The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Stero pair to record classical music Condenser Microphones
Old 21st May 2018
  #91
Gear Addict
 

I would venture to say most of us started out recording in bad sounding rooms, instead of Carnegie Hall. On the other hand, what is wrong with learning how to record with omni as a beginner? In a way, it is a lot easier with omni in a bad sounding room; you move in with the mic and get close to the source. Off axis is better, plus there is no proximity effect as you get close. Of course, I can argue for the other side, too. Well, you already did that for me. As I said before, we all end up with more than one pair of mics.
Old 21st May 2018
  #92
One or two quick comments from the cheap seats.
For the OP - Start off with a pair of Shure KSM-141. Best of both worlds, decent omni and cardoid and all for the princely sum of $800US a pair. There is no reason for a beginner to spend $4000 on a pair of mics to learn the craft. Start with something decent and cheap so you can make an informed decision on what you want/need when the time comes to upgrade. I'm sorry, but I could make a perfectly acceptable recording with a pair of KSM141. Remember it's not the tool, it's the craftsman.
The Line audio stuff is all a bit too noisy for my tastes. Sorry, I've never had any love for either the Octavia or Beyer MC930. Most commercial recordings are made with Omnis and you are doing yourself a disservice not having a pair in your arsenal.
As to the surround stuff, seems to me to be a lot of folks making pronouncements about how surround recordings are made who are really just regurgitating what they read on the interwebs. I've made about 400 commercial surround recordings in every imaginable type of venue, and never once used or felt the desire to use a cardioid mic as a main pickup. Ditto for all the folks I know making commercial records. Not to say that I don't use cardioids for spot mics, but the smeary sound combined with lack of LF extension that cardioid microphones exhibit make them a non starter for me.
As always, YMMV.
All the best,
-mark

Last edited by mpdonahue; 21st May 2018 at 09:34 PM..
Old 21st May 2018
  #93
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpdonahue View Post
As to the surround stuff, seems to me to be a lot of folks making pronouncements about how surround recordings are made who are really just regurgitating what they read on the interwebs. I've made about 400 commercial surround recordings in every imaginable type of venue, and never once used or felt the desire to use a cardioid mic as a main pickup.
all good with the first part of your post (regarding ksm-141's), not so with the second part to which i'm referring here: since i'm the one who brought up the use of cardioids for surround, i assume you were hitting out at me?

well then: 35 years of professional recording/mixing, both classical and 'commercial' music, live, broadcast and studio work, current count close to 5000 productions, about the same amount of surround work as you mentioned - so i'm not talking bs i read on the web...

you are probably right that the vast majority of classical music is (still) getting recorded with omnis - i don't 'cause i simply don't like the sound (and hence many classical recordings). i also mentioned a multitude of additional reasons why i mostly use mics with some amount of directivity.

so: let other folks explain their setup, maybe re-read some of the posts and also check the more specific sections - then come back and explain the advantages of your gear/setup without spitting at others!



p.s. i'd be much more interested in a discussion of aesthetics (sound) in classical music recording/mixing and which equipment/technique supports different tastes than what not to use...

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 22nd May 2018 at 05:48 PM.. Reason: typo
Old 21st May 2018
  #94
A question for Mr. Seetoo and/or Mr. Bishop:

As an acolyte of the omni sound myself, I would be very grateful to hear any advice you'd give for optimizing their use in situations where the acoustic may be less than exquisite. Beyond simply moving as close as possible, of course.

Bearing in mind that each situation is different, any sort of technique or anecdote, however specific or of one-time usefulness, would be of great interest to bear in mind. Hopefully someone else following this thread is similarly curious, I don't mean to derail the conversation.

Many thanks in advance if you can find a moment to share your thoughts.
Old 21st May 2018
  #95
Gear Addict
 

Hello Luke,

I play a lot of things; music instruments, recording engineer, producer, mentor etc... One thing I never play is a hero. Once I know the proposed venue is not conducive to make good sounding recordings I say no to the project. That happened more times than I can remember. Think about it, it is not in anybody's interests to go ahead with a project in an impossible room, it is not good for the clients, the recording label and it is certainly not good for you. Clients come to me with a certain expectation and a sizable expenditure that I will make something sounding good at the end not something we/I have to hide under excuses. The listeners don't care where you recorded it but they might care if it sounds bad. We do our best to make things happen but we also should know when to say no, at least you should tell the client that you are not good enough for the job, that clearly defined job.



