Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

single point stereo microphones

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 8:06:34 PM

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

Dear all

Two examples of single point stereo microphone can be found here if you care
to take a listen. www.putfile.com/foxgloveaudio The first one is a choral
piece recorded in Tewkesbury Abbey, using a Soundfield mk iv, and the second
is a piano piece with a Neumann RSM190
Your comments would be appreciated

Peter
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 2:57:41 AM

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

"Peter Hill" <foxgloveaudio@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:D geqia$muc$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:

> Dear all
>
> Two examples of single point stereo microphone can be found here if
> you care to take a listen. www.putfile.com/foxgloveaudio The first one
> is a choral piece recorded in Tewkesbury Abbey, using a Soundfield mk
> iv, and the second is a piano piece with a Neumann RSM190
> Your comments would be appreciated

Balance is nice in the choral work.

I don't hear much stereo separation in either recording--they seem near
mono.

I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who fights HVAC rumble.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 4:30:54 AM

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

"Peter Hill" <foxgloveaudio@btinternet.com> writes:

>Dear all

>Two examples of single point stereo microphone can be found here if you care
>to take a listen. www.putfile.com/foxgloveaudio The first one is a choral
>piece recorded in Tewkesbury Abbey, using a Soundfield mk iv, and the second
>is a piano piece with a Neumann RSM190
>Your comments would be appreciated

Hi Peter -

The piano is extraordinary. Very, very, very nice. Ultra clean, deep, a
perfect balance of room and piano, at least for my taste and the way I
like to record similar material.

The choral is beautiful as well. I might have put a spot mic on the
soloist for just ever so slightly more center-image focus, but the room,
organ, and chorus are perhaps ideal. (Plenty of stereo image BTW. Not sure
what the other followup poster was getting at.)

Care to share a little more about how you did these? A bit more about the
room, placement of players and mics, preamps, recorders, bit rate and
depth?

I'm also curious about the software you used to render this for posting to
the web. I didn't think MP3s could sound that good...

Anyway, very nice job. I'd like to perhaps contact you privately for
further conversations, if that's acceptable.

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--
.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 2:19:40 PM

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

Peter Hill <foxgloveaudio@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Dear all
>
> Two examples of single point stereo microphone can be found here if you care
> to take a listen. www.putfile.com/foxgloveaudio

I was unable to download this (Mac OS 8.6 / iCab / Real Player). Any
suggestions?

I have an experimental recording I would like to compare it with.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 7:54:33 PM

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

"Frank Stearns" <franks.pacifier.com@pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:11imotugtjur34d@corp.supernews.com...
> "Peter Hill" <foxgloveaudio@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>>Dear all
>
>>Two examples of single point stereo microphone can be found here if you
>>care
>>to take a listen. www.putfile.com/foxgloveaudio The first one is a choral
>>piece recorded in Tewkesbury Abbey, using a Soundfield mk iv, and the
>>second
>>is a piano piece with a Neumann RSM190
>>Your comments would be appreciated
>
> Hi Peter -
>
> The piano is extraordinary. Very, very, very nice. Ultra clean, deep, a
> perfect balance of room and piano, at least for my taste and the way I
> like to record similar material.


> The choral is beautiful as well. I might have put a spot mic on the
> soloist for just ever so slightly more center-image focus, but the room,
> organ, and chorus are perhaps ideal. (Plenty of stereo image BTW. Not sure
> what the other followup poster was getting at.)
>
> Care to share a little more about how you did these? A bit more about the
> room, placement of players and mics, preamps, recorders, bit rate and
> depth?

The room was as you can probably tell is an English cathedral shape. Very
large with a six second reverb. The Soundfield mic was places some 10 metres
from the main body of the choir, who were in the chancel in a semicircle,
with the treble soloist brought out to approximately 4 metres away from it,
this being done to avoid using a spot mic. The configuration was crossed
figure of 8 and the line level out was fed directly into Tascam DAT recorder
doing 16 bit @ 44.1.
I now use a Fostex PD4 DAT recorder, for the time being at least as I'm
looking to get either a Flash card or HD recorder. Any suggestions would be
most welcome

> I'm also curious about the software you used to render this for posting to
> the web. I didn't think MP3s could sound that good...

Editing was by means of FastEdit, and MP3 encoding in Audition, as was some
slight noise reduction. (organ blower noise)

> Anyway, very nice job. I'd like to perhaps contact you privately for
> further conversations, if that's acceptable.
>
> Frank Stearns
> Mobile Audio
> --
> .
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 10:59:52 PM

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

Peter Hill <foxgloveaudio@btinternet.com> wrote:

[...]
> The room was as you can probably tell is an English cathedral shape. Very
> large with a six second reverb. The Soundfield mic was places some 10 metres
> from the main body of the choir, who were in the chancel in a semicircle,
> with the treble soloist brought out to approximately 4 metres away from it,
> this being done to avoid using a spot mic. The configuration was crossed
> figure of 8 and the line level out was fed directly into Tascam DAT recorder
> doing 16 bit @ 44.1.

I have been experimenting with a new way of generating the crossed
figure of 8 response without any phase shift between channels which
normally results from mic spacing (even with mics as close as they will
go). Like you, I decided a choir was the thing to try it out on.

This particular session included a tambourine and it is very noticeable
that there is no image-widening cause by phase shift, right up to the
highest frequencies.

The results are at:
<http://web.ukonline.co.uk/poppy.uk/HYY043/5GabrielsTrum...;
It is uncompressed AAIF, so be warned it is a 7MB download.
I would be interested to hear opinions on the recording (not the choir)
from some professional 'ears', both with loudspeaker listening and on
headphones.


Excuses:
1) The amateur choir was recently-formed and this was only a rehearsal.
2) There really was a slight hole in the middle, some members didn't
turn up that night.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 10:59:53 PM

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

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

> I have been experimenting with a new way of generating the crossed
> figure of 8 response without any phase shift between channels which
> normally results from mic spacing (even with mics as close as they will
> go).

If and when you are ready to talk about your method I'd love
to hear more about it.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 11:23:52 PM

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

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

> I am now left wondering what to do with it. Posting the results in this
> forum seemed like a good first step, because people with much more
> experience than me will be able to let me know whether the new mic
> really is any better than existing ones.

Could you apply for a patent first to protect the idea? I
would recommend that anyone do that before disclosing a
novel idea with commercial potential whether or not the
hoops seem too intimidating at this point.

If it is novel then the patent can have value whether or not
you have the stomach for comercialization. If you are
pretty sure it isn't patentable for some reason and an
ethical patent attorney agrees then, by all means, disclose
it because if it works it will be reverse engineered anyway
and pretty quickly these days.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 12:23:08 AM

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

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> <http://web.ukonline.co.uk/poppy.uk/HYY043/5GabrielsTrum...;
> It is uncompressed AAIF, so be warned it is a 7MB download.
> ...
> Posting the results in this forum seemed like a good first step

At least for Mac users. Stuffit is not going to work for most of the
rest of the world. I'd like to hear your work.

How about FLAC, which runs on almost any OS, is free, and will really
compress WAV files? <http://flac.sourceforge.net/&gt;
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 1:00:52 AM

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

SSJVCmag <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:
>1h320tg.1t3uf5q3b58qoN%poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid, "Adrian Tuddenham"
>>
>> I am now left wondering what to do with it. Posting the results in this
>> forum seemed like a good first step, because people with much more
>> experience than me will be able to let me know whether the new mic
>> really is any better than existing ones.
>
>If it's THAT cool and THAT innovative then you should write a presentation
>for AES after you deal with a good patent attorney.
>I hope it doesn;t step into the SOUNDFIELD realm though...

Absolutely agreed. BUT, if it's a figure-8 that is synthesized by two
omni microphones and some linear-phase stuff, it's not patentable even
if you could get a good convention paper out of it, because that has been
done before. And it works but it has some problems, which I wrote a paper
about in the eighties. Now that DSP is a lot more powerful, you could get
around a lot of them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 1:00:53 AM

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Absolutely agreed. BUT, if it's a figure-8 that is synthesized by two
> omni microphones and some linear-phase stuff, it's not patentable even
> if you could get a good convention paper out of it, because that has been
> done before. And it works but it has some problems, which I wrote a paper
> about in the eighties. Now that DSP is a lot more powerful, you could get
> around a lot of them.

Everything but the horrible LF self noise problem. Been
there, done that too. :-)


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 10:08:30 AM

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

> I have been experimenting with a new way of generating the crossed
> figure of 8 response without any phase shift between channels which
> normally results from mic spacing (even with mics as close as they
> will go).

If one mic is above the other, there is zero lateral phase shift. (More
precisely, time shift.)
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 1:30:58 PM

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

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

> Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>
> > I am now left wondering what to do with it. Posting the results in this
> > forum seemed like a good first step, because people with much more
> > experience than me will be able to let me know whether the new mic
> > really is any better than existing ones.
>
> Could you apply for a patent first to protect the idea? I
> would recommend that anyone do that before disclosing a
> novel idea with commercial potential whether or not the
> hoops seem too intimidating at this point.
>
> If it is novel then the patent can have value whether or not
> you have the stomach for comercialization. If you are
> pretty sure it isn't patentable for some reason and an
> ethical patent attorney agrees then, by all means, disclose
> it because if it works it will be reverse engineered anyway
> and pretty quickly these days.

Sadly that last phrase says it all.

I have thought from the beginning that patenting it would have only two
outcomes: either it would be reverse-engineered and I needn't have
bothered, or it would be properly protected and would languish unused
and forgotten. There simply isn't enough potential income from the idea
to pay the legal fees, even if it were marketed by one of the big
manufacturers.

The market is very limited. Only a tiny proportion of microphone buyers
actually listen to a microphone with their ears and appreciate the finer
points. The others would be swayed by its appearance (which resembles a
peanut dispenser for birds) and would not buy it. This is not a
general-purpose mic, it is intended for single-mic stereo recordings
only; so among those few discerning users that might buy it, there would
only be an ocassional requirement for something as specialised as this .

It seemed as though my best course was to just get on and make some and
use them. Then if anyone wanted one they could hire it or have one made
under contract. If anyone else could be bothered to copy the idea and
work it up into something competitive with all the necessary marketing
hype (without wrecking the original concept), good luck to them.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 1:30:59 PM

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

Kurt Albershardt <kurt@nv.net> wrote:

> Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> > <http://web.ukonline.co.uk/poppy.uk/HYY043/5GabrielsTrum...;
> > It is uncompressed AAIF, so be warned it is a 7MB download.
> > ...
> > Posting the results in this forum seemed like a good first step
>
> At least for Mac users. Stuffit is not going to work for most of the
> rest of the world. I'd like to hear your work.

I thought there was something built into PCs which would decompress .sit
files? Sorry if I was mistaken.

I've never worked with a Windows/Linux PC, so the Stuffit problem has
never arisen before and I didn't want to use any audio compression
because it might affect the phasing of the HF, which was what I was
trying to record accurately.
>
> How about FLAC, which runs on almost any OS, is free, and will really
> compress WAV files? <http://flac.sourceforge.net/&gt;

I haven't got FLAC, but I've converted it to a WAV file (with the
appropriate '.wav' file extension) and uploaded it to the webspace, can
you let me know if you are able to dowload it?

<http://web.ukonline.co.uk/poppy.uk/HYY043/5GabrielsTrum...;

The venue and set-up are shown at:
<http://web.ukonline.co.uk/poppy.uk/HYY043/UnitedChurchH...;
<http://web.ukonline.co.uk/poppy.uk/HYY043/UnitedChurchH...;




--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 2:24:07 PM

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

Adrian Tuddenham <poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I thought there was something built into PCs which would decompress .sit
> files?

A zip codec is in the Finder (control-click on the file and there
"create archive"). Stuffit is best forgotten. Long past its
best-before-date.

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se
aim: larsfarm@mac.com
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 2:24:15 PM

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

Adrian Tuddenham <poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I was unable to download this (Mac OS 8.6 / iCab / Real Player). Any
> suggestions?

I had some trouble with the site too. "view source" is sometimes
helpful. Doing that I found:

choir: http://s2.putfile.com/videos/b4-25810321918.mp3
piano: http://s2.putfile.com/videos/a2-25810124823.mp3

The choir is wonderful. What piece are they singing? I wish the choirs I
record and my recordings sounded half as great. FWIW, to me: Balance
between organ, treble solo and choir is fine. The treble solo comes out
wonderful. Perhaps the difference in space between choir and soloist is
a little too pronounced and the choir slightly distant. Its as if the
solo and choir are in different spaces. The text is often central to
sacred choral music and it doesn't come through easily even though you
can hear that they sing with very distinct consonants and text. The
organ is at some distance. That is fine here. So, what was the music...?

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se
aim: larsfarm@mac.com
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 4:55:00 PM

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

In article <dghe7p$q49$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
foxgloveaudio@btinternet.com (Peter Hill) wrote:

> The Soundfield mic was places some 10 metres
> from the main body of the choir, who were in the chancel in a
> semicircle, with the treble soloist brought out to approximately 4
> metres away from it, this being done to avoid using a spot mic. The
> configuration was crossed figure of 8 and the line level out was fed
> directly into Tascam DAT recorder doing 16 bit @ 44.1.

> I now use a Fostex PD4 DAT recorder, for the time being at least as I'm
> looking to get either a Flash card or HD recorder. Any suggestions
> would be most welcome

Do you want to record stereo or B-Format out of the Soundfield (personally
I like the way you can remix B-Format in post).

If B-Format, then have a look at Edirol's R4
http://www.edirol.com/products/info/r4.html

You're using the Mk IV, so this doesn't apply to you; but with the
Soundfield ST250 & R4 you can even do battery-powered location B-Format
recording (the ST250 doesn't support remixing B-Format, so the 'Surround
Zone' plug-in is needed for that).
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 4:56:08 PM

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

David Morton wrote:
> In article <dghe7p$q49$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
> foxgloveaudio@btinternet.com (Peter Hill) wrote:
>
>
>>The Soundfield mic was places some 10 metres
>>from the main body of the choir, who were in the chancel in a
>>semicircle, with the treble soloist brought out to approximately 4
>>metres away from it, this being done to avoid using a spot mic. The
>>configuration was crossed figure of 8 and the line level out was fed
>>directly into Tascam DAT recorder doing 16 bit @ 44.1.
>
>
>>I now use a Fostex PD4 DAT recorder, for the time being at least as I'm
>>looking to get either a Flash card or HD recorder. Any suggestions
>>would be most welcome
>
>
> Do you want to record stereo or B-Format out of the Soundfield (personally
> I like the way you can remix B-Format in post).
>
> If B-Format, then have a look at Edirol's R4
> http://www.edirol.com/products/info/r4.html

Unfortunately the gains on that are independantly adjustable
(at least they were when I last looked.) Anathema to
B-format. If you could slave all gains to one control and
have them track closely the R-4 would be perfect for
Ambisonics on the field.

If the pre is external and solves this gain tracking problem
then it is already perfect. Well, not perfect but certainly
the correct configuration.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:05:47 PM

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

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> SSJVCmag <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:
> >1h320tg.1t3uf5q3b58qoN%poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid, "Adrian Tuddenham"
> >>
> >> I am now left wondering what to do with it. Posting the results in this
> >> forum seemed like a good first step, because people with much more
> >> experience than me will be able to let me know whether the new mic
> >> really is any better than existing ones.
> >
> >If it's THAT cool and THAT innovative then you should write a presentation
> >for AES after you deal with a good patent attorney.
> >I hope it doesn;t step into the SOUNDFIELD realm though...
>
> Absolutely agreed. BUT, if it's a figure-8 that is synthesized by two
> omni microphones and some linear-phase stuff, it's not patentable ...

No. it's not as complex as that. I'm surprised that I haven't been able
to find an existing patent for the idea, but it might be covered by some
catch-all in a related patent that I haven't had time to flog through.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 6:10:38 PM

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

Lars Farm <see.bottom.of.page.for.lars@farm.se> wrote:

> Adrian Tuddenham <poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I was unable to download this (Mac OS 8.6 / iCab / Real Player). Any
> > suggestions?
>
> I had some trouble with the site too. "view source" is sometimes
> helpful. Doing that I found:
>
> choir: http://s2.putfile.com/videos/b4-25810321918.mp3
> piano: http://s2.putfile.com/videos/a2-25810124823.mp3

Thanks for that.

They didn't need anything from Microsoft to play them, I'm pleased to
say that they work perfectly well in SoundApp.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 6:10:38 PM

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

Peter Hill <foxgloveaudio@btinternet.com> wrote:

> "Frank Stearns" <franks.pacifier.com@pacifier.net> wrote in message
> news:11imotugtjur34d@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Peter Hill" <foxgloveaudio@btinternet.com> writes:
> >
> >>Dear all
> >
> >>Two examples of single point stereo microphone can be found here if you
> >>care
> >>to take a listen. www.putfile.com/foxgloveaudio The first one is a choral
> >>piece recorded in Tewkesbury Abbey, using a Soundfield mk iv, and the
> >>second
> >>is a piano piece with a Neumann RSM190
> >>Your comments would be appreciated
> >
> > Hi Peter -
> >
> > The piano is extraordinary. Very, very, very nice. Ultra clean, deep, a
> > perfect balance of room and piano, at least for my taste and the way I
> > like to record similar material.
>
>
> > The choral is beautiful as well. I might have put a spot mic on the
> > soloist for just ever so slightly more center-image focus, but the room,
> > organ, and chorus are perhaps ideal. (Plenty of stereo image BTW. Not sure
> > what the other followup poster was getting at.)

There was certainly a really spacious stereo effect, but I found it hard
to create a mental image of the exact placement of the performers. This
sounded to me as though it wasn't caused so much by the recording
technique as by the acoustics of the venue (hard reflecting walls); but
I didn't find it detracted from the 'feel' of a choir recording.

With a true crossed Fig-8 mic, the reverberation can sometimes seem hard
and lacking in bass; that didn't seem to be happening and the organ
sounded beautiful.

> >
> > Care to share a little more about how you did these? A bit more about the
> > room, placement of players and mics, preamps, recorders, bit rate and
> > depth?
>
> The room was as you can probably tell is an English cathedral shape. Very
> large with a six second reverb. The Soundfield mic was places some 10 metres
> from the main body of the choir, who were in the chancel in a semicircle,
> with the treble soloist brought out to approximately 4 metres away from it,
> this being done to avoid using a spot mic. The configuration was crossed
> figure of 8 and the line level out was fed directly into Tascam DAT recorder
> doing 16 bit @ 44.1.
> I now use a Fostex PD4 DAT recorder, for the time being at least as I'm
> looking to get either a Flash card or HD recorder. Any suggestions would be
> most welcome
>
> > I'm also curious about the software you used to render this for posting to
> > the web. I didn't think MP3s could sound that good...
>
> Editing was by means of FastEdit, and MP3 encoding in Audition, as was some
> slight noise reduction. (organ blower noise)

There was a slightly disturbing LF burbling effect on the organ solo at
the start, was that an artefact of the noise reduction? If it was, I
think I would have preferred the blower noise.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 7:09:16 PM

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

William Sommerwerck <gizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

> > I have been experimenting with a new way of generating the crossed
> > figure of 8 response without any phase shift between channels which
> > normally results from mic spacing (even with mics as close as they
> > will go).
>
> If one mic is above the other, there is zero lateral phase shift. (More
> precisely, time shift.)

That's certainly been the best way until now, provided your sources are
all in the horizontal plane.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 11:00:13 PM

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

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>
> I didn't want to use any audio compression
> because it might affect the phasing of the HF, which was what I was
> trying to record accurately.
>
>> How about FLAC, which runs on almost any OS, is free, and will really
>> compress WAV files? <http://flac.sourceforge.net/&gt;
>
>
> I haven't got FLAC


A roundtrip through FLAC will produce a bit-perfect copy of the original
..WAV file (hence the lossless moniker.) I get compression of ~60% on my
acoustic recordings using it. Also (for downloads and email especially)
the mere fact that the .flac file uncompresses tells you there was an
error-free transfer.







> I've converted it to a WAV file (with the
> appropriate '.wav' file extension) and uploaded it to the webspace, can
> you let me know if you are able to dowload it?
> <http://web.ukonline.co.uk/poppy.uk/HYY043/5GabrielsTrum...;

No problem, downloading now.

--thanks!
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 12:57:42 PM

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

Kurt Albershardt <kurt@nv.net> wrote:

> Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> >
> > I didn't want to use any audio compression
> > because it might affect the phasing of the HF, which was what I was
> > trying to record accurately.
> >
> >> How about FLAC, which runs on almost any OS, is free, and will really
> >> compress WAV files? <http://flac.sourceforge.net/&gt;
> >
> >
> > I haven't got FLAC
>
>
> A roundtrip through FLAC will produce a bit-perfect copy of the original
> .WAV file (hence the lossless moniker.) I get compression of ~60% on my
> acoustic recordings using it. Also (for downloads and email especially)
> the mere fact that the .flac file uncompresses tells you there was an
> error-free transfer.

I've downloaded a copy of the Mac OS 6.8 version [MacFLAC-2.1.2.dmg] but
can't work out what to do with it. It isn't recognised as either an
application or an installer. I'm suspicious that it might not actually
be a Mac version because it uses a file extension (which isn't needed
for the older Mac OSs)


> > I've converted it to a WAV file
[...]
> > <http://web.ukonline.co.uk/poppy.uk/HYY043/5GabrielsTrum...;
>
> No problem, downloading now.

Good

Comments on the mic would be appreciated, it was fed directly at line
level into a Sony Prodat and there has been no post-processing.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 2:00:38 PM

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

Kurt Albershardt <kurt@nv.net> wrote:

> Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> >
> > I didn't want to use any audio compression
> > because it might affect the phasing of the HF, which was what I was
> > trying to record accurately.
> >
> >> How about FLAC, which runs on almost any OS, is free, and will really
> >> compress WAV files? <http://flac.sourceforge.net/&gt;
> >
> >
> > I haven't got FLAC
>
>
> A roundtrip through FLAC will produce a bit-perfect copy of the original
> .WAV file (hence the lossless moniker.) I get compression of ~60% on my
> acoustic recordings using it. Also (for downloads and email especially)
> the mere fact that the .flac file uncompresses tells you there was an
> error-free transfer.

I've downloaded a copy of the Mac OS 8.6 version [MacFLAC-2.1.2.dmg] but
can't work out what to do with it. It isn't recognised as either an
application or an installer. I'm suspicious that it might not actually
be a Mac version because it uses a file extension (which isn't needed
for the older Mac OSs)


> > I've converted it to a WAV file
[...]
> > <http://web.ukonline.co.uk/poppy.uk/HYY043/5GabrielsTrum...;
>
> No problem, downloading now.

Good

Comments on the mic would be appreciated, it was fed directly at line
level into a Sony Prodat and there has been no post-processing.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 7:45:41 PM

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

poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) writes:

>Comments on the mic would be appreciated, it was fed directly at line
>level into a Sony Prodat and there has been no post-processing.

Quick first impression -- the mic is probably several feet behind the
"sweet spot" (too much boxy room sound), but then you might have an issue
with that piercing tamborine getting louder as the mics got closer.

If the room were "soupy" by nature (the sweet spot elusive or not really
there), and the group more hobbyiest than professionals and thus not
putting out a good blend and tone, you might have to switch to multiple
directional mics -- 2-4 for the group and a pair for the room, the latter
probably used mostly for audience response and maybe in the mix just a
little during the music, time-aligned as needed.

These situations are always the toughest; worse, sometimes the group
*thinks* they sound like something they aren't. Sigh.

The tonal balance of the mic seemed fine, though.

Best of luck,

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--
.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 9:56:50 PM

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

Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier.com@pacifier.net> wrote:

> poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) writes:
>
> >Comments on the mic would be appreciated, it was fed directly at line
> >level into a Sony Prodat and there has been no post-processing.
>
> Quick first impression -- the mic is probably several feet behind the
> "sweet spot" (too much boxy room sound), but then you might have an issue
> with that piercing tamborine getting louder as the mics got closer.

On an earlier 'take', the tambouring player was in the second row and it
sounded as if she was playing somewhere down in the kitchens. Bringing
her forward cleared things up no end - but brought up the level too.

If I had tried to get the mic closer to the singers, they would have had
to be arranged in three rows to stay within the 90-degree acceptance
angle and then the back ones would have lost clarity.

It really wasn't a room I would have chosen to do a professional
recording in without some extra treatment on the parallel walls but the
45-degree layout seemed to give better results than I had anticipated.

<http://web.ukonline.co.uk/poppy.uk/HYY043/UnitedChurchH...;
<http://web.ukonline.co.uk/poppy.uk/HYY043/UnitedChurchH...;

The carpet on the stepladder was there to stop any unwanted reflections
from the far end bouncing off the wall directly into the back of the
mic.

>
> If the room were "soupy" by nature (the sweet spot elusive or not really
> there), and the group more hobbyiest than professionals and thus not
> putting out a good blend and tone, you might have to switch to multiple
> directional mics -- 2-4 for the group and a pair for the room, the latter
> probably used mostly for audience response and maybe in the mix just a
> little during the music, time-aligned as needed.

This was never intended to be anything other than a test recording for
the microphone. I needed a source spread out over a 90-degree arc (or a
pair of arcs, as the mic is symmetrical) and the choir agreed to become
my guinea pigs.

>
> These situations are always the toughest; worse, sometimes the group
> *thinks* they sound like something they aren't. Sigh.

They weren't very happy with the recording; I think they had expected
loads of reverb. As it was, they commented that they could tell who was
making the mistakes - that suited me fine because it meant the mic was
behaving as I intended it to.

I'll bear your remarks in mind if I ever have to do a commercial
recording in that hall.

>
> The tonal balance of the mic seemed fine, though.

Thanks.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 2:01:45 AM

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

poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) writes:

>Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier.com@pacifier.net> wrote:

>> poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) writes:
>>
>> >Comments on the mic would be appreciated, it was fed directly at line
>> >level into a Sony Prodat and there has been no post-processing.
>>
>> Quick first impression -- the mic is probably several feet behind the
>> "sweet spot" (too much boxy room sound), but then you might have an issue
>> with that piercing tamborine getting louder as the mics got closer.

>On an earlier 'take', the tambouring player was in the second row and it
>sounded as if she was playing somewhere down in the kitchens. Bringing
>her forward cleared things up no end - but brought up the level too.

>If I had tried to get the mic closer to the singers, they would have had
>to be arranged in three rows to stay within the 90-degree acceptance
>angle and then the back ones would have lost clarity.

Indeed, and no doubt turning the group 45 degrees clockwise so as to
project down the long axis of the room would have been too tight as well,
given that two row requirement. The issue of 3rd back row clarity might
have been mitigated with a higher stand, mics angled down, combined with
using traditional choral risers -- or not. Depends in part on the group
itself and how they're trained and conducted.

Another idea would be keeping the tamborine player in the second row, but
then putting a piece of carpet/drape behind that player to reduce
spraying tamborine omnidirectionally and adding delays that give that
distant sound.


>It really wasn't a room I would have chosen to do a professional
>recording in without some extra treatment on the parallel walls but the
>45-degree layout seemed to give better results than I had anticipated.

><http://web.ukonline.co.uk/poppy.uk/HYY043/UnitedChurchH...;
><http://web.ukonline.co.uk/poppy.uk/HYY043/UnitedChurchH...;

Ah! Very useful to see the situation, thanks for posting.

>The carpet on the stepladder was there to stop any unwanted reflections
>from the far end bouncing off the wall directly into the back of the
>mic.

Well, keep in mind that carpet will be somewhat unpredictable as a sound
deadener. Certainly 5K and up will be attenuated, but the more critical
range of say 500-2500 will be hit and miss. You might get lucky, but to
varying degrees.

Sorry if I missed it earlier, but which ribbons were you using? I assume
they were conventional in the sense of being figure 8, in which case if
your carpet size and mic position are to scale you're probably still
getting some wall splatter both near and far into the rear lobes. The
photo seems to bear this out.

A 2x wider carpet, in a shallow V, might have done more of what you
wanted. (Or a piece of 2" 703 2x4 foot set horizontally, or equivilent
sound-absorbing material.)

Don't know if you tried it, but occassionally in a situation like this you
can get closer than you think is wise and in that process get around some
of the room limitations. You have to listen carefully to the
blend, though, and move singers as required. Some conducters
wouldn't go for this; others would have no problem.

According to the diagram and photo, I'd guess that the "outer half" of
each front lobe is simply picking up room or wall bounces and no singers.

Another possibility, depending on the how the stage is treated, might be
to rotate the entire setup counterclockwise 90 degrees so that the back
lobes of the ribbons are looking back into what might be a more dead
environment of the stage (the piano might need to be relocated; or, it
might sound quite good if the balance can be optimized).

Definitely a tricky situation.

>This was never intended to be anything other than a test recording for
>the microphone. I needed a source spread out over a 90-degree arc (or a
>pair of arcs, as the mic is symmetrical) and the choir agreed to become
>my guinea pigs.

Ah! Mic tests! Always fun. :) 

>> These situations are always the toughest; worse, sometimes the group
>> *thinks* they sound like something they aren't. Sigh.

>They weren't very happy with the recording; I think they had expected
>loads of reverb.

Well, there's a goodly amount of what is technically reverb, it's just not
the 5+ second cathedral variety that perhaps they were imaging. <w>

>As it was, they commented that they could tell who was
>making the mistakes - that suited me fine because it meant the mic was
>behaving as I intended it to.

Yes, indeed. You can pick out each voice, and each clinker as well. The
joys of hi-resolution recording with less than perfect performances.

>I'll bear your remarks in mind if I ever have to do a commercial
>recording in that hall.

Definitely a interesting space, and probably one better suited to small
ensembles and soloists rather than larger groups. It might work quite well
for the smaller groups.

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--
.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 8:02:24 PM

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

Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier.com@pacifier.net> wrote:

> poppy.uk@ukonline.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) writes:
[...]
> >On an earlier 'take', the tambourin[e] player was in the second row and it
> >sounded as if she was playing somewhere down in the kitchens. Bringing
> >her forward cleared things up no end - but brought up the level too.
>
> >If I had tried to get the mic closer to the singers, they would have had
> >to be arranged in three rows to stay within the 90-degree acceptance
> >angle and then the back ones would have lost clarity.
>
> Indeed, and no doubt turning the group 45 degrees clockwise so as to
> project down the long axis of the room would have been too tight as well,
> given that two row requirement.

My original plan was to arrange the choir in two quadrants, opposing
each other across the width of the hall, with the mic in the middle.
That way the troublesome reverberation of the long axis would be in
antiphase and would appear 'in limbo' in the playback sound field.

When I arrived at the hall, I found that the piano was on a stage and
could not be moved (I was recovering from a back injury), so I hastily
improvised the arrangement shown, so as to get the piano sound near the
centre.

The stepladder and carpet were borrowed from the caretaker when I
realised what was then going to happen at the back of the mic.

> The issue of 3rd back row clarity might
> have been mitigated with a higher stand, mics angled down, combined with
> using traditional choral risers -- or not. Depends in part on the group
> itself and how they're trained and conducted.

They were amateurs still in rehearsal and there were no helpful rostra
that could be moved. A higher mic would have probably worked best if:
a) I had brought a taller stand
b) I could have borrowed a taller stepladder to cut the back lobes.
>
> Another idea would be keeping the tamborine player in the second row, but
> then putting a piece of carpet/drape behind that player to reduce
> spraying tamborine omnidirectionally and adding delays that give that
> distant sound.

Another useful tip I'll remember for the future; but at this session she
also had to sing and I assumed she was not sufficiently confident to be
separated from the other members of her choir section. She didn't even
like being moved to the front.


The tambourine was an unexpected godsend for showing up the pinpoint
imaging of the mic at all frequencies.


> >It really wasn't a room I would have chosen to do a professional
> >recording in without some extra treatment on the parallel walls but the
> >45-degree layout seemed to give better results than I had anticipated.
>
> ><http://web.ukonline.co.uk/poppy.uk/HYY043/UnitedChurchH...;
> ><http://web.ukonline.co.uk/poppy.uk/HYY043/UnitedChurchH...;
>
> Ah! Very useful to see the situation, thanks for posting.
>
> >The carpet on the stepladder was there to stop any unwanted reflections
> >from the far end bouncing off the wall directly into the back of the
> >mic.
>
> Well, keep in mind that carpet will be somewhat unpredictable as a sound
> deadener. Certainly 5K and up will be attenuated, but the more critical
> range of say 500-2500 will be hit and miss. You might get lucky, but to
> varying degrees.

