Why not M149 for a main? Another 'how would you do it?' thread

Because i like to read those threads a lot, here is my ‘How would you do it?’ thread

I mostly record in the Studio, real groups performing together, mostly music that evolves from Jazz/Folk/Pop ... Now and then i get a call to do other styles.



This time it might be:
20 piece strings orchestra - classical (I don’t know the repertoire, haven't seen the location yet)

1 upright
3 celli
plus violas and 1st & 2nd violins

Mic-contenders:
2x M149
2x MK4
2x KM184
2x AT4050
1x GT44
2x 4007
1x U87ai
1x 121
5x COLES 4038
4x AKG 414 BULS

PreAmps
Merging Technologies Horus (32 Ultra clean Pres and prestine ADDA)
8 x 3124 API
8 x Aurora GTP8
8 x Millennia Hv-3d

please, let it flow

I have recorded several times with large diaphragm microphones as main pair. It can work fantastically well, why not? But in my opinion all large diaphragm main setups share one thing in common: lack of reach and depth; even a single instrument plus piano shows that, the piano is already colored, in my opinion...

Phil Rowlands uses M149s as mains all the time. He’s made some stunning recordings.
https://www.philrowlands.com/

If I had a pair, I’d throw them up as well!

I used the as mains on the Nicolas Bernier soprano cantatas disc with my group. They won in omni over my 4006 pair.
Next time I put them in a beautiful church against M150 and 4006ape. M150 won, I used the 149 as spots in cardioid.
They are quite dark in sound, but I did not notice too much coloration issues or depth/reach lacking. Worked very fine. Sounded quite high-resolution to me.

Perhaps your conclusion should be looked at with a different point of view; the DPA is not very good sounding microphone. Just saying.

Is that addressed to me? De gustibus et coloribus... In the two mentioned cases the DPA was not the favourite, but still rather excellent.
My main mains are two DPA4006 microphones, revised by Rens Heijnis with new components and permanent 60V power.

In the end, a microphone is a tool, not a goal. I know many people using a 4006 in a bad way, making conclusions that it is a bad microphone. And the other way around. Stating that the 4006 is a bad microphone, is nonsense. A tool is as good as you know how to use it. And sometimes that means not using it in a certain situation.

I am saying it with tongue in cheek.

Sometimes the world does not look very pretty through a piece of clean clear glass.

Sure it doesn't.

This is the final result

Comments and critique are welcome!

Setup
MK4 Main1 sort of NOS
M149 Main2 AB 60cm omni

MK4 AB 6m wide, 12m from stage

Spots
B&K 4007 Bass
B&K 4007 Trumpet (last piece)
Royer 121 Solo Cello (2nd Piece)


MK4
90° / 28cm setup was chosen for good ratio between time-difference and level difference contributing to stereo and theoretically a rather undistorted panning of the instruments in the stereo field.

M149 omnis distance (60cm) was chosen for maximum time-difference of 1.6ms to fill stereo filed. But i noticed some mistakes in my thought process:

Angling down the Stereo System from 3.5m towards the Orchestra makes the Orchestra angle smaller, compared to what i measure when standing in front.
Also, desired 1.6ms maximum time difference cannot be achieved with 60cm when the orchestra is narrower than 180°, which is (almost) always the case. But increasing distance above 60cm will heavyly pile up the soundsources on the sides...
So i might just have discovered the reason for a Deca-Tree...

What is your thought process when setting up main stereo systems?

Sorry but I am a bit confused. Did you set your Mk4s up 12m from the ensemble? As A-B or NOS? Both are mentioned.
That's FFA (far, far away). 12 feet maybe?

12m away, maybe some omnis as room mics?

Maybe I am confused about what Mk4s are. Schoeps Mk4s?

D.

MK4 are the Schoeps cardio capsules on the CMC bodies...

Main Pairs (MK4 and alt M149) were at traditional spot behind the conductor...

there is a second pair of MK4 12m back
traditionally this would be a job for omnis but i hadn't those at disposal. That was also a reason to place them al little further away...

Ah, I though you only had one pair of Schoeps Mk4s.

Is the piece you posted a recording with your setup? What did you finally do with the mains? One or the other or some combination? My favorite setup for wider ensembles is ORFT in the middle of a 1m bar with omnis at the ends pointed out 45*. It is my interpretation of the Boojum/Norman Array. Love it!

D.

Really lovely recording, and a great ensemble. To my ears you did a really nice job capturing it.

i tend to favour m/s, double m/s, ambisionic or then l/c/r(+.1) for mains - and regarding the spacing of ambis: the larger the distance to the stage, the further the spacing (to counterbalance the typical narrowing of the stereo image); in any case, i prefer the ambis to be wider apart than the mains.

the clip is my actual recording.

I found the MK4 NOS mains nice and acurate but missed some kind of 'bloom' i hear on good recordings. I found the omnis M149 richer in sound and bigger, but of course less precise.

In the end i mixed those into the NOS plus added some of the back wide AB MK4 for air / roomsize /ambient

The bass spot was in to just give a hair of definition.
Same for the cello spot.
Trumpet spot was not used.

I was astonished at how much i had to push the spots to actually hear a difference (and then back it of slightly...)
Do you guys have standard practice for that or reference levels? Do you actually measure levels or just push by ear? I'm just imagining pushing 30 spotmics on a full Orchestra recroding

what do you use in that setup?

i was actually a little scared to get wider with the omnis, but would love to try it next time.
i think i made some mental/theoretical mistakes in assuming i would get full LR stereo width with 60cm. this would only be true if the orchestra was spread out to 180°

but the piling up in the sides is already very noticable at 60cm. setting up wider would push all the in between sources even wider to the edge. how does this hold up with the ORTF?

isn't it messing up the hole main stereo concept?

do you care to elaborate on the double MS? what mics and what spread do you use?
do you have pics to illustrade?

no spacing: double m/s is a coincident surround/ambisonic technique...

https://schoeps.de/en/products/surro...double-ms.html
https://schoeps.de/en/products/acces...ugin-2018.html

IF using spaced main mics, i'm almost always using an l/c/r(+.1) array, constisting of directional mics (to various degrees) for l/r and m/s for the center; .1 is mostly a blm or then i'm using an omni for the centrally positioned m/s.

there's something to be said regarding the spacing of a/b systems though which i hardly see getting mentioned around here (which is not much of a surprise as there's way more literature available in live sound and specifically on the topic of subwoofer arrays):

my decision on the spacing of a/b or l/c/r systems does NOT follow traditional 'best' practice but depends, besides the width of the ensemble and the distance to the orchestra, on room resonances: almost all well-known (older) large concert halls in the old world have a drone somewhere between 80-120hz! in order to minimize this without using filters, i position the mics at half the wavelength of the frequency in question; i then decide on the pattern.

imo omnis and specifically spaced omnis get used far too often and for all the wrong reasons, leading to this slightly blurred soundfield which many of us have come to like but which leaves not much options while mixing and is a poor starting point for mixing in surround or for immersive formats but also for any modern and/or (semi-)amplified music and any music which features instruments with lots of transients...

i got no problems using 30+ mics on a standard orchestral recording or broadcast; i create a mix based on spots which matches the sound of the mains except that it's more dry and has a bit an emphasis on the hf compared to the mains - in fact, i could base the entire mix on spots - and then route sections to groups, stems and dca's which i can easily blend in if needed.
close mics imo require dynamic processing anyway so i let the processors take care of levels to some extent (which becomes mandatory when working with very high channel counts anyway)...

I thought that was an excellent recording, as a critique, for my taste, a bit less room would be ok, also the image with the cellist was slightly off too far left??? but sounded really nice .....

Well done ....

Ray

I have used a number of things. I use the outboard omnis more as spots than in full presentation. Almost like flankers but mounted on the same bar. I usually run dedicated flankers 2/3 out between the conductor and the last row if I use them and they do put two more stands in the sight lines.

Never "room" mics. I hate them!

Okay, mics. Two Schoeps Mk2S and two Mk4. Two DPA 4006-TL with APE and two 4011. Two Josephson C617 with APE and two Gefell M930 or two Gefell UM70S. I had been going steady with the DPA for a while but since the pandemic, and not working, when I feel safe I might return with the Josephson/Gefells.

Hopefully sooner than later.

D.

thanx for clarifying.
i understand, that this has not that much benefit to stereo format, except for the ultimate quick one-stand setup when no far stands are 'allowed' due to audience disturbance...

how do you determine drone frequency in practice?
do you excite the room with a sweep/pink noise from a P.A.? do you take measure?

wavelength of 80hz-120hz is 4.3 to 2.9m
this means you might need to move the array 1.5 to 2m away from 'best practice' spot. do i understand correctly?

one needs to adress this before musicians arrive and many times i suppose i would not have much room to move the main array closer or further away.

so this gets more in direction of mixing the jazz/pop/rock way (my world ), painting the picture with the close-mics and adding room/space/glue/bloom from the mains to taste.

thank you!

i was repositioning the cellist a little to back during the short rehearsal we had. initially she was even more upfront and therefore even more to the side and already too loud in the mains for my taste...

there is quite some stereophonic distortion going on as soon as we use a spaced main mic array. this pushes the cellist further to the side than she optically appeared.

when mixing i hesitated...
the position of the cello corresponds to the place she took in the NOS. I didn't chose to counter this and fight her more to the center with the spot...

no benefit for stereo; the benefit for surround is that one only needs three capsules.


yes - i'm taking a b&k, rme, laptop running smaart plus a lake speaker processor everywhere i go - many measurements stem from mixing live in those venues.

i was alluding to 'best practice' in terms of spacing: some spacings seem to be popular for whatever reason...

...while i have a pretty clear criterium - but yes: half the wavelength of 100hz is 1.70m and becomes the distance between the 'outriggers' of my l/c/r system or the distance between mics of an a/b setup.

nor do i but i don't feel the need to move the array (for acoustical reasons): after 35 years of recording/mixing/mastering/broadcasting, i have a pretty clear idea where my mics go - besides, physics don't change :-)

i'm into multiple genre as well but don't change my approach much - again: physics don't change...