Mobile rig for choral recording - any suggestions?

[DaveD]

Kind Sirs,

I lay before you a puzzle. I'm wanting to complete a mobile rig for the regular recording of a small choir (8-10 choristers), and am hoping to achieve professional-sounding results for as little cost as possible. My budget limit is around $1000 (NB that's Australian Dollars!!! so divide your USD by about 0.60 - that's roughly what it works out to after postage costs to Australia and local price hikes).

The rig so far consists of a Metric Halo Mobile I/O ULN2 going into a Mac running Logic Express 7. Microphone-wise, I own a Rode K2 and a stereo pair of NT5s. I've heard that quality large condenser mics are the way to go for a professional sound, so I'm looking for such to add to the collection for this purpose - but please feel free to contradict my ignorance on this.

Regarding mics: it seems that the least expensive option might be to purchase a decent cardioid such as an AT4040, to set up in a mid-side stereo configuration with the K2 as the side mic.

At the next level of expense, I'm guessing it might be wise to provide for the flexability of a spaced omni configuration - I've read that this is a good configuration for capturing ambience in church or hall. In which case I could either purchase another K2 (around $900 Aussie dollars), or get some other matched pair of large condenser omnis. I've heard - but only from a local seller - that the Studio Projects B2 has a pretty good reputation for a cheap mic. Could anyone enlighten me on whether this is true, and also on whether I should even bother with the spaced omni idea at all, if I can record MS stereo more cheaply? Other microphone suggestions are welcome.

Regarding preamps, I purchased the Metric Halo ULN2 on the strength of online reviews because it seemded a good compromise unit: very reputable conversion, firewire connectivity and decent preamps. My only doubt is about the quality of the pres. They seem fine to me, but I confess that I didn't really compare them to any other high-end pres. Has anyone an opinion on the quality of the ULN2 preamps as to whether it is possible to get a professional quality sound from them? How would they compare say with Great River, Millennia or Grace? Probably a superfluous question (and a complicated one, since these pres all have different suitability for choral recording, I'm sure) as I'm in no position to purchase any of these units, but I am curious about the reputation of the UNL pres, and whether I would need to aim higher in order to achieve a "professional" sound.

Any wisdom would be appreciated.

[tengu]

My advice is that you would be better to hire the rest of the gear.

Lots of music stores will loan or hire the gear you need for a good price and you should be able to get a better result than if you bought gear, with only that much money.

[Acoustic Cloud]

I would say use the gear you have already, and see how it sounds.The SP mics, or the AT mics should be good for that. As far as other outboard and pres, your different room situations you will be in, may not make higher dollar pre investments worth it, unless they have awesome natural acoustics. That may be the case sometimes, but not always.

[T.RayBullard]

a pair of AT4050s will sound useable(and often, incredible). I hear many many people bragging about the MH stuff, so I think you will be very well set there....just grab a good pair of mics, (at 4050s, ADK TLs, pair of beyer ribbons) will all do a good job, in my opinion, to my ears...

you dont need any expensive gear to get a professional sound..

but yeah, if it were me, id grab a pair of AT4050s(can be found on ebay for around that price) and blumlein it(provided the room was good), and use the rode for ambience...

[DaveD]

Thanks Gents.

I've read that the AT4050 is a wonderful mic. The only problem is that they retail for $1350 a piece in Australia (!), so getting a pair of them would be prohibitive costwise. Perhaps another K2 is in order. Problem is having those bloody great transformers to lug around Does anyone rate the Studio Projects mics?

[RickCording]

Don't worry about the quality of your ULN2 pres. They're totally pro and in league with the best. I use them often with top condensers to record orchestras, ensembles, classical pianists and they sound great!

[pkautzsch]

You might also want to look at some SDCs. The Oktava MK012 are said to be surprisingly good and NEARLY in the Neumann league. Don't cost a lot, and have three capsules with different patterns. You don't necessarily need LDCs: most classical recordings are made with SDCs. Basically LDCs add color (depending on the type), and SDCs don't (or add only very little color, and not in the mid frequencies)

[T.RayBullard]

Originally Posted by DaveD

Thanks Gents.

I've read that the AT4050 is a wonderful mic. The only problem is that they retail for $1350 a piece in Australia (!), so getting a pair of them would be prohibitive costwise. Perhaps another K2 is in order. Problem is having those bloody great transformers to lug around Does anyone rate the Studio Projects mics?

goodness, in my haste to fluff the 4050s, I left out a rather obvious choice, the Studio Projects LSD 2 stereo mic...it sounds fantastic. I have used it a couple times for testing purposes. Multiple patterns, easy to set, and sounds great...

I think that one is your winner, IMHO...

[Curtis Franklin]

I use 4050's all the time. You need something with variable polar patterns so you can do everything.

M/S, ORTF, Spaced Pair. The 4050s in a good room sound CLEAN!!!

[DaveD]

Thanks again for the advice, guys.

Thanks Rick for the assurance regarding the ULN pres - I'll no longer stay awake nights wondering how on earth I can justify spending $3k on an HV-3C.

It looks like the choices are boiling down to these:

SP LSD 2 stereo: great looking mic, convenient, versatile (XY, MS, and blumlein capable), and great sounding, according to Teddy. I can get one from a local dealer for $1190, so it's almost within budget. Definitely worth a second look. I guess the question is whether I really need to go down the spaced omni path at all (or ORTF for that matter). I would love to hear people's opinion about which 2 mic configuration might work best with a small vocal ensemble, or which brings out the best stereo image, while still capturing room ambience.

AK4050 pair: absolutely love the idea, because of the total flexability and the reputation of that mic; but beyond budget unfortunately. Though coneivably I could buy one now (same local dealer can sell me one for $1050) and combine it with the K2 for MS configuration, and get another when I can afford it. The obvious alternative is getting another K2, but people seem very keen on the 4050. Does anyone have an opinion on the 4050 sound as compared with the K2. I've gathered from the forums that quite a few people have found Rode mics not all they're cracked up to be. Has anyone here recorded vocal ensemble music with a pair of K2s?

Oktava MK012s: (thanks Peter) these mics seem to have such a good reputation, I was speaking to an engineer raving about them a couple of weeks ago, but I've no idea where to get them in Australia, and am not sure of the price. Any further opinions about the advantages or not of LDCs over SDCs?

The gut feeling is with the Studio Projects LSD... it's just so shiny! Still got to deal with those couple of mental reservations.

Thanks again fellas; very charitable of you.

DD

[David Rick]

I think you should start with what you have, and clearly define what (if anything) you don't like about the results before you buy anything else. The NT5's you already have are a reasonable place to start. They are not Schoeps, but you can't afford Schoeps anyway. Reviews I've seen of the NT5 say it isn't very bright. Really bright mics can be a problem if you get too close to a choir, because they may exaggerate sibilence. OTOH, if you're placing the mics far away, you may like the additional "reach" you get from a LDC or a SDC with a ball. My experience with the AT4050 as a solo vocal mic is that up close, and on-axis, it sounds a heck of a lot like some SDC's, notably the AKG C460. Off-axis, it can sound a bit goofy. And in the reverberant field, I hear a big smiley curve, which you may love or hate depending on the room. I once tried using one as the side of a M/S pair, with pretty awful results -- went back to using a 414.

Basically, nobody can give you very good advice without knowing what your room is like, and what kind of sound you're trying to get from it. If you stick a finger in one ear, how far away do you have to be from the choir before it sounds right? Are you trying to image individual voices or do you want to avoid that? What type of music are you performing? Are you accompianied by a piano, an orchestra, a rhythm section, or is it acapela?

I'd say the decision path looks like this:
1) Define the desired sound.
2) Define the constraints (room, sight lines, simultaneous PA, etc.).
3) These determine the mic placement and deployment (coincident, near-coincident, spaced).
4) Now you know what kind of mic (size, pattern, SDC/LDC).
5) Obtain mics fitting that description, subject to budget.
6) Preamp is a second-order tweak, chosen to complement your mics when more money comes your way. But you might be better to spend the extra money on a good outboard reverb box instead.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording

[DaveD]

I'd go back to using a 414 if I were you too!

Seriously, I'm hoping to record small ensemble acapella music (chant and polyphony) in ambient rooms, stone churches (if possible) etc. A sound I hope to emulate would be that of Ensemble Organum or Gothic Voices who seem to record in old monasic chapels. It is a sound where you can hear "air" and "warmth" around each voice, yet the ensemble too, with a nice natural reverb. Not really into the big "distant" sound (eg Westminster Cathedral Choir). I hope that makes some kind of sense. Do you think this possible with a properly placed pair of NT5s?

I'm interested in the 'one ear' test you've mentioned David. Is that a way of determining the horizontal distance of mics from choir?

I appreciate you 'masters' taking the time to reply to this novice.

Cheers,

David

[sonare]

Originally Posted by DaveD

Do you think this possible with a properly placed pair of NT5s?

