Quantcast
Faulkner fig 8 phased array with ribbons on sax dodecatet - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Faulkner fig 8 phased array with ribbons on sax dodecatet
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #31
Gear Addict
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 ➡️
no, doesn't enhance...or no, doesn't degrade ?
Sorry, I meant no it doesn't degrade...if...
I can't see how it could possibly enhance depth.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #32
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 ➡️
no, doesn't enhance...or no, doesn't degrade ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by k brown ➡️
Sorry, I meant no it doesn't degrade...if...
I can't see how it could possibly enhance depth.
imo it isn't all about timing, early reflections (fake or real) but also about phase coherency: occasionally, you want to dynamically and randomly change it on purpose...

if you're looking at pop music, say a dry vocal track recorded with a very close positioned ldc or an old mono synth going into a di or straight into a preamp, using multiple delays (and filters on the returns) often is the only way to do get depth.

again, i prefer using ambis for this, not least 'cause it's much faster (while mixing) but using either multiple spots or then artificial tools works quite well, so yes, this can enhance depth, enable it in the first place - or then turn things into a horrible 'grey' wash :-(

___


maybe a word on monitoring: while a good mix of course should sound fine on most any playback system and in any environment, i've come to like coax and horn-loaded speakers as they seem to portray details in terms of width and depth differently: to my ears, it's easier to hear precise panorama positions of sources and whether i've achieved a reasonable/desireable amount of depth in my mixes (but maybe that's just me)...
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #33
Lives for gear
 
mljung's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCBigler ➡️
Please explain what you mean by this. It's only a stereo recording, not an immersive format, so how could it possibly have any sort of 3 dimensional aspect to the sound?
I'm aware that others have replied for me already.

I would add that music and the room portrayed including perception of depth, was one of the things that fascinated me most about recording in an acoustic space in the first place and the reason why I knew I would have to get some microphones one day. So what I mean when I call this array a little flat sounding (even though I'm aware that all instruments was lined up at more or less the same distance from the axis of the microphone pair), is that it's lacking a little sense of space.

What I miss is the sound including width and depth of the hall in which these 12 saxes are played. Many great stereo-recordings made over the years have a great sense of space and depth.

Still a fine recording (I wonder if the addition of a spaced omni pair would help this regard or if the halls side reflections would be too much of a problem).
::
Mads
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #34
Gear Addict
 
I believe most of what you hear 'missing' would have been achieved by simply moving the mics back further (parallel fig8 pair can be very dry), and having the two more like 12-14" apart.

I've yet to encounter an explanation from TF as to how he arrived at 8" spacing; any stereo calculator will show it to have a very narrow soundstage.
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #35
Lives for gear
 
king2070lplaya's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by k brown ➡️
I believe most of what you hear 'missing' would have been achieved by simply moving the mics back further (parallel fig8 pair can be very dry), and having the two more like 12-14" apart.

I've yet to encounter an explanation from TF as to how he arrived at 8" spacing; any stereo calculator will show it to have a very narrow soundstage.
Hard to argue with the success of the technique on that Hildegard album though, “feather on the breath of god” I think, with Emma Kirkby? I’m sold on the validity of that spacing from that record alone.
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #36
Gear Addict
 
I seem to remember him saying he used it in that church because very strong side wall reflections; maybe what of that still got into the 8s gave the 8" spacing a feeling of width it wouldn't have had in a more typical acoustic.
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #37
Lives for gear
 
mljung's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Good points King and Brown.
I will see if I can find the Kirkby recording, if that was indeed TF recording with his fig8 array on its own.
::
Mads
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #38
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
The addition of a pair of moderately spaced omnis * either side of the 8" fig.8 pair seems like a counter-intuitive way of adding the ambience that the fig.8's quite heavy-handedly subtract, by virtue of their side nulls...but I guess you can feed in as much or as little as it takes to restore some spaciousness.

