

In a few days I'm having a recording with some Haydn. 2 orchestral works and a harpsichord + orchestra work. I already have a plan for microphones and distribution but any contributions will be great.

This is what I have in mind:

I can use up to 8 microphones.

I can hang the main pair (ORTF, small condenser) and that will be in the right position. With the rest of mics I'll have to use stands. Then, my plan was to spot the harpsichord, the first violins, the second violins, the violas, the cellos and just one for the winds and percussion as I think I'll have plenty of them in the main pair. With the spot mics for first and second violins, as they will be sitting on both sides of the conductor: that is, from left to right, first violins, violas, cellos and second violins, I had thought to put these two mics as sort of outriggers. What are your thoughts? A plus for this position is that they will be less a hassle for the conductor. On the other hand, they will get more bleeding from the winds what, at first, I'd like to avoid.

Any other approaches you can think of? Any changes to my approach you'd make?

Thanks in advance for any ideas.

Best,

[John Brook]

Did a similar recording a few years back. Being a minimalist, I used a stereo pair, ORTF, as you propose, and a fill mic on the few winds stuck in the back (hung). And a spot mic on the harpsichord. For some reason, the harpsichord's lid was removed (probably for vision purposes), so I place the mic on the back side, where the lid normally hinges. It eliminated a lot of sound from the strings immediately behind.

About the outriggers. I wouldn't mind them if used gently, but most recordings I've heard of late uses the outriggers to blast the fiddles louder than the horns. The job of the conductor is to balance the orchestra, IMO, our job is to faithfully as possible render what the conductor delivers.

Good luck.

[oncloudnine]

Originally Posted by John Brook

Did a similar recording a few years back. Being a minimalist, I used a stereo pair, ORTF, as you propose, and a fill mic on the few winds stuck in the back (hung). And a spot mic on the harpsichord. For some reason, the harpsichord's lid was removed (probably for vision purposes), so I place the mic on the back side, where the lid normally hinges. It eliminated a lot of sound from the strings immediately behind.

About the outriggers. I wouldn't mind them if used gently, but most recordings I've heard of late uses the outriggers to blast the fiddles louder than the horns. The job of the conductor is to balance the orchestra, IMO, our job is to faithfully as possible render what the conductor delivers.

Good luck.

Hi John,

Thanks for the answer and comments. I do keep in mind that is the conductor's job to balance the orchestra. The thing is that is my first recording in this new auditorium and the first time hanging mics in a space so big as this one, so I'll hang the mics in the morning and I'll be able to change what I want in the morning, but the rehearsal is in the evening at 7 and then the concert is at 8:30 so I'm not sure that I can change the position of the main pair between the rehearsal and the concert or in case of doing any change that this is going to be the right move. That's the main point of outriggers or spot mics for the strings instead of keeping it simple: ORTF + spot mic the harpsichord.

I can't hang any other mics apart from the main pair as the acoustic panels above won't let the cables go down. (Is that proper English? Sorry ).

Best,

[pkautzsch]

Any double bass? If there is one, it will probably need a spot.
I'd use at least two mics for the winds. Else they might end up quite mono-ish.
Then you have 10 mics and 8 inputs. Trouble.
You might get away with a pair of cardioid outriggers, doing the violin/winds balance by angling them more towards violins or winds.
Same could be achieved by angling the viola and cello mics, will result in closer sounding winds.
Have you ever tried 3-omni setups like Decca Tree? Set up on three separate stands, center a little lower (celli), and a spot for double bass. If you have some time to get the heights and spacings right, this will have your orchestra covered. Add a pair of harpsichord spots, and there you go. Disclaimer: Tree setups should only be done if your monitoring is good, and you either have lots of experience with that setup, or lots of time.

[oncloudnine]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

Any double bass? If there is one, it will probably need a spot.
I'd use at least two mics for the winds. Else they might end up quite mono-ish.
Then you have 10 mics and 8 inputs. Trouble.
You might get away with a pair of cardioid outriggers, doing the violin/winds balance by angling them more towards violins or winds.
Same could be achieved by angling the viola and cello mics, will result in closer sounding winds.
Have you ever tried 3-omni setups like Decca Tree? Set up on three separate stands, center a little lower (celli), and a spot for double bass. If you have some time to get the heights and spacings right, this will have your orchestra covered. Add a pair of harpsichord spots, and there you go. Disclaimer: Tree setups should only be done if your monitoring is good, and you either have lots of experience with that setup, or lots of time.

