If only two mics... ?

[k brown]

Definitions are not semantics . . .

 

[thor.zmt]

It's about mindset; particularly in management.

And that is precisely where I have found factories under mainland management wanting. It starts with the mindset (#1 - #5 are "money") and the rot continues from there.

And because often the workforce doesn't care enough to mix chemical right, manually inject plastic into moulds just so, or consistently apply glue. So in order to assure quality the bosses take the pragmatic step of making such jobs automated. Voila, consistency assured.

It can be done using human labour, but the management effort is extreme, in China at least, where I have been.

Hence I find your comments so remarkable.

This was the difference between our Western factories and this Guangzhou site. It's why our Western factories couldn't produce the quality I wanted while the Chinese could.

This was in (say) 2018 and still continues today?

I take a different view. If it takes such a special supplier to make your stuff and you rely on them you paint yourself into a corner.

So instead I design based upon understanding the potential quality issues your average Chinese factory may introduce. Plus, items must be available from multiple suppliers in the supply chain. If that means using a plastic dust cap with an attached foam strip, instead of paper and getting very slightly worse objective and subjective performance, so be it.

As a result, if one factory for whatever reasons no longer is available (e.g. the owner lost it to the Triads over gambling debt and the new management is culling customers to maximise short term profit) production is down for a weeks at the most.

It's a different mind set I guess, highly pragmatic, the way most Chinese management operates.

Thor

 

[Barry Hufker]

@ricardo: What is your preferred method?

 

[Paul W]

Definitions are not semantics . . .

Definitions are exactly semantics.

(Semantics is meanings. Or the study of meanings, and how things mean things.)

Oh, y'all mean quibbles... Never mind.

 

[thor.zmt]

"Perfectly sounding U 87 build"
What else?

And done all from Aliexpress parts costing peanuts and using a 16mm electret capsule?

Oh well, buy Blue Monster 800 then.

Thor

 

[thor.zmt]

Definitions are not semantics . . .

Semantics_Nazi = On;

• Semantics
  The study of how meaning is constructed and communicated in language. It includes how signs are interpreted and what information they contain. For example, a dictionary definition of the word "ram" is "adult male sheep".
• Definitions
  A part of semantics that provides the meaning of words through synonymous expressions or paraphrases.
• Linguistics
  the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of morphology, syntax, phonetics, and semantics.
  
  So to claim "Definitions are not semantics" seems rather cunning linguism to me, perhaps with a side of master debating.
  
  As said before.
  
  
  Semantics_Nazi = Off;
  
  Back to which Two, Four, Six, unlimted number Microphones do we need and how can we make a minimalist recording with 42 Microphones.
  
  Thor
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

[JohnRoberts]

pedantic /pə-dăn′tĭk/

adjective​

1. Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for academic knowledge and formal rules.
   "a pedantic attention to details."
2. Of or pertaining to a pedant; characteristic of, or resembling, a pedant; ostentatious of learning.
   "a pedantic writer; a pedantic description; a pedantical affectation."
3. Like a pedant, overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning.

===

apologies for continuing this veer...

JR

 

[kingkorg]

WTF is going on here?

 

[pmfalcman]

WTF is going on here?

People are debating what one can do with two mics only.*
Intensely debating.**


-----------
*) However this sounds

**) It just got rather philosophical now. Someone is bound to quote Torah soon.

 

[pmfalcman]

And done all from Aliexpress parts costing peanuts and using a 16mm electret capsule?

Obviously.
It doesn't count any other way.

 

[nbuford]

Hi guys !

I have been seriously thinking for some time about lightening my equipment fleet. 90% of my activity is recording classical music ensembles, ranging from duos to sextets, in locations such as churches, chapels or small amphitheaters (maximum 100m2 / 300 square feet). I guess that multi-micking is ideal for recording modern bands (drums for example, even if the Glinn Jones method works fine to me) or for live music on stage where you must have each source independant for mixing. But I never record drums and stack to my classical ensembles.

I now own several pairs of SDC and LDC and I would like to learn to work with one and only one pair, as we listen with our pair of ears. I'm about to resell most of my mics also to get so money because times are hard. I have also eight mic pre channels (6 tubes + 2 OPA) and that's too mcuh for my regular activity which is episodic, like about 10 recordings a year...

So I would like to gather your opinions and your experience on these points:
- the relevance of working with only one pair of microphones
- the choice of this pair

I know that the ideal placement of a single pair is a tough challenge and that I will have to experiment much before obtaining good results.
I guess that a multi pattern pair of mics is unavoidable to set either ORTF and XY (cardio) or AB (omni).

My budget for this pair is a maximum 1000€ (for a used pair) and I thought about AKG C414 which is a great mic either in cardio than in omni mode... but the budget is more about 1500€ for a used but clean pair, so the last questions are :
- what do you think about the Lewitt 441 Flex (no OPT) and the Warm Audio WA14 (Cinemag OPT).
- If some of you have already tested these two mics, what are your feelings (and maybe some measurement ? would be great)
- is there another model inspired by the C414 in that price range ?

Best Regards

Jumping in late here.

Check out https://microphone-parts.com/ for some quality, budget friendly SDCs. They also make mod kits to upgrade most cheap SDCs to match either the Schoeps style (THE king in symphonic sound recording) or Neumann KM style microphones.

The same guy who makes all those mics and parts also runs Roswell Audio. I own a few different pairs of their “LDC” microphones and have used them on symphony with amazing results. Their K47 pair is outstanding for sparkle and clarity. They also make a K87 if you’re looking for a more neutral sound. Insanely affordable for the quality. They’re a small, privately owned company in the USA and they do fantastic work.

