Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

stereo recording pop vocals (?)

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
August 7, 2004 8:03:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

when Pavorotti would sing live, I remember seeing him with two mics
about 3 feet in front of him, shoulder width, chest height pointing up
a bit and toed-in a bit.

Is there a practical application for recording a pop singer, and using
some sort of stereo mic technique (ORTF, mid-side, coincident pair,
etc.)? Or would that be kooky.

Neumann has the SM-69. I'm wondering if something like that where you
can rotate the 2nd capsule would be useful for example.
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 4:30:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 7 Aug 2004 16:03:40 -0700, genericaudioperson@hotmail.com (xy)
wrote:

>when Pavorotti would sing live, I remember seeing him with two mics
>about 3 feet in front of him, shoulder width, chest height pointing up
>a bit and toed-in a bit.
>
>Is there a practical application for recording a pop singer, and using
>some sort of stereo mic technique (ORTF, mid-side, coincident pair,
>etc.)? Or would that be kooky.
>
>Neumann has the SM-69. I'm wondering if something like that where you
>can rotate the 2nd capsule would be useful for example.

I suspect that was a fail-safe setup, not a stereo one.


CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 4:30:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:6fpah0h75lv5r08vu13gkuas2nejejb5d4@4ax.com...
> On 7 Aug 2004 16:03:40 -0700, genericaudioperson@hotmail.com (xy)
> wrote:
>
> >when Pavorotti would sing live, I remember seeing him with two mics
> >about 3 feet in front of him, shoulder width, chest height pointing up
> >a bit and toed-in a bit.

> I suspect that was a fail-safe setup, not a stereo one.

One for broadcast/recording and the other for reinforcement as needed.

DM
Related resources
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 12:32:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

xy <genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote:
>when Pavorotti would sing live, I remember seeing him with two mics
>about 3 feet in front of him, shoulder width, chest height pointing up
>a bit and toed-in a bit.

Yes, because he's singing from way down deep, and a lot of the actual
sound is coming from his chest. So they mike his chest as well as his
mouth.

>Is there a practical application for recording a pop singer, and using
>some sort of stereo mic technique (ORTF, mid-side, coincident pair,
>etc.)? Or would that be kooky.

Stereo miking of singers is interesting, and I think on the second RAP
compilation I have a track that shows both the good and bad side. It
means you can get the sound of a real room on the vocals, but it also
means the vocalist has to stand absolutely still and not move a muscle.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 5:16:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"xy" <genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c38b64b.0408071503.167896c9@posting.google.com...
>
> Is there a practical application for recording a pop singer, and using
> some sort of stereo mic technique (ORTF, mid-side, coincident pair,
> etc.)?

Nope.

> Or would that be kooky.
>

Yep.
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 5:16:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> Is there a practical application for recording a pop singer, and using
>> some sort of stereo mic technique (ORTF, mid-side, coincident pair,
>> etc.)?

> Nope.

>> Or would that be kooky.

> Yep.


Not necessarily. If you're trying to get a better sense of the acoustic in which
the artist is singing, it would make sense. Of course, pop recordings are rarely
"about" such things. And the use of stereo would cause image shift if the singer
didn't stay still.

But it is not, in and of itself, a dumb or kooky idea.
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 5:22:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
news:cf56g1$juh$1@panix2.panix.com:

> Stereo miking of singers is interesting, and I think on the second RAP
> compilation I have a track that shows both the good and bad side. It
> means you can get the sound of a real room on the vocals, but it also
> means the vocalist has to stand absolutely still and not move a muscle.

Use a coincident pattern to minimize this, but, yes, they have to stand
still.
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 5:45:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"xy"
>
> when Pavorotti would sing live, I remember seeing him with two mics
> about 3 feet in front of him, shoulder width, chest height pointing up
> a bit and toed-in a bit.
>

** Those two mics were probably combined to make a mono signal. As
Pavorotti moved about slightly or sang facing different parts of the
audience one or other mic would pick him up better.

Also, using multiple cardioid mics with outputs combined and co- sited
creates a focussed area of high sound pickup directly in front with other
areas deeply rejected - so one gets more gain before feedback for a voice
in the hot spot in a PA system.

Think if those Soviet Premiers addressing large crowds from a high balcony
with six or eight identical mics in a line in front of them them.



........... Phil
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 5:45:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

>> "xy" wrote:
>>
>> when Pavorotti would sing live, I remember seeing him with two mics
>> about 3 feet in front of him, shoulder width, chest height pointing up
>> a bit and toed-in a bit.

> ** Those two mics were probably combined to make a mono signal. As
>Pavorotti moved about slightly or sang facing different parts of the
>audience one or other mic would pick him up better.
>
> Also, using multiple cardioid mics with outputs combined and co- sited
>creates a focussed area of high sound pickup directly in front with other
>areas deeply rejected - so one gets more gain before feedback for a voice
>in the hot spot in a PA system.

OK Phil,

So you have a sense of humor; I'll give you that. That's really funny!!

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 5:45:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <2nllu4F1vl8cU1@uni-berlin.de> philallison@tpg.com.au writes:

> > when Pavorotti would sing live, I remember seeing him with two mics
> > about 3 feet in front of him, shoulder width, chest height pointing up
> > a bit and toed-in a bit.
> >
>
> ** Those two mics were probably combined to make a mono signal. As
> Pavorotti moved about slightly or sang facing different parts of the
> audience one or other mic would pick him up better.

******* Complete lunacy.

> Also, using multiple cardioid mics with outputs combined and co- sited
> creates a focussed area of high sound pickup directly in front with other
> areas deeply rejected - so one gets more gain before feedback for a voice
> in the hot spot in a PA system.

******* Another good theory that doesn't work in practice.

In previous discussions about microphones, Phil has already demonstrated
his reliance on theory and published data (enhanced by marketing deparment
artists) to state how microphones work. He has not demonstrated any
knowledge of how they work IN PRACTICE, where theory doesn't completely
apply. He seems to have no experience with live sound reproduction but
knows a good diaphragm when he sees one.

> Think if those Soviet Premiers addressing large crowds from a high balcony
> with six or eight identical mics in a line in front of them them.

******* Think of all those broadcast services that don't trust mic
splitters and you'll be closer to the truth.

I won't say here that Phil is a complete blithering idiot, but take what he
says about microphone performance with a grain of salt. His statements
suggest that he has never had to actually deal with real world microphones
and real world acoustics.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 5:45:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:35:34 -0500, Harvey Gerst
<harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote:

>OK Phil,
>
>So you have a sense of humor; I'll give you that. That's really funny!!

It's tooooo funny. Seems like " ** Phil "'s been hijacked.
Can anybody confirm?

Chris Hornbeck
"Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men is now
for Congress and ultimately the American people." -Archibald Cox
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 5:45:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>I won't say here that Phil is a complete blithering idiot, but take what he
>says about microphone performance with a grain of salt. His statements
>suggest that he has never had to actually deal with real world microphones
>and real world acoustics.

No idiot is ever complete; it's an ongoing process, as shown here with Phil's
most recent post on this subject.

Interestingly, the only person on this ng who came close to agreeing with Phil
was Scott Dorsey who, by Phil's description, is an "audiophool", and not to be
taken seriously.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 6:55:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 04:45:58 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
<chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:35:34 -0500, Harvey Gerst
><harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote:
>
>>OK Phil,
>>
>>So you have a sense of humor; I'll give you that. That's really funny!!

And from this description:

Phil Allison wrote:
> Think if those Soviet Premiers addressing large crowds from a high balcony
>with six or eight identical mics in a line in front of them them.

...he must have seen that pic on the Mercenary site.

I always thought it was just because Neumann had a good product
placement deal, just like Shure has with the White House for SM-57's.

>It's tooooo funny. Seems like " ** Phil "'s been hijacked.
>Can anybody confirm?

The Path: headers still has uni-berlin.de as the first server, so
whoever's doing the faking is either in his area, or doing some real
cracking as well.

>Chris Hornbeck
>"Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men is now
>for Congress and ultimately the American people." -Archibald Cox

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 7:40:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"William Sommerwerck" <williams@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:10hccqk3s5dliec@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Not necessarily. If you're trying to get a better sense of the acoustic in
which
> the artist is singing, it would make sense. Of course, pop recordings are
rarely
> "about" such things. And the use of stereo would cause image shift if the
singer
> didn't stay still.

Right. It was the "pop" qualifier. Unless you were involving the room
acoustics as an element I can't think of a good reason to do it.
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 7:51:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 13:22:31 GMT, Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
>news:cf56g1$juh$1@panix2.panix.com:
>
>> Stereo miking of singers is interesting, and I think on the second RAP
>> compilation I have a track that shows both the good and bad side. It
>> means you can get the sound of a real room on the vocals, but it also
>> means the vocalist has to stand absolutely still and not move a muscle.
>
>Use a coincident pattern to minimize this, but, yes, they have to stand
>still.

You could mount the microphones on a boom mounted to the singer's
head, then the singer would stay still in the stereo image but the
room tone would change as the singer moves.
-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
August 9, 2004 2:47:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ben Bradley" <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:4q0dh0178949iahfpdoqljtk0bficscl1f@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 13:22:31 GMT, Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
> >news:cf56g1$juh$1@panix2.panix.com:
> >
> >> Stereo miking of singers is interesting, and I think on the second RAP
> >> compilation I have a track that shows both the good and bad side. It
> >> means you can get the sound of a real room on the vocals, but it also
> >> means the vocalist has to stand absolutely still and not move a muscle.
> >
> >Use a coincident pattern to minimize this, but, yes, they have to stand
> >still.
>
> You could mount the microphones on a boom mounted to the singer's
> head, then the singer would stay still in the stereo image but the
> room tone would change as the singer moves.

But would the listener become disoriented?
Anonymous
August 9, 2004 9:01:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Harvey Gerst" <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
news:ahich05ijn07pl1t7u849c3gmpdl0c7vqk@4ax.com...
> mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>
> No idiot is ever complete; it's an ongoing process

LOL

> as shown here with Phil's
> most recent post on this subject.
>
> Interestingly, the only person on this ng who came close to agreeing with
Phil
> was Scott Dorsey who, by Phil's description, is an "audiophool", and not
to be
> taken seriously.

I thought at first I had stumbled into rec.audio.pro.bizarro
Anonymous
August 9, 2004 11:09:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1091963693k@trad
> In article <2nllu4F1vl8cU1@uni-berlin.de> philallison@tpg.com.au
> writes:
>
>>> when Pavorotti would sing live, I remember seeing him with two mics
>>> about 3 feet in front of him, shoulder width, chest height pointing
>>> up a bit and toed-in a bit.
>>>
>>
>> ** Those two mics were probably combined to make a mono signal. As
>> Pavorotti moved about slightly or sang facing different parts of the
>> audience one or other mic would pick him up better.
>
> ******* Complete lunacy.
>
>> Also, using multiple cardioid mics with outputs combined and co-
>> sited creates a focussed area of high sound pickup directly in front
>> with other areas deeply rejected - so one gets more gain before
>> feedback for a voice in the hot spot in a PA system.
>
> ******* Another good theory that doesn't work in practice.
>
> In previous discussions about microphones, Phil has already
> demonstrated his reliance on theory and published data (enhanced by
> marketing deparment artists) to state how microphones work. He has
> not demonstrated any knowledge of how they work IN PRACTICE, where
> theory doesn't completely apply. He seems to have no experience with
> live sound reproduction but knows a good diaphragm when he sees one.
>
>> Think if those Soviet Premiers addressing large crowds from a high
>> balcony with six or eight identical mics in a line in front of them
>> them.
>
> ******* Think of all those broadcast services that don't trust mic
> splitters and you'll be closer to the truth.
>
> I won't say here that Phil is a complete blithering idiot, but take
> what he says about microphone performance with a grain of salt. His
> statements suggest that he has never had to actually deal with real
> world microphones and real world acoustics.

LOL!
Anonymous
August 9, 2004 11:48:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <ahich05ijn07pl1t7u849c3gmpdl0c7vqk@4ax.com> hargerst@airmail.net writes:

> Interestingly, the only person on this ng who came close to agreeing with Phil
> was Scott Dorsey who, by Phil's description, is an "audiophool", and not to be
> taken seriously.

I think there are degrees of audiophoolery. While Scott's answer was
interesting, and perhaps he's even used the technique he described on
a singer, I've never seen Pav with two mics at different heights, but
occasionally two mics at a bit below chin level. I'll bet that both
are recorded but only one goes into the mix, though if he goes too far
off mic toward the other one, they might switch.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 9, 2004 5:18:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers"
Phil Allison

>
> > > when Pavorotti would sing live, I remember seeing him with two mics
> > > about 3 feet in front of him, shoulder width, chest height pointing up
> > > a bit and toed-in a bit.
> > >
> >
> > ** Those two mics were probably combined to make a mono signal. As
> > Pavorotti moved about slightly or sang facing different parts of the
> > audience one or other mic would pick him up better.
>
> ******* Complete lunacy.


** Since the direct opposite of what the Mike River parrot says is normally
true this is a confirmation.


>
> > Also, using multiple cardioid mics with outputs combined and co- sited
> > creates a focussed area of high sound pickup directly in front with
other
> > areas deeply rejected - so one gets more gain before feedback for a
voice
> > in the hot spot in a PA system.
>
> ******* Another good theory that doesn't work in practice.


** See above - the same applies.


>
> In previous discussions about microphones, Phil has already demonstrated
> his reliance on theory and published data (enhanced by marketing deparment
> artists) to state how microphones work. He has not demonstrated any
> knowledge of how they work IN PRACTICE, where theory doesn't completely
> apply. He seems to have no experience with live sound reproduction but
> knows a good diaphragm when he sees one.


** Same again - the Rivers parrot is spewing it today.


> > Think if those Soviet Premiers addressing large crowds from a high
balcony
> > with six or eight identical mics in a line in front of them them.
>
> ******* Think of all those broadcast services that don't trust mic
> splitters and you'll be closer to the truth.



** Never seen a group of broadcasters use IDENTICAL mics - ever.

Rivers is making as utter ass of himself again and again.


>
> I won't say here that Phil is a complete blithering idiot, but take what
he
> says about microphone performance with a grain of salt. His statements
> suggest that he has never had to actually deal with real world microphones
> and real world acoustics.
>


** As usual, the direct opposite is the truth.



............. Phil
Anonymous
August 9, 2004 8:16:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Chris Hornbeck"
>
>
> Well, nice try, whoever you are, but you haven't got the right number
> of periods or the correct spacing around the *real* Phil's asterisks.


** Hey Chris - still have your brain wrapped in a pretzel over what
twisting the wires inside a mic cable does for induced AC hum ????????

Consulted lots of Physics Texts, Maxwells Laws and maybe even delved into
some Quantum mechanics to figure it out ?????? No luck yet ????

Maybe you could try doing what Superman did and fly round the world at the
speed of light until you disappear up your own arse. The loss of a compete
prick like would never be noticed.




............ Phil
Anonymous
August 9, 2004 8:16:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 16:16:46 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

>** Hey Chris - still have your brain wrapped in a pretzel over what
>twisting the wires inside a mic cable does for induced AC hum ????????
>
>Consulted lots of Physics Texts, Maxwells Laws and maybe even delved into
>some Quantum mechanics to figure it out ?????? No luck yet ????
>
> Maybe you could try doing what Superman did and fly round the world at the
>speed of light until you disappear up your own arse. The loss of a compete
>prick like would never be noticed.
>
>
>
>
>........... Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Well, maybe it's really you. The number of carats is pretty
convincing. But if so, the world's a lot less interesting.

Chris Hornbeck
" ** Also, using multiple cardioid mics with outputs combined and co- sited
creates a focussed area of high sound pickup directly in front with other
areas deeply rejected - so one gets more gain before feedback for a voice
in the hot spot in a PA system."
Anonymous
August 9, 2004 8:26:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote:

> You could mount the microphones on a boom mounted to the singer's
> head, then the singer would stay still in the stereo image but the
> room tone would change as the singer moves.