Best regards,


Da-Hong
Old 22nd May 2018
  #96
Lives for gear
 
surflounge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Given To Fly View Post
As a classical guitarist, I found this useful:
https://youtu.be/SDpyMaPn3f8
thank you. AB has less artifacts, and ORTF sounds good too.
Much appreciate the demo link
Old 22nd May 2018
  #97
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Given To Fly View Post
As a classical guitarist, I found this useful:
https://youtu.be/SDpyMaPn3f8
It could have been more useful, if he'd replied to the queries below his own video, expressing confusion about the AB pair used...were they KM183 (omni) or KM184 (cardioid) ?

It's tough to discern visually, because of the 'artistic blurring' used in the first 10 secs, but at 1 second in, the AB pair don't appear to have the cardioid side vents near the top edge...so I'm guessing them to be KM183 omnis ? Wish he would have clarified......

At any rate, the AB sounds the most pleasing to my ears, although at that distance (again, hard to tell because of stupid GoPro fisheyeing) a bit more AB width might have helped even more.

The ORTF, and even moreso the XY, just progressively collapse the stereo image in towards the centre, and the LF extension disappears also...all this conforming perfectly, predictably, with the theory, of course ! The MS just does its typical weirdness in this context too.....

So, somewhat useful.....
Old 22nd May 2018
  #98
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by surflounge View Post
thank you. AB has less artifacts, and ORTF sounds good too.
Much appreciate the demo link
Just to clarify, that was not me in the video. With that said, AB and ORTF were my the two I liked the most. I liked the space too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
It could have been more useful, if he'd replied to the queries below his own video, expressing confusion about the AB pair used...were they KM183 (omni) or KM184 (cardioid) ?

It's tough to discern visually, because of the 'artistic blurring' used in the first 10 secs, but at 1 second in, the AB pair don't appear to have the cardioid side vents near the top edge...so I'm guessing them to be KM183 omnis ? Wish he would have clarified......

At any rate, the AB sounds the most pleasing to my ears, although at that distance (again, hard to tell because of stupid GoPro fisheyeing) a bit more AB width might have helped even more.

The ORTF, and even moreso the XY, just progressively collapse the stereo image in towards the centre, and the LF extension disappears also...all this conforming perfectly, predictably, with the theory, of course ! The MS just does its typical weirdness in this context too.....

So, somewhat useful.....
The clear difference between the stereo patterns was what I found helpful. Nothing was left to the imagination. I appreciated the camera because it showed the space. I liked the AB and ORTF patterns but more importantly, I thought the methodology was solid. For some reason, when the video remains static, it clarifies changes in the audio, which is helpful in this context. Nothing is perfect.
Old 22nd May 2018
  #99
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Given To Fly View Post
Just to clarify, that was not me in the video. With that said, AB and ORTF were my the two I liked the most. I liked the space too. The clear difference between the stereo patterns was what I found helpful. Nothing was left to the imagination. I appreciated the camera because it showed the space. I liked the AB and ORTF patterns but more importantly, I thought the methodology was solid. For some reason, when the video remains static, it clarifies changes in the audio, which is helpful in this context. Nothing is perfect.
Yes I realized it wasn't your video. As a basic primer on the audible differences between the various stereo methods he did very well, and the acoustic space was well chosen also.

It probably is a good riposte to the other debates concurrently raging in this forum about 'correct' or 'appropriate' stereo miking methods...they all work here, none is truly misguided or wrongheaded, and personal preference for one method over another is, well...simply that

I just wished he hadn't left that omni vs cardioid ambiguity with the AB pair...I guess he has the freedom to reply to the YouTube comments, if he wants to ?
Old 22nd May 2018
  #100
re: line audio