Personally I’ve always used my Oktavas for recording symphonies. I have the original version with the Russian, pencil drawn paperwork. I know there’s a lot of cheap knock-offs out there. I love them, scored the pair for $400 like 15 years ago, and their attention to detail is incredible. I’ve also used KM184s, and they’re just too bright and hyped for my taste. I prefer something more neutral that I can EQ to taste if needed.

Lastly, not sure if you could find anything close to your price range, but Earthworks makes some of the purest / cleanest SDCs around.

XY pattern for mono compatibility is best, but I tend to lean towards ORTF for width. If I could afford a Decca Tree setup, that would absolutely be my go-to.

 

[k brown]

WTF is going on here?

All i said was that XY and Blumlein are not the same thing, and everybody got their panties in a twist.

 

[Paul W]

pedantic /pə-dăn′tĭk/

adjective​

1. Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for academic knowledge and formal rules.
   "a pedantic attention to details."
2. Of or pertaining to a pedant; characteristic of, or resembling, a pedant; ostentatious of learning.
   "a pedantic writer; a pedantic description; a pedantical affectation."
3. Like a pedant, overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning.

I feel attacked.

But at least I feel seen. I can live with that.

 

[Barry Hufker]

X/Y and Blumlein are not the same thing. I am in complete agreement with @k brown.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I feel attacked.

If my response was specifically about any one post I would have quoted that one post.

Posting a definition is kind of like a "if the shoe fits".

JR

But at least I feel seen. I can live with that.

 

[Paul W]

If my response was specifically about any one post I would have quoted that one post.

Posting a definition is kind of like a "if the shoe fits".

JR

I was kidding about feeling attacked... and the shoe definitely fits.

I used to do academic research related to formal semantics of programming languages (using formal logical rules to precisely assign clear, unambiguous meanings to expressions in programs). And now I'm pompously parading my formal academic quibbliness for all to see, so I guess I check all the boxes.

 

[nbuford]

X/Y and Blumlein are not the same thing. I am in complete agreement with @k brown.

Blumlein could be faked with (2) pairs of X/Y at 180 degrees offset, I suppose.

We’re losing a lot of our scientific theory / history in modern audio, sadly. “Just throw 8 plugins on it! It’ll be fine!”

 

[ricardo]

@ricardo: What is your preferred method?

As I said earlier, I'm the last remaining High Priest of Tetrahedral Ambisonic mikes so I like coincident arrangements.

I would use a Mk4 Calrec Soundfield but all of these are 40+ yrs old and repair is not possible. The 21st century version is TetraMic for which I did the digital filters, EQ and calibrated them in da early days. IM not so HO, these are the best mikes of the 20th & 21st century respectively.

You can use one of these to see how XY with 'perfect' cardioids sound compared to Blumlein See. I'm just as capable of Pedantic BS as anyone else

But I'll begin to sound like a cult prophet if I go on

In the absence of these august devices,

• Blumlein with a pair of STC 4038 ribbons
• MS with eg AKG 414s though a little large for coincidence
• Spaced Omnis
• ORTF a very distant last

There are only 2 arrangements that accurately capture the sound of a good hall.

• Blumlein coincident Fig 8s @ 90 which also gives very good localisation of sources on speaker playback
• Omnis. Spaced omnis give good sound and usually have better LF than modern Fig 8s or cardioids except TetraMic. But localisation is non-existent.

If you don't have a good venue, other arrangements may be better. eg MS and pick your pattern for M

 

[Barry Hufker]

I spent years recording all kinds of things with a Mark 4 Soundfield -- radio theater, interviews, concerts, opera, a weekly pipe organ series -- when I was the production manager at KWMU-FM, St. Louis. It was a nice mic. but it didn't knock me out. And absolutely no one was listening to Ambisonics. When we first started broadcasting Ambisonic recordings, we held two listening parties for the station's audience, inviting them to come to a space we had prepared. We had a good turnout, and the sound was very convincing. The "walls" between the side speakers were almost palpable. But the technology didn't catch on with anyone. I almost went to work doing Ambisonics when Nigel Branwell was heading a new company that was going to promote Ambisonics in North America. Glad I didn't as the whole thing folded shortly before I gave my notice.

In my experience, surround is only useful for computer games, sporting events on video and movies. In my experience, the average person couldn't care less about surround sound. They listen to music on their phones, from their computers and from "hi-fi" systems with cheap speakers. And while technology is always improving, and that situation may be changing, surround sound for music enjoyment is essentially a non-starter for the average person. It is for the enthusiast and the person who invested in a home theater (and actually sets it up correctly).

Traditional stereo techniques are what I've used much more in the 50+ years I've been recording, and are what I see as likely for the near future. I am a fan of spaced microphones, but monaural compatibility can be a problem. I don't like X/Y or Blumlein, but will happily used them if the situation calls for it. X/Y is good for radio when monaural compatibility is required. M/S can be useful. ORTF is fine with me as it is a bit more colorful than X/Y, providing some time of arrival cues. Blumlein can be very hard to place in a reverberant environment as it picks up equally front and rear, so the stereo pair may have to be placed too close to the performers. In less reverberant environments it's fine.

I believe all these techniques can be very satisfying and I use whatever gets the job done. This said, I haven't even touched on binaural, or the use of Jeckln/Schneider discs.

I don't want to derail thls thread further with a discussion of surround sound or how my experience is not everyone's. I just wanted to relate my experience with surround and stereo mic'ing techniques. Thank you for reading this far.