I know you are joking, but I saw Prince a couple of weeks ago, and while
this was in mono...

The show was in the round. During the acoustic set, he had a special stool
he sat on that had the mic stand attached to it. So as he would rotate,
because he was in the round, the mic would move with him. I understand
the practical reasons for doing this---better mic technique than possible
with a headset mic---but it looked so silly that I spend the first song
trying to hold back the laughter.

The most spinal tap moment, though was the end of the concert. It being
in the round, with no access through the floor, the musicians had to exit
by walking across the floor through the audience. His Purpleness, of
course, magically disappeared...or so it seemed...

Because when the musicians walked off the stage, following them, was
a large roadcase being pushed by 3 or 4 roadies!

Personally, I think he should get a Pope-mobile.

BTW, the concert was fantastic.

Rob R.
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 1:49:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger"

> LOL!


** You'll keep.




............. Phil
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 2:00:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers"
Hardly Believable;


> > Interestingly, the only person on this ng who came close to agreeing
with Phil
> > was Scott Dorsey who, by Phil's description, is an "audiophool", and not
to be
> > taken seriously.
>
>
> I think there are degrees of audiophoolery. While Scott's answer was
> interesting, and perhaps he's even used the technique he described on
> a singer, I've never seen Pav with two mics at different heights, but
> occasionally two mics at a bit below chin level. I'll bet that both
> are recorded but only one goes into the mix, though if he goes too far
> off mic toward the other one, they might switch.
>



** A few hours ago that last idea was described by the Rivers Parrot as:

" ******* Complete lunacy "


Anyone for hypocrisy ??????????????????




.............. Phil
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 2:00:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <2np7a3F360j5U1@uni-berlin.de> philallison@tpg.com.au writes:

> ** A few hours ago that last idea was described by the Rivers Parrot as:
> " ******* Complete lunacy "

Please quote yourself as indicating that your proposal was to use two
microphones to get different tonality. Your twisted and incomplete
posting led me to believe that you were describing a stereo setup (the
topic of this message thread, let me remind you).

I frequently put two mics on a guitar or a drum to get different tones
radiating from different places, and combine them to get a pleasing
sound. But this is not stereo. Nor is it to cover a wider area than a
single mic can cover. For that I use a mic with a wider pattern.

'splain me, Lucy, just what the heck you're talking about. As usual, I
suspect you've changed the subject so we'll continue to have something
to argue about. No argument there.





--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 11, 2004 2:20:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I guess Bruce Swedien would be the person to reference on that because he
mostly uses stereo miking, EXCEPT on vocals. At least with the work I'm
familiar with of his.

I find no reason to stereo mic a vocalist, but I have no problems doubling a
vocal track. If I were to use multiple mics, it would be due to the
characteristics of each mic that may compliment the others while being mixed
to mono. In fact, on one of my songs, JoVee and I set up the 4050, the
Neumann 105 and a C535 just to compare them and I ended up using all three
mics mixed to mono. It's kind of strange thing to me, but I can no longer
sing, so anything that helps helps.

--
-----------

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio


"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:Q3yRc.7140$Se2.2890@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> "Ben Bradley" <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4q0dh0178949iahfpdoqljtk0bficscl1f@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 13:22:31 GMT, Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
> > >news:cf56g1$juh$1@panix2.panix.com:
> > >
> > >> Stereo miking of singers is interesting, and I think on the second
RAP
> > >> compilation I have a track that shows both the good and bad side. It
> > >> means you can get the sound of a real room on the vocals, but it also
> > >> means the vocalist has to stand absolutely still and not move a
muscle.
> > >
> > >Use a coincident pattern to minimize this, but, yes, they have to stand
> > >still.
> >
> > You could mount the microphones on a boom mounted to the singer's
> > head, then the singer would stay still in the stereo image but the
> > room tone would change as the singer moves.
>
> But would the listener become disoriented?
>
>
!