In a word, no. If you want smooth sound without the crunchies (which you get with most condensers) try the DPA4091s. I am not sure what they cost there, but here they are under $1000US and I have used them alongside the 4003s (at several times the price) with absolutely no embarrassment.

Rich

[matyas]

Originally Posted by David Rick

Reviews I've seen of the NT5 say it isn't very bright.

That has not been my experience. A cellist I've recorded has a pair. We compared his NT5s to my MK012s (a good matched pair, from the Sound Room). The 012s were much darker - in a good way, in my opinion. He thought the Rodes had more definition, but they just sounded bright and harsh to me. (Of course, he was used to the sound of those mics because he had been using them everyday to record his practice sessions.) The Rodes are probably very cheap in Oz, not sure how much a good pair of Oktavas will set you back (and I emphasize the word "good", because Oktava's quality control is notoriously poor - which is why some people love theirs, and others hate them.) Personally, though, for choir I think you might be better off with LDCs, especially multi-pattern. (I'm hoping to soon augment the Oktavas I now use with a pair or of 4050s, and to acquire some ribbons soon after that.)

[sonare]

Sorry, but LDCs (especially cheap ones) are NOT the way to go unless you are looking at the Neumann TLM170/193/U89. In my experience these are the only LDC that are going to get the RESONANCE of you group as opposed to the sibilants. LDCs are too colored in the mids and top for 99% of the choral work. Just fine for vocals, however. And because the M50 and its descendents (not actually a LDC) is the only true pressure mic of the bunch, the rest will miss most of the weight of the group in a reverberant room.

Think of the essential sound you want to capture, then look for mics (within your budget) that will get that sound. There is a world of difference between VOCAL sound and CHORAL sound, and I submit that capturing the latter is as challenging as a really fine piano sound. Low-priced mics tend to be crunchy mics, and the DPA4091 are the only exception to that of which I am aware.

Rich

[dynamo]

Did anybody try the Shure KSM141s? It seems like a very good deal quality/price.

[matyas]

Originally Posted by sonare

Sorry, but LDCs (especially cheap ones) are NOT the way to go unless you are looking at the Neumann TLM170/193/U89. In my experience these are the only LDC that are going to get the RESONANCE of you group as opposed to the sibilants.

That's a good point. I've done much more instrumental than choral recording. I was kind of assuming that the somewhat "smoothed-out" transient response of an LDC might be an advantage. But you're probably right about the coloration inherent in LDCs. I've never use any of the Neumann TLM series (though I've used other Neumanns), but they're said to be somewhat bright. Wouldn't that be a disadvantage in this case?

LDCs are too colored in the mids and top for 99% of the choral work Low-priced mics tend to be crunchy mics, and the DPA4091 are the only exception to that of which I am aware.

I was going to point out that unfortunately, low-priced and crunchy is the only option for many of us poor souls out there (myself included, although having had the privilege of working with quite a bit of gear I can't really hope to afford, I'm very picky about my low cost stuff). But then I looked into the price of DPA 4090 series that you've been recommending, and sure enough, they list for $599 each. Not bad at all, and something to consider for future purchases. Maybe after I pick up that BG-1...

[David Rick]

Originally Posted by DaveD

I'm hoping to record small ensemble acapella music (chant and polyphony) in ambient rooms, stone churches (if possible) etc. A sound I hope to emulate would be that of Ensemble Organum or Gothic Voices who seem to record in old monasic chapels. It is a sound where you can hear "air" and "warmth" around each voice, yet the ensemble too, with a nice natural reverb. Not really into the big "distant" sound (eg Westminster Cathedral Choir). I hope that makes some kind of sense. Do you think this possible with a properly placed pair of NT5s?

Well, since you already own the NT5's, I'd say it's certainly worth a try. Even if you end up hating them, you'll at least know why you hate them, and that's data to inform your next experiment or purchase.

I think it's only fair to warn you that many commercial choir recordings have a fair amount of Lexicon reverb mixed in post session. Obviously, it's preferable to get the sound you want from the actual hall, but that may not work if it's not a good hall.

Stone churches can be a lot of fun, or they can drive you nuts, depending on the type of material being performed. For your repertoire, it shouldn't be a problem. With percussive instruments, you can have slap echo problems between the side walls.

I'm interested in the 'one ear' test you've mentioned David. Is that a way of determining the horizontal distance of mics from choir?

Yes. What it does is prevent your brain from doing binaural processing, which changes your sense of the direct/reverberant sound ratio. Caveat: A microphone still has different directivity and frequency response than your ear, so be prepared to make minor adjustments. If you change mic patterns, you'll probably need to move the stand to compensate.

You can use vertical height to make certain tonal adjustments. Sibilance is typically quite directional, which is why many engineers mic choirs from slightly above. Ditto for that ugly-sounding soprano you'd like to tone down.

Someone mentioned the new (cheaper) DPA omnis. If the hall is good, these are a good bet for achieving the least-colored sound. If the hall is bad, they may not work at all. Typical drill is to find the right distance from the ensemble, then adjust the spacing between them to get an appropriate stereo spread. You will not get pinpoint imaging out of spaced omni's, but you may not care.

The opposite strategy is Blumlein with figure-8 patterns. You can get tremendous imaging, but the stage width is fixed. It may not be possible to simultaneously optimize stereo spread and direct/reverberant ratio. Besides, a figure-8 pattern is hard to get without spending real money. I do have a bunch of Rode NT-2A's that I bought for this purpose, but I find them to be rather colored. I have no experience with the current crop of cheap ribbon mics.

In between, you have near-coincident pairs using transitional patterns. One strategy is to place such a pair for best tone and imaging, and then augment the hall sound using a spaced pair of omni's fifteen or twenty feet back. I'm rather partial to hypercardioids because they have less off-axis coloration than cardioids, but it's hard to find inexpensive ones. The AT4053 is one possibility.

My best advice is to begin by borrowing or renting stuff to see what works best in your application.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording

[sonare]

Originally Posted by matyas

I've never use any of the Neumann TLM series (though I've used other Neumanns), but they're said to be somewhat bright. Wouldn't that be a disadvantage in this case?

TLM stands for "TransformerLess Microphone" or similar in German. It is a method of construction. The TLM170/193 are the only TLMs I know of that do not have a hyped top end. The 193 is very much a bargain, with used mics going for $600-700.

Rich

[sonare]

Originally Posted by David Rick

I think it's only fair to warn you that many commercial choir recordings have a fair amount of Lexicon reverb mixed in post session.

I am curious what you are thinking of. The Brits almost never need to add reverb, and they do most of the choral recording.

Rich

[DaveD]

The rent first buy later advice is starting to sound persuasive.

May I ask a realy dumb question? Can omnidirectional mics (the DPA4091s are looking attractive at present, though over-budget) be used in the ORTF configuration, or as the mid mic for MS stereo? I'm wondering about the flexability of a pair of strict omnis for choral recording.

Has anyone else had experience with the Studio Projects LDS 2?

Desparately hoping to squeeze the most value out the buck. It's a bit depressing.

[pkautzsch]

Omnis can not be used in ORTF, since then it's not ORTF anymore
17 cm spacing between microphones is not enough to have a full image width. You need at leas 51 cm to get a time difference large enough to fully spread the sound stage between the speakers.
In ORTF, not only the (small) time difference, but also the level differences between the mics, depending on where the source is, add to the image. In XY it's only level differences then.

You can, on the other hand, use an omni as M mic in an MS setup. Especially a pressure transducer (SDC omni) might be interesting, as these are the mics with the very most linear bass response and thus can nicely complement the rather weak bass response of the fig-8 "S" mic.

[sonare]

You can certainly use omnis with a Jecklin disc, which yields imaging on a par with ORTF or NOS (and better than M-S) setups but with smoother omni sound that gets more of the room.

Rich

[d_fu]

I wouldn't really consider the 4091 an ideal choice for choral recordings....

Equivalent noise level A-weighted:
Typ. 26 dB(A) re. 20 µPa (max. 28 dB(A)

That's too noisy for the purpose, IMHO.

I also wonder where you heard that "quality large condenser mics are the way to go for a professional sound"...

Without having heard them, I think a pair of Rode NT-2 could do the job...
[EDIT: I meant NT-2A]
What's your budget?


Daniel

[sonare]

Originally Posted by d_fu

I wouldn't really consider the 4091 an ideal choice for choral recordings....

[IEquivalent noise level A-weighted:
Typ. 26 dB(A) re. 20 µPa (max. 28 dB(A)[/I]

That's too noisy for the purpose, IMHO.

I also wonder where you heard that "quality large condenser mics are the way to go for a professional sound"...

Without having heard them, I think a pair of Rode NT-2 could do the job...
What's your budget?


Daniel

Have you used the 4091? Perhaps you could explain to us the many different ways that noise measurements are taken?

We are wondering how you come to your opinions, since you have not heard the Rodes but think they would do the job?

