The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
What is this microphone array?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #61
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robert82 View Post
(...) I'll leave it to you more experienced ones to judge whether one is more convincing than the other (...)
njet - i just wanted to mention that this approach isn't exactly new after using efx for ca. 35 years in my case (and some folks with many more years of experience).

Quote:
Originally Posted by robert82 View Post
(...) to achieve somewhat the same thing (...)
yep - one approach puts more emphasis on the recording side (and needs more gear then), the other leans more onto the mixing side (and needs more gear then).
Old 3 weeks ago
  #62
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
The real difference is one is miked in stereo and one is not. The true stereo recording is always much more flexible. I do not agree that mono can get you the same result.

Remote-sters--try your next vocal / piano recording with the singer miked in stereo.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #63
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
The sole reason to use the Schoeps cardioids down on the wood of the piano is to prevent any piercing / prominent treble sound from the right hand (upper piano strings). Aim is for a warm and enveloping piano sound.

Tonstudio van Geest was quite a large studio and never any outside noise was heard in it. The studio doors were like those on a submarine, where you screwed the doors shut with a big wheel--shut air tight.

The reason that the singer was miced in stereo has to do with how one can then "float" the singer's voice anywhere in the panorama without the recorded voice sounding "pasted on' in the stereo picture. For example, one microphone would be panned at 8 or 9 o'clock and the other panned a 11 o'clock. The singer's voice floats in the stereo picture on the center / left side.

A mono pickup would sound too concentrated.
Thanks again Plush...and would the engineer have been using a widely spaced (say 3 foot or more) Schoeps pair on the piano, for a wide and panoramic sound, or something tighter, like a typical 'Decca tail' 10-12 inch spacing ?

Since the singer is going to be occupying a central "wide mono" space in the stereo field, I'm guessing the piano might have a wider, more enveloping panorama...without over-reaching its correct place in the mix, balance-wise ?

I still maintain this approach would have big validity in an otherwise large, pleasant and ambient acoustic....since it would confer all the advantages that Plush cites, with an added advantage that the close cardioid mics would tend to dramatically cut the intrusion of birds, traffic, noisy children etc, passing nearby that otherwise lovely city/suburban church !

Last edited by studer58; 3 weeks ago at 09:53 AM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #64
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
The real difference is one is miked in stereo and one is not. The true stereo recording is always much more flexible. I do not agree that mono can get you the same result.

Remote-sters--try your next vocal / piano recording with the singer miked in stereo.
I've recently been doing so (miking singers in stereo)....and it makes a BIG (not subtle) difference !

Re stereo reverb, as deedeeyeah seems to be advocating....I've never found mono in > stereo out to give anything convincing, I just don't find the way that hardware or software creates an approximation of stereo hall sound to be a close enough replica of the real thing...maybe I'm not digging deeply enough into the parameters to make the right adjustments....or what I'm using is just too cheap to pull off the credibility trick !
Old 3 weeks ago
  #65
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
[. . .] recording with the singer miked in stereo.

@ Plush : Appreciate the history - thanks!

You previously expressed that the pair of 170 mics associated with the OP's question is 'basically a mono pick up'.

The mention of Teije van Geest miking a singer in stereo with two U47 mics was more recently raised in this thread.

Did you intend to so solidly separate the two circumstances into mono and stereo?


Kind regards,

Ray H.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #66
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
For Ray Heath:

The circumstance and situation I commented on was with a M49 in the middle and two 170 mics on either side. I DID call that a mono set up. That is three microphones on one source. Who can guess what they finally used for the final version??

Obviously a stereo recording is done with two microphones on one source.

Van Geest miked many instruments in stereo. Bruce Swedien also advocated miking most sources in stereo.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #67
Lives for gear
 
robert82's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
I've recently been doing so (miking singers in stereo)....and it makes a BIG (not subtle) difference !

Re stereo reverb, as deedeeyeah seems to be advocating....I've never found mono in > stereo out to give anything convincing, I just don't find the way that hardware or software creates an approximation of stereo hall sound to be a close enough replica of the real thing...maybe I'm not digging deeply enough into the parameters to make the right adjustments....or what I'm using is just too cheap to pull off the credibility trick !
I'm going to take a guess that "artificial" stereo simply cannot replicate both the time and frequency variables that a stereo pair can. I'm thinking the phase anomalies alone are so complex that they can't be replicated electronically.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #68
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by robert82 View Post
I'm going to take a guess that "artificial" stereo simply cannot replicate both the time and frequency variables that a stereo pair can. I'm thinking the phase anomalies alone are so complex that they can't be replicated electronically.
Algorithmically, I expect it is not worth the effort to 'replicate' much of anything truly complex. . .unless one's life depends on it.

However, if you are willing to change the word 'replicate' to 'simulate' - and to a point where you expect you could 'fool' almost everybody in the room - I wouldn't bet against the math!


(linear algebra + statistics/ml + domain expertise) * software dev => rock your world!

Ray H.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #69
Lives for gear
 

I really appreciate and want to thank the posters in this thread. I've been curious having seen what looked to be A/B spaced pairs several times recently. Yet in relatively close placement on soloists. I previously thought that would be problematic', reserved for more distant pickup.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #70
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
(...)

Re stereo reverb, as deedeeyeah seems to be advocating....I've never found mono in > stereo out to give anything convincing, I just don't find the way that hardware or software creates an approximation of stereo hall sound to be a close enough replica of the real thing...maybe I'm not digging deeply enough into the parameters to make the right adjustments....or what I'm using is just too cheap to pull off the credibility trick !
me neither and that's not what i wrote: i mentioned that in earlier days i used a mono in/stereo out device for a little bit of ambience 'wrapped' around the mono mic - if you add some modulation, results are quite lively (and you can control or even dynamically change the amount of modulation).

but more importantly: i'm always using (at least) three efx devices, preferably from different manufacturers, each on a different settings - i'm not using dedicated/discreet efx on any source, i'm using aux buses to feed into them!

___


a) the first one is on an early reflection setting and is used to widen the tracks and to 'wrap' an envelope around the sources; also useful when using directional mics (as i mostly do).
in a very good sounding room and when recording a soloist, i might replace that device with a signal from a mic - in a m/s setting though (hence why i wrote l/C/r: the capital 'C' being the mono spot, l/r being either the sides of the fig8 mic or the outputs of the efx device)

b) the second is on a medium room setting and has not much if any predelay; it gets used for instruments with lots of transients (such as the piano in our case).

c) the third device is the main 'reverb'/room emulation device and uses a longer setting, depending on production: i don't like hearing intimate chamber music much on a very large and/or very long setting.

together, these three devices allow for very nuanced settings and while i can sample the room with my sony, no room can do what i can achieve by combining several units (to pick up on what ray mentioned but with a somewhat different twist...)!

___


maybe also note that i'm almost always using ambient mics, often several pairs: they mostly don't get routed to the stereo or surround bus but feed into the efx devices as needed (so stereo in/stereo or surround out).
the room mics get positioned so i can use them in tge exact same way as my artificial efx device! i can choose or mix and match - the thing is that the efx devices mostly 'win'...

(...and as mentioned earlier on, with say a quartett, i don't find it practical to double-mic each singer!)

__

again, i'm not insisting on using efx in any case: i don't use them (much) either IF i'm recording in a very good (and quiet) room and IF having enough time to set up everything properly - under less than ideal conditions hieever, i tend to favour using efx.

each approach has its benefits (and needs a specific protocol/technique) but is maybe less suitable in some situations, c'est tout!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #71
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
but more importantly: i'm always using (at least) three efx devices, preferably from different manufacturers, each on a different settings - i'm not using dedicated/discreet efx on any source, i'm using aux buses to feed into them!
together, these three devices allow for very nuanced settings and while i can sample the room with my sony, no room can do what i can achieve by combining several units (to pick up on what ray mentioned but with a somewhat different twist...)!
Yes I can appreciate the motive behind your push to simulate the complexity of real (maybe a few unreal also ?) spaces, through this layering process...hopefully they are all using sufficiently different algorithmic models to achieve their emulations...so that the 'deception' is carried off skillfully, without leaving tell-tale footprints ?

It's possible the better units like Quantec, Bricasti, and in earlier times Lexicon, achieve this subtlety and complexity in a single box...but at my level of engagement I suspect a few layered/chained plugin emulations might be sufficient to achieve a similar end ?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #72
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
(...)I suspect a few layered/chained plugin emulations might be sufficient to achieve a similar end ?
i dunno* as i'm mixing on desks and i'm using hardware efx devices...**

i do advocate combining efx from different manufacturers (eventide, lexicon, quantec, sony, tc, yamaha in my case): some have very nice emulations of early reflections, others do fine on pitch and delay modulations, some have very dense hall algorithms and others stay 'clean' even when using emulations of huge spaces or they are just very versatile - same (combining models from different manufacurers) imo goes for mics :-)

___


i do find attributing almost mystical qualities to lousy converters in old efx devices or the reasoning about itb vs hardware a bit pointless though - fact is that in technical terms, we're living in wonderful days:

we can choose from 'real' signals captured via mics (in the olden days, wasting 'real estate' and getting hiss from too many additional tracks just wasn't an option), we shop for hardware devices (some go for ridiculous prices these days) or use plugins du jour...

if you're experienced enough (and maybe compare between ambient signals from mics and your efx settings) no one can tell what gear/devices you are using from listening to the mix! - or did you know how results got achieved in the examples which plush mentioned? (many thx for that!)

___


* well, i know: the studer vsp algorithm i mentioned runs as a plugin! there's NO difference between the lex pcm 92/96/96s and the pcm bundle etc.

** see pic - pls note that many other devices are missing in the picture as they are getting used elsewhere (or not getting used much anymore - infernal machine anyone?), namely qrs, 2402, 2496, m2000/3000/4000, spx2000, pcm96s, dre-s777
Attached Thumbnails
What is this microphone array?-20200206_105016.jpg  

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 3 weeks ago at 11:24 AM.. Reason: edited twice for details
Old 2 weeks ago
  #73
Lives for gear
 
celticrogues's Avatar
 

I saw this on another thread and I thought it was a cool comparison that showed the difference between micing a mono source in stereo versus micing that same source with a single mono microphone:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc_SoyuzMics View Post
Soyuz 013 FET Stereo Pair - Violin



Soyuz 013 FET Single - Violin

I definitely prefer the sound with a stereo pair.

-Mike
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
Forum Jump
Forum Jump