MXL 603s as choir mics?

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news7CdnSIgXYWBIyjcRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> Ever wonder what a pair of MXL 603s sound like on a choir?
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/heard_about.mp3
>
> Technical comments only.

What was the mic positioning and the room like, etc? Also what preamp?
There is something I don't like about this recording that I can't quite
pinpoint. It's like it was recorded with a couple of low end dynamics, not
.. . .low end condensers. Sounds muddier and not as bright/clear as I would
of expected for MXL 603s mics.

John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com

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

"John L Rice" <Drummer@ImJohn.com> wrote in message
news:10rbh02ioa946ff@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news7CdnSIgXYWBIyjcRVn-jw@comcast.com...
>> Ever wonder what a pair of MXL 603s sound like on a choir?
>>
>> http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/heard_about.mp3
>>
>> Technical comments only.
>
> What was the mic positioning and the room like, etc? Also what preamp?
> There is something I don't like about this recording that I can't quite
> pinpoint. It's like it was recorded with a couple of low end dynamics,
> not
> . . .low end condensers. Sounds muddier and not as bright/clear as I would
> of expected for MXL 603s mics.
>
> John L Rice
> Drummer@ImJohn.com
>
>

Just my personal opinion. I've heard good reports about these mics for their
cost but listening to the mp3 it appears these mics are not at home with
choirs. I agree with John I feel it just doesn't have the finesse of a good
condenser. I heard a wide but instinct soundstage though how much of that
was due to the mics though? I'd also be interested to see answers to Johns
questions.

Mike

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:j6qdnUxC8rapVyjcRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> "John L Rice" <Drummer@ImJohn.com> wrote in message
> news:10rbh02ioa946ff@corp.supernews.com
> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news7CdnSIgXYWBIyjcRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> >> Ever wonder what a pair of MXL 603s sound like on a choir?
> >>
> >> http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/heard_about.mp3
> >>
> >> Technical comments only.
> >
> > What was the mic positioning and the room like, etc?
>
> Mics were widely-spaced. The recording location was the balcony of a
> neo-traditional church that seats up to 450.
>
> >Also what preamp?
>
> Preamps of a Mackie SR32.
>
> >There is something I don't like about this recording that I can't quite
> >pinpoint.
>
> OK, we're on the same page here.
>
> > It's like it was recorded with a couple of low end dynamics, not . .
..low
> > end condensers.
>
> Can you translate into more details about the sonic character?
>
> > Sounds muddier and not as bright/clear as I would of expected for MXL
> > 603s mics.
>
> Interesting.
>
> Please compare that file to this file:
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/heard_about0.mp3
>
> note the trailing zero on the file name.
>
> I am uploading it as I type. Should be online in a few minutes.

Something sounds grainy to me. It sticks out in the first few seconds of the
first sample, but it feels to me like it continues right through the sample.
Maybe it's just MP3 compression artifacts but it almost sounds like it went
through a 12 bit converter. The second sample sounds like the first with
some EQ and a different reverb field, I'd guess from a pair of mics
positioned a little closer along the balcony?

Sean

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

"Mike Gilmour" <mike@tfjazz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3NednTEne_D8UyjcRVn-tw@nildram.net
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:j6qdnUxC8rapVyjcRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>> "John L Rice" <Drummer@ImJohn.com> wrote in message
>> news:10rbh02ioa946ff@corp.supernews.com
>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> news7CdnSIgXYWBIyjcRVn-jw@comcast.com...
>>>> Ever wonder what a pair of MXL 603s sound like on a choir?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/heard_about.mp3
>>>>
>>>> Technical comments only.
>>>
>>> What was the mic positioning and the room like, etc?
>>
>> Mics were widely-spaced. The recording location was the balcony of a
>> neo-traditional church that seats up to 450.
>>
>>> Also what preamp?
>>
>> Preamps of a Mackie SR32.
>>
>>> There is something I don't like about this recording that I can't
>>> quite pinpoint.
>>
>> OK, we're on the same page here.
>>
>>> It's like it was recorded with a couple of low end dynamics, not .
>>> . .low end condensers.
>>
>> Can you translate into more details about the sonic character?
>>
>>> Sounds muddier and not as bright/clear as I would of expected for
>>> MXL 603s mics.
>>
>> Interesting.
>>
>> Please compare that file to this file:
>>
>> http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/heard_about0.mp3
>>
>> note the trailing zero on the file name.
>>
>> I am uploading it as I type. Should be online in a few minutes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Preferred that to your earlier mp3. More definition for individual
> voices but the recording has same signature that still doesn't have
> the feel of a condenser pair.

