Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anyone used a Shure VP88 stereo mic?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 2:23:46 AM

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?

More about : shure vp88 stereo mic

Anonymous
June 1, 2005 2:23:47 AM

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
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 2:42:13 AM

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."
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 11:31:48 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 12:33:43 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 1:02:48 PM

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
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 5:49:19 PM

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
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 6:09:31 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 6:09:32 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 6:34:18 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 7:55:11 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 8:15:31 PM

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."
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 8:30:15 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 8:47:34 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 9:03:20 PM

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?
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 4:05:53 AM

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
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 4:07:31 AM

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
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 12:13:04 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 12:15:53 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 1:24:07 PM

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?
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 1:24:08 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 1:32:07 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 2:16:23 PM

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."
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 2:17:23 PM

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."
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 2:26:05 PM

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
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 2:33:48 PM

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
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 2:55:17 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 3:03:33 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 3:04:14 PM

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
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 3:50:56 PM

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>
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 3:55:15 PM

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?
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 4:37:49 PM

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
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 6:15:33 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 6:15:34 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 9:39:57 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 1:01:43 AM

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
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 5:11:54 AM

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
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 12:55:19 PM

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/b92dc79491...

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
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 2:27:13 PM

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
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 2:48:44 PM

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

Ty Ford wrote:

> From the AT site,
>
> http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/b92dc79491...
>
> 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.
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 7:54:15 PM

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/b92dc79491...
>>
>> 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
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 7:57:13 PM

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
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 10:04:56 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 10:23:58 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 3:11:22 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 7:26:11 AM

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".
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 11:43:42 AM

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
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 12:01:41 PM

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
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 2:22:47 PM

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
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 6:13:02 PM

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.
!