Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

suggestions about recording a big church organ

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
January 3, 2005 1:39:21 PM

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

I'm going to record a big church organ.
Here's a picture of the instrument: http://makeashorterlink.com/?R24D3552A

Since it won't be very easy to move or change microphones due to the height
of the instrument, I'd like some advices about the best recording tecnique
to use.

These are the microphones I have:

2 Schoeps MK2S
2 Schoeps MK21
2 Neumann KM 184
2 AKG 414 B-ULS

I'm also going to build a Jecklin disk for some experiments, and I'm
wondering if could be a good idea to use it for this recording.
Note that:
- the church is large and very reverberant but I don't worry about reverb,
- I'd like to preserve (perhaps also highten) the stereophonic play of the
pipes
- the biggest pipe is a 32 foot pipe that reaches the frequency of 88 Hz.

Thanks for the help and sorry for my english!

Diego
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 5:30:06 PM

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

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 10:39:21 GMT, "Diego" <s i n g w o l f @ t i n . i
t> wrote:

>I'm going to record a big church organ.
>Here's a picture of the instrument: http://makeashorterlink.com/?R24D3552A
>
>Since it won't be very easy to move or change microphones due to the height
>of the instrument, I'd like some advices about the best recording tecnique
>to use.
>
>These are the microphones I have:
>
>2 Schoeps MK2S
>2 Schoeps MK21
>2 Neumann KM 184
>2 AKG 414 B-ULS
>
>I'm also going to build a Jecklin disk for some experiments, and I'm
>wondering if could be a good idea to use it for this recording.
>Note that:
>- the church is large and very reverberant but I don't worry about reverb,
>- I'd like to preserve (perhaps also highten) the stereophonic play of the
>pipes
>- the biggest pipe is a 32 foot pipe that reaches the frequency of 88 Hz.
>
>Thanks for the help and sorry for my english!
>
>Diego
>
-- The others willl ceratinly give you more prescise advices on this,
but I'd setup the main microphone pair on such a rigging so it would
make a perfect triangle to both of the sides of the organ (ie. the
complete pipe rank) at a such height which would allow to the
membranes to "look" at pipe mouths exactly at 90 degrees ie. at a
perfect parallel. And I would care about reverberation. If the
reverberation would be too excessive, it might break up the whole
performance, even forming new, non-existent tones! A good direct to
reflected sound ratio would be mandatory for each of microphones used
(the "reverberation circle").

This is of course only a idea, feel free to correct/amend the above.

Season's greetigns to all,

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 6:31:41 PM

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

try the 414's in omni as spaced pairs.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 6:33:57 PM

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

>Subject: Re: suggestions about recording a big church organ
>From: Edi Zubovic edi.zubovic[remthis].@ri.htnet.hr
>Date: 1/3/05 6:30 AM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <57hit09dvprb1npduodbm7qlkjbr6tkgdn@4ax.com>
>
>On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 10:39:21 GMT, "Diego" <s i n g w o l f @ t i n . i
>t> wrote:
>
>>I'm going to record a big church organ.
>>Here's a picture of the instrument: http://makeashorterlink.com/?R24D3552A
>>
>>Since it won't be very easy to move or change microphones due to the height
>>of the instrument, I'd like some advices about the best recording tecnique
>>to use.
>>
>>These are the microphones I have:
>>
>>2 Schoeps MK2S
>>2 Schoeps MK21
>>2 Neumann KM 184
>>2 AKG 414 B-ULS
>>
>>I'm also going to build a Jecklin disk for some experiments, and I'm
>>wondering if could be a good idea to use it for this recording.
>>Note that:
>>- the church is large and very reverberant but I don't worry about reverb,
>>- I'd like to preserve (perhaps also highten) the stereophonic play of the
>>pipes
>>- the biggest pipe is a 32 foot pipe that reaches the frequency of 88 Hz.
>>
>>Thanks for the help and sorry for my english!
>>
>>Diego
>>
>-- The others willl ceratinly give you more prescise advices on this,
>but I'd setup the main microphone pair on such a rigging so it would
>make a perfect triangle to both of the sides of the organ (ie. the
>complete pipe rank) at a such height which would allow to the
>membranes to "look" at pipe mouths exactly at 90 degrees ie. at a
>perfect parallel. And I would care about reverberation. If the
>reverberation would be too excessive, it might break up the whole
>performance, even forming new, non-existent tones! A good direct to
>reflected sound ratio would be mandatory for each of microphones used
>(the "reverberation circle").
>
>This is of course only a idea, feel free to correct/amend the above.
>
>Season's greetigns to all,
>
>Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
>
>

Schoeps MK2s on a Jecklin disc.

Find the right point for the organ/ room balance, hit record.

If you want a little more of the room set the 414's in figure 8 and set them
back but within 20 feet of the array with the null pointing toward the organ.
Balance to suit.

Another method. set up the 414's as an MS pair,(unfortunately, the 414 doesn't
have a sub cardioid setting) use the Mk21's as outriggers within 5 feet of the
MS array and set the 2s's as distant room pickup, but they will have to be
within 20 feet of the main array.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:07:11 PM

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

I'm not sure if either of the Schoeps you mentioned do omni patterns,
but those are likely your highest-grade mics in the list you mentioned,
so the other people's ideas of using them make a lot of sense.

but it seems like spaced omni makes the most sense from a mic
placement/pickup idea.

as far as exaggerating the stereo spread of the pipes, that would mean
getting the mics up close to the pipes in some way. is that practical
under the conditions you have available?

why would you want to exaggerate the stereo field of the pipes? to me,
a pipe organ benefits from having a mysterious, non-localized sound.
not to get overly religious... but to have the effect of the Lord's
spirit brooding and hovering around in the church.

Having the pipes go from left to right as the pitch ascends would give
the effect of the keyboard salesman with a digital piano going "listen
how the sound moves when you go up the piano....wow!.... do you wish to
apply for store financing?"

besides, i'm not sure how the pipes are configured in the machine room,
but i'm not sure if they would be arranged in a convenient stereo field
anyway... it could be the main pipes are, but then there are often
secondary pipes that provide psuedo-wind instrument and brass
instrument sounds...how are the pipes arranged in the machine room?
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 8:28:41 PM

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

"Diego" <s i n g w o l f @ t i n . i t> wrote in
news:th9Cd.619683$35.25680731@news4.tin.it:

> - the biggest pipe is a 32 foot pipe that reaches the frequency of 88
> Hz.

That 32' pipe reaches 34 Hz, but all of your listed mics are still adequate
to record it.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 8:28:42 PM

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

"Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D37EF1BA84Bgulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191...
> "Diego" <s i n g w o l f @ t i n . i t> wrote in
> news:th9Cd.619683$35.25680731@news4.tin.it:
>
>> - the biggest pipe is a 32 foot pipe that reaches the frequency of 88
>> Hz.
>
> That 32' pipe reaches 34 Hz, but all of your listed mics are still
> adequate
> to record it.

Carey
32' tone is 16 Hz ,16' tone is 32Hz and 64' pipes yield 8Hz and you are
right about all those listed mics would do ok. I would opt for the Schoeps
MK2s or 2h in a Jecklin disk.
just my 2 cents

GA
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 9:30:13 PM

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

"Diego" <s i n g w o l f @ t i n . i t> wrote:

> I'm going to record a big church organ.
> Here's a picture of the instrument: http://makeashorterlink.com/?R24D3552A

Looking for other pictures of the room I found a plan of the church.
Halfway down this page is another picture of the room. Where is the
organ? http://digilander.libero.it/gregduomocremona/Cattedrale...

> - the biggest pipe is a 32 foot pipe that reaches the frequency of 88 Hz.

I thought 32' took you to a very low C at 16Hz?

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 10:04:26 PM

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

Carey Carlan wrote:
> "Geoley" <geoley@covad.net> wrote in
> news:3e6ac$41d9b3c1$436596f9$3463@msgid.meganewsservers.com:
>
> >> That 32' pipe reaches 34 Hz, but all of your listed mics are still

> >> adequate
> >> to record it.
> >
> > Carey
> > 32' tone is 16 Hz ,16' tone is 32Hz and 64' pipes yield 8Hz and you
> > are right about all those listed mics would do ok. I would opt for
the
> > Schoeps MK2s or 2h in a Jecklin disk.
> > just my 2 cents
>
> Sound travels at about 1100 fps.
> 1100/32 = 34.375

http://mmd.foxtail.com/Tech/soundspeed2.html

"The length of this tube is in principle either a half wavelength (open
flue pipes) or a quarter wavelength (stoppered flue pipes, reed pipes).
Further refinements apply to this rule. One is the 'end correction',
the physical length of the tube has to be made somewhat shorter because
the air immediately outside its open end(s) takes part in the resonant
motion. Another is when the tube flares some way, giving modified
ratios between wavelength and resonator length."
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 10:37:25 PM

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

Remember that the room (space) is *part of the instrument*.
The organ was "voiced" for that space and most experienced
performers will adjust their playing to suit the space as well.

Use as much time as possible to experiment with mic positions
to get the desired ratio of direct to reflected (reverb) sound.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 3:30:22 AM

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

"Geoley" <geoley@covad.net> wrote in
news:3e6ac$41d9b3c1$436596f9$3463@msgid.meganewsservers.com:

>> That 32' pipe reaches 34 Hz, but all of your listed mics are still
>> adequate
>> to record it.
>
> Carey
> 32' tone is 16 Hz ,16' tone is 32Hz and 64' pipes yield 8Hz and you
> are right about all those listed mics would do ok. I would opt for the
> Schoeps MK2s or 2h in a Jecklin disk.
> just my 2 cents

Sound travels at about 1100 fps.
1100/32 = 34.375

And the Jecklin would be my first choice as well.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 4:01:11 AM

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

Carey Carlan wrote:

> "Geoley" <geoley@covad.net> wrote in
> news:3e6ac$41d9b3c1$436596f9$3463@msgid.meganewsservers.com:

>>>That 32' pipe reaches 34 Hz

>>32' tone is 16 Hz ,16' tone is 32Hz and 64' pipes yield 8Hz

> Sound travels at about 1100 fps.
> 1100/32 = 34.375

I don't think the calculation is that simple. It varies based on
whether the pipe is open or closed. If it's open, doesn't that
effectively double the length? Then you have 1100 / (32 * 2)
equals 17.1875.

- Logan
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 4:15:09 AM

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

Carey Carlan wrote:

>
> Sound travels at about 1100 fps.
> 1100/32 = 34.375

After having spent many hours/days in the
presence of pipe organs and organists, and
after having helped build and tune several of
them, and after having studied Stevens
Irwin's "Dictionary of Pipe Organ Stops" many
years ago, I guess I need a lesson.

'Splain, please. I understand that
1100/32=34.375, but how is that related to
the pitch of a 32' pipe that sounds its
fundamental at 16hZ? (CCCC is @16.3 and CCC
is @32.7hZ)

In my seat with notebook in hand.



TM
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 6:25:08 AM

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

Your best bet will likely be the Schoeps omnis in a spaced configuration up
as high as you can get them. You may also find that augmenting the sound
with either your MK21's or KM184s in an ORTF might help the articulation of
the recorded sound.

Lucky guy- I love recording organs in great spaces.

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

"Diego" <s i n g w o l f @ t i n . i t> wrote in message
news:th9Cd.619683$35.25680731@news4.tin.it...
> I'm going to record a big church organ.
> Here's a picture of the instrument: http://makeashorterlink.com/?R24D3552A
>
> Since it won't be very easy to move or change microphones due to the
> height of the instrument, I'd like some advices about the best recording
> tecnique to use.
>
> These are the microphones I have:
>
> 2 Schoeps MK2S
> 2 Schoeps MK21
> 2 Neumann KM 184
> 2 AKG 414 B-ULS
>
> I'm also going to build a Jecklin disk for some experiments, and I'm
> wondering if could be a good idea to use it for this recording.
> Note that:
> - the church is large and very reverberant but I don't worry about reverb,
> - I'd like to preserve (perhaps also highten) the stereophonic play of the
> pipes
> - the biggest pipe is a 32 foot pipe that reaches the frequency of 88 Hz.
>
> Thanks for the help and sorry for my english!
>
> Diego
>
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 7:41:05 AM

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

On 3 Jan 2005 19:04:26 -0800, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@comcast.net>
wrote:

>http://mmd.foxtail.com/Tech/soundspeed2.html
>
>"The length of this tube is in principle either a half wavelength (open
>flue pipes) or a quarter wavelength (stoppered flue pipes, reed pipes).

The reference is too esoteric for my poor understanding, but
I do know that if yer exciting down near one end, and the other
end's open, the pipe rings at integer multiples of a half
wavelength.

It's half a wavelength forward to the open (reflective/"shorted")
end of the pipe and half a wavelength back (to reinforce the
driving diaphragm).