If you re-read the posts on this subject you will see that your question has already been answered.

Rich

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by sonare

Have you used the 4091? Perhaps you could explain to us the many different ways that noise measurements are taken?

26 dB is the figure provided by DPA... I would think that a self noise of 26 dB(A) doesn't really make this mic an ideal candidate for a spaced omni main mic. I've tried using an Earthworks SR-78 (22 dB(A) as per specs) as a harpsichord spot mic in chamber music recordings and found it far too noisy.
I don't think DPA designed these mics for such purposes, they seemed to have closeup recording or drum overhead in mind.

What's more, the 4091 is even the less sensitive of the two 409x mics (4090 and 4091), with more self noise and higher Max. SPL. I would never consider using it as a main mic for any kind of recording... But maybe you can prove that wrong... Have you used them in an AB setup? Why the 4091 instead of the 4090?

We are wondering how you come to your opinions, since you have not heard the Rodes but think they would do the job?

Oh well, it was just an idea, something I'd been considering to try... Didn't see that they had been mentioned in another post... Sorry. Maybe they're not all that good then.


Daniel

[sonare]

You haven't come right out and admitted that you have NOT used the DPA mics-- the "noise" is apparent only to folks who listen with their eyes.

Each mic manufacturer measures noise and other parameters in a different way, and DPA uses very conservative methodology. The 4091 are the large-body flat response version of the 4061. They were NOT designed for drum overheads.

Perhaps you should try using the 4091s as main mics (as I and others on this forum) have done and then dispense opinion.

If you were getting too much noise with almost anything as harpsichord spots, I would first look at your gain structure.

Rich

[Jim vanBergen]

Originally Posted by d_fu

26 dB is the figure provided by DPA... I would think that a self noise of 26 dB(A) doesn't really make this mic an ideal candidate for a spaced omni main mic. I've tried using an Earthworks SR-78 (22 dB(A) as per specs) as a harpsichord spot mic in chamber music recordings and found it far too noisy.Daniel

Sorry you had that experience Daniel, but I personally find even the noisiest of Earthworks mics can work very well when used appropriately- either closer to the subject, or on a slightly louder instrument. If you were using the mic at 6' on a quiet recording, I can understand the problem. But I have used SR77, SR30, QTC-1, TC30, TC40s for piano, strings, harp, flute, orchestra, etc on multiple instances with great preamps and have NEVER had someone tell me it sounded noisy. If you use a noisier mic on a super quiet source, get closer. Harpsichord is the one instrument that can really be tough- but with all due respect, I don't think your experience really applies to choral recording, in which the mic will see an SPL of around 70dB bare minimum (room tone) and most likely, if the mics are 6-12' form the choir I'd expect 82-92dBA, which is plenty of gain for even a noisy mic with a good preamp.

LDC's are not imperative. Good sounding mics are. Does not matter about brand, though we tout that constantly- SOUND is what matters.

I'd A/B your ULN with a high end preamp. I think you will spend your money on high end outboard pre's immediately.

Just another opinion, hope these thoughts help.

[d_fu]

Rich,

Originally Posted by sonare

Each mic manufacturer measures noise and other parameters in a different way, and DPA uses very conservative methodology. The 4091 are the large-body flat response version of the 4061. They were NOT designed for drum overheads.

Not exclusively, of course, but DPA are definitely not opposed to the idea... See http://snipurl.com/sxhe-11
How would you think the DPA measurement would translate into the figures provided by other manufacturers? Would you say the self noise of a 4091 is on par with a KM130, MK2, or something similar?
And even the standard 4006 is quoted with 15 dB(A), that is a bit of difference, after all, is it not? Would you consider this insignificant or inaudible even in quiet surroundings? And why did you choose the 4091 instead of the 4090 (which is more sensitive and quieter)?

If you were getting too much noise with almost anything as harpsichord spots,, I would first look at your gain structure.

Nothing wrong with that,switching mics made the noise go away. I was referring specifically to the SR-78 (which I no longer have). Maybe it was an issue with the individual unit. I don't know, I hardly used it... I mentioned it because it has a very small diaphragm, somewhat comparable to the 4091 (which may be even smaller).

Daniel

[sonare]

Cannot say anything about the noise measurement other than that I have not noticed noise from these mics. And my others are DPA4003/6, Schoeps, and Neumann.

I chose the 4091 based on the 4060/61 experience. The small capsule is the source of the noise figure, but on location is really is not a problem. The polar response shows that this is an almost perfect omni, again thanks to the small diaphragm.

Rich