Anyone used a Shure VP88 stereo mic?

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

We're updating some facilities at my radio station, and I've suggested
that we add an acoustic instruments mic to our air studio to support live
performers. We already have several mics planned for guest
speaking/singing (these will be SM7s), but we don't have anything planned
for instruments. Our goal is to keep things EXTREMELY simple, so we're
planning to use a single stereo mic for this purpose (mostly for acoustic
guitars, occasionally a mandolin or other string instrument).

Typically, the mic will likely be anywhere from 6" to 36" from one or
more instruments. This is a very small space for performers. We
probably can't fit more than a duo, or maybe a trio if they all like each
other.

We're trying to select an appropriate mic for this purpose. I've
considered the Rode NT4 and the AT 825, but the Shure VP88 looks like it
may be a better choice. Its M/S design is inherently mono compatible,
and the other mics in the room are Shures so it may be a good match from
a voicing standpoint. However, I've never actually heard one nor heard
from anyone who's used one, so this is nothing more than speculation.

So, can anyone here comment on the character and quality of the VP88? Is
it a suitable small diaphragm condenser stereo mic that is appropriate
for close to medium miking of acoustic instruments?
53 answers Last reply
More about anyone shure vp88 stereo
  1. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    The VP88 I had was very easy to use, but it was too noisy for acoustic
    instrument miking. OK for stuff like drum overheads and live band
    recording.

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

    Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
    >We're updating some facilities at my radio station, and I've suggested
    >that we add an acoustic instruments mic to our air studio to support live
    >performers. We already have several mics planned for guest
    >speaking/singing (these will be SM7s), but we don't have anything planned
    >for instruments. Our goal is to keep things EXTREMELY simple, so we're
    >planning to use a single stereo mic for this purpose (mostly for acoustic
    >guitars, occasionally a mandolin or other string instrument).
    >
    >Typically, the mic will likely be anywhere from 6" to 36" from one or
    >more instruments. This is a very small space for performers. We
    >probably can't fit more than a duo, or maybe a trio if they all like each
    >other.
    >
    >We're trying to select an appropriate mic for this purpose. I've
    >considered the Rode NT4 and the AT 825, but the Shure VP88 looks like it
    >may be a better choice. Its M/S design is inherently mono compatible,
    >and the other mics in the room are Shures so it may be a good match from
    >a voicing standpoint. However, I've never actually heard one nor heard
    >from anyone who's used one, so this is nothing more than speculation.

    The VP88 is okay, but it's kind of noisy.

    ANY single-point design will be inherently mono-compatible.

    You might want to consider the SASS-P. It's not the best possible stereo
    mike, but it is much more immune to placement errors than anything else
    I have used. If you have a bunch of folks without much experience doing
    the setups, they are apt to hurt themselves less with the Crown SASS-P
    than anything else.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  3. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Jim Gilliland wrote:

    > We're updating some facilities at my radio station, and
    I've suggested
    > that we add an acoustic instruments mic to our air studio
    to support
    > live performers. We already have several mics planned for
    guest
    > speaking/singing (these will be SM7s), but we don't have
    anything
    > planned for instruments. Our goal is to keep things
    EXTREMELY
    > simple, so we're planning to use a single stereo mic for
    this purpose
    > (mostly for acoustic guitars, occasionally a mandolin or
    other string
    > instrument).

    > Typically, the mic will likely be anywhere from 6" to 36"
    from one or
    > more instruments. This is a very small space for
    performers. We
    > probably can't fit more than a duo, or maybe a trio if
    they all like
    > each other.

    I routinely mic a violin trio at about 4' with an X-Y pair
    composed of 2 Audix OM6s @90 degrees with their balls off
    and the cartriges touching. This application includes SR so
    the well-defined consistent pickup pattern is very
    important. The 3 violins fit nicely in the wide active
    pickup area, but nearby sources of interfering sounds
    including stage monitors and reflective walls, as well as
    the mains about 30' feet overhead, are nicely supressed.
    Since I simply sum the 2 mics in adjacent channels in the
    mixer, mono compatibility is key, and seems to be
    well-addressed. I guess I could save an input and a lot of
    cable and sum them with a Y cable.

    > We're trying to select an appropriate mic for this
    purpose. I've
    > considered the Rode NT4 and the AT 825, but the Shure VP88
    looks like
    > it may be a better choice. Its M/S design is inherently
    mono
    > compatible, and the other mics in the room are Shures so
    it may be a
    > good match from a voicing standpoint. However, I've never
    actually
    > heard one nor heard from anyone who's used one, so this is
    nothing
    > more than speculation.

    > So, can anyone here comment on the character and quality
    of the VP88?

    > Is it a suitable small diaphragm condenser stereo mic that
    is
    > appropriate for close to medium miking of acoustic
    instruments?

    My experience with the sound quality of Rode NT4 is such
    that it seems like a viable alternative. No, I've not had a
    chance to compare it to the other mics you mentioned, but I
    have looked very carefully at the other issue you raised -
    channel matching and phasing. Mono compatibility seems to
    be very good - the elements are only about 1/2" and nearly
    touch edges, so they are acoustically close. They seem
    well-matched.

    My only issue with the NT4 is that it is big and ugly. Most
    of the ugly seems inherent and also not worth addressing,
    but the size and weight of the mic's barrel is way out of
    proportion to its probable contents. This mic probably ends
    up on tall stands a lot, so it would be nicer to work with
    if it were small and light or at least lighter.

    Given that my experience with the NT4 is in applications
    15-30' from the band or orchestra, noise in close-up
    applications shouldn't be a problem at all.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Scott Dorsey wrote:
    >
    > You might want to consider the SASS-P. It's not the best possible stereo
    > mike, but it is much more immune to placement errors than anything else
    > I have used. If you have a bunch of folks without much experience doing
    > the setups, they are apt to hurt themselves less with the Crown SASS-P
    > than anything else.

    Thanks, Scott. I'll bring that up to our decision makers. The Crown is
    a bit less expensive than the Shure, but it still may be more than they
    want to spend.

    You're right on the money about the need to make this idiot proof. I was
    going to recommend running this mic through an RNP/RNC combination in
    "SuperNice" mode. Again, the goal is reasonable dynamics control without
    requiring the operator to know anything about how to set a compressor.
    Any thoughts on that?

    Arnie, thanks for your reply as well.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On Tue, 31 May 2005 22:23:46 -0400, Jim Gilliland wrote
    (in article <429d1c3e$0$17306$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>):

    > We're updating some facilities at my radio station, and I've suggested
    > that we add an acoustic instruments mic to our air studio to support live
    > performers. We already have several mics planned for guest
    > speaking/singing (these will be SM7s), but we don't have anything planned
    > for instruments. Our goal is to keep things EXTREMELY simple, so we're
    > planning to use a single stereo mic for this purpose (mostly for acoustic
    > guitars, occasionally a mandolin or other string instrument).
    >
    > Typically, the mic will likely be anywhere from 6" to 36" from one or
    > more instruments. This is a very small space for performers. We
    > probably can't fit more than a duo, or maybe a trio if they all like each
    > other.
    >
    > We're trying to select an appropriate mic for this purpose. I've
    > considered the Rode NT4 and the AT 825, but the Shure VP88 looks like it
    > may be a better choice. Its M/S design is inherently mono compatible,
    > and the other mics in the room are Shures so it may be a good match from
    > a voicing standpoint. However, I've never actually heard one nor heard
    > from anyone who's used one, so this is nothing more than speculation.
    >
    > So, can anyone here comment on the character and quality of the VP88? Is
    > it a suitable small diaphragm condenser stereo mic that is appropriate
    > for close to medium miking of acoustic instruments?

    Yes Jim. I reviewed it some time ago and the review is up with the others on
    my site.

    Ty Ford


    -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
    stuff are at www.tyford.com
  6. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Jim Gilliland wrote:
    > We're trying to select an appropriate mic for this purpose. I've
    > considered the Rode NT4 and the AT 825, but the Shure VP88 looks like it
    > may be a better choice. Its M/S design is inherently mono compatible,
    > and the other mics in the room are Shures so it may be a good match from
    > a voicing standpoint. However, I've never actually heard one nor heard
    > from anyone who's used one, so this is nothing more than speculation.
    >
    > So, can anyone here comment on the character and quality of the VP88? Is
    > it a suitable small diaphragm condenser stereo mic that is appropriate
    > for close to medium miking of acoustic instruments?

    The Sony ECM-MS5 is quieter, and also like the V88 is proabably
    already known by your supervisors as useful for field recording/ENG
    work. Of course, in the best radio tradition why not push for a really
    nice ribbon mic, a Royer SF12 or maybe a Wes Dooley AEA R88 ribbon mic?
    <g> Need good micpres though.

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

    Ty Ford wrote:
    >
    > Yes Jim. I reviewed it some time ago and the review is up with the others on
    > my site.

    Thanks, Ty. I should have thought to look there before I even posted!

    It sounds like you found the VP88's self-noise a bit less objectionable
    than Scott or Rick Powell did, but all three of you commented on its
    noise level. It also sounds like you found it to be quite sensitive to
    positioning, which may again reinforce Scott's suggestion of the Crown mic.

    The Crown SASS-P is basically two PZM's mounted back to back, providing a
    very wide pattern at high frequencies, and approaching omni at low
    frequencies. It's a bit cheaper than the Shure, but not a lot cheaper.

    Our entire annual budget is under $100K, so spending 1% of that on a mic
    that will only be used for occasional live studio performances may be
    difficult to justify. Still, it's a capital purchase that will be in use
    for many years, so I'd consider it worthwhile. We'll see if the station
    management agrees.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Jim Gilliland" wrote ...
    > Our entire annual budget is under $100K, so spending 1% of that on a mic
    > that will only be used for occasional live studio performances may be
    > difficult to justify. Still, it's a capital purchase that will be in use
    > for many years, so I'd consider it worthwhile. We'll see if the station
    > management agrees.

    If you're really looking for a LOW-budget mic, you could consider one
    of those consumer stereo mics (like the Sonys, etc) that are popular for
    use with MD recorders, etc.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    > Scott Dorsey wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> You might want to consider the SASS-P. It's not the best possible stereo
    >> mike, but it is much more immune to placement errors than anything else
    >> I have used. If you have a bunch of folks without much experience doing
    >> the setups, they are apt to hurt themselves less with the Crown SASS-P
    >> than anything else.

    I see one facet of the SASS-P that might be an problem for us. Crown's
    spec sheet says that this mic shouldn't be used any closer than 3 feet
    from its target to avoid a "hole in the middle" effect. In this space, 3
    feet is about the max that we'd ever be from an instrument, and often
    much less. In most studio situations, you'd just narrow the panning to
    compensate for this, but we won't have that option - whatever stereo mic
    we choose will have its two sides permanently hard-panned to the right
    and the left. So we may need to choose a mic that doesn't spread itself
    quite as wide as this one does.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Jim Gilliland wrote:
    > We're updating some facilities at my radio station, and I've suggested
    > that we add an acoustic instruments mic to our air studio to support live
    > performers. We already have several mics planned for guest
    > speaking/singing (these will be SM7s), but we don't have anything planned
    > for instruments. Our goal is to keep things EXTREMELY simple, so we're
    > planning to use a single stereo mic for this purpose (mostly for acoustic
    > guitars, occasionally a mandolin or other string instrument).
    >
    > Typically, the mic will likely be anywhere from 6" to 36" from one or
    > more instruments. This is a very small space for performers. We
    > probably can't fit more than a duo, or maybe a trio if they all like each
    > other.
    >
    > We're trying to select an appropriate mic for this purpose. I've
    > considered the Rode NT4 and the AT 825, but the Shure VP88 looks like it
    > may be a better choice. Its M/S design is inherently mono compatible,
    > and the other mics in the room are Shures so it may be a good match from
    > a voicing standpoint. However, I've never actually heard one nor heard
    > from anyone who's used one, so this is nothing more than speculation.
    >
    > So, can anyone here comment on the character and quality of the VP88? Is
    > it a suitable small diaphragm condenser stereo mic that is appropriate
    > for close to medium miking of acoustic instruments?

    I have a VP88 and the self noise isn't that much of a problem, but the
    microphone is extremely bright with very little low end.

    I use the mic for quick sample gathering and not much else.

    I personally prefer a pair of SM 81's to the VP88 as they sound better.
    At the distances you are miking, I would use an x-y setup on the 81's.

    These aren't as easy to use as the VP88, but sound a lot better.

    For single point stereo microphones that sound really good, I find that
    you are going to be in the Royer, Neumann, Sanken range.

    OTOH, I have gotten really good results from one microphone, properly
    placed, to pick up both the singer and an instrument. I've also done
    that with a stereo pair, but at greater distance, in a better room.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <429dffb9$0$77407$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
    >> Scott Dorsey wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> You might want to consider the SASS-P. It's not the best possible stereo
    >>> mike, but it is much more immune to placement errors than anything else
    >>> I have used. If you have a bunch of folks without much experience doing
    >>> the setups, they are apt to hurt themselves less with the Crown SASS-P
    >>> than anything else.
    >
    >I see one facet of the SASS-P that might be an problem for us. Crown's
    >spec sheet says that this mic shouldn't be used any closer than 3 feet
    >from its target to avoid a "hole in the middle" effect. In this space, 3
    >feet is about the max that we'd ever be from an instrument, and often
    >much less. In most studio situations, you'd just narrow the panning to
    >compensate for this, but we won't have that option - whatever stereo mic
    >we choose will have its two sides permanently hard-panned to the right
    >and the left. So we may need to choose a mic that doesn't spread itself
    >quite as wide as this one does.


    This is the case for ANY single point stereo mike. If you have to be in
    that close, maybe you want a 635A and just ditch the idea of stereo.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  12. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Richard Crowley wrote:
    > "Jim Gilliland" wrote ...
    >
    >>Our entire annual budget is under $100K, so spending 1% of that on a mic
    >>that will only be used for occasional live studio performances may be
    >>difficult to justify. Still, it's a capital purchase that will be in use
    >>for many years, so I'd consider it worthwhile. We'll see if the station
    >>management agrees.
    >
    > If you're really looking for a LOW-budget mic, you could consider one
    > of those consumer stereo mics (like the Sonys, etc) that are popular for
    > use with MD recorders, etc.

    No, I hope we can do better than that. For one thing, this is a studio
    that is manned by college students for many hours of the day. We need
    equipment that can hold up to a reasonable level of abuse. I'm pretty
    sure that we can find enough money to buy something suitable. I'm trying
    to get a clearer picture of our budget for these items before I get too
    far along with this. Worst case, I'll donate my own AT825 to the cause.
    I hate to do that, though, because I've begun using it more as an
    audience mic for my own recordings.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Scott Dorsey wrote:
    >>
    >>I see one facet of the SASS-P that might be an problem for us. Crown's
    >>spec sheet says that this mic shouldn't be used any closer than 3 feet
    >>from its target to avoid a "hole in the middle" effect. In this space,
    >>3 feet is about the max that we'd ever be from an instrument, and often
    >>much less. In most studio situations, you'd just narrow the panning to
    >>compensate for this, but we won't have that option - whatever stereo mic
    >>we choose will have its two sides permanently hard-panned to the right
    >>and the left. So we may need to choose a mic that doesn't spread itself
    >>quite as wide as this one does.
    >
    > This is the case for ANY single point stereo mike. If you have to be in
    > that close, maybe you want a 635A and just ditch the idea of stereo.

    I really don't want to go to mono - that's what we've got in our current
    studio, and I find it very limiting. Just from looking at the specs, the
    Crown really does seem to be a wider pattern than most stereo mics. A
    narrower capsule angle should work better for us, I think. And if we do
    find a situation where mono is preferable, I can always press the mono
    button on the console channel to sum the two sides.

    Since we haven't actually built the new studio yet, it's not easy to
    envision the exact positioning of the mic relative to some as yet
    hypothetical instrument or instruments. But I have a mental picture that
    positions it about 18" to 36" from a group of two or three instruments,
    and closer (perhaps 12" or even a bit less) to a single instrument.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Richard Crowley wrote:
    > "Jim Gilliland" wrote ...
    >
    >> Our entire annual budget is under $100K, so spending 1% of that on a mic
    >> that will only be used for occasional live studio performances may be
    >> difficult to justify. Still, it's a capital purchase that will be in use
    >> for many years, so I'd consider it worthwhile. We'll see if the station
    >> management agrees.
    >
    >
    > If you're really looking for a LOW-budget mic, you could consider one
    > of those consumer stereo mics (like the Sonys, etc) that are popular for
    > use with MD recorders, etc.


    How about an Audio-Technica AT825?
  15. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Scott Dorsey wrote:

    > This is the case for ANY single point stereo mike. If you have to be in
    > that close, maybe you want a 635A and just ditch the idea of stereo.

    I thought the SASS-P was a baffle separated omni pair. Wrong?

    I've always had a problem with a hole in the middle using
    baffled omni's in a Jecklin configuration. Getting closer
    is usually recommended to close it and it does seem to help
    at the expense of ambience.


    Bob
    --

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

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

    Jim Gilliland wrote:

    > The Crown SASS-P is basically two PZM's mounted back to back, providing
    > a very wide pattern at high frequencies, and approaching omni at low
    > frequencies. It's a bit cheaper than the Shure, but not a lot cheaper.

    Ah, it _is_ a baffle separated omni pair. That won't reduce
    well to mono.


    Bob
    --

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

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

    Bob Cain wrote:
    >
    > Scott Dorsey wrote:
    >
    >> This is the case for ANY single point stereo mike. If you have to be in
    >> that close, maybe you want a 635A and just ditch the idea of stereo.
    >
    > I thought the SASS-P was a baffle separated omni pair. Wrong?

    Not exactly. It is a separated pair of PZMs, but the separator is really
    more a spacer than a baffle (though Crown calls it a baffle). And the
    PZMs are mounted on angled backplates that gives them a directional
    pattern. See the pdf for a picture:

    http://www.crownaudio.com/pdf/mics/126982.pdf

    I just spotted the dimensions of the mic at the bottom of the PDF - this
    thing is huge, nearly a foot across. That wasn't obvious from the
    picture (scale can be deceiving). I'm afraid this isn't going to be a
    practical mic for the small space in which we will be working.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Kurt Albershardt wrote:
    >
    > How about an Audio-Technica AT825?

    Yes, I've mentioned that one a couple of times in this thread already.
    It may well turn out to be a reasonable choice. Of all the stereo mics
    on the market, that's the one that I'm most familiar with.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Scott Dorsey wrote:
    > Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:
    >
    >>We're updating some facilities at my radio station, and I've suggested
    >>that we add an acoustic instruments mic to our air studio to support live
    >>performers. We already have several mics planned for guest
    >>speaking/singing (these will be SM7s), but we don't have anything planned
    >>for instruments. Our goal is to keep things EXTREMELY simple, so we're
    >>planning to use a single stereo mic for this purpose (mostly for acoustic
    >>guitars, occasionally a mandolin or other string instrument).
    >>
    >>Typically, the mic will likely be anywhere from 6" to 36" from one or
    >>more instruments. This is a very small space for performers. We
    >>probably can't fit more than a duo, or maybe a trio if they all like each
    >>other.
    >>
    >>We're trying to select an appropriate mic for this purpose. I've
    >>considered the Rode NT4 and the AT 825, but the Shure VP88 looks like it
    >>may be a better choice. Its M/S design is inherently mono compatible,
    >>and the other mics in the room are Shures so it may be a good match from
    >>a voicing standpoint. However, I've never actually heard one nor heard
    >>from anyone who's used one, so this is nothing more than speculation.
    >
    > The VP88 is okay, but it's kind of noisy.

    I'm back to thinking about the VP88, even though everyone says it's
    relatively noisy. Here's what I'm thinking.

    The noise spec for the VP88 is about the same as the AT825. The Rode NT4
    is considerably quieter (based on the manufacturer's data). However,
    this mic is going to be used in an on-air studio that includes a couple
    of racks of equipment - including fans and motors and other noisy stuff.
    The self-noise of the mic is likely to be insignificant in this
    environment. Furthermore, the signal is eventually going out over FM
    broadcast, which is bound to be far noisier than anything coming from the
    mic. So I just don't think the noise issue is going to be particularly
    important in our usage.

    On the other hand, we'll be feeding the left and right sides of this mic
    directly into a stereo channel on our main broadcast board (well, through
    a mic pre, obviously). There will be no control whatsoever over the
    relative panning of the left and right - both will be hard panned 100% to
    the left and right of our program bus. This situation, combined with our
    small performance space, will make it tricky to position a stereo mic
    properly (as Scott has already pointed out).

    The VP88 uses a mid/side configuration with an internal m/s matrix that
    allows it to output standard L/R signals. And that m/s matrix offers a
    choice of settings for the level of the side mic, providing a choice of
    stereo settings - narrow, medium (normal), or wide.

    So the mid/side pattern controls on the mic itself will provide a LOT
    more flexibility than any standard stereo mic can. I'll be able to set
    the mic for narrow, medium, or wide stereo to best fit whatever mix of
    musicians I happen to have in that space. Furthermore, I have the fourth
    choice of setting the channel to mono on the broadcast board, effectively
    turning off the side mic completely so that the mic becomes basically a
    normal cardioid small diaphragn condenser.

    I think that this flexibility will far outweigh any concern over
    self-noise.

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

    The Sony ECM-S5 does all of that and is better sounding and
    quieter. I have both and prefer the Sony. The Shure is harsh
    and gritty compared to the Sony. At least mine is.
  21. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Jim Gilliland wrote:
    > Kurt Albershardt wrote:
    >
    >
    >> How about an Audio-Technica AT825?
    >
    >
    > Yes, I've mentioned that one a couple of times in this thread already.


    Noticed that after I replied, sorry.


    > It may well turn out to be a reasonable choice. Of all the stereo mics
    > on the market, that's the one that I'm most familiar with.

    It's the only one I'm familiar with in the $300-1000 bracket. Seems
    like we could use a few more contenders in the mid-price range.
  22. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
    >Jim Gilliland wrote:
    >
    >> The Crown SASS-P is basically two PZM's mounted back to back, providing
    >> a very wide pattern at high frequencies, and approaching omni at low
    >> frequencies. It's a bit cheaper than the Shure, but not a lot cheaper.
    >
    >Ah, it _is_ a baffle separated omni pair. That won't reduce
    >well to mono.

    It's close enough that it reduces pretty well. There are comb filtering
    issues in the top octave, but no worse than ORTF. You'll never notice it
    on FM radio where the top octave is screwy from the subcarrier rejection
    anyway.
    --scott

    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  23. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
    >Scott Dorsey wrote:
    >
    >> This is the case for ANY single point stereo mike. If you have to be in
    >> that close, maybe you want a 635A and just ditch the idea of stereo.
    >
    >I thought the SASS-P was a baffle separated omni pair. Wrong?
    >
    >I've always had a problem with a hole in the middle using
    >baffled omni's in a Jecklin configuration. Getting closer
    >is usually recommended to close it and it does seem to help
    >at the expense of ambience.

    It is, but it has a bunch of additional baffling on the sides and does not
    really behave like a conventional baffled pair. For one thing, it does
    like to be back farther.
    --scott

    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  24. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:24:07 -0400, Jim Gilliland wrote
    (in article <429f0893$0$59339$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>):


    >
    > So the mid/side pattern controls on the mic itself will provide a LOT
    > more flexibility than any standard stereo mic can. I'll be able to set
    > the mic for narrow, medium, or wide stereo to best fit whatever mix of
    > musicians I happen to have in that space. Furthermore, I have the fourth
    > choice of setting the channel to mono on the broadcast board, effectively
    > turning off the side mic completely so that the mic becomes basically a
    > normal cardioid small diaphragn condenser.
    >
    > I think that this flexibility will far outweigh any concern over
    > self-noise.
    >
    > Comments?

    Jim,

    The vp88 is noisiest in its widest setting. Don't go there and you should be
    OK....

    BUT... Like a lot of condenser mics, put it in a small room with hard
    surfaces and noisy little machines and it WILL hear them.

    Regards,

    Ty Ford


    -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
    stuff are at www.tyford.com
  25. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:55:11 -0400, RickPV8945@aol.com wrote
    (in article <1117666511.935377.229790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):

    JIm,

    Sorry to muddy the waters, but also consider the Sanken CSS-5, AT 435ST.

    The AT 825 is a good all-round solution though.\

    The tough part will be getting talent and performers in the right places. I
    recorded Springsteen, Federici and Clemmons in a studio the size of two phone
    booths using only two EV 1751 electret condensers on the typical radio
    station boom arms back in 1972. I just sort of put them up about 3 feet apart
    asked the guys to sort of play and sing at them, keeping Bruce in the middle.
    I listen from time to time to the CD I made from the 1/4" and it sounds
    pretty darn good for "live."

    The point being, maybe two mono mics would work as well.

    Regards,

    Ty Ford


    -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
    stuff are at www.tyford.com
  26. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Richard Crowley wrote:
    > The Sony ECM-S5 does all of that and is better sounding and
    > quieter. I have both and prefer the Sony. The Shure is harsh
    > and gritty compared to the Sony. At least mine is.

    Thanks for that comment. I'll take a closer look at the Sony, hoping its
    in the same price ballpark.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Ty Ford wrote:
    > On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:24:07 -0400, Jim Gilliland wrote
    > (in article <429f0893$0$59339$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>):
    >
    >
    >
    >>So the mid/side pattern controls on the mic itself will provide a LOT
    >>more flexibility than any standard stereo mic can. I'll be able to set
    >>the mic for narrow, medium, or wide stereo to best fit whatever mix of
    >>musicians I happen to have in that space. Furthermore, I have the fourth
    >>choice of setting the channel to mono on the broadcast board, effectively
    >>turning off the side mic completely so that the mic becomes basically a
    >>normal cardioid small diaphragn condenser.
    >>
    >>I think that this flexibility will far outweigh any concern over
    >>self-noise.
    >>
    >>Comments?
    >
    >
    > Jim,
    >
    > The vp88 is noisiest in its widest setting. Don't go there and you should be
    > OK....
    >
    > BUT... Like a lot of condenser mics, put it in a small room with hard
    > surfaces and noisy little machines and it WILL hear them.

    Good point, it sure will. A dynamic mic might serve us better from that
    standpoint, but I've never seen a dynamic stereo mic.

    I think I need to make sure that I talk with the studio designers about
    the wall surfaces - especially right behind the guest area.
  28. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Jim Gilliland" wrote ...
    > Richard Crowley wrote:
    > > The Sony ECM-S5 does all of that and is better sounding and
    > > quieter. I have both and prefer the Sony. The Shure is harsh
    > > and gritty compared to the Sony. At least mine is.
    >
    > Thanks for that comment. I'll take a closer look at the Sony, hoping its
    > in the same price ballpark.

    Sorry, I mis-typed the model number. Should have been ECM-MS5
    Dunno if it is still a current model? I bought mine on clearance sale
    (B-stock) from Sony.

    Pretty amusing story here... http://www.trewaudio.com/goat.htm

    Of course, there are always the Core Sound mics
    http://www.core-sound.com/mics.html
  29. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Ty Ford wrote:
    > On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:55:11 -0400, RickPV8945@aol.com wrote
    > (in article <1117666511.935377.229790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
    >
    > JIm,
    >
    > Sorry to muddy the waters, but also consider the Sanken CSS-5, AT 435ST.

    AT's site lists four stereo mics, but has no listing for anything called
    435. The Sanken seems to be intended for use at somewhat of a distance
    (hence its designation as a "shotgun" mic).

    > The AT 825 is a good all-round solution though.\
    >
    > The tough part will be getting talent and performers in the right places. I
    > recorded Springsteen, Federici and Clemmons in a studio the size of two phone
    > booths using only two EV 1751 electret condensers on the typical radio
    > station boom arms back in 1972. I just sort of put them up about 3 feet apart
    > asked the guys to sort of play and sing at them, keeping Bruce in the middle.
    > I listen from time to time to the CD I made from the 1/4" and it sounds
    > pretty darn good for "live."
    >
    > The point being, maybe two mono mics would work as well.

    How did you have them panned? That's a major constraint - our new
    broadcast console will have no capability whatsoever for positioning
    anything across the stereo field. There will basically be two options -
    full stereo (with signals panned 100% left and right) and mono (with
    identical signals going to both sides). We could add an outboard mixer
    for this, but we'd far prefer not to. The goal here is to keep this as
    simple as possible - so that we can interview guests in the main air
    studio and allow them to play an an acoustic format without having to go
    over to a larger studio.

    The result, if it works, will be a simple stereo instrumental background
    with close-miked vocals in mono over it. We may also incorporate a very
    rudimentary reverb capability since the room will be fairly dry.

    All mics will have compressors in their paths that will be set once and
    left alone. That's standard procedure for the announcer and guest mics,
    and I'm thinking that an RNC in "Supernice" mode may be an ideal tool to
    do the same thing for the stereo mic feed.

    The reverb will be configured to take the entire program bus as its
    input, and to return via an extra channel on the board. Obviously, it
    will only be used when we have live music going on, and even then only
    when it's really needed (and when the operator actually knows how to use it).

    The idea is to keep things as simple as possible. Nobody needs to learn
    to use an extra console, mic positioning requirements are kept to a
    minimum, very little extra gear is required. If this gets either
    expensive or complicated, it'll get thrown out and our performace options
    will become VERY limited.

    In our current studio, I have three mono mics on the board - all SM7s.
    So last year when Rodney Crowell and Will Kimbrough came to visit, I put
    each of them on an SM7, keeping the third one for myself. Whenever they
    did a song, I had to pot down my mic, reposition it to a guestimate
    position between their guitars, then pot it back up. Then at the end of
    the song, I had to reverse the process so I could speak with them. Not
    an ideal situation by any means! <g>
  30. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Richard Crowley wrote:
    > The Sony ECM-S5 does all of that and is better sounding and
    > quieter. I have both and prefer the Sony. The Shure is harsh
    > and gritty compared to the Sony. At least mine is.

    Hmmm. I searched Sony's Pro Audio site for that model and came up empty.
    So I tried an overall web search. The only thing I found with that
    model number was a stereo conference mic that ran on a battery, used a
    miniplug for its output, and sold for under $40. It was designed to sit
    on a flat surface like a conference table.

    It did mention using a mid/side approach, but it did not appear to have
    any controls. Is that the mic that you mean, or did they once have a
    different model with this designation?
  31. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Jim Gilliland wrote:

    > So the mid/side pattern controls on the mic itself will provide a LOT
    > more flexibility than any standard stereo mic can. I'll be able to set
    > the mic for narrow, medium, or wide stereo to best fit whatever mix of
    > musicians I happen to have in that space.

    Given an L/R output there is very little difference between
    the M/S and the XY configurations and they can be treated
    the same, but as you point out, the controls on the M/S are
    certainly more convenient than doing the same thing with an
    XY subsequent to the mic.

    You can more directly determine the relative values of
    ambient and mic noise by subtracting the mic spec in its
    usual dB from 94 (unless the spec is already SPL equivalent
    which it usually isn't.) The result is the equivalent self
    noise in SPL which you can compare with a measurement of
    your room.


    Bob
    --

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

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

    I have and use the 88, the SASS, the 81s (that someone else
    mentioned) all the time. Used the 88 and the SASS last night
    on two separate recordings in two very different spaces.

    Both function very well. I find both to be exceptionally
    acceptable in every situation I've used them in. You are
    correct in concluding that the noise contribution from the
    88 will be inconsequential in the context of your
    application. Environmental factors will far overwhelm any
    noise from the microphone. And unless all the other
    components in your signal chain are pristine, you're
    fretting over absolutely nothing. You're talking FM here.

    You are likewise correct in observing the "H-M-L" switch on
    the 88. Makes it quite versatile in the real world where you
    want to narrow or widen the perceived field. Remember this
    microphone was developed for broadcast television
    applications. The stereo field for all situations for which
    this mic is contemplated is certainly not textbook ideal,
    consequently the foresight of Shure designers to allow a
    little adjustment to match the field of vision a little more
    realistically. It works.

    Now, before you freak out about it, the mic is terminated in
    a 5-pin connector. Standard issue includes a 5-pin to dual
    XLR pigtail. And the user's manual shows the wiring of the
    5-pin. If you don't get the pigtail, just make one. The
    5-pin makes it nice as you don't have to run two separate
    cables from the mic to your input device. Do the split at
    the input. Get a run of Canare StarQuad (or whatever your
    favorite flavor of this type cable happens to be), do what
    you gotta do, and have a nice clean installation.

    Get one - buy it, borrow it, rent it -- whatever. Just get
    it and try it, and use your energies to find out how it will
    work for your situation. Or won't.


    TM


    Jim Gilliland wrote:
    >

    > I'm back to thinking about the VP88, even though everyone says it's
    > relatively noisy. Here's what I'm thinking.
    >
    > The self-noise of the mic is likely to be insignificant in this
    > environment. Furthermore, the signal is eventually going out over FM
    > broadcast, which is bound to be far noisier than anything coming from the
    > mic. So I just don't think the noise issue is going to be particularly
    > important in our usage.

    > The VP88 uses a mid/side configuration with an internal m/s matrix that
    > allows it to output standard L/R signals. And that m/s matrix offers a
    > choice of settings for the level of the side mic, providing a choice of
    > stereo settings - narrow, medium (normal), or wide.
    >
    > So the mid/side pattern controls on the mic itself will provide a LOT
    > more flexibility than any standard stereo mic can.
  33. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    T Maki wrote:
    >
    > Now, before you freak out about it, the mic is terminated in
    > a 5-pin connector. Standard issue includes a 5-pin to dual
    > XLR pigtail. And the user's manual shows the wiring of the
    > 5-pin. If you don't get the pigtail, just make one. The
    > 5-pin makes it nice as you don't have to run two separate
    > cables from the mic to your input device. Do the split at
    > the input. Get a run of Canare StarQuad (or whatever your
    > favorite flavor of this type cable happens to be), do what
    > you gotta do, and have a nice clean installation.

    Nothing to freak out about there - I've already had to do exactly that
    with my AG825 (which also uses a 5-pin XLR). I bought mine from a store
    clearance rack at a very good price ($175), but it didn't come with a
    cable so I had to make my own. The starquad worked perfectly.

    > Get one - buy it, borrow it, rent it -- whatever. Just get
    > it and try it, and use your energies to find out how it will
    > work for your situation. Or won't.

    Thanks for your comments - very helpful.
  34. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Kurt Albershardt wrote:
    >>
    >>> How about an Audio-Technica AT825?
    >
    > It's the only one I'm familiar with in the $300-1000 bracket. Seems
    > like we could use a few more contenders in the mid-price range.

    The Rode NT4 falls into that bracket. And it turns out that the VP88
    isn't as expensive as I thought it was - I got a quote for it that was
    under $600.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <d7nn6g02boo@enews2.newsguy.com> arcane@arcanemethods.com writes:

    > Given an L/R output there is very little difference between
    > the M/S and the XY configurations and they can be treated
    > the same, but as you point out, the controls on the M/S are
    > certainly more convenient than doing the same thing with an
    > XY subsequent to the mic.

    Huh? I read that three times and I can't figure out what you said. The
    VP-88 is an M-S mic setup with a built-in X-Y combiner. There are
    wide, medium and narrow stereo width settings (more or less S relative
    to M) for the X-Y matrix combiner or, when selected, direct M and S
    outputs. There should definitely be a difference between the M-S and
    any of the converted-to-L/R (X-Y) settings. You must have meant that.


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

    Mike Rivers wrote:
    > In article <d7nn6g02boo@enews2.newsguy.com> arcane@arcanemethods.com writes:
    >
    >
    >>Given an L/R output there is very little difference between
    >>the M/S and the XY configurations and they can be treated
    >>the same, but as you point out, the controls on the M/S are
    >>certainly more convenient than doing the same thing with an
    >>XY subsequent to the mic.
    >
    >
    > Huh? I read that three times and I can't figure out what you said. The
    > VP-88 is an M-S mic setup with a built-in X-Y combiner. There are
    > wide, medium and narrow stereo width settings (more or less S relative
    > to M) for the X-Y matrix combiner or, when selected, direct M and S
    > outputs. There should definitely be a difference between the M-S and
    > any of the converted-to-L/R (X-Y) settings. You must have meant that.

    Sorry. Seems like the older I get the more obscure I get.

    I wouldn't have thought of calling the internals an "X-Y
    combiner" but that works. Trying again, my point was that a
    real XY (LR) signal (e.g. two coincident cards) can be
    treated as a matrixed MS signal for nearly all intents and
    purposes. It can be de-matrixed to MS and the controls you
    describe can be applied in the process of re-mixing it back
    to XY. This, however, implies a DAW or a special mixer
    setup. The convenience of having these controls on the MS
    mic is probably a good thing for a broadcast application and
    makes it a better choice than a real XY which doesn't.

    OTOH a mixer can be set up to give continuous width control
    rather than the discrete set on the mic and can do so
    regardless of whether the mic is XY or MS.

    Any clearer?


    Bob
    --

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

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

    On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:50:56 -0400, Jim Gilliland wrote
    (in article <429f27df$0$48321$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>):

    > Ty Ford wrote:
    >> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:55:11 -0400, RickPV8945@aol.com wrote
    >> (in article <1117666511.935377.229790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
    >>
    >> JIm,
    >>
    >> Sorry to muddy the waters, but also consider the Sanken CSS-5, AT 435ST.
    >
    > AT's site lists four stereo mics, but has no listing for anything called
    > 435. The Sanken seems to be intended for use at somewhat of a distance
    > (hence its designation as a "shotgun" mic).

    The CSS-5 is a stereo/shotgun. That means it's either a stereo or a shotgun.
    IN stereo mode you put it as close as you want it.

    From the AT site,

    http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/b92dc794916f0fa7/index.html

    Likewise a stereo/shotgun, one or the other. Not both at the same time.


    >
    >> The AT 825 is a good all-round solution though.\
    >>
    >> The tough part will be getting talent and performers in the right places. I
    >> recorded Springsteen, Federici and Clemmons in a studio the size of two
    >> phone
    >> booths using only two EV 1751 electret condensers on the typical radio
    >> station boom arms back in 1972. I just sort of put them up about 3 feet
    >> apart
    >> asked the guys to sort of play and sing at them, keeping Bruce in the
    >> middle.
    >> I listen from time to time to the CD I made from the 1/4" and it sounds
    >> pretty darn good for "live."
    >>
    >> The point being, maybe two mono mics would work as well.
    >
    > How did you have them panned? That's a major constraint - our new
    > broadcast console will have no capability whatsoever for positioning
    > anything across the stereo field. There will basically be two options -
    > full stereo (with signals panned 100% left and right) and mono (with
    > identical signals going to both sides). We could add an outboard mixer
    > for this, but we'd far prefer not to. The goal here is to keep this as
    > simple as possible - so that we can interview guests in the main air
    > studio and allow them to play an an acoustic format without having to go
    > over to a larger studio.

    Panned? we don't need no stinkin' panning! The mics were cut left and right.

    How big's the room?

    Regards.

    Ty

    call me 410.296.2868


    -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
    stuff are at www.tyford.com
  38. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <d7p3cb01mm2@enews2.newsguy.com> arcane@arcanemethods.com writes:

    > Sorry. Seems like the older I get the more obscure I get.

    I thought I had that problem too, but I keep forgetting what I said.

    > I wouldn't have thought of calling the internals an "X-Y
    > combiner" but that works. Trying again, my point was that a
    > real XY (LR) signal (e.g. two coincident cards) can be
    > treated as a matrixed MS signal for nearly all intents and
    > purposes. It can be de-matrixed to MS and the controls you
    > describe can be applied in the process of re-mixing it back
    > to XY.

    Actually, the source for "de-matrixing" doesn't have to originate as a
    pair of cardioids oriented in the X-Y position. You can do this trick
    with a stereo multitrack mix. If you want to make the image narrower,
    it's of course easier to just pan the left and right toward the
    center, but you can make the image wider by converting to sum and
    difference (the yin and yang of M and S) and back again. And the real
    interesting thing comes with applying different EQ to the sum and
    difference before re-combining them to left and right.

    > The convenience of having these controls on the MS
    > mic is probably a good thing for a broadcast application and
    > makes it a better choice than a real XY which doesn't.

    Right, and that's one of the neat features of this mic. Perhaps the
    mic would be less confusing to the novice if it the switch was simply
    labeled Wide-Medium-Narrow and "Don't use this switch position until
    you've read the manual" which would explain how to use the separate M
    and S outputs.

    By the way, I've used an M-S setup for simultaneous live PA and
    recording where the mid mic (cardioid) by itself fed the live sound
    and the recording was in stereo. This was at a music camp where people
    were coming up for one or two songs, mostly solo or duo, never more
    than four, and did it old-time-radio style with one mic. By goosing up
    the mid mic while someone was talking, I could get enough level in the
    PA to hear them, and it also narrowed the stereo image of the
    recording, reducing the amount of hall reverberation from the
    amplified speaking voice that was recorded.


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

    Ty Ford wrote:

    > From the AT site,
    >
    > http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/b92dc794916f0fa7/index.html
    >
    > Likewise a stereo/shotgun, one or the other. Not both at the same time.

    Thanks. That looks like it would be a useful mic for my concert
    recording projects (for the audience). It could work in our studio, too,
    though I'd prefer something physically smaller.

    > Panned? we don't need no stinkin' panning! The mics were cut left and right.
    >
    > How big's the room?

    The room will be about 10x12.5, but the area for guests (performers) is
    only about 3 feet by 10 feet. The wall will be close behind them. The
    area will be wide, but not at all deep.

    Here's a picture:

    http://users.adelphia.net/~gilliland/sightlines.gif

    It's really intended first and foremost as an interview space.
  40. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:48:44 -0400, Jim Gilliland wrote
    (in article <42a06dd0$0$1535$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>):

    > Ty Ford wrote:
    >
    >> From the AT site,
    >>
    >> http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/b92dc794916f0fa7/index.html
    >>
    >> Likewise a stereo/shotgun, one or the other. Not both at the same time.
    >
    > Thanks. That looks like it would be a useful mic for my concert
    > recording projects (for the audience). It could work in our studio, too,
    > though I'd prefer something physically smaller.
    >
    >> Panned? we don't need no stinkin' panning! The mics were cut left and right.
    >>
    >> How big's the room?
    >
    > The room will be about 10x12.5, but the area for guests (performers) is
    > only about 3 feet by 10 feet. The wall will be close behind them. The
    > area will be wide, but not at all deep.
    >
    > Here's a picture:
    >
    > http://users.adelphia.net/~gilliland/sightlines.gif
    >
    > It's really intended first and foremost as an interview space.

    Sorry Jim,

    I sneezed and hit the send button.

    Get AE5400 hyper cardioid vocal mics. Get some broadcast-type suspension
    mounts for the mics. Get pop filters.

    Get a some direct boxes for instruments w/ pickups and run them all through a
    small 6-8 channel mixer so you can pan here and there.

    How's that?

    Ty Ford


    -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
    stuff are at www.tyford.com
  41. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <42a06dd0$0$1535$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> usemylastname@cheerful.com writes:

    > The room will be about 10x12.5, but the area for guests (performers) is
    > only about 3 feet by 10 feet. The wall will be close behind them. The
    > area will be wide, but not at all deep.
    >
    > Here's a picture:
    > http://users.adelphia.net/~gilliland/sightlines.gif

    Better not bring in any didgeridoo players.

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

    Mike Rivers wrote:
    > In article <42a06dd0$0$1535$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> usemylastname@cheerful.com writes:
    >
    >>The room will be about 10x12.5, but the area for guests (performers) is
    >>only about 3 feet by 10 feet. The wall will be close behind them. The
    >>area will be wide, but not at all deep.
    >>
    >>Here's a picture:
    >>http://users.adelphia.net/~gilliland/sightlines.gif
    >
    > Better not bring in any didgeridoo players.

    <g> I think that's a safe bet.

    Yeah, it's tight. There's room and mics for three guests, but probably
    only two with instruments, and even that may require removing the seats.
    It's far from ideal acoustically, but it isn't intended to be a
    regular performing space. 99% of the time, it's just an on-air broadcast
    studio. I'm just trying to squeeze in something usable for those
    "surprise" guests who show up from time to time.
  43. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Ty Ford wrote:
    >>>
    >>>How big's the room?
    >>
    >>The room will be about 10x12.5, but the area for guests (performers) is
    >>only about 3 feet by 10 feet. The wall will be close behind them. The
    >>area will be wide, but not at all deep.
    >>
    >>Here's a picture:
    >>
    >>http://users.adelphia.net/~gilliland/sightlines.gif
    >
    > Get AE5400 hyper cardioid vocal mics. Get some broadcast-type suspension
    > mounts for the mics. Get pop filters.
    >
    > Get a some direct boxes for instruments w/ pickups and run them all through a
    > small 6-8 channel mixer so you can pan here and there.
    >
    > How's that?

    I can bring in my own stuff to do that when necessary, but I know I can't
    convince our management to install that sort of thing permanently.
    Still, that's a solution that I may want to use sometimes. They are
    planning to leave one channel on the board for external use, and I've got
    a suitable mixer and some direct boxes that will make that relatively
    easy to do. But sometimes I don't know that I'm going to have a guest
    until I'm actually at the station and on the air. We're dealing with the
    real world here.

    BTW, I've become a lot less enthusiastic about the AE5400s. We used them
    quite a bit for last year's Kent State Folk Fest, and I've been really
    fighting with the vocal tracks that came from them. Especially for the
    women, I'm finding that I have to do some rather extreme EQing to get
    them to sound right. Maybe they just didn't get along well with the pres
    on my Spirit mixer, but I've never had this much trouble with any other mic.

    The SM7s (with pop filters and broadcast booms) really aren't bad at all
    for vocal mics. My biggest problem is that the compressor settings that
    are used for speaking aren't necessarily ideal for singing. So I'm
    hoping to work with our engineer to find a setting that will work OK for
    both.

    I think it's pretty clear that the configuration at hand isn't going to
    be anywhere near perfect. But it will be considerably better than what I
    have now, and that's definitely a step in the right direction. There's a
    lot of compromising going on to allow this to happen at all.

    Thanks for all the suggestions.
  44. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Jim Gilliland wrote:
    > Ty Ford wrote:
    >
    >> How big's the room?
    >
    > The room will be about 10x12.5, but the area for guests (performers) is
    > only about 3 feet by 10 feet. The wall will be close behind them. The
    > area will be wide, but not at all deep.
    >
    > Here's a picture:
    >
    > http://users.adelphia.net/~gilliland/sightlines.gif
    >
    > It's really intended first and foremost as an interview space.

    BTW, Ty (or others), what's considered "best practice" for acoustic
    treatment in a broadcast studio like this one? I'm not sure that I'll be
    able to have much influence over whatever it is that they decide to do,
    but I'd like to at least be informed.

    I know that the window to the lobby will be angled so that it is slightly
    non-parallel to the opposite wall, and that the opposite wall will be
    used for a "new release" CD rack (adjacent to the door). The floor will
    be carpeted, and acoustic tiles on the ceiling. I know they have some
    sort of treatment in mind for other wall surfaces, but I really don't
    know what.
  45. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 23:11:22 -0400, Jim Gilliland
    <usemylastname@cheerful.com> wrote:

    >BTW, Ty (or others), what's considered "best practice" for acoustic
    >treatment in a broadcast studio like this one? I'm not sure that I'll be
    >able to have much influence over whatever it is that they decide to do,
    >but I'd like to at least be informed.

    Just gotta say, Jim, that you're a real trooper, and fighting the
    good fight. Please keep fighting as long as possible; folks *do*
    appreciate it. Thanks,

    Chris Hornbeck
    "He thought so little they rewarded he,
    By making him the ruler of the Queen's Navy".
  46. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:23:58 -0400, Jim Gilliland wrote
    (in article <42a0d8a7$0$35941$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>):

    > I think it's pretty clear that the configuration at hand isn't going to
    > be anywhere near perfect. But it will be considerably better than what I
    > have now, and that's definitely a step in the right direction. There's a
    > lot of compromising going on to allow this to happen at all.
    >
    > Thanks for all the suggestions.

    Yah, for sure. WhenI did that years ago, I found manual gain riding with a
    limiter on top to keep it all in the box was the best answer.

    You (they) are doing two things, singing and talking. Very different. You
    also might want a little reverb you can dump in when they are singing.

    Regards,

    Ty


    -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
    stuff are at www.tyford.com
  47. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:11:22 -0400, Jim Gilliland wrote
    (in article <42a11bca$0$26328$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>):

    > Jim Gilliland wrote:
    >> Ty Ford wrote:
    >>
    >>> How big's the room?
    >>
    >> The room will be about 10x12.5, but the area for guests (performers) is
    >> only about 3 feet by 10 feet. The wall will be close behind them. The
    >> area will be wide, but not at all deep.
    >>
    >> Here's a picture:
    >>
    >> http://users.adelphia.net/~gilliland/sightlines.gif
    >>
    >> It's really intended first and foremost as an interview space.
    >
    > BTW, Ty (or others), what's considered "best practice" for acoustic
    > treatment in a broadcast studio like this one? I'm not sure that I'll be
    > able to have much influence over whatever it is that they decide to do,
    > but I'd like to at least be informed.
    >
    > I know that the window to the lobby will be angled so that it is slightly
    > non-parallel to the opposite wall, and that the opposite wall will be
    > used for a "new release" CD rack (adjacent to the door). The floor will
    > be carpeted, and acoustic tiles on the ceiling. I know they have some
    > sort of treatment in mind for other wall surfaces, but I really don't
    > know what.

    Um, make the windows as small as possible (something many don't think about.)
    If they are close to the sound sources (And yours appear to be), install them
    so they angle the sound UP and not DOWN. A lot of installs screw up by
    putting them in to angle down because they've seen them that way. Problem is,
    if the sound source is close, and the glass is above, that just bounces the
    sound back into the rear or side of the mic instead up up towards the
    ceiling.

    Don't rely solely on "acoustic tile" in the ceiling. Get think (1" or less)
    Sonex. Take the ceiling tiles down. Lay them face up on the floor. Spread
    some lines of liquid nails on the surface. Cut (if needed) and position the
    Sonex on the tiles. Squish the Sonex around a little to spread the liquid
    adhesive for a tighter fit. Not too much or it will stick off center. Now
    turn them over (foam down) and put a couple of bricks or books on them for 20
    minutes or so. Then install your new acoustic ceiling tiles.

    Angling the ceiling tiles so they aren't all parallel to the floor also helps
    or suspend a non-parallel floater or two from the ceiling to break up the
    ceiling bounce

    Don't use a lot of foam on the walls. Go for a balance of diffusion
    (irregular surfaces) and absorption (foam). Too much foam in a room sounds
    overly dead and spongy.

    Opps! Now you know most of my tricks, I'll have to hunt you done and bill
    you. Fortunately, this is just between the two of us.

    Regards,

    Ty Ford


    -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
    stuff are at www.tyford.com
  48. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <42a11bca$0$26328$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> usemylastname@cheerful.com writes:

    > BTW, Ty (or others), what's considered "best practice" for acoustic
    > treatment in a broadcast studio like this one?

    It might not be the real best practice, but convention is about 50%
    coverage of the walls with 2" Sonex.


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

    Ty Ford wrote:
    >
    > You (they) are doing two things, singing and talking. Very different. You
    > also might want a little reverb you can dump in when they are singing.

    Right, that's in the plan as well.
Ask a new question

Read More

Pro Audio Audio