First - It's about effing time!! 8)

Second - I'd personally be hesitant to place omnis that high. This may be part of the cause of the exaggerated percussion. Bear with me and I think you'll understand.

Imagine a triangle.

Point 1 is the microphone.
Point 2 is the front of the orchestra
Point 3 is the back of the orchestra

If you were to place the microphones (point 1) at the exact same place as the front of the orchestra, you've now got the largest delta that you can have as far as distance-to-point-2 and distance-to-point-3. In other words, the sound will be very deep as the sound from the violins will arrive immediately, but the sound from the trumpets will take perhaps as much as 25-30 ms to arrive (for a delta of roughly 25-30ms)

However, if you move the mics (point 1) up in a vertical plane to say 10 feet, the violin sounds will arrive at the mics at roughly 8.8ms but the trumpets will still take around 25 to 30 ms (let's assume 25 since I don't think the hall is that deep. This will account for roughly 30 feet of depth on the stage). Now your delta is only 17 ms. This makes the trumpets (and bones and percussion) sound much closer.

The higher you go, the smaller the delta (you'll never reach equality unless you move the mics over the orchestra.....you wouldn't do that!) which means the more compact the orchestra.

Listen in the hall. Are the percussion that loud in the hall? If so...there's not much you can do (shy of telling the conductor the percussion are too loud! Unless you know him/her and have a VERY good relationship with him/her, this is not a battle you want!)

I am very inclined to agree with you - if the hall sounds VERY good, omnis are (IMO) the best way to go. Spacing is critical, especially if they're to be the only pair. If they're not...you can afford a little sloppiness on the order of a few centimeters. If you're flying mics, this can be a MAJOR pain unless you have a ladder or a hydraulic lift. Even still, this can be a pain in the butt and this is why ORTF is almost always a "safer" bet. A well spaced ORTF has the luxury of several feet of front to back motion before it gets to sounding wrong. Otherwise, I'd call it varying degrees of right... :wink:

Honestly, I have not listened to your links since I'm on a laptop right now and this would not be a good place to listen.

My only advice (blind, err...deaf) would be to consider lowering the main pair a few feet and consider angling them downwards into the orchestra. Try to make it so as much of the orchestra is on-axis or within 15 degrees as possible.

Also, I find the distance and the spacing to be a tad different than normal. Normally, with omnis in a good hall, I would go back at least 4 to 5 feet, maybe as much as 10 (given the depth of the hall). I understand the size restriction on the hall driving your choice, but in this case, I would strongly urge going with an ORTF pair with omni flanks. The 40 cm spacing seems as though it's also driven by your close placement. Generally, this is relatively narrow for a solo AB pair for orchestra.

The nice thing about the ORTF with omni flanks is:
1 - ORTF is a good deal safer than AB and is more tolerant of non-perfect halls.
2 - Distance is a little less critical
3 - The omni flanks can be brought in as much or as little as you'd like to add that width and breadth that you mention (and do it quite effectively).

With a hall that size, I would assume that the natural reverb of a full orchestra is a little top heavy. The ORTF/Flank combo will do a little to tame this and will allow you to add a slightly more appropriate reverb in post.

Of course, you'll definitely want more than a foot distance from the back of the conductor with ORTF. 7 to 10 feet would be a good starting point.

I'll listen to the samples in a bit and provide additional feedback if required.

Good luck!!!!!!!

J

Oh...congrats on the appointment!!

That's interesting what you say about the height. I've read a lot of articles... interviews with some of the big names in orchestral recording, and the lowest height I encountered was 9', the highest being 12'. I wonder how low you're talking? I also wonder what else it's going to change. Oh well, only one way to find out. I'll be trying it tomorrow. I think I'll keep working with the omnis at the same time as the ORTF. I hate to give up on the omnis since they sound so damned good, but where they need to be will probably sound a bit too ambient. I'll see if I can somehow find a compromise.

Thanks a bunch for the great info, Jeremy!

With the distance behind the conductor you're working with...12 feet, 11 feet...too high.

If there were a good 8 feet distance, 12 feet may be very appropriate.

I find that the height issue is just as critical with AB as distance. Most people throw their stands to a pre-set height (pre-set in their brains) and then adjust forward and back. I think this is a grave mistake.

Height is a MAJOR factor and must be considered with every ensemble in every situation.

While it's critical in all positions, I find it particularly critical in AB and Blumlein the most.

Cheers-

J.

I decided to cling to the omnis and went with a pair of M-149, spaced 60 cm, and only 8' high (down from 11' in the previous examples). Boy was that a learning experience. First, a rule that I already knew but has now been driven home: Just because two mics have the same polar pattern does NOT mean they will present the same reverb levels at the same position. The Neumanns were hopelessly wet at the same distance (different height, mind you) that the CMC62 were IMO just right. I wonder if you can abstract this to say that a Braunmühl/Weber capsule will generally be wetter than a fixed omni? Hmmm...

The second thing I learned was that height really is a MAJOR factor in orchestral recording. Holy God, did the balance change. Eight feet did tame the percussion, but the winds lost all focus and the strings may have been a bit too much. If you listen to the very first MP3 I posted, I think you'll find that the winds are excellent, but in the third MP3 the percussion is too much, not to mention what happens in the much more active sections of the Suite.

The third thing that I need to learn but am having difficulty with are the parameters that are controlled by width of the central AB pair. In going from the Schoeps at 38 cm to the Neumanns at 60 cm, I noticed a breakdown of the imaging. The winds were everywhere and it was completely unacceptable. Of course this is an elementary parameter. What I'm not sure of is what other aspects change due to spacing. Any insight here?

Next time I will try the ORTF along with the omnis (didn't have the facility this time), but I really do think I can make the omnis work.

In listening to the first three examples, do you think I would be better off if I has used MK2H or MK2S caps? Not that I have them, but I do have a 4006 pair. I love the warmth and softness of the MK2, but I wonder if I could get closer to the status quo with more high end.

Concerning spots, there are some things I'd like to hear more of. First, I never really hear that bright edge from any of the brass. They are crammed in the back right corner, right up against two walls, on risers. Might I want to put something in front of them, fairly low, to get some brilliance? Please see the third MP3 at the top of the page for a reference. The viola section is really pitiful... they aren't great players (are they ever?), and there aren't enough of them. Would you try to do anything about it? 'm not sure I want an artificially amplified bad viola section, but the lines don't always come out. This same thing goes for celli. There are just too few. The director thinks a bass spot is needed, though this is based on a recording with no outriggers. I'll probably do it just to make him feel good. Any favorite method of doing this? I also wouldn't mind getting some articulation on timpani. Agree? Harp is weak too, but it's not that big of a player. Spot it anyway?

The last thing I'm wondering about now is the use of my flanking mics. This time, I went with an 8' height, and I spaced them only 240 cm on either side of the center stand. This put them just behind the first chair violin on the left and viola on the right. Do you think I should go wider, to center them on the string sections that they're picking up? Also, I have this idea to get as much string sound as I can while minimizing everything else. Is this wise? To do this, should I stay low with these mics? Of course it affects the tone of the instruments, but for better or worse I'm not sure. If anybody has time, I'd love it if someone would take a quick listen to these examples featuring just the outriggers at the positions described above and tell me what you'd like to hear out of them that you're not hearing already.

Thanks a million as always.

David French wrote: height really is a MAJOR factor in orchestral recording. Holy God, did the balance change. Eight feet did tame the percussion, but the winds lost all focus and the strings may have been a bit too much.

Even an inch can have a profound effect in front to back balance. It pays to hustle on and off stage during rehearsal (as many times as necessary) to nudge the mics to just the right hight.

David French wrote: am having difficulty with are the parameters that are controlled by width of the central AB pair. In going from the Schoeps at 38 cm to the Neumanns at 60 cm, I noticed a breakdown of the imaging. The winds were everywhere and it was completely unacceptable. Of course this is an elementary parameter. What I'm not sure of is what other aspects change due to spacing.

Investigate interaural time delay and quarter wavelength comb filtering as a function of capsule distance. Width of ensemble also enters in to capsule spacing: the entire orchestra needs to be covered which often conflicts with imaging goals.

A couple things...

Yes, a Braunmühl/Weber capsule does have it's quirkiness, especially in relation to wet/dry ratios compared to a single capsule. Think about its construction and how it obtains its omni pattern. It's merely 2 cardioid mics placed back to back with the phases at a constant. Whereas the rear lobe of a true omni is slighly (to noticably) attenuated (in the HF), the rear lobe of a dual diaphragm is not.

Second, as Zilla points out, even an inch of height can make a difference. Changing 3 feet will completely alter the orchestra. Try smaller intervals. The few orchestras that I do in VERY nice halls generally do not require much more than 8 feet (above stage level), but in those cases, the brass are slightly elevated and the acoustics are darned near perfect. Maybe a little more height would be prudent...perhaps 10 or 9 feet or in between.

Also, the MK2 caps you used...are they the straight MK2s? I had assumed that you were referring to the MK2s or the MK2h which is why I made recommendations to moving a little further out. In that case, yes the MK2s would be (IMO) a better choice allowing for a considerable bit more distance but still retaining the characteristic depth and reach of the Schoeps.

In regards to the spacing...the Schoeps have a great deal more latitude when it comes to spacing. The Neumanns summed omni pattern is not ideal off axis and tends to collapse if spread even a little too far apart. The Schoeps are not plagued by this. You can generally get up to 90 cm with the Schoeps (again depending upon the size of the orchestra, distance to the orchestra and size of the hall) without major "hole in the middle" syndrome.

In regards to spots. My general rule of thumb is that I don't like to use them and if I do, I barely use them. Spot on harp, bass, timp, brass...it's starting to sound a little too complicated. You'll never be able to time align those all correctly and the orchestra will begin to compress in depth (trumpets sitting right next to violins).

The bad news is.....you have to work with the orchestra you're given. No amount of spot microphones will turn the orchestra into the LA Phil. Sometimes conductors understand this and sometimes they don't. The ones that don't get this will probably not like your work. You'll lose them as clients, but 2 years from now when everybody else's work sounds like crap, they'll be back to you. (Or they'll buy their own gear and assume that they can do it better with little to no experience and a $1500 credit limit at Guitar Center...that's another topic all together.)

The conductors that understand this will hear the difference between a well-mic'ed orchestra and an over miced orchestra. These are the guys you want to impress since they're the ones that keep their jobs in front of the orchestras.

If the aforementioned sections truly are weak on the recording and this can't be fixed with main or aux array placement, then yes, I might reach for a judicious spot mic. A time aligned pair over brass and/or woodwinds (never 2 pair - either 1 pair covering 1 or both sections), maybe one on timp (rarely) and maybe on the harp. I would not try spot micing the string section to try to coax more from them. You'll only worsen the problems already there.

As for the flanks...yes, 6 feet off center is a tad close. For "lesser than good" orchestras, it may be scary to put the flanks over 3rd or 4th row violins or celli, but it's often necessary to capture the width of the hall.

Besides, the flanks should not be that close to the orchestra as to be able to pick up individual players. Depending upon the hall, my flanks sit 8 feet or more back from the lip of the stage. Often, if it's a good hall, I'll go even further back to as much as the 1/3 distance in the hall.

One more note....I wouldn't state anything negative about your clients on this board. I did that one time in the past and that client happened to read this board occassionally.

I lost business. (a lot of it. 6 to 8 concerts yearly with disc sales included....perhaps $5K of annual budget.)

Just be cautious. Our job is to record. We can laugh at some of our clients, but it's best to do so in the privacy of one's home or studio.

Cheers-

Jeremy

Congrats on the new appointment, Davd!

Excellent posts, Jeremy, esp what you just said about conductors and clients not understanding the difference between multiple mics, etc.

I spot almost the same way, in a similar order of importance: soloists, harp, bass, tymp, brass, etc. (Some people wonder why I'd spot mic something as loud as a tymp, but the tymp player knows that I'm looking for the detail of the mallet hitting the head, NOT nec. the boominess underneath it...that stuff just bleeds everywhere else anyway, and falls under "Bass management".)

I had a recent big orchestral setting where the entire brass section was spread out in one long line from left to right, along the back row of the orchestra. The winds were all in a similar line directly in front of them. About 25-6 players in all. (How the HELL does one spot mic sections this way, eh?) Of course, there was no point (unless I wanted to break out 12 or 13 mics and do them all in pairs....shudder...) Of course, my front mic's (stereo pair & omni flanks) handled the orchestral blend much better anyway, and when we mix, we'll be working with the balance the conductor established.

If you DO have some room and there seems to be a need for spot mic'ing the brass individually or as a section, try some ribbons if you have any available. I had an orchestral recording session back in April with a 90 piece orchestra, and was able to spot the lower brass section with my AEA R84. What a GREAT sound!

For spots, I'm always looking to get just the tiniest bit of detail when mixing, vs. going for overall level. Sometimes I have to chuckle at what I went through in putting up a mic, running a cable, dedicating a track for over 2 hrs of recording, etc., only to find I've used the tiniest bit of detail to make something sparkle or shine a bit more than the rest. (Harp solos come to mind, ditto for tymp mics, etc.)

Of course, if the front mics are all properly positioned, and the orchestra is doing their job in a good hall, the spots don't even go up. I don't mind that at all!

Greetings,

One of the main things that comes to mind in working with student ensembles is ----is the orchestra sound balanced? In other words, are the sections balanced against each other?
Sometimes some sections ie. percussion or trombones will over play.
The result is that one who is beginning to work intensively with orchestra will wonder why the pick-up is not balanced, It may be the group itself.

I would suggest moving your flanking mics out more. 7 feet is too narrow unless the stage is really narrow.

Don't use any spots at first, just listen to the four across the front. After a while of dialing in their position, they will tell you what else you need to spot, if anything.

When doing your experimenting, change only one thing at a time.

Best Wishes,

Phlush Phonic

Plush wrote: Phlush Phonic

Aww....don't be so down on yourself.

Thanks so much for the responses, everybody.

I have two rehearsals left before the show. Next time I'm planning to use a 4006 pair in the center (sticking with 38 cm spacing since it spread the winds very nicely and I don't know what I'd gain by changing it) and a pair of MK2 on the flanks (don't have S or H, but do have KM183 if anybody thinks that would be better for some reason). I'll throw up some spots, too, just to see. In everything I've done there's never been any brilliance from the brass like I hear on commercial recordings of this piece. It seems the only way to get it is with a nice bright condenser pair back there aiming somewhat into the bells from maybe 6' away (I have room for this onstage as they are alone in the back left corner on risers.) Also, from listening to everything I've done so far, I think it would be nice if the timpani had some point (they always have zero in the omnis) and the harp had some volume and zing. Based on my experience so far, I don't think there's any other way to get these things. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The main question I still have after reading the responses is pertaining to flank positioning. What I'm trying to ascertain is what, exactly, I am going for. It would help a lot if someone could listen to the snippets I posted up [[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]here[/]="http://recording.or…"]here[/] and tell me what they'd like to hear in them that they are not getting. Does it sound like they're too close, too narrow, too low?

I'm seeing the flanking mics basically as violin I and II pickup on the left and viola and bass pickup on the right. I'm not sure what else I'd want from them. To me, everything else sounds great with just the center omnis (height-induced balance issues not withstanding). To that end, I am left feeling that I should keep them lower than the central pair, just to avoid getting more of anything else. Is this dumb?

The outriggers do a few things...

1 - They pick up the ambience of the whole orchestra in the hall.

2 - They emphasize the width of the ensemble (which is often a tad too collapsed through just straight AB)

3 - They tend to add a lot of warmth to the recording

That being said, the sounds you got from your spots on the clips you posted are a tad too near in for me.

If my flanks are within 12' of the main array, I'm surprised. Often they are as much as 12 to 15 or more feet off of center and as much as 6 to 12 feet behind the main array (though just as often, depending upon the hall and what I'm trying to achieve with them, along the same plane as the main array.)

Also, they are rarely if ever lower than the main array. Often, they are at least 2 to 3 feet or more higher than the main array.

As for the spot mics, place them and use them as you see fit. I'm not familiar with any dramatically bright performances of Daphnis...but I've only heard maybe 5 live performances and never recorded it.

The real question is, what do the brass sound like in the hall? Are they bright? If not, don't try to coax it out of your recording. You'll end up not being happy at all and the whole spectral balance will be wonky because of it.

I wouldn't say your approach to flanks is "dumb." However, off target. Go for the whole show...wide, warm and full and add as much or as little to the main pair as you desire to get the fullness and width. If you end up not using them - congratulations, you found the EXACT spot that your omnis present the entire picture. I think I've gotten that once in 10 years. It's not impossible, especially with 8 or more hours of tweaking available to you. With 30 minutes.....good luck. :-)

Small changes certainly can make a difference...

On that topic, never discount the effects of focusing the capsules appropriately. I have often found myself in a kind of acoustic stalemate, where I've got the best sound I can in terms of stereo spread, direct-to-reverberant balance and so on, but I'm not getting the sound that I know the mics are capable of providing. In those situations, the solution is often found in the 'focusing' of the capsules, because they are slightly off-axis. Angling them up or down a bit can make a big difference in focusing. The angle might have been correct at the beginning, but the moment you move the mics backwards, forwards, up or down, it will be different...

It is often hard to judge the angle of the mics if they are above head height. Looking directly into the capsule from on stage can help, but only if you're able to get yourself into such a position. Looking upwards from anywhere on the stage floor to judge angles is very deceiving.

In concert halls, I try to get myself up to the same height as the microphones by venturing into the side-of-stage seating, and then I hold up something with a straight edge to my eye (my credit card, usually), running it in parallel with the axis of the microphone's body (or perpendicular for a side-address microphone, in which case I align the side of the credit card with the mic's body, putting the top of the card on-axis with the capsule). This allows me to follow the top edge down to the performers so I can see where the axis of the microphone is *really* pointing. I am often amused to find the mics are actually pointing above the performer's heads, or at their feet, or anywhere else but at the source of sound! Yet, from the stage itself, the angle appears to be correct. In these cases, correcting the angle usually makes all the difference...

- Phlimmo Phonic

me-o-sonic wrote: ...in which case I align the side of the credit card with the mic's body, putting the top of the card on-axis with the capsule.

May not be a good idea if you have one of those stylish Virgin credit cards with the rounded corner...

I recently realized that I never posted back to this thread with the end results. So... here they are!

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://dmfrench2.iw…"]Daphnis et Chloe, Suite No. 2, excerpt[/]="http://dmfrench2.iw…"]Daphnis et Chloe, Suite No. 2, excerpt[/]

Main Pair: CMC62
[list]38cm spacing
5' out from front row of strings
9.5' high
splayed slightly
Outriggers: KM-183
[list]10.5' back from front row of strings
13' to either side of main pair
9.5' high
mixed at -3dB relative to main
Winds: KM-184
[list]spaced 3' apart
9.5' high
soft panned
time aligned to main pair
mixed equally with main pair
Bass spot, Harp spot... both time aligned to main pair

So, what do you think? Please be picky.

Any suggestions for improvement, be it in mic choice, placement, or mixing, would be appreciated.

This may be as close to sin as possible. But I know one of my teachers prefers to leave the percussion out of it. Instead he reconstructs it in midi.
I would be damned if any one of you could pick out what was recorded in the hall and what was added in with his recordings.
I am not a huge fan of the idea, but it works very well for him. He has yet to have a conductor complain about the results. Mind you he does allot of his work in Europe, where, well people are a hell of a lot less forgiving about production techniques in classical recordings.
But a large reason why he is able to get away with a seamless integration is due to his incredible mixing skills. His ability to manipulate the ear is phenomenal.

So that would always be an option. But only if it was not a recording of a public performance.

Just listen to the recording.
Good work man.
The hall sounds a little brighter then what I am used to, but the cellos and violas playing sound really great. Every thing in the high end just seems to be full of air, so to speak.

Congrats on the job. I hope you continue to fine tune your skills. Your clearly well on the right path.