> What changed?

Mastering. The zero version is unmastered, just mixed.

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

"Ben Hell" <ben@dev.null.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote in
message news:31mjsrF3detjiU1@news.dfncis.de...
: Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
: > Ever wonder what a pair of MXL 603s sound like on a
choir?
: >
: > http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/heard_about.mp3
: >
: > Technical comments only.

NO BASS below 250 HZ. Perhaps the lack of proximity to
the source causes this or perhaps there is no bass in
the source, but I would pick the previous. . If you
used OMNI mics instead of the pseudo-cardioid 603 I bet
there would be much more full range sound and a better
image to boot.

Phil Abbate

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:VLCdndvbAa4bsyvcRVn-hg@comcast.com...
: "GoobAudio" <philsaudio-remove this and the
dashes-@mindspring.com>
: wrote in message
:
newszptd.9789$714.2149@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
: > "Ben Hell" <ben@dev.null.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote in
: > message news:31mjsrF3detjiU1@news.dfncis.de...
: >> Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
: >>> Ever wonder what a pair of MXL 603s sound like on
a choir?
: >>>
: >>> http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/heard_about.mp3
: >>>
: >>> Technical comments only.
: >
: > NO BASS below 250 HZ. Perhaps the lack of
proximity to
: > the source causes this or perhaps there is no bass
in
: > the source, but I would pick the previous. . If you
: > used OMNI mics instead of the pseudo-cardioid 603 I
bet
: > there would be much more full range sound and a
better
: > image to boot.
:
: Actually, we set the gig up with omnis, and backed
off to broad cardioids,
: because of the feedback (SR) issues.


So these are not RECORDING mics they are SR mics in
your setup. No wonder you cant get it to sound right!
How about hooking up the omni's ONLY into the recorder
and using the 603s's for the PA.

I recall earlier the mics were on the balcony. Is this
because the choir is on the balcony? What the hell you
set up in there Arny? It is not like you to be so brief
in your presentation.

Phil

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

: Furthermore, at the point the recording interface is
attached, the mics
: aren't SR mics or recording mics. They are just mics
attached to some mic
: premps that happen to be inside a console that is
primarily used for SR. The
: record chain bypasses the enitre channel strips,
except for the mic preamps.
: Ditto for the mixing buses.

Arny:

Either the mics are in the SR loop or not. If you are
having feedback they are in the SR/PA loop for sure. If
you get SR feedback it will be fed into the recorder
and of course you know that other than a full on squeal
the little ringing and hallow sound that something on
the verge of feedback adds to a recording sounds like
s*it.

I am still unsure what you have hooked up, but IMHO
unless your recorder is completely signal isolated from
everything else your source (the choir) is not the only
source feeding the mics with the choir's sound and I
would recon that the SR speakers sound being picked up
by the mics are providing the weirdness you are
hearing.

Phil

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

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Furthermore, at the point the recording interface is attached, the mics
> aren't SR mics or recording mics. They are just mics attached to some mic
> premps that happen to be inside a console that is primarily used for SR. The
> record chain bypasses the enitre channel strips, except for the mic preamps.
> Ditto for the mixing buses.

How did the feedback get into play if the mics used didn't feed the
sound reinforcement system?

--
ha

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

> >> Ever wonder what a pair of MXL 603s sound like on a choir?
> >>
> >> http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/heard_about.mp3
> >>
> >> Technical comments only.
> >
> > What was the mic positioning and the room like, etc?
>
> Mics were widely-spaced. The recording location was the balcony of a
> neo-traditional church that seats up to 450.
>
> >Also what preamp?
>
> Preamps of a Mackie SR32.
>
> >There is something I don't like about this recording that I can't quite
> >pinpoint.
>
> OK, we're on the same page here.
>
> > It's like it was recorded with a couple of low end dynamics, not . .
..low
> > end condensers.
>
> Can you translate into more details about the sonic character?

Probably not, but I'll try. ;-)

The recording sounds like the top end and bottom end is rolled off.
No sparkle or resonant depth. It also sounds a little like it was recorded
with a limiter on, even though a choir of this type isn't going to be
tremndously dynamic, it just doesn't sound dynamic enough to me.
I get a subtle feeling of frustration/disappontment when they cresendo into
the louder passages because it sounds/feels 'held back'.
Sounds like it could of been recorded with a pair of SM57s with socks over
them. ( no offence intended! ;-)

As far as I can tell that room has WAY too long of a reverb time ( unless
this recording has reverb added etc ) Sounds like it's at least 3 to 4
seconds ( easiest to tell after the final note of the peice ). I would try
moving the mics closer to the choir and favor the tenors/basses a little
more.

>
> > Sounds muddier and not as bright/clear as I would of expected for MXL
> > 603s mics.
>
> Interesting.
>
> Please compare that file to this file:
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/heard_about0.mp3
>
> note the trailing zero on the file name.
>
> I am uploading it as I type. Should be online in a few minutes.
>

This one is a lot more listenable to me. A little crisper and not as
'muted' sounding. Still sounds like I'd want to put the mics closer to the
choir. Maybe do one mic at the current position for room sound and then a
pair of mics as close as you can get them for the main sound.

Best of luck!

John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com

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

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "hank alrich" wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:

> >> Furthermore, at the point the recording interface is attached, the
> >> mics aren't SR mics or recording mics. They are just mics attached
> >> to some mic premps that happen to be inside a console that is
> >> primarily used for SR. The record chain bypasses the enitre channel
> >> strips, except for the mic preamps. Ditto for the mixing buses.

> > How did the feedback get into play if the mics used didn't feed the
> > sound reinforcement system?

> The choir mics do feed the SR system. But they are largely out of the direct
> field.

This is a problem both for the recording and for the SR. Do those jobs
separately. When you put distant mics into an SR system you are begging
for trouble. When you then use those mics to record the result of adding
those mics to the overall live sound, you are bound to record
bandlimited mush with trashed transients.

--
ha

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

"hank alrich
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> >> Furthermore, at the point the recording interface is attached, the
>> >> mics aren't SR mics or recording mics. They are just mics attached
>> >> to some mic premps that happen to be inside a console that is
>> >> primarily used for SR. The record chain bypasses the enitre channel
>> >> strips, except for the mic preamps. Ditto for the mixing buses.
>
>> > How did the feedback get into play if the mics used didn't feed the
>> > sound reinforcement system?
>
>> The choir mics do feed the SR system. But they are largely out of the
>> direct
>> field.
>
> This is a problem both for the recording and for the SR. Do those jobs
> separately. When you put distant mics into an SR system you are begging
> for trouble. When you then use those mics to record the result of adding
> those mics to the overall live sound, you are bound to record
> bandlimited mush with trashed transients.
>


** The signal output from a microphone depends only on the actual sound
pressure variations that are happening in the air where it is located. It
makes no difference that the same mic may be connected to a PA or SR system.

If in doubt - read the first sentence again.





................. Phil

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

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gofxpt.1h8qlxc7w79v8N%walkinay@thegrid.net
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "hank alrich" wrote:
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>>> Furthermore, at the point the recording interface is attached, the
>>>> mics aren't SR mics or recording mics. They are just mics attached
>>>> to some mic premps that happen to be inside a console that is
>>>> primarily used for SR. The record chain bypasses the enitre channel
>>>> strips, except for the mic preamps. Ditto for the mixing buses.
>
>>> How did the feedback get into play if the mics used didn't feed the
>>> sound reinforcement system?
>
>> The choir mics do feed the SR system. But they are largely out of
>> the direct field.
>
> This is a problem both for the recording and for the SR. Do those jobs
> separately. When you put distant mics into an SR system you are
> begging for trouble. When you then use those mics to record the
> result of adding those mics to the overall live sound, you are bound
> to record bandlimited mush with trashed transients.

Let's put it this way - I often to a better job of getting away with
breaking most if not all of these not unreasonable rules. We were ultimately
able to get quite a bit of acoustic gain without feedback, mostly because
the SR system speakers were so far away.

Another listener properly identified the fact that the room is highly
reverberant, and that's just the room, not the effects of SR system. If
anything, the SR system slightly evened out the reverb decay of the room,
which has a big slap about 150-200 milliseconds out.

What I hear that is the worst thing wrong with this recording seems to track
the singers very closely - within less than 20 milliseconds of the origin
sound.

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1102506790k@trad
> In article <31nrhfF3bb5igU1@individual.net> philallison@tpg.com.au
> writes:
>
>> ** The signal output from a microphone depends only on the actual
>> sound pressure variations that are happening in the air where it is
>> located. It makes no difference that the same mic may be connected
>> to a PA or SR system.
>
> Electrically, you're correct as usual. However in practice it makes a
> difference.

Or at least, it can make a difference.

>For sound reinforcement, you want to minimize the amount
> of room ambience that gets into the mic (or more accurately for your
> benefit, what comes out of the mic) because you don't want to amplify
> the room for the live listeners.

In the case of the room in question - I wish! I can't believe how much room
comes through mics that have lipstick stains on their foamies.

> However, for recording (and
> presumably later playback in an environment other than the space in
> which the recording was made), you want to record that ambience for
> later reproduction to the listener.

The obvious dodge - pick that up with a separate set of mics.

> Different applications mean different mike placement and choice.

Well, its true that for recording voice in a dead studio, you can have
people sing with the mics feet away, not inches.

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

"Arny Krueger"
> "Phil Allison
>
>> The signal output from a microphone depends only on the actual sound
>> pressure variations that are happening in the air where it is
>> located. It makes no difference that the same mic may be connected
>> to a PA or SR system.
>
> Agreed, but we have to give the Devil his due.
>
> The SR system is pumping buckets of audio into the room, and if our mics
> are sensitive to the larger sound field in the room, the SR system ends up
> in the recording. Not always a debilitating problem, but a real
> consideration.
>


** My post was in a context Arny - why did you shift it out ??

Was it so you could pretend it was wrong ??






............. Phil

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

"Arny Krueger"
> "Phil Allison"

>>>> The signal output from a microphone depends only on the actual sound
>>>> pressure variations that are happening in the air where it is
>>>> located. It makes no difference that the same mic may be connected
>>>> to a PA or SR system.
>>>
>>> Agreed, but we have to give the Devil his due.
>>>
>>> The SR system is pumping buckets of audio into the room, and if our
>>> mics are sensitive to the larger sound field in the room, the SR
>>> system ends up in the recording. Not always a debilitating problem,
>>> but a real consideration.
>>>
>>
>>
>> ** My post was in a context Arny - why did you shift it out ??
>>
>> Was it so you could pretend it was wrong ??
>
>
> Phil, what's unclear about the word agreed?



** The complete contradiction of actual agreement that you posted as a
follow up - you prick.

Read the context - then my comment.

Keep doing this until you see it pure fact and that HA was wrong.





............. Phil

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

x-no archive: yes

rick hollett wrote:

> Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?

He did; he does that every morning.

--
ha

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

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:26:24 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <VLCdndvbAa4bsyvcRVn-hg@comcast.com> ):

> "GoobAudio" <philsaudio-remove this and the dashes-@mindspring.com>
> wrote in message
> newszptd.9789$714.2149@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
>> "Ben Hell" <ben@dev.null.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote in
>> message news:31mjsrF3detjiU1@news.dfncis.de...
>>> Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>>> Ever wonder what a pair of MXL 603s sound like on a choir?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/heard_about.mp3
>>>>
>>>> Technical comments only.
>>
>> NO BASS below 250 HZ. Perhaps the lack of proximity to
>> the source causes this or perhaps there is no bass in
>> the source, but I would pick the previous. . If you
>> used OMNI mics instead of the pseudo-cardioid 603 I bet
>> there would be much more full range sound and a better
>> image to boot.
>
> Actually, we set the gig up with omnis, and backed off to broad cardioids,
> because of the feedback (SR) issues.
>
>

THERE WAS A PA!! You didn't mention that!


Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

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

Ty Ford wrote:

> You can hear how
> long the reverb trails are at the end of the tune; fairly long RT60.

And that is fed back into the SR system fom the mics...

"Listen pal, this here RT60 ain't nearly long enough, so here's what I'm
a'gonna do..."

--
ha

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

"rick hollett" <rhollett@nl.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:cp796l$r33$1@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net

>Ambience from a SR pickup
> will wash out the recorded sound, whereas separate mics for the
> recording will not. No one is saying you're wrong, just a little
> arseholish


The SR pickup is the same as the pickup by a similar mic in a similar
location in the room. IOW, put a SR mic right next to a recording mic in the
same room, and they pick up the same sound field. Exactly identical mics,
exactly idential location, and there will be an exactly identical output
from the mic.

So, if you are claiming that a recording mic will pick up something
different from a SR mic is just plain wrong. They will pick up the same
thing if in they are in the same location and if they are identical mics.
Different locations and/or different mics would be a matter of failing to
compare apples to apples.

If you want to pick up something different in a room, you need a different
mic and/or a different location. Doesn't matter what the mics are attached
to.

Now there's another issue, and that is whether having a SR system going in
the same room as you are recording in, will affect the recording. That
entirely depends on the room and the where the mic is with respect to the
sound source and the speaker(s) for the SR system. It will happen to some
degree ranging from vanishing to profound.

An ideal mic in a SR system will be out of the sound field of the SR system.
Or, the mic will so much closer to the sound source that the direct sound
from the sound source will overwhelm the sound from the SR system. This
then leaves you with a recording that is very dry. The circumvention for the
dryness problem is to record some ambient sound from the room to selectively
mix back in to make the recording.

Well, that is how things work when they go well. You don't get the best
recording in the world, but the results are fairly palatable. This time, in
my opinion, the palatability was a lot less than I expected and I'm trying
to figure out why.

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

"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EJOdnV3GfvW0pircRVn-2A@comcast.com
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:26:24 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <VLCdndvbAa4bsyvcRVn-hg@comcast.com> ):
>
>> "GoobAudio" <philsaudio-remove this and the dashes-@mindspring.com>
>> wrote in message
>> newszptd.9789$714.2149@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
>>> "Ben Hell" <ben@dev.null.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote in
>>> message news:31mjsrF3detjiU1@news.dfncis.de...
>>>> Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ever wonder what a pair of MXL 603s sound like on a choir?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/heard_about.mp3
>>>>>
>>>>> Technical comments only.
>>>
>>> NO BASS below 250 HZ. Perhaps the lack of proximity to
>>> the source causes this or perhaps there is no bass in
>>> the source, but I would pick the previous. . If you
>>> used OMNI mics instead of the pseudo-cardioid 603 I bet
>>> there would be much more full range sound and a better
>>> image to boot.
>>
>> Actually, we set the gig up with omnis, and backed off to broad
>> cardioids, because of the feedback (SR) issues.
>>
>>
>
> THERE WAS A PA!! You didn't mention that!

I mentioned as little as possible to get a better idea about what people
heard.

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

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gogzmb.3ekbpm1jdyiyoN%walkinay@thegrid.net
> Ty Ford wrote:
>
>> You can hear how
>> long the reverb trails are at the end of the tune; fairly long RT60.

I can hear it all through the song! ;-)

> And that is fed back into the SR system fom the mics...

> "Listen pal, this here RT60 ain't nearly long enough, so here's what
> I'm a'gonna do..."

In this case the results of the feedback was arguably more euphonic than
usual. The ca.80 mSec delay from the SR speakers at the other end of the
room gave a more even-sounding reverb tail than the room's usual 150-200
msec action.

Looking at the reverb tail that starts with the end last note sung around
2:55.245, there are a lot of peaks following it that are 72-82 mSec apart.
IMO that was a good result. That longer delay ca. 200 mSec echo is more
distracting. I can't help wonder if the shorter echo made it easier for the
choir to sing, because they are in exceptionally good form for them.

The bad result I hear is a nasty sibilant hot sort of sound that is pretty
tight with the singing.

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

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:cp7tg602f13@enews4.newsguy.com

> It makes a considerable difference whether it is
> open loop or in a SR feedback loop.

Not if the two mics are in the same sound field.

> Arny, it wasn't clear to me whether yours was in the loop or passive.

All that matters is whether or not there was an acoustical loop of sorts in
the room. If the loop is present and the mic picks up the sound field in the
room, and there is a loop that is apparent in the sound field, then the
output of the mic will be affected by the loop. Doesn't matter what the mic
is attached to.

Looking at the recording, and listening to it, there is evidence of an
acoustical loop of sorts, but it was damped. The distance from the mics to
the speaker cluster is about 75 feet (I've said 80 feet before but that is
really the distance to something that is about 5 feet behind and below the
speaker cluster). So this acoustical loop has a periodicity of about 70
mSec.

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

Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

> Actually, we set the gig up with omnis, and backed off to broad cardioids,
> because of the feedback (SR) issues.

why do you need SR on a choir in an ordinary church (450 seats)?

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
> news:cp7tg602f13@enews4.newsguy.com
>
>
>> It makes a considerable difference whether it is
>>open loop or in a SR feedback loop.
>
>
> Not if the two mics are in the same sound field.

What two mics? The question is simply whether the recording
mic is in the SR loop. Does what the recording mic picks up
end up going back out the speakers? If so the feedback
enters the transfer function of the recording, if not it
doesn't.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

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

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:51:50 -0800, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

>
>
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
>> news:cp7tg602f13@enews4.newsguy.com
>>
>>
>>> It makes a considerable difference whether it is
>>>open loop or in a SR feedback loop.
>>
>>
>> Not if the two mics are in the same sound field.
>
>What two mics? The question is simply whether the recording
>mic is in the SR loop. Does what the recording mic picks up
>end up going back out the speakers? If so the feedback
>enters the transfer function of the recording, if not it
>doesn't.
>
>
>Bob

This is not right Bob. Think about this:

You have a choir in a room, plus a microphone and a PA. THere will be
a loop formed by the mic and PA which will modify the overall acoustic
of the room in some way.

Now you place a second, identical microphone next to the first. The
question is - do you get the same signal out of each microphone? Of
course you do - they are identical mics, in the same place. It doesn't
matter where the signal goes afterwards, the mics are the same, so the
signals are the same.

So it doesn't matter if the microphone you use for recording is the
same as the one you use for the PA - the transfer function is simply
the hall, with whatever feedback mechanisms are working, plus the
microphone.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com