We Need To Talk About Polar Designer Ya'lls (and dual out mics in general)

[SubSpec]

I've seen some mentions of Austrian Audio's Polar Designer scattered about but couldn't find anything dedicated to the subject here, so I wanted to kick that off.

I know it's been around quite awhile at this point, but it seems like more it deserves more attention than it gets.

As a quick primer for any not familiar with it:
Austrian Audio provides this plugin free and open source, and it allows deep (but straightforward) manipulation of dual output mics polar response in post. While it was made specifically for the OC818, they state themselves that it works great with any mic that has outs for both sides of the capsule.

Here's the open source code:
https://github.com/AustrianAudioGmbH/PolarDesigner

And the web page:
https://austrian.audio/polardesigner/

On with the discussion.

So, I've just delved into dual out mics with an Antelope Edge Duo. I had been lusting greatly after the OC818, and simultaneously disappointed with Antelope's reliance on the iLok dongle for their emulation software, which lead me to try AAPD.

What struck me on first use was how easy it was to mimic the response of my current favorite mic in my arsenal on my vox. It was simply a matter of A/B'ing, listening for what it was I liked about the other mic, honing in on the frequency range of whatever quality I liked in the other, and tweaking the polar response to bring forward (or alternately open up) that area. Between those polar response changes and the proximity control I was able to get a sound that had all the qualities that drew me to the other, but also avoided the things I like less.

There is so much to unpack in that, but ultimately it reminds me of what I've seen mentioned around here several times which is that the polar response (and off-axis qualities) have much to do with what gives a mic it's sound. I am very certain I couldn't have achieved the same results with EQ or any other sort of post processing on a normal mono mic signal.

So, that's it from me, I'm kind of floored that this gets so little attention while there are 10k videos on YT about something something U47.

Anyone using AAPD in production, experimented with it, or have some general thoughts on the subject of modifying polar response in post, or dual out mics in general?

 

[McIrish]

For me personally, I just want to select the right mic and polar pattern and hit "record". The thought of having to mess with polar patterns in a mix isn't something I want to do. Maybe if I was doing more post production, it might come in handy. But, for me, I'd rather just have a single option. That goes for guitars as well. I want to find the sound and capture that going in. I don't like trying to find the right amp sim during a mix. I'd rather have a clear idea of what we are going for from the start. I'm sure some will find it useful though.

 

[SubSpec]

Yes, you can't beat a great sound right off the bat with no need to fiddle in post. I am admittedly a fiddler, there's rarely a lead vocal I'm not touching with EQ and comp in post, so for my usage having the flexibility to effectively change the mic in post is a game changer.

 

[emrr]

There are a couple threads about dual output mics and the various softwares. I made a dual output TLM67, have an ELM-A and an MKH 800 Twin. Very useful at times and nice to get the other pattern options. You gotta think outside the box about all the creative things you can do with a dual output mic besides just seeing it as postponing a decision.

 

[SubSpec]

I made a dual output TLM67

Oh man, that sounds like a nice combo!

You gotta think outside the box about all the creative things you can do with a dual output mic besides just seeing it as postponing a decision.

Yes, I definitely appreciate the need to know and select the right mic for the source, and that is a crucial skill in this world, but having the option to do something else in post is exciting for me.

 

[Paul W]

Count me in for wanting to be able to change things later, if I decide I screwed up. Sure, I try to get a good sound and hope to leave it that way, but sometimes I decide later that I just didn't get it right. I'm more likely to move forward and record something if I know I have a shot at fixing it later.

That's most obvious with distorted guitar sounds. It's easy to lay down a track with a little too much distortion, and realize later you want to dial the distortion back a little. Having a clean track as a backup for reamping gives me confidence to keep going when I'm not sure I'm getting the tone exactly right, without being paralyzed about whether I have too little distortion or too much, which is likely to vary within one take, depending on the lines I'm playing.

But dual outs for mics are especially interesting with kingkorg's differential EQ filter to improve off-axis rejection at high frequencies. That really needs to be incorporated into plugins for dual-out mic processing. To me it's much more interesting than how precisely you can emulate some classic mic with iffy off-axis rejection.

https://groupdiy.com/threads/better-180°-rejection-for-dual-diaphragm-capsules-hybrid-second-order-cardioid.82758/

 

[Paul W]

Somebody here clued me in to the hack where you try to remove bleed by pointing a second mic directly at the source you're getting bleed from, and subtract that "noise signal" from the main signal from the main mic.

It seems like that's iffy because the bleed into the main mic is filtered by its polar response, which varies with frequency.

It varies with frequency in a reasonably well-defined way, though--for a given angle off-axis, you have a fixed frequency response---so you should be able to EQ it to match the bleed sound reasonably well, and do a better job subtracting that from the main mic signal.

It seems like it would be cool to have a coincident stereo mic with a variable angle, and a plugin to infer an appropriate filter to subtract whatever the B mic is pointing at from the A mic signal.

Even a fixed-angle version would be useful. If you have a 90 degree AB pair, you can usually find a reasonable placement where one mic is pointing pretty directly at the source you want, and the other pretty directly at the noise source.

And if the angle is too big for that, you can use a regular dual-out mic with the front pointed at the desired source, and the rear pointed at the noise, and kingkorg's filter.

So it seems like a dual-out mid-side mic could do both jobs with one plugin, if you have a switch to say whether you're using it in normal dual-out (front and back diaphragms) mode or mid-side mode. You just need to find a placement where the sources are about 90 degrees apart, OR about 180 degrees apart.

 

[Paul W]

Deleted.

 

[SubSpec]

But we really need to talk about this "ya'lls" thing in the thread title.

Learned it from Stewie

And here's my best effort VO:

I created many variants, but to keep things simple I paired them up as straight omni vs an omni-ish PD profile blended to taste, same for card and f8.

Omni:
View attachment aapd-yalls-omni.wav
Omni-ish:
View attachment aapd-yalls-1.wav


F8:
View attachment aapd-yalls-f8.wav
F8-ish:
View attachment aapd-yalls-6.wav


Card:
View attachment aapd-yalls-card.wav
Card-ish:
View attachment aapd-yalls-3.wav

 

[emrr]

https://groupdiy.com/threads/tlm67-modification-to-dual-output.68096/

 

[Paul W]

Well we don’t need a colloquial improvised language cop. Sayin’.

You're right. I deleted that in case anyone thought I was seriously criticizing the way anyone actually speaks.

I was not aware of the Stewie meme, and how it uses "I's" which is a real thing in some dialects; maybe y'alls is actually used that way (not possessive) in some, too. (If so, that would be interesting.)