David- First and foremost, a beautiful sounding recording. Clean, clear, and airy. However - and perhaps this is because I am at my computer listening through headphones - it didn't seem to me as "naturalistic" an image as I like in classical recordings. I felt as if I was placed in the middle of the orchestra rather than in front of it. It had more of a film score feel rather than a concert recording feel. Again, I'm sure the headphones are a big part of this, but my guess is that the high levels of the spot mics is part of it as well (though you certainly got great balance). I'm sure better ears and minds will speak soon, but I thought I'd give my first impression before I was talked out of it by people who knew better.

Thanks for the input guys.

Surely Jeremy, David, Ben, Joe, Tom, or someone can hear something to complain about, right?

Okay...listening now.

Overall good. Here are my criticisms, but bear in mind, I think the recording is good overall.

The flute solo (both flute and alto flute) sound like they're sitting in the cello section. This is likely due to a spot mic registering too much.

This relationship plus the lack of spots on percussion (presumably) makes the auxilliary percussion instruments sound like they're 30' behind the woodwinds.

Despite the relatively close spacing of the omnis, I'm getting a pretty pronounced hole-in-the-middle.

This doesn't sound like the warm-fuzzy CMC6 MK2 sound I'm used to. Were they "s" "h" or straight MK2 caps? How much of the sound is from the 183s? (This has a much more 183 sound than it does Schoeps).

The harp sounds good.

I would have put some reverb on this. While the hall is nice, it's a bit dry. Perhaps moving the mics back just a tad would have helped both this and the hole too.

Did you normalize this clip? The peak at 2:25 actually hits 0dBFS and there's obviously MUCH louder stuff in the rest of the piece.

The principal violin has a very sweet (definitely CMC62) sound. The flutes and clarinets though pierce a little.

Considering the use of all omnis in the front arrays, I would have expected a little wider of a soundstage. Did you hard pan all of your main array mics?

The other reason I say that this sounds more like the Neumanns is that there seems to be a disconnect between the low bass and the mids. This is subtle, but it definitely feels more like a 183 than a CMC62.

I know...I'm being really picky, but I think that's what you're after.

Would you be interested/willing to upload the individual tracks from the 24 bit files? I'd love to play around with them and see what could be done with the mix!

Again - sorry if I'm seeming critical. The overall quality is good. I've certainly heard lesser quality on commercially released CDs. (Of course, those WWs at the end of the clip need to consult a tuner...)

Cheers -
J.

It would be great if you could upload the tracks. I would love to play with them as well. (don't worry, I just want to play, not exploit your hard work in any way).
This goes out to Cucco as well. If you have any songs you don't mine people playing with, please allow us to have some fun with them.

I just want to mix.
This weekend I get to work with some recordings of the Berlin philharmonic. It should be allot of fun. It's all in 5.1 as well. Only thing is, for the project we have to add in a modern element, and some sound design elements. So I would love to work with some traditional recordings to mix in stereo.

Please stop me if I am out of line asking for such things. I just love to mix, and I have yet to have much of a chance to mix orchestrations. Typically when I am mixing a song with some, its already been bounced to a stereo track. So I have yet to have some real fun.

I feel entirely the same actually...I've yet to capture a recording properly. It's always been straight off the live mix with a dash of EQ applied to remove the goddamn buzzing noises caused by using a dodgy PC power supply.

This is why I'm excited about our band's concert coming soon. The way it'll be set up, I'll get to record a few songs entirely in parts and then mix properly later on, without the pressures of covering 2 monitors and the live mix at the same time. And I get to add decent reverbs to guitar/vox...

My only concern is that I'm letting it run away with me and I know I'm going to have to watch that it doesn't ruin the live mix. Few people will notice but I don't want to be 4 seconds behind a feedback cause I'm toying around with a couple of knobs and not listening to the mains.

Thanks a bunch for the great critique! Exactly what I needed.

To answer your questions...

Yes, my wind spots are up rather high in level, but to my ears, this is where they gave me the clarity I wanted. Maybe they should be backed off a bit. I though they were picking up a good deal of percussion, too, so I'm surprised that the percussion sounds so distant.

The mains were straight MK2, not S or H.

Yes, I did do some volume adjustment to this track to balance with the other recordings on my demo reel. When someone listens to my stuff, I don't want them to have to touch the volume knob.

I did hard pan the mains and the outs.

You want to remix it?!? Kick ass! I'm sure I will learn a hell of a lot from this. Thanks so much, Jeremy! Here are the 24 bit tracks of this excerpt, along with my setup and mix notes (pay careful attention to the time alignment numbers), and an impulse response of the hall that this was recorded in ( I like to use this to soften spot mics and to add realistic overall verb).

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://dmfrench2.iw…"]Daphnis Multitrack Excerpt [self-extracting RAR archive - 109 MB][/]="http://dmfrench2.iw…"]Daphnis Multitrack Excerpt [self-extracting RAR archive - 109 MB][/]

Fraz, you can f with it if you want. Care to share your Berlin Phil recording?

David French wrote: Care to share your Berlin Phil recording?

Did I miss a reference somewhere?

Okay...so here's the stuff -

The track (a different section than previously posted) is here:

(Dead Link Removed)

Here is an image of the screen shot from the file:

(Dead Link Removed)

Sorry for the large size. I reduced it as much as possible where you could still see the settings.

There's no effects added on individual tracks, only panning and volume. The master bus contains a small amount of EQ. There was a bump (thanks to the timp) at around 80Hz that I cut just a little with a wide curve and added a little back at around 50Hz.

I added a little bit in the treble just to get more reach into the orchestra. (This is why I much prefer the MK2s - it digs much further into the orchestra than the MK2).

The reverb is a custom impulse and only lightly added.

There was no time alignment of any of the spots, but you can see that I used very little of them at all. The bass spot was (is) mostly inaudible at the level that I have it but does chime in a little bit (keeping me from having to use more than .5dB at the LF boost). The WW spots were only lightly brought in to add a little more body to the WWs. I didn't bring them up high enough to accent any articulations.

The limiter is there to simply catch the one timpani hit that got away from him/her and jumped to +3dBFS despite the rest being quite normal in range. Since it only affected less than 50 samples, I didn't feel as though this was a detriment in any way.

So, now I'm curious. First - what do you like and dislike about the mix?

Second, what did I do that has you scratching your head and asking "Why the hell did he do that??"

Third, what would you different?

Cheers-

Jeremy

Will be devouring this a little later.

Could you post your impulse?

David French wrote:
Could you post your impulse?

I have mixed feelings about doing that. While I'm all for sharing and helping, this particular set of impulses has been a good secret weapon for me. I'll gladly tell you a bit more about them off-line, but I'm hesitant to share them... Sorry. :cry:

That's fine. I was just curious about its qualities and why it is the best choice for this piece of music. I'll try to do what I can to get a feel for the reverb while listening. If you have anything to say about them off-line, I would be happy to listen.

David French wrote: Surely Jeremy, David, Ben, Joe, Tom, or someone can hear something to complain about, right?

David, I haven't had a chance to listen to it properly on big speakers, yet, but yes, I have some complaints. The spots seem to be too loud, the harp glisses stand out like beacons and really sound unnatural as a result.

Will comment properly when I have had a good listen.

Thanks, David. Looking forward to it.

I'm interested in what the musicians thought of the mix. While I like the mix with less of the spots, I'd like to know how much of the "more me in the mix" syndrome is alive in classical musicians at this level. I would not be surprised if they (and many other listeners) preferred your mix.

Oh dear Lord. I have somehow managed to provide the wrong excerpt. I have no idea how that happened. I'm so sorry for wasting your time, Jeremy.

If I might be so lucky to get a second shot, here is the multitrack from the excerpt I posted. I have fixed the original link as well.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://dmfrench2.iw…"]Daphnis Multitrack Excerpt [self-extracting RAR archive - 109 MB][/]="http://dmfrench2.iw…"]Daphnis Multitrack Excerpt [self-extracting RAR archive - 109 MB][/]

While that final movement is exciting, I chose not to post it or put it on my demo reel because I am not satisfied with the performance as it relates to the quality of recorded sound, especially with regards to percussion. It has absolutely no grace, and to me, it is not pleasant to listen to.

Jeremy, that mix you did sounds about as good as I can imagine it sounding. That IR must be something special. There's a sheen to the high end that sounds like a slick mastering job or something. I do believe I understand your reasons for what you did for that excerpt; however, I would like to know why you chose not to time align.

So here is the mix I did with it.
Please keep in mind this is my very first orchestral mix.
I did not add any verb, nor did I time align. I was mainly trying to get the levels and panning right before I start adding any thing extra to it.
http://download.yousendit.com/A2927D007FBBBF5B
Be honest, chances are my ears are totally missing something.

Time aligning is great in principle, but in reality, it never works out as I'd like it to.

Sure, you can do the math - .88ms per foot if you're at sea level and it's 76 degrees in the hall. However, it rarely ever adds up to that amount.

Also, what happens to the sounds that fall between the two sets of mics to be time aligned? Say you get some viola or 2nd violin on your flute spot mics, they are now delayed along with your spots and they now sound as though they are coming from further back.

Also, I rarely bring spots in enough to create distance perception issues.

Of course, then the other question is, to which mic(s) do you time align? Do you try to time align the outriggers and all spots to the same central source? Do you only time-align spots?

On very rare occassions, I'll time align spots, but I use measurements as a guideline at best and then use my ears the rest of the way.

If I get a chance, I'll try to get to the corrected clip, but it may be a few days.

J.

Cucco, and chance you could give a quick listen and critique to my mix?
I am just paranoid that my ears are completely missing out on some things.

Hey, what a nice recording!!
It's a flute solo. I think the conductor should be holding everyone else back... a single instrument from the middle can only play so loud... so the rest need to be softer.... and yes, turn the harp down a little. really nice.

BobRogers wrote: I'm interested in what the musicians thought of the mix. While I like the mix with less of the spots, I'd like to know how much of the "more me in the mix" syndrome is alive in classical musicians at this level. I would not be surprised if they (and many other listeners) preferred your mix.

I have not found this to be the case at all - actually quite the contrary.

Usually, when I fly a pair of spots over woodwinds or brass (or even percussion) I get at a minimum some dirty looks and at most a comment to the effect of "you shouldn't do that - we'll be heard just fine."

It's only after I ward off the comments with something to the effect of:
"Don't worry - these are only going to be brought up just a little in the mix - you won't even hear them"

that the guys/gals back down. Fortunately, I have colleagues/friends in most of the orchestras in this area and if I don't, I try to make some real quick so that they can chime in and explain that I know what I'm doing.

In general, most classical musicians listen a lot to classical music and they know real quick when the balance from section-to-section is off.

That being said - I've heard a recording of Gershwin's Cuban Overture on XM Radio lately that's been driving me friggin NUTS!!!

The latin percussion was obviously spot-mic'ed and whoever the engineer was apparently thought that the percussion needed to come to the fore when they began playing. Everytime they kick in, it sounds like they've been thrust to the front of the stage and cover the orchestra with nothing but shakers and claves.

Fraz, I listened to your mix, and I thought it sounded very similar to my own mix, while Cucco's sounded significantly more natural.

David -

Let me tell you how I came to that particular mix. Some insight might help to understand why I did some things.

First step -

I listened to just the main pair of mics only for the entire track. This gave me an idea as to what I wanted to acheive from the mix and what may or may not have been present with just the main pair.

Second step -

Started listening again, this time with both the main and flanking pairs at unity. While listening, I adjust the balance of these pairs until I get the tonality and the width and depth of soundstage that I want. If anything is lacking, I go to the spot mics.

Third step -

Spot mics. I wanted a little more in the middle but not so much as to paint a broad wall of sound - more the traditional arc of the orchestra. In this case, I settled with a level that was VERY low in relationship to the main pairs.

Fourth step -

Effects. I only reached for the EQ for a couple reasons here. First, I was hearing a ringing coming from the timpani. This is very common on rooms that aren't quite perfect or when the timpanist puts him/her self in corner. By cutting a little in the presence region, I felt the need to boost a little in the lower region to give more weight.

The HF boost was there because I felt the main pairs would be best suited by a little more reach into the ensemble.

As for the reverb, I'll send you some details off-line in a PM...

Cheers-

Jeremy