Time alignment

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:57 am

I'm reading and absorbing everything in this discussion, and having a good time putting all this stuff into action this week, recording a "Concert" version of an Opera (L'amico Fritz - Tues., Thursday and Friday - tonight). It'll be aired next week.

I've got 14 mics: Three across the front of the stage on short stands at the lip (for the singers) Two out in the house (applause/ambience), two omni outriggers as the main orchestral pair (Can't fly a center pair, due to supertitle projections, can't put a pair on a stand in front of the conductor either) so to avoid a big whole in the middle of the orchestra mix, I'm going with a lot of spot mics, violins left, low strings right, (4 celli, 3 basses on the right) and various other touch up mics for harp, offstage choir, and even a pair of SM-81's on the 8 wind players.

The harp and wind mics REALLY do sound unnatural and "in your face" before being delayed, compared to the others, no matter what I do level-wise, ditto for the offstage choir. The choir mic is probably the worst of the lot, because the choir is SUPPOSED to sound far off and away in the distance. (And if I don't mic them, I lose them altogether...)

I'm still only working with temp mixes (they're expecting to use tonight's performance as the core/main part of the broadcast), but I'm already hearing an improvement as I move them BACK in time vs. the others. I hope to do a few "slaps/impulse" tests tonight, but with it being a union hall, and musicians showing up to warm up (it's a fairly large orch. for this one) I probably won't get any serious "quiet" time to pull it off. Fortunately, there's some percussion "slaps" and effects going on, so I should have what I need, regardless.

It'll be broadcast next week, and if it goes well, I'll post the URL for the webcast, if anyone's interested.

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:27 pm

Quote:

I think Ben's point about safely getting a few more dB out of the spots is well taken. I don't think he is suggesting they automatically get louder - rather, it is easier to bring their relative volumes up because it now sounds more natural to do so.

I cannot speak for Ben, but my experience with the technique is that you get both effects. 1/ It gets louder because you add 2 signals with a strong inter-correlation and 2/ you can push the faders further up without creating the horrible comb-filter effect.

Quote:

most waveform editors don't display the correct frequency information, simply a graphical representation of the summation of the frequencies on an amplitude plot

Without trying to revive the thread you are referring to, I am not sure I understand this way of thinking. As far as I am concerned, waveforms on a DAW are just amplitude versus time graphs. I probably need to reread the thread to get your point…

Quote:

I've got 14 mics: Three across the front of the stage on short stands at the lip (for the singers) Two out in the house (applause/ambience), two omni outriggers as the main orchestral pair (Can't fly a center pair, due to supertitle projections, can't put a pair on a stand in front of the conductor either) so to avoid a big whole in the middle of the orchestra mix, I'm going with a lot of spot mics, violins left, low strings right, (4 celli, 3 basses on the right) and various other touch up mics for harp, offstage choir, and even a pair of SM-81's on the 8 wind players.

Ben: I am very eager to read what you have to say following this week’s recording. Too bad you do not have a centre pair though. Instinctively it would have been a more appropriate ‘time reference’ pair for the technique to work properly.

Best,
Thomas

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:58 pm

Thomas_Vingtrinier wrote:

Without trying to revive the thread you are referring to, I am not sure I understand this way of thinking. As far as I am concerned, waveforms on a DAW are just amplitude versus time graphs. I probably need to reread the thread to get your point…

Then I think you and I would agree.

Despite the fact that many wave editors attempt to show frequency in their graphs, they cannot do a complete and accurate job. So, as you say, it is an amplitude versus time graph and nothing more.

J...

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:48 pm

<<Instinctively it would have been a more appropriate ‘time reference’ pair for the technique to work properly. >>

Well, I do have three cardioids on short stands the floor, across the front for the singers: L, C & R. The center "C" vocal mic is literally a few feet directly behind the conductors back. The two omni "outriggers" are close enough as well, on booms protruding in from the 2nd tier balcony over the orchestra; it's not that wide a space.

These five mics will comprise the "Front line" of L&R soundfield, and I'll work from there. Tonight's the keeper, we'll build from this performance. Tomorrow (Saturday) looks like a blizzard/cancellation, and a different cast anyway. Everyone's glad we got tonight in the can.

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:04 pm

Cucco wrote:

Despite the fact that many wave editors attempt to show frequency in their graphs, they cannot do a complete and accurate job. So, as you say, it is an amplitude versus time graph and nothing more.

J...

Don't want this to seem like a Sequoia ad, but have you looked at the Comparisonics waveform view? That adds a pitch component to the waveform...

Joe-

Do you have access to Collette tubes for Schoeps mics? If you do, you could use those to have a very low-profile pair near the conductor to fill up the center part of the image.

I'd also strongly consider bringing your flanks in a bit closer than you normally would to lessen the whole in the center.

--Ben

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:53 am

Just want to thank you for this discussion. I´m still digesting the information and redoing some old mixes and it sure does make a difference.

Gunnar

This topic sponsored by: