Yes, exactly that / equivalents. Remember the period jokes about 'sounds good on my sister's Dansette?' Removing tongue from cheek -a lot of contemporary popular music was mixed and / or balanced on its early vinyl release assuming they'd end up on something like that, with others sometimes tweaked for the contemporary radio broadcasts. There wasn't much point in doing otherwise: you engineered & balanced releases to the primary market -above all for popular music (or music you will become popular 
).
).
In all seriousness, providing your amplifier has a common ground, you could do worse than trying ye olde Hafler circuit if you're interesting in ambience extraction. On paper you lose about 2dB total stereo separation due to the crosstalk, but in practice it's rarely significant as that assumes similar levels, positioning etc., and ultimately, all you're doing is playing the difference signal, usually on live recordings with the effect of unmasking some of the ambient noise that tends to get lost in stock 2-channel. It can often sound rather more 'natural' in that sense than discrete or post-processing etc., so if you have a rear speaker or speakers already set up, all you need is to adjust the wiring. I don't always run a Hafler variation, but it can be interesting for some material if you like the effect or listen to a lot of ambient etc. releases.
I'm looking forward to the day when we may place 2 mics in the location (concert hall - centre, row 10) where the sound is the best, record this and in post, fix all and everything that makes this recording not so pleasant if played out on a conventional stereo setup.
With todays signal processing it must be possible. Arrangement at the mic stand ti support this is of course fair game - eve nor that 2 mics.
Who will be first? I long cause I'm fed up with listening to too closed mic'd recordings with detailed noise from instrument the no other then the player and the conductor will hear + the off tonal balance due to the same close distance.
Help - please someone do something
//
With todays signal processing it must be possible. Arrangement at the mic stand ti support this is of course fair game - eve nor that 2 mics.
Who will be first? I long cause I'm fed up with listening to too closed mic'd recordings with detailed noise from instrument the no other then the player and the conductor will hear + the off tonal balance due to the same close distance.
Help - please someone do something
//
Plenty of examples of 2-mic recordings around if you know where to look.
However, which stereo mic technique would you prefer?
I tried out mid-side mics for a while, but found the mics lost correlation (and thus the stereo imaging became imprecise) >10kHz. Try searching around online for XY vs ORTF vs AB mic techniques, and those are just the common ones!
There's also Blumlein (XY, but with fig-8s instead of cardioids), AB with various directional patterns, anything involving a baffle separating the mics (Jeklin Disc), and we're still on two microphones.
The old Decca classical recordings would use 3x mics near the conductor (search "Decca Tree"), plus a couple of outriggers aligned with the rear mics. The mics typically used there were omni mics, but had some directionality >5kHz due to the size of the capsule/mic. The Decca engineers would also often deploy spot mics.
Once we're past the course choices of mic pickup patterns, we get to the choices between individual mics. Here's a very brief comparison I put together: https://gearspace.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/1393835-cm4-vs-mc930-vs.html
Two of the mics are similar on paper (the Beyer MC930 and Line Audio CM4 are both small-diaphragm condenser mics with cardioid pickup patterns), and the third is a little different. Which is "correct"?
The forum I've linked to above has other examples of mic shootouts if you look around a bit, including some 2-mic recordings without any processing.
Chris
However, which stereo mic technique would you prefer?
I tried out mid-side mics for a while, but found the mics lost correlation (and thus the stereo imaging became imprecise) >10kHz. Try searching around online for XY vs ORTF vs AB mic techniques, and those are just the common ones!
There's also Blumlein (XY, but with fig-8s instead of cardioids), AB with various directional patterns, anything involving a baffle separating the mics (Jeklin Disc), and we're still on two microphones.
The old Decca classical recordings would use 3x mics near the conductor (search "Decca Tree"), plus a couple of outriggers aligned with the rear mics. The mics typically used there were omni mics, but had some directionality >5kHz due to the size of the capsule/mic. The Decca engineers would also often deploy spot mics.
Once we're past the course choices of mic pickup patterns, we get to the choices between individual mics. Here's a very brief comparison I put together: https://gearspace.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/1393835-cm4-vs-mc930-vs.html
Two of the mics are similar on paper (the Beyer MC930 and Line Audio CM4 are both small-diaphragm condenser mics with cardioid pickup patterns), and the third is a little different. Which is "correct"?
The forum I've linked to above has other examples of mic shootouts if you look around a bit, including some 2-mic recordings without any processing.
Chris
You realise that making a record at the times of the Beatles was a "little" different as today?
Nowadays the artist is responsible for the record, sometimes even completely does it by themselfs (more or less, e.g. Billie Eilish. Foo Fighters.). At all records I did or was part of the artist was sitting next to the mixer with (sometimes) the producer during most of the process. The times where you got signed, got a producer from the record company and they made whatever they thought they could sell are long over - cause music doesn't sell any records any more.
There still is "designed" pop music with a pretty singer an a lot of autotune ... but I would suggest we are not listening to this here?
So yes - what's on the CD/LP is for sure what the producer wanted (cause it's their responsibility) and very often also what the Artist wanted.
Studio rooms also sound different as do studio speaker. But BY FAR not as much as untreated living rooms with some HiFi stuff in it.
Every Studio aims for a linear/room curve frequency response. They tame resonances and "reverb".
Mixer/producers/artists do control hearings in cars/kitchens/... to check if the mix "translates" and everything sounds in the real world as they want it to. (With a good mixing room you have to do that less)
Search for some documentaries about how bands have done their records - there are very often youtube clips about it cause you need constant material to bond to your fans. Have a look who is sitting next to the mixer during the process.
Nowadays the artist is responsible for the record, sometimes even completely does it by themselfs (more or less, e.g. Billie Eilish. Foo Fighters.). At all records I did or was part of the artist was sitting next to the mixer with (sometimes) the producer during most of the process. The times where you got signed, got a producer from the record company and they made whatever they thought they could sell are long over - cause music doesn't sell any records any more.
There still is "designed" pop music with a pretty singer an a lot of autotune ... but I would suggest we are not listening to this here?
So yes - what's on the CD/LP is for sure what the producer wanted (cause it's their responsibility) and very often also what the Artist wanted.
Studio rooms also sound different as do studio speaker. But BY FAR not as much as untreated living rooms with some HiFi stuff in it.
Every Studio aims for a linear/room curve frequency response. They tame resonances and "reverb".
Mixer/producers/artists do control hearings in cars/kitchens/... to check if the mix "translates" and everything sounds in the real world as they want it to. (With a good mixing room you have to do that less)
Search for some documentaries about how bands have done their records - there are very often youtube clips about it cause you need constant material to bond to your fans. Have a look who is sitting next to the mixer during the process.
Stereo recordings - these are even getting more with so many people listening with headphones nowerdays. Artificial head recordings are best for that.
I like big AB mic technique but very often the room and recording situation is not fitting. So I often do ORTF (have a nice pair of TLM193 for that) and add 2 omnis to get the low end right.
But the main problem with these recordings is - you don't get everything perfect. There are always some instruments which are to loud or to silent. So you have the choice - add spot mics and translate the piece how it's ment (that's mostly for classic/jazz/music with natural instruments - I was working with world music for a while) or keep the best original sound and the musical content suffers.
Most musicians decide to go for translation of the music -> most of the time you have spot mics and sound engineers do their best to keep everything together
I like big AB mic technique but very often the room and recording situation is not fitting. So I often do ORTF (have a nice pair of TLM193 for that) and add 2 omnis to get the low end right.
But the main problem with these recordings is - you don't get everything perfect. There are always some instruments which are to loud or to silent. So you have the choice - add spot mics and translate the piece how it's ment (that's mostly for classic/jazz/music with natural instruments - I was working with world music for a while) or keep the best original sound and the musical content suffers.
Most musicians decide to go for translation of the music -> most of the time you have spot mics and sound engineers do their best to keep everything together
The stereo system is one that adresses our both ears in a way to get the most of a recording.It's not the truth, but it could be develloped into a standard so that most recoding engineers taylored their techniques to it and gave us pretty decent recordings that could be played essentially on two speakers.
What this guy wants is an omnidirectional "wall of sound" which can't be stadardized easily and is prone to failure as a concept because once moved inside each speaker will reflect more on a wall than on the others, so where do you get a coherent sound picture from? From your same 2 years receiving a stereo image formed by multiple unequally faded reflections of sounds emitted by an unconventional speaker aiming in all directions.
The stereo system will rule forever the recording world in my opinion unless our species evolve a third ear in the future
What this guy wants is an omnidirectional "wall of sound" which can't be stadardized easily and is prone to failure as a concept because once moved inside each speaker will reflect more on a wall than on the others, so where do you get a coherent sound picture from? From your same 2 years receiving a stereo image formed by multiple unequally faded reflections of sounds emitted by an unconventional speaker aiming in all directions.
The stereo system will rule forever the recording world in my opinion unless our species evolve a third ear in the future
Yep, always a good illustration. The old Stereophile test disc no.1 also has a rather amusing track to illustrate that very point, where the late J. Gordon Holt reads a short script, which was recorded using a handful of different microphones.
I think it is pointless to try to understand the hearing and then create a "stereo system"... rather, the engineering challenge is to re-create the exact sound pressure vectors around the head (a sphere say 0,5m radie?) as in the real condition - then the ear brain will just have to do what it always do... this should be quantifiable and measurable.
//
//
I did not have time to read previous posts: I will do so, but quickly, I was wondering what is the difference between seeing in 3D and hearing in 3D? Then it hit me: in sight there are no reflections, no interference from the walls! We see directly on to a projected surface - our retina.
The path sound takes, reflecting down the room and down a narrow canal is just complex. A rough diagram illustrates. The black and white item is supposed to be a piano. This is just a 2 D diagram I can imagine what the walls and ceiling do to the sound. Sound also travels directly from the piano to the ear - forgot to diagram that part, but from different points on the piano. How to record that, with 1000 microphones and play it back 1000 spherical corresponding speakers? Truly surround sound.
The path sound takes, reflecting down the room and down a narrow canal is just complex. A rough diagram illustrates. The black and white item is supposed to be a piano. This is just a 2 D diagram I can imagine what the walls and ceiling do to the sound. Sound also travels directly from the piano to the ear - forgot to diagram that part, but from different points on the piano. How to record that, with 1000 microphones and play it back 1000 spherical corresponding speakers? Truly surround sound.
What's wrong with this picture? Place the microphones where the speakers would be, record, and then play back the music through the speakers with the speakers in the same position as the microphones, facing the other way. Or better still, use the speakers as microphones, turned towards the guitar player, record the output, and play back through the same speakers.
All the sounds reaching the microphones are captured, direct and reflected. If you place one ear where the microphone is, you would hear what the microphone hears. With stereo, though, yes, head shadowing and the other stuff will happen.
The reproduction of sounds from a guitar sound uncannily real even on a simple full range speaker. However, to reproduce what I hear from a guitar, in a room, with the reflections and so on, well, I don't listen to string quartets and the like, I listen to exclusively recorded and processed music.
That said, I was rather surprised at the way studio mixes are done, basically cutting and pasting sounds all over the room, smearing synthesizers across the room in even volumes from left to right. This is not reality, it is fantasy, it's special effects or should I say spatial effects(!)
They cut the drum kit to pieces? I suspected as much but really...I am getting a headache looking at the picture.
https://www.masteringthemix.com/blogs/learn/guide-to-panning-and-stereo-width
The reproduction of sounds from a guitar sound uncannily real even on a simple full range speaker. However, to reproduce what I hear from a guitar, in a room, with the reflections and so on, well, I don't listen to string quartets and the like, I listen to exclusively recorded and processed music.
That said, I was rather surprised at the way studio mixes are done, basically cutting and pasting sounds all over the room, smearing synthesizers across the room in even volumes from left to right. This is not reality, it is fantasy, it's special effects or should I say spatial effects(!)
They cut the drum kit to pieces? I suspected as much but really...I am getting a headache looking at the picture.
https://www.masteringthemix.com/blogs/learn/guide-to-panning-and-stereo-width
Back to topic, with deference to Dave, watching the video all over again, he addresses many points in the video. "4 dimensional realistic environment with sound radiating from all places.."
Watching...
"Walk around sound". OK so he wants to create an auditory hologram. I can't even begin to imagine how to do that...
Baffless,
The first sentence depends entirely on the mic's pickup pattern, which can vary strongly with frequency. Omni or fig-8 mics tend to be the most consistent in terms of maintaining their pattern across the range, but even those start to exhibit nonlinearities in the top octave or two, as the wavelength becomes comparable in size to the mic.
The second sentence is so far from the truth that I don't have enough time to explain it right now. Needless to say that ears+brain has a very different set of mechanical and electrical signal processing to that of a mic capsule + preamp. A binaural dummy head gets you closer, but those recordings tend only to "work" well reproduced with headphones.
