What do you mean by precisely aligned?

You can use fig 8's in a near coincident pair setup, a la Tony Faulkner. MS is also possible.

Sorry, I mean for stereo recording of a chamber recital. The DPA Mic site lists Blumlein as:

'Blumlein stereo

Two bi-directional microphones placed in the same point and angled 90° creating the stereo image. '

Can I get a decent stereo recording if two bi-directional microphones are angled at 90 degrees but are not placed at the same point.

In other words, how crucial is it to have precise blumlein set up. Can they be an inch or two out of coincident allignment and acheive good results?

[added later] Actually, I have use near coincident set up and have liked the results. I guess that I was wondering if true 'by the book' Blumlein might be better - since I haven't been able to do it precisely.

No, they need to be coincident for Blumlein. The Faulkner method has them both pointing forward but spaced about 8 inches apart, but this is inferior to Blumlein as all spaced techniques are from an image point of view.

Just put one fig8 on top of the other with both coaxial in a common vertical axis. Blumlein is the best of all mic techniques for an accurate stereo image. This is not just my opinion, it is physics.

Thanks David,

I'll need to figure out how to accomplish this with ribbon microphones that are rather bulky. I only have one tall Bogen stand and stereo bar with no over/under type apparatus.

I needed to start looking at small figure 8 mics anyway...

Your information was what I was looking for - thanks again.

I am having great results with baffled fig. 8s (in the right room). Like a jecklin disc, but with fig 8s.

BigRay,

Curious to hear some more specifics about your Jecklin/Fig 8 approach. Pray tell...

Michael

DavidSpearritt wrote: No, they need to be coincident for Blumlein. The Faulkner method has them both pointing forward but spaced about 8 inches apart, but this is inferior to Blumlein as all spaced techniques are from an image point of view.

I've had reasonable success in live settings using modified Faulkner method (actually using a combo of Michael William's Stereophonic Zoom paper and the Hauptmikrofon calculator.)

It didn't have the bloom or focus of Blumlein but I didn't expect as much. I wanted the tone of the Royer ribbons.

Chris

mdemeyer wrote: BigRay,

Curious to hear some more specifics about your Jecklin/Fig 8 approach. Pray tell...

Michael

Hey Micheal, sorry for being late in my reply. I started using baffled fig 8s about a month ago. All my discs are handmade using stuff from the craft store. In this particular case, since I use the Fig8s on my u87s I need a rather large disc to get the benefits of the baffle. It was created using a 14" embroidery hoop, plastic serving plates , foam, felt and faux fur. I just cant see the point in paying 300 dollars for a disc that I can make in an hour online. Anyway, the "specs" call for 20 to 30 cm spacing, the baffle to be 30cm thick, and an angle of 90 degrees. I find this to be a "OSS technique on steroids" retaining all the benefits of omnis, but a much larger soundstage and more focused, rich over all sound. Just as with omnis, the closer to the baffle face you get, the wider the stereo imaging...I thought I had found a superior technique in the jecklin disc(to my ears of course!) but ever since I have started playing with these baffled 8s, I havent wanted to use anything else. I have the luxury of recording in an amazing acoustic space, and dont know how it would do in a not so good enviroment...but so far..pure aural bliss!..I use it as my main array most of the time these days....ive used it in varied distances from the source , 15 ft, 30 ft, 20 ft...all had excellent results. Seems to perform better at farther distances than OSS. Ive used it chamber quartets, pipe organ , and soprano/piano.

http://sound.eti.pg.gda.pl/student/tn/techniki_mikrofonowe.pdf