i might take a measurement with and without the ape but as i said, it may take a while before i'll use them again...

Please, no need. I’m only interested in Neumann published content.

lol - don't worry: i won't bother you in this case!

[i only trust my own measurements (and those of very few colleagues) but to each his own...]

Same Idea from Switchcraft
S3FM

https://www.fullcompass.com/prod/018...AaAm2tEALw_wcB

@ sounddguy : You have to get up pretty early to get ahead of Doug Tourtelot (see post 163). And he's west coast while you're in EST time zone!

Your wish...
Neumann's site seems to be broken a bit but this is from the Neumann Digital microphone catalog, pg 26 where all the capsules (and patterns) are given

(and an aside, the KM133 was used as the surrounds ch29/30 for the BSO recordings by S. Murphy)



(right click, open image in new tab if you want to be able to read all the detail. I posted a full-size of this chart... just the forum shrinks it to the comment box boundaries)

And to address the belief that all 40mm balls have the same response influence and the capsule diameter doesn't matter, here's Neumann's published results of the 40mm SBK130A on the KM130/183 (which has a larger diameter than the KK133).
Compare to the KK133 with 40mm SBK133 above



(I should mention that the overall peak at 10kHz being higher in the KM130/183 is not the responsibility of the diffraction sphere -- like the KK133, that is the normal peak for the mic even without the sphere. This is about what happens between 1kHz and up in slope and directivity)

That’s wonderful. Thanks for finding that, I looked a-lot.

I was reading through the various posts and couldn’t find any info about the kk133 sbk diameter or a published frequency graph. I just did a jazz Steinway B in a small treated living room. The peculiar characteristic difference between the 4006/40mm and the km 133 a/sbk133 was the 133’s had more clarity than the 4006’s. I didn’t understand the nature of the m50 response until now and I thought the 40mm dpa 4006 was supposed to have that but it’s the 4006 with the 50mm ape, according to dpa’s published graphs as well as the km 133/sbk 133 with its 40mm sphere.

Thanks qbpm!

these are very heavily averaged and smoothed frequency plots*...

...but what i consider to be relatively accurate as far as i can tell from real-world experience is the accentuated directional characteristic in the top octave when using ape's on the kk-133's.


* i'm often 'shooting the room', using b&k-4007's for measurements and sampling (and keep them running as redundant pairs)...
...which is why i mentioned before that i trust my own measurements more that published graphs.

These are indeed incredibly smoothed plots but, by being from the same testing source (Neumann), they've all been measured and smoothed the same for all 6 plots which is why they can be useful for comparison (and at the same time, not indicative of exacting real world results)

fair enough, as long as one assumes that these plots aren't smoothed beyond recognition...



[while we're at it: if you compare real-world off-axis measurements of some of the most highly lauded mics (vintage german tube ldc's) to published graphs, you instantly turn sick - and yet they seem to work very well in many applications!

same for self noise figures btw: there are situations which can profit from low noise. however, as long as there isn't an obvious 'waterfall' in terms of noise (i'm not referring to waterfall plots), results can be fine; i'm regularly using b&k-4007's in situations where 4006's would seem to be more 'correct' - or kk-133's...]

Recently I had to record some concerts with a good amateur orchestra (with some pro musicians also). They played the Planets of Holst. It was a show with dancers and video projections and the stage was small. So impossible to put a microphone stand.
I decided to go with a decca tree with 3 suspended omni mics and nothing else.
The mics were 2 Line Audio OM1 and a Neumann MA1.
The OM1 were 6 m high above the first row of violins and 3.5m from one to the other.
The MA1 was 1.5m in front.
I put an eq on the OM1 (high shelve 4khz, 3.5db).
And add some reverb because the little theatre was very dry
This was not a standart Decca tree, but hey, it works no ?

It sounds like Uranus. (I had to) ������

I thought if I could use MA1 for recording... was too hissy in my studio tests, on loud orchestra it obviously can be used...

The example does sound like a chaotic mess of sounds to me, some close, some distant, weird perspective, but I'll blame the composition and the orchestra... but I also feel that the Decca tree without the outriggers doesn't work (is not decca tree actually), and some spot mics...

Decca used the tree without outriggers frequently, on smaller ensembles; it hardly "doesn't work".

It's not even a 'non-standard' Decca Tree; it's just a random array of three microphones.

And the MA1 is the exact opposite of the kind of mic the tree was designed to be used with.

As the person who started this thread, I spent weeks preparing and when I arrived at the venue, a stagehand directed me to the back of the room - 25 rows back and said the conductor decided there. That was not as embarrassing as how I felt from the response I received after posting here.
So for what it’s worth, I liked your recording a lot. The reach to the back of the orchestra was strong, probably due to the 6m height. (Which is high) You stretched the dimensions of the ‘3’ mics and got a recording that the people who were involved and others who listen to it will most likely love, I would. The indistinct placement of the different sections is probably due to your blown-up dimension. You’ll probably always remember your ‘first’, that’s how you learn. But your ‘decca tree’ sounds a hell of a-lot better than mine from the 25th row that started this thread.
Nice job.

This... I thought to reply to the other response in the similar manner, but this is it basically...

I am not sure they used just the three mics on smaller ensembles (although the example here was an orchestra anyway) without anything else, usually there were some spots and such... and distances and the types of mics and high end directivity matter...

Posting such examples and calling it Decca tree and claiming it worked, while it obviously didn't, does disservice to the techique.

This happens. And when it does, hypercardioids or figure-8s can be your salvation.

The decca tree is a useful technique but there are often constraints which prevent it from being used. Like any other technique.
--scott

or even Neumann MA1’s

as long as you're getting the results you're looking for, no one cares about mics and techniques you're using (or are being forced to use): just don't call any non-typical setup 'decca' or the traditionalists will hunt you down...



[frequent user of a l/c/r array here which got nothing to do with decca at all: neither the mics nor their positions, orientation, spacing etc.]

It's less about being a 'traditionalist' and more about words have meaning or they don't. Especially since the publication of the Dunkerley book, we now know that what constituted the Decca Tree was actually quite well defined, and varied little by the folks who developed it; many descriptions of it online and elsewhere over the years were wildly inaccurate.

The same can be said of the various near-coincident pairs, such as ORTF; when any old sorta-close pair of any old pattern of directional mics at any old angle are referred to as "ORTF", then the term begins to lose all meaning. It's either ORTF (or NOS, or DIN, etc.), or it isn't.

Accurate use of terminology simply improves communication.

since the reformation we have known that the sacred texts need a contemporary interpretation; it is only the traditionalists who cling to the literal interpretation of the scriptures...

It’s a t-shape array, warm sounding, mono compatible. The goals of a Decca Tree array. The Holst recording had those characteristics.

The tree can have different spacing, comparing them to near-coincident pairs is wrong.

I think the point is: what you describe certainly can be called a tree microphone array, but it is not a Decca Tree.
Just like a Chevy ain't a Ford. They both will get you where you want to go, But is it not wrong to call a Chevy a Ford (or vise versa)?

I completely fail to see your point.
DECCA tree seems very much like a very specific technique, almost (it is !) a brand name.

Lets call any coincident recording with one capsule aimed at the middle, and any odd capsule aimed at the side a MS couple ?

I recorded a spaced 2m pair of hypercards, but I matrix them through MS matrix - hence I made an MS recording.

Names have a meaning. Internet culture is bad enough as it is.

@ ddy : I appreciate your open-minded flexibility in your own work, but there is no point in giving the info online that first learning the techniques is "clinging to the sacred texts" ? They are not all bad ?

Of course, you and I know that by coloring outside the lines, we manage to produce vastly superior recordings to those mythical 60s and 70s Decca recordings

As I have noted before, myself I tend to use a Mercury living presence LCR setup, with the C substituted by a MS couple (often with wide card mid microphone).

Would I call it a Mercury living presence array ? nope. A modified Decca tree ? again no. An Earcatcher 2.0 ? maybe I mean no because I just gave away the ingredients. Some arrays change name depending on secrecy. We must allow for this as well ...

Mind you, MSMLP array changes concept varying the mix engineer. Myself I start with the MS (or mono) mic (like Mercury) and add the LR mics to expand the image and get a bit more string sound. My colleague starts with the very wide LR and fills the gap. His is not an MSMLP anymore ...

See why do we need names ? Stuff gets confusing - very rapidly.

(if anyone has a decent name for wide LR, filled with a central MS mic at lower level - ideas are welcome !)

Excuse me, I'm just going to put together my 2 omni mic Hamasaki square setup.
I'm just "interpreting."
Don't want to be a traditionalist.

I don't think fundamentalism has anything to do with this... It is either a certain technique or it is something else.

People like to bash Decca tree and often, because it is not Decca tree they use at all...

I am not too sure I want to use it personally, but I like the recordings that were properly done.

And I don't plan to record bad student orchestras, anyway, the pretty good national ones are regularly recorded by national radio crew with all their Schoepses and Neumanns and Studers... and independent musicians play chamber music, organising an independent symphony orchestra is just too expansive and doesn't make sense... and that would be my niche, so personally, I don't find much use for "Decca tree"... on chamber music I found some other preference.

Anyway, while the tone of the above example was not bad, the image was confusing and the balance awful - but here I also blame the orchestra's playing - it is hard to differentiate where performing issues cause weird balance and sound and where the recordist's errors.

A comment like this is also not meant as "shooting" someone down, just an observation, that it didn't really work and that it is not Decca tree at all - from the description it sounds like a smaller "Big AB" with a single central mic - an array that can hardly produce a nice stereo image and localisation - maybe a central ORTF or AB pair would be better - this would be a 4mic decca tree then... instead of a single omni mic in the middle...

Or even more spread side mics and some close mics on sections... which is a completely different approach from Decca... the big AB with spot mics.

Or even an MS with some outriggers and call it a day...

I guess it is OK for what it is... (the above example) but still... let us not muddy the waters with calling anything with three mics a "Decca tree".

They (Decca crew) knew what they were doing, it is not "holy scripture", they arrived at certain techniques through experimentation and stuck to them - it is also not a single one - but everything is very well defined and explained "how and why" it is done a certain way and why it produces the effects many seem to like. And the type of microphones (especially the directivity of high end frequencies with the aid of spheres), the distances, etc. matter... for it to work nicely. Just putting up three omni mics randomly is not what Decca did and is not what works all that well, obviously. In the end it is - what sounds good is good - but if there is poor stereo picture and balance - it is not good.

It is not "fundamentalism" - it is logic and experience that was finally transmitted also through some book(s).

But people can argue for argument's sake, too.

And I will do the non-fundamentalist ORTF - I will use two omnis at 145 degree angle and the capsules 33cm apart - I think it will work "very nice" (read with Borat voice) because the ORTF is more mono compatible, produces good separation and a nice stereo picture - I think improving this boring traditional technique with non-traditionally using the omnis at a slightly larger spacing and wider angle will produce a deeper low end and a more spacious soundstage.

ORTF rules, especially with free field omnis!

nothing against precise terminology...

...but does a decca-ish tree with modern sdc's still qualify as a true decca tree? how about a tree without outriggers? there obviously were situations in which decca engineers used less mics etc. so 'decca' (and even the decca tree) figures as a collective term - personally i don't give much about the approaches subsumed under this term and specifically regarding the tree, i rather stick to michael williams' dictum...

Richard King mentiones using a Decca Tree for string quartett. I am pretts sure, he refers to a scaled down version, without outriggers and probably without the double bass spot mic.
So when does a Decca tree stop being a Decca tree, actually?
If a Decca tree falls in a forest...