Chris
The first sentence depends entirely on the mic's pickup pattern, which can vary strongly with frequency. Omni or fig-8 mics tend to be the most consistent in terms of maintaining their pattern across the range, but even those start to exhibit nonlinearities in the top octave or two, as the wavelength becomes comparable in size to the mic.
The second sentence is so far from the truth that I don't have enough time to explain it right now. Needless to say that ears+brain has a very different set of mechanical and electrical signal processing to that of a mic capsule + preamp. A binaural dummy head gets you closer, but those recordings tend only to "work" well reproduced with headphones.
Chris
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry to say - but that's mainly cause you have no idea how recording and mixing is working.
You probably never heared a natural drumset from 3m distance. You will never hear this sound on a record and also never on stage live. No way.
Cause it's - lame. It doesn't sound anything as you are used to what it should sound! The Kick is silent and has no power at all (the first thing you mic on a drumset, even more important as the overheads in small rooms). Toms are to silent. Snares to thin. Cymbals often way to lound (depends if the drummer really knows what he is doing ;-)). And everything comes just from one point - so it overlays and get's washed.
I have rehearse today - should I post a short soundfile?
So - you record a drumset from close. Similar to what you hear when directly standing in front of it or what the drummer hears at the drumseat. At this position the drumset is BIG, sometimes even around you. It uses the whole spectrum from left to right of imaging. So you use a stereo microphone and get a wide image of the drumkit - which sounds cool and separates the instruments to hear them better.
You need to strengthen the shells. You need a signal without room sound and low bleed from the other drums (a drumset is a set of many instruments which are often quite different in their behaviour)! So you have to come close with your microphones. The shells don't sound anything as they should and you need to modify (eq) the signal. Then you have to listen where the shell you want to reinforce sits in the stereo mix from the overheads and put your close mic there with panning - otherwise you will hear 2 locations for a drum and everything get's confused. And when you are careful you even delay the close mic so timing fits to the received sound in the overheads.
Of course you have bleed between the instruments and microphones of the drumset. For some drums (kick, snare) you even use more then 1 microphone to get the whole spectrum of the drum. You use spot mics for cymbals which are not loud enough or very important and need to be clearly heard. You use room mics to get the impression of - room. Often 2-3 sets of room mics for different purposes.
So you end up with 10-24 microphones for the drumset. And when everything is done perfectly right (which is not that easy as this supershort summary maybe gives a hint
) people say "Wow, that's a good and natural soundig drumset". It's sound is completely designed during recording. Cause nobody wants to hear a natural drumset.You know the drumsound of Metallica St. Anger? A very brave project - cause the drumsound was kept unusal natural. Still with plenty of mics but closer to what an amplified drumset would sound in a rehearsal room. You know the reactions of the fans?
They will not repeat this experiment ...There are mic techniques with less microphones like "Glyn Johns technique" with 3-4 microphones what they used in times of the Beatles. With a great set and room this can sound cool too - but is in no means natural! The stereo panorama you get is far from a real drumset, kickdrum of course enforced. Floor tom is amplified to much. It's always a compromise ...
p.s.: I didn't write about the most important things - a good drummer, a great tuned instrument and a perfect recording room is of course needed to start with
Well, not really. The head which the ears are placed on will effect whats going into the ear canal. And dont dismiss this - it's part of how direction is calculated (the asymmetry of the head etc) - plus, the brain does some sound processing tricks that your sound card dont, so your statement is not entirely correct.
//
While it's not entirely correct - it gives a good impression how the instrument sounds at this spot and if it makes sense to place a mic here.
In a studio environment I like to put on headphones, listen to the mic solo and then place it during soundcheck. But in live situations that's hardly possible (and there is no time for that) so you use your ear, "scan" a new instrument and find a good spot. At least when you are not lazy ... (not all live engineers are the same ... some just repeat what they have done the last 30 years)
Of course you have to know your mics and radiation pattern and proxmity effect and the room and ... to give a quick estimation if you will get a useful signal in the mixer. That's the job.
In a studio environment I like to put on headphones, listen to the mic solo and then place it during soundcheck. But in live situations that's hardly possible (and there is no time for that) so you use your ear, "scan" a new instrument and find a good spot. At least when you are not lazy ... (not all live engineers are the same ... some just repeat what they have done the last 30 years)
Of course you have to know your mics and radiation pattern and proxmity effect and the room and ... to give a quick estimation if you will get a useful signal in the mixer. That's the job.