String quartet - 3 condensers, some 57s\58s

[Carmelious]

Hi all.

What would be ideal with the above setup? I was thinking:

1.ortf with two se08s, dynamics as close mikes, nt1 for center at a distance
or:
2. two se08s for vlns, sm57s for cello and vla, two sm58s for room stereo, nt1 for center.

players will be arranged as:

vln2 cello
Vln1 vla

any idea would be welcome!

[resistorman]

Are you multitracking? If so, mixing later could work well with close mics because you could compensate for phasing etc. If recording to stereo in a good sounding room, I'd keep it simple and do without the close mics.

[Random Guitarist]

M/S config would be my suggestion, so long as the sound in the room is pleasant.

[Bob Bickerton]

Somewhat dependent on genre, room and proficiency of the players, (that is their ability to balance themselves), but I would keep it simple and go for ORTF pair.

Note: can't see options to M/S with the mics on offer.

Bob

[Mike Stranks]

Somewhat dependent on genre, room and proficiency of the players, (that is their ability to balance themselves), but I would keep it simple and go for ORTF pair.

[Arpangel]

SE8’s, ORTF pair, shouldn’t need anything else, just experiment with positioning.

[Carmelious]

Edit:
I have 8 channels multitrack interface, the room is large and nice.

[Random Guitarist]

Somewhat dependent on genre, room and proficiency of the players, (that is their ability to balance themselves), but I would keep it simple and go for ORTF pair.

Note: can't see options to M/S with the mics on offer.

Bob

I think you can, point the se8s sideways opposing so the pair of cardioids is equivalent to a figure 8, NT faces front. Gain match the se8s.

But I may be wrong

[Wonks]

Somewhat dependent on genre, room and proficiency of the players, (that is their ability to balance themselves), but I would keep it simple and go for ORTF pair.

Note: can't see options to M/S with the mics on offer.

Bob

I think you can, point the se8s sideways opposing so the pair of cardioids is equivalent to a figure 8, NT faces front. Gain match the se8s.

But I may be wrong

You need a tight null in the figure 8 for M/S to work properly. A cardioid still has significant pickup at 90° off-access (the sE8 is only about 7dB down at 90° at 1kHz). You’ll certainly get an image, but it won’t be a good M/S one as there will be too much of the mids in the image.

[Hugh Robjohns]

...I would keep it simple and go for ORTF pair.

Me too! No need for close mics, no need for space mics. ORTF and spend some time moving the array closer or farther to get the ideal perspective balance. The Stereo acceptance angle with an ORTF pair is about 90 degrees so, if you want the quartet to not-quote fill the stereo image, that angle will inform you of the starting position for the mic stand. Move it closer or farther to control the balance of direct/reverb, and then you can tweak the angles of the mics slightly if necessary to adjust the stereo width if necessary.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I think you can, point the se8s sideways opposing so the pair of cardioids is equivalent to a figure 8, NT faces front. Gain match the se8s.

Don't forget to flip the polarity of the SE8 facing right...

But yes, you're right, you could create an MS array in that way... but it's quite difficult to mount the mics and involves a lot of iron-mongery (remember all three capsules have to be aligned in the vertical plane).

It's a lot of faff for little real benefit compared to a simple ORTF (NOS, DIN etc), or XY cardioids or Gerzon array...

[Hugh Robjohns]

You need a tight null in the figure 8 for M/S to work properly. A cardioid still has significant pickup at 90° off-access...

It does... but you've forgotten that get's cancelled out by the same Mid pickup of the other co-incidentally mounted cardioid facing the other way and combined with opposite polarity.

Remember a Cardioid mic polar pattern is achieved through the combination of both velocity (Fig-8) and pressure (omni) elements. By combining the outputs of two coincidentally mounted cardioid capsules in opposite polarities the omni elements cancel completely, and the fig-8 elements (which are facing in opposite directions) add to produce a bigger fig-8 facing left.

As a result, there will be a deep null and there won't be any mid pickup... but that does depend on mounting the capsules so they are accurately aligned.

[Arpangel]

It's a lot of faff for little real benefit compared to a simple ORTF (NOS, DIN etc), or XY cardioids or Gerzon array...

Yes, that’s why I never use MS these days, faff, and ironmongery do tend to dull my enthusiasm.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I have 8 channels multitrack interface, the room is large and nice.

Just because you have eight channels doesn't mean you have to use them! Mixing close mics with a main pair is a recipe for phasiness and unwanted colourations.

It is fashionable for people to stick mics everywhere these days just because they can... but it doesn't help and it distracts from what the job is really about. The skill is in using your ears and experience to place the minimum required number of mics in the optimum place(s) to get the right sound on the hard disk at the time.

Don't throw up eight mics and hope you can find some combination that works with a lot of processing in a mix later. Spend some time at the recording session instead, optimising things to get it right there and then. You'll get far better musical results and save a lot of time in post-production.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Yes, that’s why I never use MS these days, faff, and ironmongery do tend to dull my enthusiasm.

I use MS a lot, but either with a Sennhesier MKH 30/40 combination or an SM69fet, neither of which require complex ironmongery and are very quick and easy to rig. My enthusiasm has never been dulled...

[Random Guitarist]

Very fair points, personally I love a good M/s capture so find it worth the faff, other's mileages may vary.

[Hugh Robjohns]

...personally I love a good M/s capture so find it worth the faff...

I'm a big fan of MS in the right situations too, but not with separate cardioid mics to construct a Side mic. It's tricky to mount the mics in such a way that they don't shadow each other while keeping their diaphragms aligned. If you've got a dedicated single-capsule fig-8 mic or a multi-pattern capacitor mic with a fig-8 option, then it's a doddle.

[Wonks]

M/S is two mics at most (using a fig-8) and two stands. X/Y (and some other crossed or close spaced pair techniques) might need one stand but then you also need to carry and use a stereo bar, which is just as much 'faff' in my book as two stands (which is not very much).

[Hugh Robjohns]

M/S is two mics at most...

Er... or three if making a fig-8 from two cardioids....

...X/Y (and some other crossed or close spaced pair techniques) might need one stand but then you also need to carry and use a stereo bar, which is just as much 'faff' in my book as two stands (which is not very much).

Weird book... The faff I was referring to is finding a way to mount two cardioids facing in opposite directions such that they (and their mountings) don't shadow each other while keeping their diaphragms accurately aligned in the vertical plane. A stereo bar would probably be involved there two ...

[Arpangel]

Yes, that’s why I never use MS these days, faff, and ironmongery do tend to dull my enthusiasm.

I use MS a lot, but either with a Sennhesier MKH 30/40 combination or an SM69fet, neither of which require complex ironmongery and are very quick and easy to rig. My enthusiasm has never been dulled...

It’s not the mic that’s a faff, my preamp is getting very flakey to the point where it’s not worth using it anymore, sometimes it works, but I can’t rely on it.
I’m going to make an MS template in Reaper but I haven’t got around to doing it yet.
I can’t see any real major benefits of using MS over an ORTF pair, or a spaced pair for what we are doing here.

[Wonks]

I qualified my statement (as I know someone would pick up on it) and the 'faff' was Arpangel's general M/S faff comment, not the 3x mic issue.

Anyway. Matt Houghton said it must be a fig-8 mic for Mid/Sides in an SOS article, so it must be true.

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques ... -recording

[Random Guitarist]

I can’t see any real major benefits of using MS over an ORTF pair, or a spaced pair for what we are doing here.

Excellent mono compatibility and really good adjustable control of the stereo spread post recording are two significant benefits in my view.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I’m going to make an MS template in Reaper but I haven’t got around to doing it yet.

You don't need a template, just a plugin, like Voxengo's excellent (and free) MSED! You just need a dual-channel interface feeding a stereo channel in Reaper, Mid channel on the left, Sides on the right, drop in MSED, left-right stereo falls out the other end into your mix bus. Eesy peesy.

I can’t see any real major benefits of using MS over an ORTF pair, or a spaced pair for what we are doing here.

They will all give different stereo presentations... moving progressively from precise imaging with little spaciousness to poor imaging and lots of spaciousness.

[James Perrett]

I’m going to make an MS template in Reaper but I haven’t got around to doing it yet.

You don't need a template, just a plugin, like Voxengo's excellent (and free) MSED!

Tony already has the JS Mid-Side Encoder and JS Mid-Side Decoder built into Reaper. Reaper Templates are a very handy way of ensuring that everything is set up as you want it and it takes far less time to open a template than it does to create a track, set it to record from the right source and then add an M-S decoder to the track.