This was a fairly dense chunk of carpet, so I think I could presume the
best from it. The size was only barely adequate (a half-wavelength at
around 500 c/s)

>
> Sorry if I missed it earlier, but which ribbons were you using? I assume
> they were conventional in the sense of being figure 8, in which case if
> your carpet size and mic position are to scale you're probably still
> getting some wall splatter both near and far into the rear lobes. The
> photo seems to bear this out.

The mic was a "crossed pseudo ribbons" type with lobes which would have
been equivalent to two orthogonal ribbons at the same point in space.
The classic theoretical Blumlein Figure-of-eight response (which he was
never quite able to achieve).

Although the centre line of each lobe fell within the carpet width, as
you say the extremities of each lobe would have extended beyond it. Any
sounds from beyond the carpet width (and from beyond the choir width)
would be reproduced 'in limbo' in the stereo field, so they ought not to
interfere with the imaging effect between the speakers.

Does the boxy reverberation sound to you as though it is coming from
between the speakers or beyond them?

>
> A 2x wider carpet, in a shallow V, might have done more of what you
> wanted. (Or a piece of 2" 703 2x4 foot set horizontally, or equivilent
> sound-absorbing material.)

The caretaker didn't have anything like that...... :-)

[...]
>
> According to the diagram and photo, I'd guess that the "outer half" of
> each front lobe is simply picking up room or wall bounces and no singers.

Yes - see explanation above.

>
> Another possibility, depending on the how the stage is treated, might be
> to rotate the entire setup counterclockwise 90 degrees so that the back
> lobes of the ribbons are looking back into what might be a more dead
> environment of the stage (the piano might need to be relocated; or, it
> might sound quite good if the balance can be optimized).

Also explained above, I had very little choice. (But the idea is filed
in memory for future reference)

Thinking about it, I suppose I could have turned the choir through 180
degrees and left the piano where it was: still in the centre, but this
time in the centre of the back lobes. The choir would then be singing
away from the bad end of the hall and I wouldn't need a carpet; however,
getting the piano far enough away to be in balance could be tricky. I
might give that a try if I get the chance again.
>
> Definitely a tricky situation.
>
[...]
>
> >They weren't very happy with the recording; I think they had expected
> >loads of reverb.
>
> Well, there's a goodly amount of what is technically reverb, it's just not
> the 5+ second cathedral variety that perhaps they were imaging. <w>

I think that was what they had hoped for.


> Definitely a interesting space, and probably one better suited to small
> ensembles and soloists rather than larger groups. It might work quite well
> for the smaller groups.

Yes, it would also be easier to get the mic closer and avoid the worst
of the acoustics whilst still keeping the entire group within the
optimum pickup angle.

One good aspect: despite a busy road less than 100 metres away, the
local topography and the heavy stone walls of the old building kept the
extraneous noise to a satisfactorily low level.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 2:10:07 PM

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

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

> Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>
> > I have been experimenting with a new way of generating the crossed
> > figure of 8 response without any phase shift between channels which
> > normally results from mic spacing (even with mics as close as they will
> > go).
>
> If and when you are ready to talk about your method I'd love
> to hear more about it.

Can you let me have a valid e-mail address please?

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 7:02:37 PM

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

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
>>If and when you are ready to talk about your method I'd love
>>to hear more about it.
>
>
> Can you let me have a valid e-mail address please?

Sent to yours sans .invalid.invalid


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 1:14:17 PM

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

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

> Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> > Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
> >
> >>If and when you are ready to talk about your method I'd love
> >>to hear more about it.
> >
> >
> > Can you let me have a valid e-mail address please?
>
> Sent to yours sans .invalid.invalid

Did you remember to add the ".co.uk" as well? Nothing has arrived yet.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 2:45:33 PM

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

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

> Did you remember to add the ".co.uk" as well? Nothing has arrived yet.

No, I hadn't. Just did.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 9:25:32 PM

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

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

> Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>
> > Did you remember to add the ".co.uk" as well? Nothing has arrived yet.
>
> No, I hadn't. Just did.

I received your e-mail and replied to it at the address you gave - but
there hasn't been an answer yet.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 9:25:33 PM

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

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Did you remember to add the ".co.uk" as well? Nothing has arrived yet.
>>
>>No, I hadn't. Just did.
>
>
> I received your e-mail and replied to it at the address you gave - but
> there hasn't been an answer yet.

Sorry Adrian. Been up to my ass in aligators with work and
remiss about mail. Will be doing something about that very
soon.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein
!