Darn you Arny, now you've got me interested in how they do these
blasted organ thingies. Like I've got nothing better to do,

Muchas gracias, (with qualifiers),

Chris Hornbeck
"They'd meet at the Tout Va Bien, a cafe just off the highway."
-JLG, _Bande a part_, 1964
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 3:05:54 PM

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

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 13:30:13 -0500, Lars Farm wrote
(in article <1gptus7.1lw9di8921yesN%mail.addr.can.be.found@www.farm.se&gt;):

> "Diego" <s i n g w o l f @ t i n . i t> wrote:
>
>> I'm going to record a big church organ.
>> Here's a picture of the instrument: http://makeashorterlink.com/?R24D3552A
>
> Looking for other pictures of the room I found a plan of the church.
> Halfway down this page is another picture of the room. Where is the
> organ? http://digilander.libero.it/gregduomocremona/Cattedrale...
>
>> - the biggest pipe is a 32 foot pipe that reaches the frequency of 88 Hz.
>
> I thought 32' took you to a very low C at 16Hz?
>
> Lars

You have a system that records 16 Hz?

Without hearing the passing bus..or the usual LF noise of mechanized humans,
prolly not.

To be played back over what system that can reproduce 16Hz?

Smiles,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 3:45:57 PM

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

Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:
>You have a system that records 16 Hz?

I do. Most good omnis will do that. Check and see how low the Schoeps
omnis go. It's scary.

>Without hearing the passing bus..or the usual LF noise of mechanized humans,
>prolly not.

Yes, passing busses, organ blowers. What is really impressive is watching
what happens when candles in the hall are lit and the air currents start
moving around... huge amounts of subsonic noise start turning up with the
B&K mikes (which are good down to about an octave lower than the Schoeps).

>To be played back over what system that can reproduce 16Hz?

That's not MY problem, that's the record buyer's problem. I would suggest
a Servodrive sub personally, but even the little NHT sub will go down below
20 Hz if you keep the levels down.

If it doesn't go below 20 Hz, it's not _really_ a subwoofer at all.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 3:45:58 PM

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> You have a system that records 16 Hz?
>
>
> I do. Most good omnis will do that. Check and see how low the Schoeps
> omnis go. It's scary.

Schoeps normally specifies the CMC6 to 20 Hz and the other amplifiers to 30 Hz. I'm pretty sure the CMC6 goes down to 6-8 Hz but there's probably some attenuation there. You can order them without the HPF ("linear" option, designated by a # sign in the number) and they will go to 3 Hz.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 5:55:11 PM

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

Ty Ford wrote:

> You have a system that records 16 Hz?

....much to my chagrin. I've taken to steeply high-passing most
recordings that I distribute at 20 Hz or higher, depending on the
lowest LF that can be reasonably expected to have a musical source. The
unhappy alternative to filtering is audible problems with LF
intermodulation on one or more of the systems I use to check my
mastering on.

> Without hearing the passing bus..or the usual LF noise of mechanized
humans,
> prolly not.

> To be played back over what system that can reproduce 16Hz?

I have a number of friends (e.g. Tom Nousaine of S&V) that have
mongo-subwoofer speaker systems that are down 3 db or less in the 10-20
Hz range.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 8:46:44 PM

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

Geoley wrote:
>
> "Geoley" <geoley@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:3e6ac$41d9b3c1$436596f9$3463@msgid.meganewsservers.com...

> If anyone is interested learning more about
> pipe organs, I would recommend JAV recordings 2 CD set that was recorded at
> Yale University by organist Prof. Thomas Murray where he demonstrates and
> explains about the pipework , families of organ tone of the Newberry
> Memorial Organ in Woolsey Hall.

Totally agree. And if one ever gets the chance, have a chat
with Dr. Murray or attend one of his performances. Several
months ago, I recorded his dedication performance on a new
instrument here on the east Pacific coast. I talked with him
during the interval, and of course, listened to his
discourse during the performance. He has a delightful
teaching style when talking to the audience, and is quite a
nice and approachable fellow to talk to (as was Virgil Fox).
And his playing style is, of course, impeccable.

And certainly get Irwin's "Dictionary of Pipe Organ Stops".
I believe it's out of print (G. Schirmer, publisher), but I
have seen it on eBay. I bought mine new in 1968 for $6.00,
and have seen it for upwards of $50 at auction. It's worth
it.


TM
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 11:14:14 PM

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

Edi Zubovic wrote:

> The others willl ceratinly give you more prescise advices
> on this, but I'd setup the main microphone pair on such a
> rigging so it would make a perfect triangle to both of the
> sides of the organ (ie. the complete pipe rank) at a such
> height which would allow to the membranes to "look" at pipe
> mouths exactly at 90 degrees ie. at a perfect parallel.

It is a common misconception that you have to be higher in the room than
the seat of the organist, but in my pre-conceived opinion that is about
as high as one should go, and it may be preferable to be lower in the
room. The tonal balance of the instrument is designed for listening on
the floor of the church and the instrument is likely to be over-bright
and possibly harsh sounding in the height you suggest. One must also be
aware that the amount of bass decreases the higher the mics are placed.

> And I would care about reverberation.

Which is why simple geometry as you apply it simply will not do in
itself. The outdated method of walking along the floor and listening
must be used and the preferable distance varies with the mic
characteristic chosen. See also my follow up to the original question.

> If the reverberation would be too excessive, it might break'
> up the whole performance, even forming new, non-existent tones!

This appears to be a fairly large room, some such rooms have the
peculiar problem that the room reverb arrives so late that it distracts
rather than augment due to the large distance to reflecting boundaries.
A very puristic aquaintance of mine ended up adding artificial reverb to
a recording made in the Grundtvigskirke because of this problem.

> A good direct to reflected sound ratio would be mandatory
> for each of microphones used (the "reverberation circle").

It is, as always, about the ratio between direct and reflected, and
microphones with a wider pattern will have more reflected sound in their
output IF there are relevant reflecting surfaces nearby. The ratio of
direct to reflected sound coming in on axis is however the same no
matter what the rear- and side pickup may be, which is to say that the
optimum mic placement may vary less between various mic types than one
should think based on pickup-pattern math only.

> This is of course only a idea, feel free to correct/amend the above.

Amending is the intention rather than correcting.

> Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 11:14:15 PM

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

I believe you will find higher placement will increase the "breath" portion
of the sound. Turn off all air handlers other than the one for the organ,
and pick a time with less road traffic outside. As Peter has suggested the
reverb might be less pleasant on the recording than it sounds in the
hall.... you may want to use a close placement of the Omni/jeckln at this
distance some eq to cut the 10khz boost in mastering might be required. The
directional microphones are a second option. As a general rule it's better
to error with too little hall sound than too much.

Monitors with extended bass response will be very helpful... otherwise you
may find your placement provides much more bass than expected.

Regards:
Eric

"Peter Larsen" <SPAMSHIELD_plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:41DAEB06.D70A7A9@mail.tele.dk...
> Edi Zubovic wrote:
>
> > The others willl ceratinly give you more prescise advices
> > on this, but I'd setup the main microphone pair on such a
> > rigging so it would make a perfect triangle to both of the
> > sides of the organ (ie. the complete pipe rank) at a such
> > height which would allow to the membranes to "look" at pipe
> > mouths exactly at 90 degrees ie. at a perfect parallel.
>
> It is a common misconception that you have to be higher in the room than
> the seat of the organist, but in my pre-conceived opinion that is about
> as high as one should go, and it may be preferable to be lower in the
> room. The tonal balance of the instrument is designed for listening on
> the floor of the church and the instrument is likely to be over-bright
> and possibly harsh sounding in the height you suggest. One must also be
> aware that the amount of bass decreases the higher the mics are placed.
>
> > And I would care about reverberation.
>
> Which is why simple geometry as you apply it simply will not do in
> itself. The outdated method of walking along the floor and listening
> must be used and the preferable distance varies with the mic
> characteristic chosen. See also my follow up to the original question.
>
> > If the reverberation would be too excessive, it might break'
> > up the whole performance, even forming new, non-existent tones!
>
> This appears to be a fairly large room, some such rooms have the
> peculiar problem that the room reverb arrives so late that it distracts
> rather than augment due to the large distance to reflecting boundaries.
> A very puristic aquaintance of mine ended up adding artificial reverb to
> a recording made in the Grundtvigskirke because of this problem.
>
> > A good direct to reflected sound ratio would be mandatory
> > for each of microphones used (the "reverberation circle").
>
> It is, as always, about the ratio between direct and reflected, and
> microphones with a wider pattern will have more reflected sound in their
> output IF there are relevant reflecting surfaces nearby. The ratio of
> direct to reflected sound coming in on axis is however the same no
> matter what the rear- and side pickup may be, which is to say that the
> optimum mic placement may vary less between various mic types than one
> should think based on pickup-pattern math only.
>
> > This is of course only a idea, feel free to correct/amend the above.
>
> Amending is the intention rather than correcting.
>
> > Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
> --
> *******************************************
> * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
> *******************************************
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 12:10:38 AM

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

Hi Diego,

Diego wrote:

> I'm going to record a big church organ.

Various people have asked questions about the actual setup and the
ground plan of the church. Lacking information on those issues from you,
but having the image

> Here's a picture of the instrument: http://makeashorterlink.com/?R24D3552A

and a ground plan to try to fit it to leaves me wondering. It makes a
major difference whether the organ is on the side of the church or at
the entrance-end of it.

> Since it won't be very easy to move or change microphones due
> to the height of the instrument,

The actual method for getting the mic pair where it should go is another
matter, first it needs to be defined where it should go. Placement has
to be adjustable, but initial guesses can be made.

> I'd like some advices about the best recording tecnique
> to use.

There is no such thing as a "best technique" ...

> These are the microphones I have:

> 2 Schoeps MK2S

Omni's for use at some distance from the sound source and with
compensating treble boost. They appear to be designed for this and are
likely to offer the best bass response. This pair is probably the best
bet in case the organ is at the entrance end of the church.

> 2 Schoeps MK21

Subcardioid with a modest bass roll-off that looks larger on the graph
than it sounds in real life deployment. They need a stereo bar that is
somewhat longer than the standard cross-bar for XY recording (commonly
mislabeled as ORTF, ORTF is a very clearly defined specific setup) for
optimum stereo imaging. This pair would be my first choice in case the
organ is on the side of the church so as to suppress traffic noise
through the windows on the other side.

> 2 Neumann KM 184

Standard cardioids with good linearity, they could be relevant to use if
the room is so large that the room reverb arrives too late or in case of
distracting traffic- or audience noise and/or in case room geography
necessitates a miking distance that is too long for the omni or
subcardioid.

> 2 AKG 414 B-ULS

I would not use them on this recording, if not for any other reason then
because it is easier and safer to get small mics located high up.

> I'm also going to build a Jecklin disk for some experiments,
> and I'm wondering if could be a good idea to use it for this
> recording.

I think it would be a good idea to make the experiments first, I would
not want to use a Jecklin disk, but some day it may be relevant because
of its capability to give good imaging very close to the sound source.

> Note that:
> - the church is large and very reverberant but I don't worry
> about reverb,

You should, and you should especially worry if the performer is not used
to compensate for it and modify the playing style to fit the actual
room. The largest worry is probably traffic noise.

> - I'd like to preserve (perhaps also highten) the stereophonic
> play of the pipes

Whaddayoumean, add silicone to Gina Lollobrigida? - does that make
sense?

> - the biggest pipe is a 32 foot pipe that reaches the frequency of 88 Hz.

I would have thought it was 16 Hz. Only the omni is likely to have good
response that low.

> Thanks for the help and sorry for my english!

For an initial location: about as far from the organ as it is wide, mic
height over floor as the height of the organist's chair or lower. More
distance for narrower stereo image or in case of hole-in-the-middle,
less distance if it sounds "loose", stereo imaging can also be altered
by altering the angling of the mics (if directional) or the distance
between them or both. Probably useful distance between omni's is some 60
to 80 centimeter. Higher mic placement generally gives more reverb and
more treble.

Additional options get relevant - including using the figure of 8
capability of the AKG's - if you have multitrack capability, but I will
strongly advice against trying to balance an additional mic pair on
headphones because what sounds right on headphones in the church, with
the disturbance from the actual sound in the room, will hardly ever be
what is right on loudspeakers afterwards. I refuse to outline the many
some of the many possibilities that open up with additional recording
channels without knowing whether they apply.

> Diego

Oh, example organ recordings are available on the two most recent RAP
CD-sets, they may still be available on

http://www.recaudiopro.net/rapcds/index.htm

and the method used is described in the notes on the site mentioned.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 12:12:24 AM

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

Carey Carlan wrote:

> Sound travels at about 1100 fps.
> 1100/32 = 34.375

Erm, the pipe is a half wavelenght resonator.

> And the Jecklin would be my first choice as well.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 12:46:20 AM

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

On 4 Jan 2005 12:45:57 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


>That's not MY problem, that's the record buyer's problem. I would suggest
>a Servodrive sub personally, but even the little NHT sub will go down below
>20 Hz if you keep the levels down.
>
>If it doesn't go below 20 Hz, it's not _really_ a subwoofer at all.
>--scott

-- My T+A Elektroakustik's Aktiv Monitor 2 monitors go below -- they
have servo-controlled proprietary bass drivers with opto-electronic
sensors and corresponding servo amplifier sections. If I want to have
a really deep bass I have to be cautious and check the results with
loudspeakers having "normal", uncontrolled bass drivers; otherwise I
may get a bass mayhem out of what sounds very deep and controlled at
the T+A.

If I find someday one of another old T+A systems, "Solitaire OEC
1000", I'll try to buy it. They had everything servoed but
electrostatic supertweeters. Bass, midrange-bass and mid-frequency
drivers are optoelectronically controlled, tweeters are capacitively
controlled and electrostatics don't need any such control at all. They
were manufactured 20 years ago and are today scarce, though.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Crikvenica
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 1:03:18 AM

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

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:14:14 +0100, Peter Larsen
<SPAMSHIELD_plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote:

-------8<---------------

>> If the reverberation would be too excessive, it might break'
>> up the whole performance, even forming new, non-existent tones!
>
>This appears to be a fairly large room, some such rooms have the
>peculiar problem that the room reverb arrives so late that it distracts
>rather than augment due to the large distance to reflecting boundaries.
>A very puristic aquaintance of mine ended up adding artificial reverb to
>a recording made in the Grundtvigskirke because of this problem.
>
>> A good direct to reflected sound ratio would be mandatory
>> for each of microphones used (the "reverberation circle").
>
>It is, as always, about the ratio between direct and reflected, and
>microphones with a wider pattern will have more reflected sound in their
>output IF there are relevant reflecting surfaces nearby. The ratio of
>direct to reflected sound coming in on axis is however the same no
>matter what the rear- and side pickup may be, which is to say that the
>optimum mic placement may vary less between various mic types than one
>should think based on pickup-pattern math only.
>
>> This is of course only a idea, feel free to correct/amend the above.
>
>Amending is the intention rather than correcting.
>
>> Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Thanks a lot, Peter -- of course I will take your observarions into
account. Sometimes I happened to listen a curious organ recordings; I
especially recall a recording of one of quite contemporary written
works, where the poor organist fish should play 1/16ths by foot, this
particular recording has been made in a huge Gothic empty cathedral in
Zagreb -- and to me, everything in the recording did not sound
"sanctified" at all. The work has been written well though.

All the best, Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 1:23:26 AM

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

Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 13:30:13 -0500, Lars Farm wrote
> (in article gptus7.1lw9di8921yesN%mail.addr.can.be.found@www.farm.se&gt;):

>> Where is the organ?
>> http://digilander.libero.it/gregduomocremona/Cattedrale...
[...]
>> I thought 32' took you to a very low C at 16Hz?

> You have a system that records 16 Hz?

I didn't say I had such a system. I talked about the problem to solve.
Two aspects of the sound source. Geometry of the church and very low
frequencies in music from the instrument.

The source emits musical content down to 16 Hz and that's what is to be
recorded. That's part of the question the OP asked. What system does?

I'm also interested in the solution.

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 6:55:01 AM

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

Peter Larsen <SPAMSHIELD_plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote in
news:41DAF8A8.5C5ACD91@mail.tele.dk:

> Carey Carlan wrote:
>
>> Sound travels at about 1100 fps.
>> 1100/32 = 34.375
>
> Erm, the pipe is a half wavelenght resonator.

To all who have told me I'm wrong, I surrender.

But I still don't have any real content to 17 Hz when my favorite organist
sounds her 32' low C in countless recordings.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 12:08:12 PM

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

Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Peter Larsen <SPAMSHIELD_plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote in
>news:41DAF8A8.5C5ACD91@mail.tele.dk:
>
>> Carey Carlan wrote:
>>
>>> Sound travels at about 1100 fps.
>>> 1100/32 = 34.375
>>
>> Erm, the pipe is a half wavelenght resonator.
>
>To all who have told me I'm wrong, I surrender.
>
>But I still don't have any real content to 17 Hz when my favorite organist
>sounds her 32' low C in countless recordings.

There may be really only one place in the room where there is substantial
fundamental content on the low pipe. Have her hold the pedal down and
walk around until you find it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 12:14:12 PM

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

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:07:40 -0500, Kurt Albershardt wrote
(in article <3404b8F4579gtU1@individual.net>):

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> You have a system that records 16 Hz?
>>
>>
>> I do. Most good omnis will do that. Check and see how low the Schoeps
>> omnis go. It's scary.
>
> Schoeps normally specifies the CMC6 to 20 Hz and the other amplifiers to 30
> Hz. I'm pretty sure the CMC6 goes down to 6-8 Hz but there's probably some
> attenuation there. You can order them without the HPF ("linear" option,
> designated by a # sign in the number) and they will go to 3 Hz.
>

I repeat, you have a SYSTEM that records 16Hz?

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 12:17:23 PM

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

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:55:11 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <1104879311.198646.112850@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):

>
> Ty Ford wrote:
>
>> You have a system that records 16 Hz?
>
> ...much to my chagrin. I've taken to steeply high-passing most
> recordings that I distribute at 20 Hz or higher, depending on the
> lowest LF that can be reasonably expected to have a musical source. The
> unhappy alternative to filtering is audible problems with LF
> intermodulation on one or more of the systems I use to check my
> mastering on.
>
>> Without hearing the passing bus..or the usual LF noise of mechanized
> humans,
>> prolly not.
>
>> To be played back over what system that can reproduce 16Hz?
>
> I have a number of friends (e.g. Tom Nousaine of S&V) that have
> mongo-subwoofer speaker systems that are down 3 db or less in the 10-20
> Hz range.
>

Well fine for them, but for the rest of humanity and the church congregation
who might enjoy the recording (and whose repro systems probably don't go
below 50 Hz on a good day), I'm guessing not so much.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 12:32:49 PM

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

In article <88adnRNcYNqpa0bcRVn-sg@comcast.com>,
Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:07:40 -0500, Kurt Albershardt wrote
>(in article <3404b8F4579gtU1@individual.net>):
>
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You have a system that records 16 Hz?
>>>
>>>
>>> I do. Most good omnis will do that. Check and see how low the Schoeps
>>> omnis go. It's scary.
>>
>> Schoeps normally specifies the CMC6 to 20 Hz and the other amplifiers to 30
>> Hz. I'm pretty sure the CMC6 goes down to 6-8 Hz but there's probably some
>> attenuation there. You can order them without the HPF ("linear" option,
>> designated by a # sign in the number) and they will go to 3 Hz.
>
>I repeat, you have a SYSTEM that records 16Hz?

Millennia Media into Prism AD-124.

The low end on the Great River is a little more restricted, but if you
keep the levels down it'll do 16 Hz nicely. The input transformer is the
bottleneck in that case.

What I don't have is a system that properly reproduces 16 Hz. The recording
part is easy.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 1:48:34 PM

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

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 10:39:21 GMT, "Diego" <s i n g w o l f @ t i n . i
t> wrote:

>I'm going to record a big church organ. <snip>

My area of expertise.

>Here's a picture of the instrument: http://makeashorterlink.com/?R24D3552A
>
>Since it won't be very easy to move or change microphones due to the height
>of the instrument, I'd like some advices about the best recording tecnique
>to use. <snip>

First, you're not recording an organ...you're recording an organ in
its acoustic environment. See below.
>
>These are the microphones I have:
>
>2 Schoeps MK2S
>2 Schoeps MK21 <snip>

Best choices.

>Note that:
>- the church is large and very reverberant but I don't worry about reverb, <snip>

You should...it's 50% of the sound of the instrument.

>- I'd like to preserve (perhaps also highten) the stereophonic play of the
>pipes <snip>

This would entail close micing and is a no-no. Do you mean you're
going to "enhance" the interplay between different DIVISIONS of the
organ?

>- the biggest pipe is a 32 foot pipe that reaches the frequency of 88 Hz. <snip>

Wrong....16 Hz fundamental at CCC.

You don't show a floor plan of the narthex or have, so I really don't
have much of anything to go on. The primary mikes can neatly hang
from chandeliers in such an ediface, if the priory agrees. You should
be at least 25'-35' feet BACK from the instrument minimum to get a
"close field" effect, and I'd probably go at least 50'. You can use
rear channel(s) to pick up reverb and the 32' bass very effectively,
and then mix during mastering for best effect. The goal is to get as
much of an acoustic effect of the big air space without without losing
the voicing and the attack characteristics of the pipework. If you're
too far back, the organ gets lost in the reverberant field and
articulation becomes clumsy. Get too close, and the organ will sound
harsh, and the organist, who is tailoring his playing for the
acoustical field, will sound "choppy."

dB
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 1:53:38 PM

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

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:14:14 +0100, Peter Larsen
<SPAMSHIELD_plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote:

>It is a common misconception that you have to be higher in the room than
>the seat of the organist, but in my pre-conceived opinion that is about
>as high as one should go, and it may be preferable to be lower in the
>room. <snip>

You shouldn't go any higher than about 1/3 of the elevation to the
ceiling. Doing so will make the organ NOT sound as it does on the
floor. However, recording FROM the floor is problematic due to
reflections...the recorder doesn't necessarily hear what the ear/brain
combination hears!

> The tonal balance of the instrument is designed for listening on
>the floor of the church and the instrument is likely to be over-bright
>and possibly harsh sounding in the height you suggest. One must also be
>aware that the amount of bass decreases the higher the mics are placed. <snip>

If mics are hung midway between floor and ceiling, bass (especially
the 32's) will be weak. I used to either rig to the chandeliers or
use a big boom to get up 15'-20', and at least 15' away from the
walls, usually giving a pair separation of around 35' feet. This
gives a good stereophonic representation of the building and organ
without sounding fake.

>This appears to be a fairly large room, some such rooms have the
>peculiar problem that the room reverb arrives so late that it distracts
>rather than augment due to the large distance to reflecting boundaries.
>A very puristic aquaintance of mine ended up adding artificial reverb to
>a recording made in the Grundtvigskirke because of this problem.
>
>> A good direct to reflected sound ratio would be mandatory
>> for each of microphones used (the "reverberation circle"). <snip>

Back when I used to record organs on 3 track, I'd use the pair up
front on 1 and 3, and put a reverberant field mic back about 32' from
the back wall, and then mix to present the best representation of the
building at mastering.

dB
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 1:56:38 PM

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

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:28:41 GMT, Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>That 32' pipe reaches 34 Hz, but all of your listed mics are still adequate
>to record it. <snip>

Wrong...16 Hz on and open pipe, 8 Hz on a stopped pipe (rare at this
pitch register.)

dB
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 1:57:42 PM

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

Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:

>I repeat, you have a SYSTEM that records 16Hz?

I do: a matched pair of DPA 4003 mics, our Mic2496 and PDAudio handheld
digital audio recorder.


--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 2:02:37 PM

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

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 04:41:05 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
<chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote:

>Darn you Arny, now you've got me interested in how they do these
>blasted organ thingies. Like I've got nothing better to do, <snip>

Modern theory has it that the "windsheet" at the mouth of the pipe
acts as an "air reed" which excited the tuned cavity of the pipe body.
An open resonator will be tuned to slightly more than half a
wavelength of the frequency desired, *depending on the pipe's scale*!

Wide scale, shorter pipe. Narrower scale, longer pipe. As such,
narrow scale string pipes (such as the 32' Contra Violone in the
Æolian-Skinner organ at Riverside Church (1948-55) is MUCH longer than
32' and is mitred, meaning bent like a trombone. What did they use
for the bends? FlexHaust! Works fine, because at that pitch
register, the FlexHaust bends won't affect harmonic development all
that much, as the mitres are not made at exact multiples of the
fundamental frequency involved. This, by the way, is a horrid organ
to record, due to the nastily dry acoustics of the Riverside Church,
brought about by using a very early application of acoustical ceiling
treatment...CORK! Talk about a big bathtub.... They've done some
treatments to try to seal the cork to prevent the horrid tubbiness of
the ediface and have had some success, but the sybaritic application
of cushions and carpeting (necessary to please the fat cats who
patronize such a joint) soak up way too much still.

dB
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 8:00:14 PM

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

Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:

> I repeat, you have a SYSTEM that records 16Hz?

I'm very puzzled by your repeated question.

I take your question as an indication that frequencies down there
usually can't be recorded. Pedal C, C# and D at least ought to be below
20Hz and is clearly part of the music. Music, not ambience or timbre or
environment.... A (the lowest key on a piano) is 27,5 Hz and is within
that same octave. I'm surprised that this is considered unrecordable.
Very surprised. This really is part of the music and it is definitely
perceptible live. Not just barely, but effortlessly and clearly.

Then ... If our recording systems are so weak in this end of the
spectrum that they can't even handle the fundamentals of an instrument
why are we so concerned about what happens above 15 kHz? or above 20
kHz. No fundamentals there. Most humans can't even detect anything up
there at all. Recorded or not. Surely the by man clearly perceptible
should be much more important than that most man can't possibly detect?

Still, the original question was just that. How does one record an
organ? Is your answer - can't be done?

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 11:24:48 PM

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

DeserTBoB <desertb@rglobal.net> wrote:

> You don't show a floor plan of the narthex or have, so I really don't
> have much of anything to go on.

See - http://digilander.libero.it/gregduomocremona/Cattedrale...

I don't speak italian, but I think this is the floorplan. I found this
by following his link. Refering to this plan, I also asked in an earlier
reply to the OP: Where is the organ?

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 11:24:49 PM

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

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:24:48 GMT, mail.addr.can.be.found@www.farm.se
(Lars Farm) wrote:

>I don't speak italian, but I think this is the floorplan. <snip>

Sure is.

>Refering to this plan, I also asked in an earlier
>reply to the OP: Where is the organ? <snip>

After studying the photos from his link, it became obvious to me that
the organ is situated along a wall of the narthex...NOT good, if one
was planning to record from the nave proper. However, if you look at
the floor plan (the organ, I think, is that rectangle on the left side
of the narthex), you see the possibility of doing a stereo pair on the
right arm of the transcept, which should be acoustically interesting
and would probably have less reverb. Note also, if the floor plan is
to scale, that the whole structure is haphazardly constructed and the
walls aren't exactly parallel!! The narative of that site speaks to
this: “Studiando la pianta s’impone tosto una caratteristica
particolare: la dissimmetria delle masse murarie....", which if my
three years of Latin in school serve me correctly, points to the
dissimilar nature of the ediface's walls, which was evidently
documented in 1954. They must've built buildings back then like they
build Fiats now!

Anyway, if you draw a line of sight from the organ loft and façade
over to the right arm of the transcept, I think you'd find the best
possible microphone placement for a widely spaced pair, which would
avoid the pratfalls inherent in close-miking any pipe organ while
maintaining clarity, yet getting enough building acoustic to give a
good picture of the organ in situ.

dB
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 9:53:20 PM

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

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 10:57:42 -0500, Len Moskowitz wrote
(in article <crh2pm$jm3$1@panix1.panix.com>):

>
> Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I repeat, you have a SYSTEM that records 16Hz?
>
> I do: a matched pair of DPA 4003 mics, our Mic2496 and PDAudio handheld
> digital audio recorder.

I was asking the person who posted the question in the first place.

Ty



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 1:58:37 AM

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

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 18:58:13 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>> I take your question as an indication that frequencies down there
>> usually can't be recorded. Pedal C, C# and D at least ought to be below
>> 20Hz and is clearly part of the music. Music, not ambience or timbre or
>> environment.... A (the lowest key on a piano) is 27,5 Hz and is within
>> that same octave. I'm surprised that this is considered unrecordable.
>> Very surprised. This really is part of the music and it is definitely
>> perceptible live. Not just barely, but effortlessly and clearly. <snip>

If you're going for an aurally accurate depiction of a large pipe
organ playing any fortissimi, you must be able to get that low CCC (16
Hz), or forget it.

>> Still, the original question was just that. How does one record an
>> organ? Is your answer - can't be done? <snip>

Many did back in the '50s, some with good results, some with not so
good.

>Go in, make a nice recording and don't sweat the 27.5 Hz. You'll probably
>have to start rolling off at 80Hz anyway. Take a pair of Sony MDR 7506.
>They'll let you know what's going on down to 60Hz very well anyway. <snip>

If you cannot record the 16' and 32' ranks of a pipe organ at all, why
go? Those two pitch registers and the acoustic power they represent
are 90% of the majesty of the instrument.

dB
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 5:29:38 PM

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

ScotFraser <scotfraser@aol.com> wrote:

>> We're not talking subtle adjustments here. We're stripping more than
>> TWO octaves from the instrument proper. That's NOT good enough!
>
> While I'm not sure what Ty's organ recording philosophy is, I do hope you
> realize that a roll off starting at 80Hz does not remove 2 octaves of
> spectrum. An 80Hz roll off will be down 3db at 80Hz &, depending on the
> filter characteristics, more likely down 9db at 40 & down 12db at 20. Not
> removed, just lessened, & quite possibly just what's needed to overcome
> the LF buildup caused by the acoustics of a highly reverberent large
> space, while being more likely to actually play back reasonably on a mid
> quality home speaker.

Fair enough. Trying to improve S/N is a worthy cause, as long as it
doesn't mean dropping the signal... An organ without the two bottom
octaves is a mutilated instrument.

Not all organs are placed in major cities in noisy environments with
tubes running perpetually through the ground. Some places have sparse
train schedules. Quite a few are in quieter environments, like smaller
towns or even rural areas. They may not be the most spectaular organs.
Some might even lack the desired 32' ranks. Most have the 16' in some
incarnation. Some are quite respectable and well worthy of recording.
Some of our organists are very good and well worthy of recording.

sincerely
Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 5:29:40 PM

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

Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:

> HF doesn't travel that way or that far.

OK.

> >> Go in, make a nice recording and don't sweat the 27.5 Hz. You'll probably
> >> have to start rolling off at 80Hz anyway.

> I'm trying
> to be practical here and it appears you are bent on being more theoretical.

I like theory and practice to go hand in hand. That's what physics and
engineering is all about. If theory and practice disagree then either
theory or practice is wrong.

> Again, I'm being practical. You're not recording this organ in an area
> completely devoid of other noises. If it is, go for it. I've just never
> recorded in a church that's so far away from humanity that it doesn't have
> noticeable LF ghosts. Those LF sounds from other sources will likely be quite
> audible during quieter passages. You want 'em fine by me.

Should we avoid live organ concerts to? If we pick up more LF than is
actually there then our techniques or equipment needs to improve! This
is the topic of this thread. How does one record an organ properly? Cut
away more than two octaves of the instrument proper as not good enough.

We would never accept that we rolled off the two topmost octaves of a
piano - from 1 kHz - and everything above it, but you happily suggests
that from the other end of the instrument...

Traffic is a problem, more so in some churches than others, but I dare
say it is a problem well over 100Hz too...

As for HVAC. We don't have [AC] in our churches (or homes or houses).
For climate reasons... The few hot days that would benefit from cooling
are nicely handled by the massive cool stone volumes of our churches
anyway. Forced [V]entilation in churches isn't particularly common
either and can be turned off if present. This is also for climate
reasons and the shape of the very large rooms. If outside is much cooler
than the inside and the house is high then there is always sufficient
self-ventilation. [H]eating is usually central heating via water
radiators and they are not dead silent, but rarely a big problem.
Heating could be by electrical radiator (silent). Never by fan-driven
contraptions. So, with a bit of foresight HVAC can be controlled. Still,
I agree that there is a higher noise floor at low freq than at high.

> The other point is that there are very few reproduction systems capable of
> passing those frequencies.

It is obvious that a hefty organ can not be reproduced faithfully on a
low-fi equipment. Not all recordings are for the mass market. Not all
recordings are intended for the beach or the car or as background noise
at the office or in shops. Does that mean we should never record organ?

sincerely
Lars

--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 2:15:19 AM

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

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 09:29:40 -0500, Lars Farm wrote
(in article <1gq1bwj.4rq0sr1hlw2faN%mail.addr.can.be.found@www.farm.se&gt;):

> Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> HF doesn't travel that way or that far.
>
> OK.
>
>>>> Go in, make a nice recording and don't sweat the 27.5 Hz. You'll probably
>>>> have to start rolling off at 80Hz anyway.
>
>> I'm trying
>> to be practical here and it appears you are bent on being more theoretical.
>
> I like theory and practice to go hand in hand. That's what physics and
> engineering is all about. If theory and practice disagree then either
> theory or practice is wrong.

Ah, OK then we really have nothing left to discuss. You see black and white.
I see many shades of gray, including black and white. You will never
understand my points of view. Please don't even try. Just go about your way
and say we never met (please).

Smiles,

Ty Ford





-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 2:15:20 AM

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

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 23:15:19 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:


>Ah, OK then we really have nothing left to discuss. You see black and white.
>I see many shades of gray, including black and white. You will never
>understand my points of view. Please don't even try. <snip>

Why should he? You obviously don't have a clue as to how to properly
record a pipe organ in a large building!

dB
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 1:13:32 PM

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

Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:

> Just go about your way

Perhaps you missed the beginning of the thread?

The OP asked for advise on how to record an organ in a cathedral. I
ANALYSED THE PROBLEM:
(1) I found a floor plan for that particular cathedral
(2) I described that part of the problem was very low frequencies
emitted by the instrument. I said:
>>>> I thought 32' took you to a very low C at 16Hz?

You then invalidated my analysis of the problem by challenging the
solution the OP (and I) was asking for help on...:
>>> You have a system that records 16 Hz?

I ask for help. You invalidate some sought for solution. Weird!

If you are willing to help us and share your experiences of recording a
full size pipe organ (with all its pipes). I'm all ears.

sincerely
Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 8:49:26 PM

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

Hi,

I have recorded a number of large pipe organs, including the one in the
Sydney Opera House.

I have found that either a spaced cardiod pair, or a M/S pair (one
cardios, one figure of 8) give good results. The M/S pair allows some
manipulation of the stereo width. In the Opera House I used the mic
winches to place the mocs level with the middle of the organ. (The
Opera House Organ is in a case which (IMHO) reduces the amound of sound
that enters the audiorium, placing the mics closer to the organ gives a
very good sound).

In other circulstances I generally use a 3-4 metre high mic stand, and
adjust the postition to produce the best sound.

I have only a limited range of mics available but the AKG 414's have
consistently given excellent results.

Peter.

Comments:

Organ stop lengths 32', 16' etc. are a nominal figure and relate to the
pitch of the lowest pipe. A stopped pipe sounds an octave lower than an
open pipe of the same physical length. So a 16' stopped pipe would
nomally be only 8 ft in physical length. With reed stops it also common
to use 1/2 or 1/4 length resonators. So the 64' stop on the Sydney Town
Hall Organ, is actually only 16' long. With the lowest pipes the main
effect for the listeners is a low rumble and the harmonics of the pipe.




Diego wrote:
> I'm going to record a big church organ.
> Here's a picture of the instrument:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R24D3552A
>
> Since it won't be very easy to move or change microphones due to the
height
> of the instrument, I'd like some advices about the best recording
tecnique
> to use.
>
> These are the microphones I have:
>
> 2 Schoeps MK2S
> 2 Schoeps MK21
> 2 Neumann KM 184
> 2 AKG 414 B-ULS
>
> I'm also going to build a Jecklin disk for some experiments, and I'm
> wondering if could be a good idea to use it for this recording.
> Note that:
> - the church is large and very reverberant but I don't worry about
reverb,
> - I'd like to preserve (perhaps also highten) the stereophonic play
of the
> pipes
> - the biggest pipe is a 32 foot pipe that reaches the frequency of 88
Hz.
>
> Thanks for the help and sorry for my english!
>
> Diego
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 1:34:30 AM

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

DeserTBoB wrote:

> and would probably have less reverb. Note also, if the
> floor plan is to scale, that the whole structure is haphazardly
> constructed and the walls aren't exactly parallel!!

Either by design or by vino, but from a recordists viewpoint it is a
nice feature. As for the organ being side placed rather than end placed,
yes it is probable, but the entrance end of the church is wide enough
for an organ to be there and have windows either side as I recall the
plan, so I decided not to assume but rather ask the questionee. It is
sad that said questionee does not bother to supplement.

> dB


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 8:48:58 PM

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

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 05:13:32 -0500, Lars Farm wrote
(in article <1gq4a2p.kedv6b7ihtp2N%mail.addr.can.be.found@www.farm.se&gt;):


> I ask for help. You invalidate some sought for solution. Weird!
>
> If you are willing to help us and share your experiences of recording a
> full size pipe organ (with all its pipes). I'm all ears.
>
> sincerely
> Lars

I already did. You were too busy taking what I said WAY too personally and
then deciding that 16Hz was a necessity. Unless I misread the original post,
this is not a science experiment, it's an audio recording in a big, nasty
space. Find the right spot to place the right mics and hit record.

If you're doing this for a client, where you'll actually get paid, the only
things you need to ask are, how direct do you want the sound and how much of
the noisy contraption you call a pipe organ do you really want to hear (Some
people are more fascinated by the sound of all the relays, pumps and other
moving parts than they are by the music. Nutty, but true.) and what''s the
frequency response of your sound system?

You'll NEVER capture the exact sound of the beast anyway. To get even close,
you'd need, among other things, a pretty massive surround record system. And,
theoretically, even if you could capture the beast, few systems existing in
the known universe could play it back. It's reality. I didn't make the rules,
science did. Stop trying to flog the messenger and go make the damn recording
given your limitations.

Me. I'd try Blumlein in the primary field. Or that 4-channnel Schoeps DSP-4p
contraption I reviewed a year or so ago. The review is in my archives.

Smiles,

Ty Ford



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