Hi there Pkautzsch,

Thanks for the help and the contribution.

I'd like to try the Decca tree at some point, but first I'd need the 3 omnis and then the adequate concert or recording with lots of time as you suggested. So, for now I'll have to keep on working with the ORTF approach.

I could have used up to 12 mics but for different reasons I wanted to reduce it to 8. Main one was time limitations for really messing around with so many mics. So I tried to do the best use of those 8 mics.

It worked quite well with most of the music and maybe not so well for the winds specially in some specific moments.

I finally chose the outrigger option regarding the position of the stand but I angled the mic quite down to avoid leaking from the winds as much as possible. Probably would do a different thing next time now that I have the recording and I know how it worked.

I wanted to include a sample but for some reason I can't use the attach file option.

Best,

[Bibster]

Originally Posted by oncloudnine

I wanted to include a sample but for some reason I can't use the attach file option.

Darn!


It's a bit tricky sometimes, pero...

[oncloudnine]

Originally Posted by Bibster

Darn!


It's a bit tricky sometimes, pero...

It seems as I can't use any of the message options above the message box or the smileys. Didn't change anything in my profile.

[oncloudnine]

Got it... probably the Internet browser. It doesn't seem to work with Safari but it does with Firefox.

There it is a sample.

[alexvdbroek]

Sounds good!
A.

[mathieujm]

I like this, for the music and the recording.

Could you give us some samples with the harpsichord ?

Was it the concert ? If yes, you recorded a great orchestra

[oncloudnine]

Originally Posted by alexvdbroek

Sounds good!
A.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by mathieujm

I like this, for the music and the recording.

Could you give us some samples with the harpsichord ?

Was it the concert ? If yes, you recorded a great orchestra

Yes, it was a concert. They are a professional orchestra and they are good.

I have to work a bit the harpsichord concert first as the balance was not so "easy" to get as the Haydn works. But I'll post a short fragment as soon as I'm happy with the balance.

Thanks for the comments!

[sonare]

IMHO you may have started from the wrong place and are over-thinking things. You have not told us the most important things: orchestra size and acoustic character of the hall.

Even so-- unless you are forbidden to use a main stand-- you will be glad you did NOT fly the mics. Decide to move them a few inches one way or the other? You are HOSED. Flying would be a valid option if you had recorded this group in this hall at least a dozen times. Far safer 9in many ways) is a modern Faulkner array.

You also could be "spot-obsessed" as spots should be used to correct a deficiency. Unless this is a very unauthentic approach to Haydn, the only thing I might want to spot (other than stereo pair on harpsichord) are the winds- but ensemble size and the sound of the hall will decide that. Better to use your channels for rear hall mics. With the array and hall mics your channel count is 8 not counting WW mics.

Rich

[oncloudnine]

Originally Posted by sonare

IMHO you may have started from the wrong place and are over-thinking things. You have not told us the most important things: orchestra size and acoustic character of the hall.

Even so-- unless you are forbidden to use a main stand-- you will be glad you did NOT fly the mics. Decide to move them a few inches one way or the other? You are HOSED. Flying would be a valid option if you had recorded this group in this hall at least a dozen times. Far safer 9in many ways) is a modern Faulkner array.

You also could be "spot-obsessed" as spots should be used to correct a deficiency. Unless this is a very unauthentic approach to Haydn, the only thing I might want to spot (other than stereo pair on harpsichord) are the winds- but ens emble size and the sound of the hall will decide that. Better to use your channels for rear hall mics. With the array and hall mics your channel count is 8 not counting WW mics.

Rich

Hi Rich,

Thanks for the comments and the suggestions. The orchestra is a modern orchestra with modern instruments, not a classical one, with some 50/60 musicians. And the venue has good acoustics with a big but nice reverb in the audience and maybe a bit too much big one on the stage.

The main pair on a big stand was not an option as it was a concert. I could have used two normal stands on both sides of the conductor but I have tried before AB setups (and with a similar orchestra) and I don't like them at all. To fly the mics probably was risky but I have the intention (and the hope) of working in this venue in the future so this was a good chance for me taking into account the conditions of the recording to try hanged mics for checking possible problems and see how it worked and for using the gained experience later.

The reason for the spots is the same as before: I wanted to have some back-up in case that the hanged mics were not working that well. Even having the main pair on a stand (what was not possible) wouldn't have been that good, 'cos I didn't really have that much of a real rehearsal for checking much more than levels.

About the rear hall mics. Just not a possibility. In a recording, sure, but for a concert, not feasible.

I'll keep the Faulkner array in mind for the future. Again, I don't have any 8-figure mics so I'll have to stick with the material I have.

Best,

[Sheikyearbouti]

Originally Posted by oncloudnine

I'll keep the Faulkner array in mind for the future. Again, I don't have any 8-figure mics so I'll have to stick with the material I have.

I think Rich referred to the "modern Faulkner" setup in this case -> 2 omni + 2 widecards on a single bar.

[Kees de Visser]

Originally Posted by sonare

You have not told us the most important things: orchestra size and acoustic character of the hall.

I can understand that you wanted some spots, especially since the Poulenc (assuming it was) concerto is not as easy to balance with a relatively small setup and a large hall. Hanging mics in a large/high hall is probably not your first choice, especially when time and assistance are limited (or when you don't speak the local language). Did you have any difficulties with the fire marshal ? I still remember the tough one in Oviedo

To me the Haydn excerpt sounds fine, perhaps the winds a bit distant. Did the audience change the sound a lot ?

[oncloudnine]

Originally Posted by Sheikyearbouti

I think Rich referred to the "modern Faulkner" setup in this case -> 2 omni + 2 widecards on a single bar.

You're right! I will read a bit more about that as it seems pretty interesting.

[oncloudnine]

Originally Posted by Kees de Visser

I can understand that you wanted some spots, especially since the Poulenc (assuming it was) concerto is not as easy to balance with a relatively small setup and a large hall. Hanging mics in a large/high hall is probably not your first choice, especially when time and assistance are limited (or when you don't speak the local language). Did you have any difficulties with the fire marshal ? I still remember the tough one in Oviedo

To me the Haydn excerpt sounds fine, perhaps the winds a bit distant. Did the audience change the sound a lot ?

Yes, that was Poulenc concerto. And yes too, without listening to the material really a lot I have the feeling that it's going to be harder to work with.

I hanged the mics in the morning (with some help) but no problems with the fire marshal. I was just a bit careful to keep the lines away from lights and that was it. I do understand and appreciate your advice (and Rich's) about being easier to work with mics in a stand but the point is that for concerts the big stand is never going to be an option in that venue, so I'll have to learn to work with flying mics if I want to record any of the events there.

I'll try to push the winds a bit when remixing. Couldn't tell really as I had scarce material to compare during the rehearsal. But I'd say that it didn't change so much as it would in another venue.

Thanks for your comments.

Best,

[sonare]

Your clip sounds very good-- and my reply above did not get posted until much later.

I do think you would like the results with the "modern Faulkner array" better-- not that your clip is deficient-- QUITE good, in fact. You Europeans seem to always have halls that sound really good!

The nanny server says I already attached it the Tony pic of him in the Albert Hall with the array in the thread Dilemma between close and distance miking. Help needed.

Rich

[oncloudnine]

Originally Posted by sonare

Your clip sounds very good-- and my reply above did not get posted until much later.

I do think you would like the results with the "modern Faulkner array" better-- not that your clip is deficient-- QUITE good, in fact. You Europeans seem to always have halls that sound really good!

The nanny server says I already attached it the Tony pic of him in the Albert Hall with the array in the thread Dilemma between close and distance miking. Help needed.

Rich

Hi Rich!

Thanks for the tip and the pic about the modern Faulkner array. I'll keep that in mind if at some point I can renew my recording equipment. It seems I'd need two omnis and two hyper-cards and then a long bar where to set them. And probably a new main stand because probably mine wouldn't be sturdy enough for that.

Well, there are some (not many) good venues, then they build too many multi-purpose venues with really terrible acoustics, that in the end no one is happy about. No good for dance, no good for classical music, no good for theater, etc. Talking about Spain actually. No, about what I know in Spain. But as far as Spain is concerned I'm afraid I'm not too wrong.

This venue is built in the harbour of the town and is under sea level, the main venue is 8 metres under the sea level. They had so many troubles with the sea leaking into the building you wouldn't want to know.

[sonare]

There continues to be confusion as to what this is--

According to Tony (who really ought to have a say in this) the ORIGINAL Faulkner array was not named by him-- but rather by someone writing a book. It is A-B spaced fig-8s. And according to Tony (and my own experiments) can also be spaced wider.

The NEW Faulkner phased array (his terminology, not mine) is NOT any sort of ORTF (wrong mic pattern; wrong angles; wrong spacing). It is 2 subcardioids at 46cm spacing "angled out" (his words) and 2 omnis at 66cm "angled out." It is "phased" because there are 2 pair arranged so that the arrival of the wave front is simultaneous-- as in a radar array, which is what inspired it. You get an idea of how seriously Tony takes this by the phrase "angled out"-- he is not specific-- probably to encourage people to use their ears and brain and not use a "recipe." I take the hint from Schoeps that a pair of subcardioids in NOS should use an angle of 120 degrees. Also, one pair should dominate by 6dB "or so" (his words).

Perhaps if the original is called the "2-mic array" and the new one is the "4-mic array" sanity can once again reign in the kingdom (after all-- he is British).

Rich

[Geoff Poulton]

It is also usable as a cardiod pair spaced 17cm and angled at 100 degrees, which is ORTF apart from the angle. If I'm not using much of the flanking omnis I set it at 110degrees, but if the content of the omnis is likely to make them the main pair of the two, then I go with 100 degrees.

I think it's confusing to call anything the Faulkner phased array, other than the spaced Fig 8's, because this other array has been around for a while.

[sonare]

Originally Posted by Geoff Poulton

I think it's confusing to call anything the Faulkner phased array, other than the spaced Fig 8's, because this other array has been around for a while.

Perhaps you can discuss the terminology with Tony, as you both are in proximity. I'll stick to calling it a 4-mic Faulkner array.

Rich

[king2070lplaya]

I think that's legit... You got the OG Faulkner phased array and the Faulkner 4 mic array. Pretty clear which one is which by the name, right?

[Nobilmente]

Originally Posted by sonare

Perhaps you can discuss the terminology with Tony, as you both are in proximity. I'll stick to calling it a 4-mic Faulkner array.

Rich

They're both four mic arrays.

[king2070lplaya]

Originally Posted by Nobilmente

They're both four mic arrays.

? Are they? I was under the impression the old one was just a spaced pair of 2 fig 8 mics? Is this not correct?

[sonare]

Originally Posted by Nobilmente

They're both four mic arrays.

If you have come up with a way to get 4 channels from 2 fig-8s (with "normal" fig-8s) please share!

FWIW-with my Senn Twins (in A-B) I often will reverse phase on the rear capsule channels to correct an acoustic problem. In fact-- it is the continuously variable characteristic of these capsules that makes them quite worth the money.

Rich

[Geoff Poulton]

Whenever I use the Faulkner array, I always have two omnis flanking the Fig 8's, which is the way Tony Faulkner arranges it sometimes. I find them very handy.

[Nobilmente]

Originally Posted by sonare

If you have come up with a way to get 4 channels from 2 fig-8s (with "normal" fig-8s) please share!
Rich

With flanking omnis.

[sonare]

These are certainly valid setups-- but I'll stick with either the 4mic Faulkner (with Schoeps subcards and omnis) or fig-8s (with Senn Twins). The twins have been observed capturing as low as 16Hz-- which should be low enough. I don't know that even the Senn 8s could do that even with internal LF EQ.

This is in the realm of guesswork-- but I can imagine having difficulty in getting the 8s + omnis to image close to the same (as well as too much room in a really reverberant space). That's not likely to happen with the omni/subcard Faulkner.

In the end-- to each his own-- and you can name it anything you wish.

Rich