Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

panning of spaced omnis during mixdown

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 10:32:12 PM

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

let's say you "audiophile" miced an acoustic performance using a pair
of spaced omnis.

during mixdown, is it typical to pan them hard left/right, center, or
somewhere in between?
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 2:39:36 AM

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

In article <1117589531.968744.247330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
<genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote:
>let's say you "audiophile" miced an acoustic performance using a pair
>of spaced omnis.
>
>during mixdown, is it typical to pan them hard left/right, center, or
>somewhere in between?

For typical A-B recordings, you would want to pan them hard left and
right.

If you want it to be mono, you can pan them to the center.

If you find you have a hole in the middle and want to try and compensate
for it (poorly), you can set it somewhere in-between.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 9:05:44 AM

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

Jesus...
Related resources
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 11:33:09 AM

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

Today, Arny...
Yes it has...
What on earth is an Audiophile format?
Speechless...
D.Slevin
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 11:33:18 AM

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

Today, Arny...
Yes it has...
What on earth is an Audiophile format?
Speechless...
D.Slevin
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 11:39:00 AM

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

genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:

> let's say you "audiophile" miced an acoustic performance
using a pair
> of spaced omnis.

IMO spaced omnis is not really an audiophile format because
it is prone to artifical effects like excess phasiness. When
I think of a perfectionist format, I think of coincident
crossed cardioids. However, widely spaced omnis can be a
viable workaday format in some applications.

> during mixdown, is it typical to pan them hard left/right,
center, or
> somewhere in between?

First and foremost, what sounds best? At mixdown time you
can try stuff, burn a CD and audition the results carefully.
Then you can try something else.

You can cut the separation down to like 12-15 dB and still
preserve the perception of stereo via speakers.

I find that the subjective tradeoff is spaciousness (good)
versus phasiness (less good if there is too much). If there
is too much phasiness, channel mixing approaching mono may
lead to comb filtering and a perception of loss of body.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 12:50:33 PM

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

studiorat wrote:


> Jesus...

...saves.

Cat got your tongue?
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 3:21:38 PM

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <1117589531.968744.247330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> <genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >let's say you "audiophile" miced an acoustic performance using a pair
> >of spaced omnis.
> >
> >during mixdown, is it typical to pan them hard left/right, center, or
> >somewhere in between?
>
> For typical A-B recordings, you would want to pan them hard left and
> right.
>
> If you want it to be mono, you can pan them to the center.
>
> If you find you have a hole in the middle and want to try and compensate
> for it (poorly), you can set it somewhere in-between.
> --scott
>

If you have a spaced omni recording with a hole in the middle,
Waves makes a stereo imaging plug-in that is very very good at fixing
such problems. I have even touched up full band mixes to make the
center and side images more obvious and defined, and the "shuffler"
feature is really a lot of fun. Nice possible learning experience to
play with that plug-in too.

Of course having a 3rd mic in the middle so you could just fill the
hole in in a minimal fashion helps too. And while you're at it, you
could just put up an X/Y pair as well and blend them all in post.

Will Miho
NY Music and TV Audio Guy
Staff Audio/Fox News/M-AES
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 5:19:35 PM

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:up-dncHFP-GEMgDfRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
> studiorat wrote:
>
>
> > Jesus...
>
> ..saves.
>
> Cat got your tongue
>

It must be miced....
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 11:51:16 PM

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

this begs the question:
is there ever a reason to record with one cardiod and one omni?

basically, i've got this bug in my head that getting a pair of
stereo-matched DPA omni's with the high voltage spec and an HV-3 preamp
with the high-voltage option would be an intelligent, quality purchase.
that would be "high resolution" and "audiophile". but i'm still
learning the ways of The Force here!
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 2:57:08 AM

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

genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:
> this begs the question:
> is there ever a reason to record with one cardiod and one omni?

Cardiod on the vox and omni in the guitar's soundhole. An omni
like maybe a small lav like we use on TV, having no proximity effect
you can stick it places a cardiod doesn't belong, and blends well with
a cardiod without the "phasey" interaction you might get using a pair
of cardiods instead.

Will Miho
NY Music and TV Audio Guy
Staff Audio/Fox News/M-AES
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 9:38:39 AM

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

So now we have a "Audiophile" suggesting we take that to mean a vague,
nebulous terminology. And format fefering to a structure, as in a
sentence perhaps?

Just gets more and more vague if you ask me.

Arny, my problem is with the thread and not a personal afront to
yourself.
The question was where you pan them after all!!!!

Regards,
D.Slevin
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 10:11:17 AM

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

Indeed...
Meanwhile, today I will be putting Gaffers tape on badly maintained
drumkits and dropping in fills...
Audiophile will have to wait till the next time I get into a church.

:o )
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 10:55:42 AM

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

studiorat wrote:
> Today, Arny...
> Yes it has...
> What on earth is an Audiophile format?
> Speechless...

It's a term that appeared on the OP.

If you've got problems with the OP's terminology, why not
take it up with him?
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 12:36:46 PM

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

studiorat wrote:
> Arny...

> What on earth is an Audiophile format?

It's the thing the original poster asked about when they said,
"let's say you 'audiophile' miced an acoustic performance".

Since they put it in quotation marks, it should be clear from
context that subsequent uses of "audiophile" in the same
thread should be taken in a similar way, i.e. it should be clear
that it's meant to be vague, nebulous terminology denoting
something like purism or minimalism.

And one presumes that "format" doesn't refer to a type of media
but to a structure, as in the sentence, "The format of tonight's
debate will be a question, followed by a 3-minute answer period,
followed by a 1-minute rebuttal from the opposing candidate."

In other words, the meaning of "audiophile format" was perfectly
clear to me...

- Logan
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 1:01:43 PM

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

studiorat wrote:

> So now we have a "Audiophile" suggesting we take that to
mean a vague,
> nebulous terminology. And format fefering to a structure,
as in a
> sentence perhaps?

Agreed that "Audiophile" is a somewhat vague term.

In my own mind, "audiophile" recordings tend to be produced
by purist, minimalist means. This usually means two
microphones, two channels, and minimal production steps.

This contrasts with the general run of recordings which are
produced using a variety of means, with convenience and
minimalization of resource use being very important. The
most expensive item in most recordings is the perceived
value of the artistic labor. Therefore the number of
microphones usually goes up, as does the complexity of the
production process.

> Just gets more and more vague if you ask me.

I'm not sure I asked you that question! ;-)

> The question was where you pan them after all!!!!

Hence my answer.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 10:08:50 PM

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

Arny figured out what I was trying to communicate by "audiophile"... a
few great mics, well-placed, trying to capture realism and
resolution....something like what Dave Chesky would do. Or something
that Tom Jung would do. Not that I know much about Tom Jung, but he'd
probably do something like that.

Basically, I got addicted to the whole close-miced cardioid thing.
I'd like to grow over time to use distance, placement, an informed
understanding of polar patterns, stereo micing considerations etc.

I'm going to need to give Dreamhire some business this summer so I can
experiment.
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 10:36:28 AM

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

genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:
> Arny figured out what I was trying to communicate by
"audiophile"... a
> few great mics, well-placed, trying to capture realism
and
> resolution....something like what Dave Chesky would do.
Or something
> that Tom Jung would do. Not that I know much about Tom
Jung, but he'd
> probably do something like that.
>
> Basically, I got addicted to the whole close-miced
cardioid thing.

> I'd like to grow over time to use distance, placement, an
informed
> understanding of polar patterns, stereo micing
considerations etc.

There's a dirty little secret - with multitrack recording,
you can record both ways and compare at liesure.
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 2:27:12 PM

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

In article <1117760930.770116.3910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> genericaudioperson@hotmail.com writes:

> Arny figured out what I was trying to communicate by "audiophile"... a
> few great mics, well-placed, trying to capture realism and
> resolution....

The term that seems to be popular for that is "purist" recording. It
doesn't sound as threatening or hackle-raising as "audiophile."

--
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
June 4, 2005 3:42:25 PM

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

On 1 Jun 2005 19:51:16 -0700, genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:

>this begs the question:
>is there ever a reason to record with one cardiod and one omni?

One can do M-S. Maybe not "official" M-S which I usually see done
with a fig 8 and omni, but the principle is the same. Results may
vary.
!