I bought the line audio cardio and omni pairs
didn't get much use after I bought some gefell omnis.
as spot mikes maybe, main pair? not really.
Old 22nd May 2018
  #101
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpdonahue View Post
One or two quick comments from the cheap seats.
For the OP - Start off with a pair of Shure KSM-141. Best of both worlds, decent omni and cardoid and all for the princely sum of $800US a pair. There is no reason for a beginner to spend $4000 on a pair of mics to learn the craft. Start with something decent and cheap so you can make an informed decision on what you want/need when the time comes to upgrade. I'm sorry, but I could make a perfectly acceptable recording with a pair of KSM141. Remember it's not the tool, it's the craftsman.
The Line audio stuff is all a bit too noisy for my tastes. Sorry, I've never had any love for either the Octavia or Beyer MC930. Most commercial recordings are made with Omnis and you are doing yourself a disservice not having a pair in your arsenal.
As to the surround stuff, seems to me to be a lot of folks making pronouncements about how surround recordings are made who are really just regurgitating what they read on the interwebs. I've made about 400 commercial surround recordings in every imaginable type of venue, and never once used or felt the desire to use a cardioid mic as a main pickup. Ditto for all the folks I know making commercial records. Not to say that I don't use cardioids for spot mics, but the smeary sound combined with lack of LF extension that cardioid microphones exhibit make them a non starter for me.
As always, YMMV.
All the best,
-mark
Mark - what are your thoughts on Rode NT55 (with the cardioid and omni capsules) vs the KSM41?
Old 23rd May 2018
  #102
Lives for gear
It's as much about having a great room and good players (and mic placement) as the microphones themselves....this one was done with quite modest kit (Line Audio mostly), as the photos show

location miking using 'enough mics'
Old 3rd June 2018
  #103
Gear Maniac
 
elpillo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by balas View Post
My room is small but well treated acoustically. next week im going to compare the cc22 with dpa 4011,4015 and schopes mk4s. all on nylon guitar with the same player (me) at the same room. from what I heard so far the cc22 is very natural and very balanced as far as representing the source. also its more all around mic then the dpas/schopes
Hey, balas! Hope all is well!

Wondering if you ever had the chance to do the comparison among the mentioned mics (hope you did!!).
I'm very curious to hear some of it, if you don't mind.

Thanks,
Luis
Old 3rd June 2018
  #104
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dseetoo View Post

Again, there are places for cardioids in one's recording career as well but if I am starting to be a recording engineer and only can afford one pair I would start with omnis.
I started 25 years ago with a mkh40 and 30. A bit later added a MKH80.
Our first omni was ten years in.
After twenty years bought two sonodore omnis, magnificent mics, rarely see some daylight.

Almost everything is MS. Hall mics are double fig8, nearly all spots fig8.

Everybody has his own preferences, but if I would have started with two omnis, I would probably be in another business right now.
Old 3rd June 2018
  #105
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
you are probably right that the vast majority of classical music is (still) getting recorded with omnis - i don't 'cause i simply don't like the sound (and hence many classical recordings).
+1
I find most space omni recordings muddy (especially in the bass) and harsh, too bright.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
p.s. i'd be much more interested in a discussion of aesthetics (sound) in classical music recording/mixing and which equipment/technique supports different tastes than what not to use...
That insterests me a lot. Eg. All this talk about an omni with perfect off axis response (only a real fig8 has that), not coloring the hall. Right, until you put a second one at a different location, and then play both back through two loudspeakers, resulting in a huge comb filter and spatial distortion of the original (most often brilliant) acoustic.

Every time I try and do the effort to compare, I find listening back in my mastering room that, although an omni AB pickup might sound very good and beautiful, next to a good coincident array it unvariably sounds like a very distant rendering of the original sound. As if some music or sound or musicians have gone missing.

Personally, I am wondering a lot about general aesthetics in recording, up to the point of what some musicians expect, or do not dare to expect.

Just recently i was taken aback by a brilliant first recording of an unnamed concerto, with unnamed soloist and orchestra. If I would have been the soloist playing a 500K instrument, I would have blocked the release of the recording.
Apparantly, to many musicians even, this recording sounds just fine (the playing is great, but the pickup of the soloist is unbearable imo, such a waste)
Old 3rd June 2018
  #106
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
+1
I find most space omni recordings muddy (especially in the bass) and harsh, too bright.



That insterests me a lot. Eg. All this talk about an omni with perfect off axis response (only a real fig8 has that), not coloring the hall. Right, until you put a second one at a different location, and then play both back through two loudspeakers, resulting in a huge comb filter and spatial distortion of the original (most often brilliant) acoustic.

Every time I try and do the effort to compare, I find listening back in my mastering room that, although an omni AB pickup might sound very good and beautiful, next to a good coincident array it unvariably sounds like a very distant rendering of the original sound. As if some music or sound or musicians have gone missing.

Personally, I am wondering a lot about general aesthetics in recording, up to the point of what some musicians expect, or do not dare to expect.

Just recently i was taken aback by a brilliant first recording of an unnamed concerto, with unnamed soloist and orchestra. If I would have been the soloist playing a 500K instrument, I would have blocked the release of the recording.
Apparantly, to many musicians even, this recording sounds just fine (the playing is great, but the pickup of the soloist is unbearable imo, such a waste)
thanks for some of your thoughts (and support) - i fear we're not having/getting too many friends here!

imo, the widespread use of omnis in classical music recording unfortunately is just one of several factors leading to a sound that we mostly get to hear in this genre: i could easily name about half a dozen other issues i'm having with technique based on "traded misconceptions" (i'm tempted to say)...

i suggest we should discuss this in another thread though.
Old 3rd June 2018
  #107
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
Almost everything is MS. Hall mics are double fig8,
nearly all spots fig8.
I agree about the spots, fig 8 make the best spotters, due to rejection of the neighbour and the wonderful hall reverb from the rear lobe, and of course, their constant directivity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
p.s. i'd be much more interested in a discussion of aesthetics (sound) in classical music recording/mixing and which equipment/technique supports different tastes than what not to use...
This interests me too. The main criticism of coindicent pairs seems to be the mono reverb at LF and this is a valid point I think. I find on good monitors, Blumlein in a great hall is about the best, but I do like spaced omnis in a good hall too. Image accuracy is less important on large sources. In some halls and some ensembles I prefer MS.
Old 3rd June 2018
  #108
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Spearritt View Post
The main criticism of coindicent pairs seems to be the mono reverb at LF and this is a valid point I think
this touches another point:

imo it's absolutely pointless trying to get 'reverb' from a stereo main mic system: reverb (as it's getting defined in technical terms) simply does not occur at the distance we put up the main mics! one can get some small room sound with lots of reflections, but not diffuse sound.

one can only get reverb at greater distance/at the rear of the hall...



p.s. nothing wrong with some amount of small room sound, it's part of the natural hearing experience: early reflections, small room, large hall/reverb. i'm often using mics and always efx devices to capture and emulate all of these, but i want control over the amount of individual components and not get it 'mixed in' from the beginning as it happens with omnis (and fig8's)

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 3rd June 2018 at 11:29 AM.. Reason: p.s. added
Old 3rd June 2018
  #109
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
this touches another point:

imo it's absolutely pointless trying to get 'reverb' from a stereo main mic system: reverb (as it's getting defined in technical terms) simply does not occur at the distance we put up the main mics! one can get some small room sound with lots of reflections, but not diffuse sound.

one can only get reverb at greater distance/at the rear of the hall...

p.s. nothing wrong with some amount of small room sound, it's part of the natural hearing experience: early reflections, small room, large hall/reverb. i'm often using mics and always efx devices to capture and emulate all of these, but i want control over the amount of individual components and not get it 'mixed in' from the beginning as it happens with omnis (and fig8's)
I am very curious to hear one of your recordings with all the claims you make.
Old 3rd June 2018
  #110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
+1
I find most space omni recordings muddy (especially in the bass) and harsh, too bright.
Hi Yannick,

muddy AB records: get closer to the source and mix in decorelated bass and reverb with large AB further back?
too harsh: use a different omni with less HF or use the EQ?
maybe use less spotmikes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
That insterests me a lot. Eg. All this talk about an omni with perfect off axis response (only a real fig8 has that), not coloring the hall. Right, until you put a second one at a different location, and then play both back through two loudspeakers, resulting in a huge comb filter and spatial distortion of the original (most often brilliant) acoustic.
what do you mean with "coloring the hall" ?
that it sounds too dull because of the backside HF respones of an omni vs fig 8?

what do you mean with putting mikes in different locations? mono mikes or multiple stereo pairs? In the case you mean distant and close stereo pairs, do you think you hear comb filtering between them? As far as I know, you get uncorrelated signals.

and what do you mean with spatial distortion in your example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
Every time I try and do the effort to compare, I find listening back in my mastering room that, although an omni AB pickup might sound very good and beautiful, next to a good coincident array it unvariably sounds like a very distant rendering of the original sound. As if some music or sound or musicians have gone missing.
What I don't like about coincident and equivalent recordings is mono sound of the low frequencies. I might be wrong about MS with two real fig 8 though.

I know your Sonodores because i tested them once on organ.
they are good , but have the 'measurement capsule' sound.
There are lots of different omnis and sounds....
I prefer some diffuse field omnis with a transformer inside
to get some subtle coloration.
Old 3rd June 2018
  #111
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Spearritt View Post
This interests me too. The main criticism of coindicent pairs seems to be the mono reverb at LF and this is a valid point I think. I find on good monitors, Blumlein in a great hall is about the best, but I do like spaced omnis in a good hall too. Image accuracy is less important on large sources. In some halls and some ensembles I prefer MS.
I don't think it is a valid point for two reasons:

a. when I pan a 20 Hz test tone between my left and right monitos, I can hear the pan quite clearly. That is a level pan, not a time delay pan.
b. even if the M microphone becomes increasingly omni at LF, you then still have a omni + fig8 to produce L and R signals. Why would this be mono ?

And a third: in many highend circles, the use of a mono sub (even if it involves multiple subs) is advocated - which is ridiculous when playing back AB omni recordings !
Old 3rd June 2018
  #112
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
imo it's absolutely pointless trying to get 'reverb' from a stereo main mic system: reverb (as it's getting defined in technical terms) simply does not occur at the distance we put up the main mics! one can get some small room sound with lots of reflections, but not diffuse sound.
I find myself going more and more in that direction as well. There just is no point in playing the dangerous game of putting the main mic ON the critical distance. Especially so with larger/multiple sources.
Old 3rd June 2018
  #113
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monitor View Post
muddy AB records: get closer to the source and mix in decorelated bass and reverb with large AB further back?
too harsh: use a different omni with less HF or use the EQ?
maybe use less spotmikes?
muddy in the sense of not being able to follow dialogues between sections. Going in closer won't help, as it has to do with time of arrival/transient response being blurred on playback by the double pickup.

too harsh : that is exactly my point. Modern recording = getting closer than decades ago = more harsh, especially when you go up at the same time.

spotmikes: if you can hear them that clearly, something is wrong !

Quote:
Originally Posted by monitor View Post
what do you mean with "coloring the hall" ?
Double pickup of time cues, played back on two loudspeakers. This blurs our hearing of the acoustic space, much as looking cross-eyed to a Picasso.
I can still recognize which hall it was (if it as a well-done AB recording), but I never have this sense of "wow, I am there". Maybe this is something you only pick up when working a lot in the same spaces ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by monitor View Post
As far as I know, you get uncorrelated signals.
Yes if your hall pair does NOT pick up the direct sound, which omnis always do, even beyond critical distance. This adds further comb filtering, and another blur of the sources' transients.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monitor View Post
and what do you mean with spatial distortion in your example?
Exactly this, the doubled spatial clues with a small time delay. Plus it is common knowledge that angular distortion with AB pickup is quite severe, the source is pushed outwards, but so is the hall (even more so).

Quote:
Originally Posted by monitor View Post
I know your Sonodores because i tested them once on organ. they are good , but have the 'measurement capsule' sound.
There are lots of different omnis and sounds....
I prefer some diffuse field omnis with a transformer inside
to get some subtle coloration.
Sound(color)wise they are extremely close to the MKH800 twin, I would not call them measurement mics (not to the extent of my Earthworks experiment, but that could be a case of wrong mic into the wrong mic preamp). Maybe you did not test with a realy clean preamp ?

But there we go to the OP: the Sonodores are unquestionably good omni mics, but because of the lack of versatility, they tend to stay in the box, or at home.

So I would never advise someone to start with a couple of omnis.
Old 3rd June 2018
  #114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
muddy in the sense of not being able to follow dialogues between sections. Going in closer won't help, as it has to do with time of arrival/transient response being blurred on playback by the double pickup.
Hi Yannick, OK that's clear.

double pickup means time differences between L and R, right

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
too harsh : that is exactly my point. Modern recording = getting closer than decades ago = more harsh, especially when you go up at the same time.
And less HF roll off in the transmission process from capsule membrane [amplifiers/tapemachines/LP pressing....] to consumer speakers/headphones whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
spotmikes: if you can hear them that clearly, something is wrong !
totally off topic, but how much dB you like to move your spot mikes below the main pair?
I'm reading -20dB is almost useless, so -13→-6dB is a good level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
Double pickup of time cues, played back on two loudspeakers. This blurs our hearing of the acoustic space, much as looking cross-eyed to a Picasso.
I can still recognize which hall it was (if it as a well-done AB recording), but I never have this sense of "wow, I am there". Maybe this is something you only pick up when working a lot in the same spaces ?
I only have the 'woow I am there' effect with my soundfield or let's say MS system on headphones. Although adding very wide AB room mikes are nice too. but typically the hall component in the single point recording is very detailed and don't disturne if they contain HF as well, you really hear the reflections, and the distance, whereas with wide AB it sounds better when you roll of the HF not to disturb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
Yes if your hall pair does NOT pick up the direct sound, which omnis always do, even beyond critical distance. This adds further comb filtering, and another blur of the sources' transients.
maybe that's why I like to roll of HF in the room pair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
Exactly this, the doubled spatial clues with a small time delay. Plus it is common knowledge that angular distortion with AB pickup is quite severe, the source is pushed outwards, but so is the hall (even more so).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
Sound(color)wise they are extremely close to the MKH800 twin, I would not call them measurement mics (not to the extent of my Earthworks experiment, but that could be a case of wrong mic into the wrong mic preamp). Maybe you did not test with a realy clean preamp ?
OK so what's your opinion on Decca Tree/outriggers an 4 room mikes and lets say a couple of spots?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
But there we go to the OP: the Sonodores are unquestionably good omni mics, but because of the lack of versatility, they tend to stay in the box, or at home.
I agree they sound fantastic in the medium, but I prefer mics with a more pronounced HF lift.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
So I would never advise someone to start with a couple of omnis.
maybe you're right, MS/XY,... is way easier to get right.
do you ever use the equivalent systems like ORTF NOS and such?
Old 3rd June 2018
  #115
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
The famous Philips superengineer, Onno Scholtze once asked me if I used a "real" microphone.
I answered yes.

Onno meant an omni mic, such as the Schoeps MK2--the best capsule in the whole wide world.
Old 3rd June 2018
  #116
Lives for gear
 
tourtelot's Avatar
You know this as true Plush, even as you continue to poo-poo it. Sometimes, omnis are NOT the best choice for a main pair pickup. So what is the point of your post?

D.
Old 3rd June 2018
  #117
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourtelot View Post
You know this as true Plush, even as you continue to poo-poo it. Sometimes, omnis are NOT the best choice for a main pair pickup. So what is the point of your post?

D.
Depending on the hall, the ensemble and the music Omni's may or may not be a good thing to use. I use what sounds the best and forget all the "preaching" that goes on about this on this forum. There is NO one size fits all microphone, if there were we would all own only one pair. FWIW
Old 3rd June 2018
  #118
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

I have never heard a significant difference between a pure pressure mic, and a fake omni, like a mkh800 in omni mode.

The polar response is different, but I could not say which is a better microphone, if both are of the same quality.

In some circumstances I prefer a fake omni to a real one, so I could not care less about this urban myth.

Why would a true pressure gradient like a fig8 be not a true microphone ?

One could as well argue a true omni as just a measurement device.
Old 3rd June 2018
  #119
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
this touches another point:

imo it's absolutely pointless trying to get 'reverb' from a stereo main mic system: reverb (as it's getting defined in technical terms) simply does not occur at the distance we put up the main mics! one can get some small room sound with lots of reflections, but not diffuse sound.

one can only get reverb at greater distance/at the rear of the hall...
The diffuse field reverb occurs the same anywhere in the hall and is always picked up by all mics, mains, spots or room mics. It's the ratio of direct sound to this reverb that changes with distance. The reverb is like an acoustic noise floor, its there in every mic and everywhere in the hall.
Old 3rd June 2018
  #120
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
Why would a true pressure gradient like a fig8 be not a true microphone ? One could as well argue a true omni as just a measurement device.
Good question. There are only two types of pure microphones, pressure and pressure difference. The fig 8 has more uniform response than nearly all omnis and is the only mic to null perfectly at low frequencies.

But the omni response at low frequencies exceeds the fig 8 significantly. All of these attributes can be used to advantage in the right hall and ensemble.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump