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
Recording Angle Williams/ Neumann App Dual-Channel Preamps
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1
Gear Nut
 

Recording Angle Williams/ Neumann App

Hello,

I'm in the middle of finding out how far apart I should place my omnidirectional microphones to record a 12-piece baroque orchestra in a small-sized hall (Nini Dominos/Vivaldi). Looking at the Williams papers, I see a total angle of 100 degrees at 50cm. If I look in the Neumann App, the app at 51cm shows me a SRA of 168 degrees. Can someone explain to me where the difference comes from? Or did I misunderstand something when using it? Thanks for every support

Ronald
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2
I'm not really sure what they are calculating. But the sra of a spaced pair is almost always 180 degrees and is quite irrelevant since it uses only phase to create the stereo image and not amplitude differences. 50cm is probably fine for a small orchestra, that is about what I use for baroque recordings.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3
Gear Addict
 

Any app or formula that tries to predict stereo imaging of an AB pair without taking distance from the sound source into account is going to be problematic. For any given angle and mic spacing, the overall distance changes the path-length difference between the two mics. So the phase differences which provide stereo information are different, even though the angle from the mic-pair-center to the source is identical.

***EDIT: I've changed my view on this a little - see my comments and attached graphs in post #16 below.

Last edited by Ebeowulf17; 4 weeks ago at 07:54 AM.. Reason: Changed my mind.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFrommann View Post
Hello,

I'm in the middle of finding out how far apart I should place my omnidirectional microphones to record a 12-piece baroque orchestra in a small-sized hall (Nini Dominos/Vivaldi). Looking at the Williams papers, I see a total angle of 100 degrees at 50cm. If I look in the Neumann App, the app at 51cm shows me a SRA of 168 degrees. Can someone explain to me where the difference comes from? Or did I misunderstand something when using it? Thanks for every support

Ronald
Did you also use the phone's camera to measure the orchestral angle ( ie the width the ensemble occupies in relation to the distance from the mic/stand) ?

* oops, wrong app: try instead the $3 'Stereo Mic Tools' from developer "Engineered Stuff".... I think it's much more comprehensive and uses your phone's camera for both SRA calculation on site, as well as for 'bomb sight' adjustment of mic spacing and angles !

Neumann Recording Tools |

Helpful guide from Simmosonic on how to use it here: An Intelligent Stereo Mic Technique Simulation App

Last edited by studer58; 4 weeks ago at 12:54 AM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #5
Gear Nut
 

Thanks for the infos and help so far.
I didn't know the other app, will give it a try.
Good to know, that with the ca.50cm I am not too far away from standards.

Ronald
Old 4 weeks ago
  #6
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumleymusic View Post
I'm not really sure what they are calculating. But the sra of a spaced pair is almost always 180 degrees and is quite irrelevant since it uses only phase to create the stereo image and not amplitude differences. 50cm is probably fine for a small orchestra, that is about what I use for baroque recordings.
Perhaps it is a dichotomy in thinking or terminology between North American and European engineers, but among those of us who use Michael Williams, Sengspiel, the Neumann app, etc. to determine mic spacing and angle there is most certainly a range of SRA for spaced omni pairs. Williams defines SRA as "THAT SECTOR OF THE SOUND FIELD IN FRONT OF THE MICROPHONE SYSTEM WHICH WILL PRODUCE A VIRTUAL SOUND IMAGE BETWEEN THE LOUDSPEAKERS" (his capitalization - not me shouting). Thus, when an omni pair is set up at a distance chosen for the desired balance of direct and diffuse sound, the musicians will occupy a certain 'spread' in front of the mics...the stereophonic recording angle. Move the mic array closer and the SRA will increase; move the mics away from the source and the SRA will narrow. Williams adopts the convention of measuring SRA in degrees clockwise (+) and anticlockwise (-) from an imaginary central axis so the 'spread' of the source measured in degrees is twice the SRA. So, An SRA of +/-50 degrees requires an omni pair spacing of 50 cm; the SRA of +/-90 degrees (which is, I assume, the "180 degrees" you are referring to) requires just 38 cm between the mics. I have used the various tables in Williams' Stereophonic Zoom paper (all different mic patterns are presented) extensively over the years and they have always guided me well. The Sengspiel web page seems to provide the same information; I am of a certain age, or at least my smart phone is, so I have not tried the Neumann app. I have always meant to build one of Williams' "Crocodiles" though. And I carry photocopies of his tables in my location bag...Of course, YMMV.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #7
Gear Addict
 
fred2bern's Avatar
 

Your ears are the best App you can use to reach your goal.
Theory is one thing but no room, concert hall etc. responds the same way.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimjazzdad View Post
Perhaps it is a dichotomy in thinking or terminology between North American and European engineers, but among those of us who use Michael Williams, Sengspiel, the Neumann app, etc. to determine mic spacing and angle there is most certainly a range of SRA for spaced omni pairs. Williams defines SRA as "THAT SECTOR OF THE SOUND FIELD IN FRONT OF THE MICROPHONE SYSTEM WHICH WILL PRODUCE A VIRTUAL SOUND IMAGE BETWEEN THE LOUDSPEAKERS" (his capitalization - not me shouting). Thus, when an omni pair is set up at a distance chosen for the desired balance of direct and diffuse sound, the musicians will occupy a certain 'spread' in front of the mics...the stereophonic recording angle. Move the mic array closer and the SRA will increase; move the mics away from the source and the SRA will narrow. Williams adopts the convention of measuring SRA in degrees clockwise (+) and anticlockwise (-) from an imaginary central axis so the 'spread' of the source measured in degrees is twice the SRA. So, An SRA of +/-50 degrees requires an omni pair spacing of 50 cm; the SRA of +/-90 degrees (which is, I assume, the "180 degrees" you are referring to) requires just 38 cm between the mics. I have used the various tables in Williams' Stereophonic Zoom paper (all different mic patterns are presented) extensively over the years and they have always guided me well. The Sengspiel web page seems to provide the same information; I am of a certain age, or at least my smart phone is, so I have not tried the Neumann app. I have always meant to build one of Williams' "Crocodiles" though. And I carry photocopies of his tables in my location bag...Of course, YMMV.
I can see where this is confusing, because it's a matter of perspective. From a different perspective, the SRA for any stereo array is fixed (i.e. omnis at 50 cm ALWAYS yield an SRA of 100 degrees), and what changes is the distance of the array from the source so that you capture the source within the SRA.

It's more practical the way Jim describes it, though. In practice, what I do is focus on the location of the mic for the best sound, paying attention to tone and balance and NOT stereo imaging. At that spot, I then use a protractor to measure the required SRA for what I'm capturing (either with an actual protractor or a best guess). Then I adjust the array to get the desired SRA, and I listen again to judge whether the imaging is satisfactory.

That's when I have the luxury of rehearsal and setup. When I don't, I throw up an ORTF pair, eyeball the distance to the source, and pray.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimjazzdad View Post
Perhaps it is a dichotomy in thinking or terminology between North American and European engineers, but among those of us who use Michael Williams, Sengspiel, the Neumann app, etc. to determine mic spacing and angle there is most certainly a range of SRA for spaced omni pairs. Williams defines SRA as "THAT SECTOR OF THE SOUND FIELD IN FRONT OF THE MICROPHONE SYSTEM WHICH WILL PRODUCE A VIRTUAL SOUND IMAGE BETWEEN THE LOUDSPEAKERS" (his capitalization - not me shouting). Thus, when an omni pair is set up at a distance chosen for the desired balance of direct and diffuse sound, the musicians will occupy a certain 'spread' in front of the mics...the stereophonic recording angle. Move the mic array closer and the SRA will increase; move the mics away from the source and the SRA will narrow. Williams adopts the convention of measuring SRA in degrees clockwise (+) and anticlockwise (-) from an imaginary central axis so the 'spread' of the source measured in degrees is twice the SRA. So, An SRA of +/-50 degrees requires an omni pair spacing of 50 cm; the SRA of +/-90 degrees (which is, I assume, the "180 degrees" you are referring to) requires just 38 cm between the mics. I have used the various tables in Williams' Stereophonic Zoom paper (all different mic patterns are presented) extensively over the years and they have always guided me well. The Sengspiel web page seems to provide the same information; I am of a certain age, or at least my smart phone is, so I have not tried the Neumann app. I have always meant to build one of Williams' "Crocodiles" though. And I carry photocopies of his tables in my location bag...Of course, YMMV.
Tim's right, the SRA does not change based on distance from the source. The "orchestra angle" does change based on distance and that will affect the stereo spread of the ensemble in your speakers. AB stereo has an SRA of 180 degrees under 51 cm according the the sengpeilaudio chart. It does narrow after that, which supposedly will give you a wider sound on playback.

The problem with these formulas is they do not take the differing directional properties of each microphone into account, or the acoustic of the room, or the directionality of the instruments themselves. They assume an anechoic chamber and perfect microphone patterns at all frequencies. Relying on these graphs and papers is a crutch at best and deceptively incorrect at worst. With dozens of factors you need to juggle to decide the best microphones or patterns to use, relying on a cheat sheet which only addresses 2 of those factors seems ill advised.

Just my opinion.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimjazzdad View Post
The Sengspiel web page seems to provide the same information; I am of a certain age, or at least my smart phone is, so I have not tried the Neumann app. I have always meant to build one of Williams' "Crocodiles" though. And I carry photocopies of his tables in my location bag...Of course, YMMV.
That's one of the best aspects of the "other" App (Stereo Mic Tools....it's NOT present in the Neumann)...it uses your phone's camera to instantly give you the orchestral angle. Situate yourself at the mic stand, point camera at orchestra/ensemble and 2 coloured lines appear superimposed on the left and right extremities of the orchestra ( once you've zoomed the image in or out appropriately). Slide these lines with your fingers until they accurately sit over the appropriate players seats, and the angle is auto-displayed on the phone screen...you just read it off ! That could well be the most valuable aspects of this $3 app....no Crocodile needed, as your phone already supplies it !
Old 4 weeks ago
  #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
That's one of the best aspects of the "other" App (Stereo Mic Tools....it's NOT present in the Neumann)...it uses your phone's camera to instantly give you the orchestral angle. Situate yourself at the mic stand, point camera at orchestra/ensemble and 2 coloured lines appear superimposed on the left and right extremities of the orchestra ( once you've zoomed the image in or out appropriately). Slide these lines with your fingers until they accurately sit over the appropriate players seats, and the angle is auto-displayed on the phone screen...you just read it off ! That could well be the most valuable aspects of this $3 app....no Crocodile needed, as your phone already supplies it !
Wish it was available on Android.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #12
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger View Post
Wish it was available on Android.
It could be worth putting in a request to the developer (listed below) ...the more the merrier, to prompt such a move: Engineered Stuff
Old 4 weeks ago
  #13
I've recommended the Williams papers many times over the years, and I still use his charts as a non-technical "fallback" when I don't have access to computer or tablet. But Williams based his curves on a localization experiment that is a real outlier. (I think Helmut Wittek published a paper explaining this.) So array designs based on Williams curves usually require a final "by ear" tweak. In my experience, the Neumann "Sound Tools" and Schoeps "Image Assistant" apps produce much more reliable SRA predictions that usually work on first try. When I was carrying an Android tablet, I used the Neumann app; now that I'm using a Windows tablet I rely on the Schoeps browser app instead. There's also one from the University of Huddersfield, but I haven't gotten it to work reliably.

Newbies should still study the "Stereophonic Zoom" papers dilligently, not so much for the charts, but to understand how stereo pairs actually work and how to adjust them to get the sonic presentation that's desired.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording
Old 4 weeks ago
  #14
Lives for gear
 
surflounge's Avatar
taking into account the human ear's reduced ability to localize frequencies below 150Hz, leads to an
optimal microphone spacing of between 40 and 60 cm
but 30cm sounds natural for big heads with ear spacing of 11.8 inches
Old 4 weeks ago
  #15
It is a common fallacy that a microphone array should be modeled after your head. It makes sense for headphone reproduction. For loudspeaker playback, it leads to false conclusions and bad results.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #16
Gear Addict
 

Correction to my previous comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebeowulf17 View Post
Any app or formula that tries to predict stereo imaging of an AB pair without taking distance from the sound source into account is going to be problematic. For any given angle and mic spacing, the overall distance changes the path-length difference between the two mics. So the phase differences which provide stereo information are different, even though the angle from the mic-pair-center to the source is identical.
I've realized now that, although my previous comment had some technical truth to it, it was way off base for any real-world scenario. I made a spreadsheet to fact-check myself, and discovered that the relationship between angle to sound source and time delay (path length difference) changes quite a bit when you're very close to the mics, but is pretty stable at realistic working distances. I've attached a few graphs to illustrate the point.

For example, with 60cm AB, sound sources less than 2 meters from the mics will have a somewhat skewed relationship between actual angle and perceived angle, with the skewing getting worse as the source gets closer. However, beyond about 2 meters, the changes in path length relationships because of changes in overall distance become negligible (even just getting past 1 meter the lines are looking pretty flat already.)

As the mic spacing increases, the minimum distance between the mic pair and the sound source do avoid skewing also increases. At 3 meter (300cm) mic spacing, the relationship between actual and perceived angles is pretty distorted for sound sources less than 4-5 meters away from the mics, and begins flattening beyond that point.

Given that the mic spacing is usually chosen with mics closer to each other as they are placed closer to the sound source, it's unlikely anyone would ever encounter these SRA non-linearities in real life. Strictly speaking, I think the geometry bears out my original claim, but it looks like it's a purely theoretical point with no real world implications.

Sorry for the distraction, but I'm fascinated by the math and science that helps explain everything we work with in the realm of acoustics and audio recording.

Cheers!
Attached Thumbnails
Recording Angle  Williams/ Neumann App-sra-path-length-ab300.png   Recording Angle  Williams/ Neumann App-sra-path-length-ab60.png   Recording Angle  Williams/ Neumann App-sra-path-length-ab120.png  
Old 4 weeks ago
  #17
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fred2bern View Post
Your ears are the best App you can use to reach your goal.
Theory is one thing but no room, concert hall etc. responds the same way.
How very true!

It is interesting to know the ideal spacing for different angles, but the balance between direct and diffuse sound usually takes precedence over any other factor, and will thereby dictate the final angle. It can often lead to not fulfilling the required SRA because several variables will call for a spacing that doesn't allow for it. The ear should always be your guidance on finding the right compromise. Using apps, charts, or 'golden rules' could easily make one lose sight of that final goal; finding a good sounding compromise instead of optimizing one or two variables.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebeowulf17 View Post
I've realized now that, although my previous comment had some technical truth to it, it was way off base for any real-world scenario. I made a spreadsheet to fact-check myself, and discovered that the relationship between angle to sound source and time delay (path length difference) changes quite a bit when you're very close to the mics, but is pretty stable at realistic working distances. I've attached a few graphs to illustrate the point.

For example, with 60cm AB, sound sources less than 2 meters from the mics will have a somewhat skewed relationship between actual angle and perceived angle, with the skewing getting worse as the source gets closer. However, beyond about 2 meters, the changes in path length relationships because of changes in overall distance become negligible (even just getting past 1 meter the lines are looking pretty flat already.)

As the mic spacing increases, the minimum distance between the mic pair and the sound source do avoid skewing also increases. At 3 meter (300cm) mic spacing, the relationship between actual and perceived angles is pretty distorted for sound sources less than 4-5 meters away from the mics, and begins flattening beyond that point.

Given that the mic spacing is usually chosen with mics closer to each other as they are placed closer to the sound source, it's unlikely anyone would ever encounter these SRA non-linearities in real life. Strictly speaking, I think the geometry bears out my original claim, but it looks like it's a purely theoretical point with no real world implications.

Sorry for the distraction, but I'm fascinated by the math and science that helps explain everything we work with in the realm of acoustics and audio recording.

Cheers!
nice graphs and i'm with you on your conclusion that some considerations are more on the theoretical side, especially when breaking down spacing of mics and recording angles of mics to speaker angles - you might revisit your considerations though if you add one or two more parameters to your graphs: phase relationship between spaced pairs and/or what frequencies get affected...
Old 4 weeks ago
  #19
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
nice graphs and i'm with you on your conclusion that some considerations are more on the theoretical side, especially when breaking down spacing of mics and recording angles of mics to speaker angles - you might revisit your considerations though if you add one or two more parameters to your graphs: phase relationship between spaced pairs and/or what frequencies get affected...
It depends on the distances between mics in what you call ' spaced pairs' ...for a widely spaced pair (1m or more, perhaps less) the phase correlation is essentially random. However acoustical phase cancellation problems may also be produced by using too many microphones too far from the sound source, a condition that allows both excess leakage and a degraded pickup response.

If a single sound source is picked up by 2 nearby microphones at roughly equal intensity, variations in phase will result (due to the differing path lengths from source to each microphone). When these multiple sources are combined to a single channel at any point (eg during mixing:either live or in the studio) cancellations may occur...the comb filtering phenomenon.

A good example of this is the use of 2 mics, widely spaced on either side of a stage podium for a speaker's voice. As the speaking person moves from side to side, the path length difference is exercised, and typically the voice sounds ' hollow' as a result. A single directional (say wide cardioid) mic in the centre of the podium gets just as good a coverage of voice, with none of the phase problems.

Hence the 3 to 1 rule.....to maintain phase integrity between 2 or more mics, for each unit of distance between mic and source, the distance between mics should be at least 3x that mike to source distance. Minimal miking tends to avoid this.....
Old 4 weeks ago
  #20
Lives for gear
 

there are different ways to tackle phase issues: i tend to avoid them in the main mics by using coinicident pairs, my close mics are often cardioids (or i go very close) plus i'm using frequency dependant phase alignment of spot mics (which takes a bit more than just delaying them but allows for lots of mics being used without issues: clearly not everyone's choice or within options - works fine for me though)
Old 4 weeks ago
  #21
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
there are different ways to tackle phase issues: i tend to avoid them in the main mics by using coinicident pairs, my close mics are often cardioids (or i go very close) plus i'm using frequency dependant phase alignment of spot mics (which takes a bit more than just delaying them but allows for lots of mics being used without issues: clearly not everyone's choice or within options - works fine for me though)
How do you get objective indication of phase alignment of your spot mics...do you use metering of some sort ? If you encounter phase issues across a band of frequencies (or several bands) how do selectively align or delay-correct for these ?

Here is a near coincident pair (ORTF) on a snare drum about 2 metres away and 2.5 metres high ....even a single pair gets phasing/combing, as you can hear (presumably from floor bounce combining destructively with direct sound)
Attached Files

snare drum ORTF 128.mp3 (1.56 MB, 613 views)


Last edited by studer58; 4 weeks ago at 04:26 PM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #22
Gear Addict
 
whippoorwill's Avatar
One thing that that never seems to be dissected is this: what actually works?
Like sure you might get x degrees of L/R coverage from a pair of cardioids at 70 degrees and 50cm but the middle will be down considerably (although possibly useful in a big band/orchestra) and the time delay differences will be ugly and strange. 180degs @ 1cm is going to have other issues.

Also while the distance may not dramatically change the time it hits each mic, generally the stereo width of the direct sound will become more narrow the further back into a room you go.

Interestingly, if you narrow down the variables of acceptable mic width and angling I ended up with very conservatives values for both, especially because every mic that isn't a dpa 4060 is way more sensitive in the direction it's pointing than not, and I much prefer a mic to be pointing at an instrument than at a wall (except boundary and room mics of course). Mostly these days I pick a straight near-coincident AB (close to ORTF spacing), find a spot and then angle outwards if needed. This runs very closely to M/S, X/Y and Blumlein methods in practice and is exactly what I do with them, especially M/S. Find a spot where everything is in balance and then adjust the S by +/- 2db relative to the mid.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #23
Lives for gear
 
tourtelot's Avatar
Funny that we hear such widely differing AB spacings from very qualified engineers on this blog. 17cm to over 1m. That's a big difference!

I think that just goes to the point made above to our ears being the best way to find a setup that works in a particular situation.

The problem with that is we often walk into a new venue, to record a live performance, with no rehearsal, without ever hearing the ensemble in the room, or even the room ever before. Where does one start and end up walking away with a recording that will satisfy the client? It's got to be every time. I think the experienced engineers have a "starting point", which is what the OP was asking for. How are they so widely different? Does that mean that the difference doesn't make any perceptible change, only theoretically, in any particular room with any particular group on any particular day? Will an AB pair at 17cm have just as good a chance at a good recording as an AB pair at 1m? How high, how far back?

I think the only answer is a "good gut feel" coupled with years of experience about what works and what doesn't and that will allow for the best results under the conditions mentioned above.

Do I move a mic pair around during a rehearsal? Yes I do. But, do I come into a hall, set a pair and start the recorder just before the downbeat and make good recordings? I do that as well. Am I always completely satisfied with the results? No. Are the clients always satisfied with the results? Yes, almost every time. Just can't tell you exactly why more of them aren't abject failures more often

D.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #24
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
How do you get objective indication of phase alignment of your spot mics...do you use metering of some sort ? If you encounter phase issues across a band of frequencies (or several bands) how do selectively align or delay-correct for these ?

Here is a near coincident pair (ORTF) on a snare drum about 2 metres away and 2.5 metres high ....even a single pair gets phasing/combing, as you can hear (presumably from floor bounce combining destructively with direct sound)
i'm using smaart and rme digicheck software and/or a dk audio hardware goniometer to analyze/meter and lake lm and yamaha dme speaker processors for alignment: specific frequency bands can individually get adjusted by using allpass filters and/or crossovers.

measuring/analyzing/interpretation of data is the tricky part, tweaking then is as easy (or difficult) as with any other tool.



[these tools won't work though when trying to align a spot to a spaced pair: time/delay/phase are always correct but for one distance and for one frequency - hence my preference for using coincident mics when using lots of spots and splitting frequency into several bands.

frequency dependent phase alignment can give you some extra clarity which imo needs to be experienced to get appreciated (i mostly use it on soloists, on featured instruments or on instruments with lots of transients), a bit like comparing the equal tempered tuning to pure intonation (what's the correct term in english?) or to hear your monitors after mains and subs got aligned by using dsp (a pa with full range mains, a sub array, a center speaker, front fills etc. is a better comparison 'cause there are multiple speakers with overlapping frequency bands).

normal' phase alignment via delay is mostly good enough and can already give a large improvement over not delaying but then 'hiding' signals of spot mics a bit.

luckily, our ears still tell us wheter any tweaking leads to more pleasing results or not (and sometimes, not doing any sort of alignment is the way to go)]



p.s. and no, i'm not using ortf on drum overheads: mostly a single mono mic, sometimes m/s (or x/y) or a modified gj l/C/r setup (with a capital C!) of equidistant mics, very rarely a spaced pair. i mostly time align toms etc. to the oh, maybe phase align the snare - and i do delay individual instruments or groups of instruments to the lead vocal mic downstage center: pretty similar to delaying spots to coincident mains...
Old 4 weeks ago
  #25
Lives for gear
 

[QUOTE=Ebeowulf17;13817047]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebeowulf17 View Post
the mic spacing is usually chosen with mics closer to each other as they are placed closer to the sound source
That's a really good point. An ideal mic array width, angle, height and distance from the source for a particular recording situation cannot be calculated accurately before monitoring.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #26
Gear Nut
 

Very interesting thoughts here. Thank you very much for that.
Douglas, I absolutely agree with you. The more I deal with the subject, the more confusing and inconsistent it becomes. But it is primarily physics and art, of course. But after studying the different curves and visualizations of Williams, Sengpiel, Wittek etc., I come to the conclusion that for my concrete case as an example (small baroque ensemble) rather smaller distances (25-35cm) for an AB with omnidirectional microphones as starting point are to be aimed at, in order to achieve an even distribution of the sound sources between the loudspeakers. Or, if the acoustics of the hall require it, something in the direction of NOS with wide cardioids (0.25m, 60 degrees with an orchestra angle of 120 degrees).
Of course, the objection that you have to let your ears decide rather than tables is correct. But for that it would need a reasonable control room and the appropriate experience. Unfortunately, I don't have either. Therefore I find it reassuring to be able to read at least one starting point from tables or apps.

Ronald
Old 4 weeks ago
  #27
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFrommann View Post
Of course, the objection that you have to let your ears decide rather than tables is correct. But for that it would need a reasonable control room and the appropriate experience. Unfortunately, I don't have either. Therefore I find it reassuring to be able to read at least one starting point from tables or apps.
We are practicing our engineering skills in the realm of art. Engineers don't all reach the same solution, even when they're designing a bridge.

Experience is always a hard-won commodity. Many gigs do not come with the opportunity to monitor on site, so much of the learning happens back in your production room after the fact. In the meantime, the charts permit you to choose an acceptable strategy, even if it's not the one you will choose later with benefit of more experience. Getting that experience requires not squandering available recording opportunities (and clients!) on techniques that are a complete mismatch to the situation at hand. The charts won't tell you the "best bridge", but they'll help you avoid building one that falls down.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording
Old 4 weeks ago
  #28
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rick View Post
We are practicing our engineering skills in the realm of art. Engineers don't all reach the same solution, even when they're designing a bridge.

Experience is always a hard-won commodity. Many gigs do not come with the opportunity to monitor on site, so much of the learning happens back in your production room after the fact. In the meantime, the charts permit you to choose an acceptable strategy, even if it's not the one you will choose later with benefit of more experience. Getting that experience requires not squandering available recording opportunities (and clients!) on techniques that are a complete mismatch to the situation at hand. The charts won't tell you the "best bridge", but they'll help you avoid building one that falls down.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording
Well said!

We all have to learn much of this craft from our own experience, but that doesn't mean we should start from scratch! Building upon the knowledge of others just makes sense.
Old 1 week ago
  #29
Gear Nut
 

Here is a little excerpt of the Nisi Dominus, I recorded some weeks ago. I ended up with a pair of Schoeps MK2 in AB ca. 40cm apart, plus a pair of MK21 as Stereospot for the Altus.

YouTube
Old 1 week ago
  #30
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RFrommann View Post
Here is a little excerpt of the Nisi Dominus, I recorded some weeks ago. I ended up with a pair of Schoeps MK2 in AB ca. 40cm apart, plus a pair of MK21 as Stereospot for the Altus.

YouTube
hm... - the soloist appears to be/sounds like beeing in a different room, his level is not always well balanced with the ensemble and his timing ahead of the ensemble/his phrasing feels a bit rushed: you didn't delay spots or use compression and (much if any) efx i assume?
Topic:
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
tourtelot / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
10
kalegood / Low End Theory
0
wanderer / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
8

Forum Jump
Forum Jump