It also seems very reminiscent of the 4 mic TF/Boojum/Norman phased array approach !

I tend to agree that the width does appear when the fig 8 pair alone is pulled well back into the room...back to a distance where it seems that any other array would fall apart with washiness/cloudiness and lost detail.

Despite the similar mic to mic spacing, there's clearly something going on in this array that's quite "un-human ear-like" in it's capture behaviour (ie we don't have side-nulls in our ears, but more like a front/back null !), that's worthy of more psycho-acoustic and theoretical exploration.

For those interested in TF's original 1981 article on the subject, the 3 page document is linked half-way down in this page: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TonyFau...rray01Engl.pdf.....and critiqued here:

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TonyFau...sedArray06.htm

* "Sometimes Faulkner adds a pair of omnidirectional microphones 2 to 3 ft (60-90cm ) apart, flanking the figure 8's. These outriggers add ambient spaciousness"...writes Sengpiel

Last edited by studer58; 5 days ago at 10:03 AM..
Old 5 days ago | Show parent
  #39
Lives for gear
 
mljung's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 ➡️
The addition of a pair of moderately spaced omnis * either side of the 8" fig.8 pair seems like a counter-intuitive way of adding the ambience that the fig.8's quite heavy-handedly subtract, by virtue of their side nulls...but I guess you can feed in as much or as little as it takes to restore some spaciousness.

It also seems very reminiscent of the 4 mic TF/Boojum/Norman phased array approach !

I tend to agree that the width does appear when the fig 8 pair alone is pulled well back into the room...back to a distance where it seems that any other array would fall apart with washiness/cloudiness and lost detail.

Despite the similar mic to mic spacing, there's clearly something going on in this array that's quite "un-human ear-like" in it's capture behaviour (ie we don't have side-nulls in our ears, but more like a front/back null !), that's worthy of more psycho-acoustic and theoretical exploration.

For those interested in TF's original 1981 article on the subject, the 3 page document is linked half-way down in this page: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TonyFau...rray01Engl.pdf.....and critiqued here:

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TonyFau...sedArray06.htm

* "Sometimes Faulkner adds a pair of omnidirectional microphones 2 to 3 ft (60-90cm ) apart, flanking the figure 8's. These outriggers add ambient spaciousness"...writes Sengpiel
Interesting, thanks for the additional info (including the possible omni flanks in TFs own setup). I remember that I read it years back, great to have some new attention to it.
::
Mads
Old 4 days ago | Show parent
  #40
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mljung ➡️
Interesting, thanks for the additional info (including the possible omni flanks in TFs own setup). I remember that I read it years back, great to have some new attention to it.
::
Mads
The addition of the 60-90 cm Omni pair outside the inner fig 8 pair seems to be a yin/yang offset of wider imaging against the too-narrow fig 8's central image....so it's ostensibly yet another variation on the 4 mic phased array formula of Faulkner, boojum, Norman (and now, it's in the Decca book too...any others ?)

What remains to be seen is how well the 2 stereo images would overlay in coherence and 'complementarity'....I'm guessing the central pair is intended to contribute the majority of input. The fact that I've seen no mention of the added Omni pair, other than in this original 1981 article, suggests that it's fallen from favour and use...even by TF himself ?
Old 4 days ago | Show parent
  #41
Gear Addict
 
I'd add what I mentioned in another thread, that I asked TF about using hypers as the middle pair, and he encouraged me to try it; said the antiphase rear lobes should not be an issue at all. Every time I've tried it the results were very nice - tilts the ratio of side wall vs rear reflections in favor of the more desirable late rear sound. Don't see any reason it would not work with 8s as well.

TF always stresses that there's nothing written in stone about the 4-mic, and that one should use one's ears. FWIW, were I to try 8s in the middle, I'd first do listening tests to find a spacing for the 8s that has a spread that's as close to that of the 67cm omnis as possible. Most of the inner pair spacings that TF has mentioned, indeed produce spreads wider than ORTF, and closer to that of the omnis. I think that's key to not producing a shift in the stereo image as the mix is adjusted.

What I've found almost 'magical' about using hypers in the middle, is that mixing in the omnis doesn't impair the 'intimacy' of the hypers; the sound doesn't become more unpleasantly 'off-mic' but just attains a wonderful bloom and envelopment.

I'd love to try 8s myself, but the only ones I have are ribbons, and I don't yet have a pre quiet enough to use them as mains.
Old 4 days ago | Show parent
  #42
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
What's a little schizophrenic about a fig8/omni 4 mic pairing is that the further back you pull the fig8's from the stage action, the better they tend to sound...whereas the omnis pulled back to the same distance (ie on same bar) tend to get cloudier and less detailed much more quickly.

Any 4 mics on a bar combo is essentially a compromise between 2 pairs of ill-placed mics, looking to fix a broken marriage with a compromise location ! With the fig8/omni pairing, they're simply both starting from more divergent points of view, so the marriage counselling has even less chance of success...

So where the 2 pairs might cohere well in terms of SRA and apparent width overlay, their direct to reverberant pickups are going to diverge more noticeably (and rapidly) as they move back into the hall...moreso than card/sub-card and omnis ? The old chestnut regarding an omni pair at x distance from the stage is going to have the same direct to reverb ratio as a cardioid pair at 1.7x (or is it 0.7:1 ...someone please correct ?)

Will have to give it a tryout on my next outing...wind band reheasal ?
Old 4 days ago | Show parent
  #43
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 ➡️
What's a little schizophrenic about a fig8/omni 4 mic pairing is that the further back you pull the fig8's from the stage action, the better they tend to sound...whereas the omnis pulled back to the same distance (ie on same bar) tend to get cloudier and less detailed much more quickly.

Any 4 mics on a bar combo is essentially a compromise between 2 pairs of ill-placed mics, looking to fix a broken marriage with a compromise location ! With the fig8/omni pairing, they're simply both starting from more divergent points of view, so the marriage counselling has even less chance of success...

So where the 2 pairs might cohere well in terms of SRA and apparent width overlay, their direct to reverberant pickups are going to diverge more noticeably (and rapidly) as they move back into the hall...moreso than card/sub-card and omnis ? The old chestnut regarding an omni pair at x distance from the stage is going to have the same direct to reverb ratio as a cardioid pair at 1.7x (or is it 0.7:1 ...someone please correct ?)

Will have to give it a tryout on my next outing...wind band reheasal ?
the best characterisation of the known 4-mic arrays i have read so far! :-)



[i can understand why they are used for organisational/logistical/time reasons and one certainly 'can get away' with them but imo they are hardly something one would choose with enough time/given other options]
Old 4 days ago | Show parent
  #44
Lives for gear
 
mljung's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 ➡️
The addition of the 60-90 cm Omni pair outside the inner fig 8 pair seems to be a yin/yang offset of wider imaging against the too-narrow fig 8's central image....so it's ostensibly yet another variation on the 4 mic phased array formula of Faulkner, boojum, Norman (and now, it's in the Decca book too...any others ?)

What remains to be seen is how well the 2 stereo images would overlay in coherence and 'complementarity'....I'm guessing the central pair is intended to contribute the majority of input. The fact that I've seen no mention of the added Omni pair, other than in this original 1981 article, suggests that it's fallen from favour and use...even by TF himself ?
Right, if we're lucky TF may even chime in on this (if he's still around these pages)

Is it in the Decca book - do you mean the omni/ORTF combo (fig.12.3 on page 218)?
::
Mads
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 607 views: 14599
Avatar for ButcherStudios
ButcherStudios 28th December 2020
replies: 2 views: 1110
Avatar for poonna
poonna 25th October 2020
replies: 3306 views: 63413
Avatar for Synth Guru
Synth Guru 21st August 2021
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump