Quantcast
Intimacy on location - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Intimacy on location
Old 2 weeks ago
  #1
Intimacy on location

I’m intending to purchase two or three of the Sonodore RCM-402 60V mics for location acoustic session [not concert] recording. And I think I've finally got the RCM-402 60V 'thing' in my ear. Not many questions about these mics.

However, my preferences lean steeply toward intimacy. . .a closeness eschewed by many ‘concert' classical music recordists, but a closeness that is also less encroaching than many studio and 'live' pop/jazz recordists pursue. Arrangements will target mostly small ensembles in moderate to large rooms. Application is not genre-specific. . .but acoustic, it is.

So, to complement the Sonodore RCM-402 mics, I'm wondering about my Schoeps CCM 5 matched pair [with perhaps a low pass EQ] to serve as a couple of BLM? Sound reasonable? or would you reserve those for other duties [e.g., more distant ambient] and just use something cheap for the BLM mics?

And I'm thinking to include a 'shared', close LDC - set slightly above in circumstances like recording a string trio [1].

With respect to the Sonodore LDC collection, I don't yet have direct exposure to them. I think recorded samples sound very good, but there are just so many great LDCs in the market. Would they contribute to my pursuit of intimacy more than. . .well, what would you do?


Any thoughts?

Ray H.

[1] The closest example I see, is attached [Bach: Goldberg Variations , Camerata RCO, via Bert van der Wolf]. A different - but useful - aesthetic for a string trio might be to set my AEA A440 somewhat similarly, but significantly higher?
Attached Thumbnails
Intimacy on location-bnp1701a_2048x.jpg  
Old 2 weeks ago
  #2
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Hi Ray,

Off topic, but I’ve been using RCM402s for years, and recently added Rens’ LDM54, I have to say that the LDMs are just mind blowing, I recommend you to consider them instead of the RCMs. From my experience with Rens omnis, they will end up contributing to at least 95% of the overall sound, so I wouldn’t worry much about the other microphones used
Old 2 weeks ago
  #3
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Being close with mics in classical chamber music works for pianissimo, but when the dynamic rises you have an acoustic compressor on your hands and things get harsh very quickly.

A lot of jazz is recorded like this because it doesn't rise above mp.

The repertoire will be important. Beautiful mics those Sonodore.
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #4
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
with mics close to the sources, you'll want to use dynamic, spectral and efx processing to re-establish what 'normally' some air between the mics and the source would do!

dynamic processing brings up low level detail which can lead to an impression of a very intimate soundfield - room size as well as the ratio between dry, reflected and ambient sound also affect the way how close/intimate we hear things.

worth noting that some people however decribe a rather soft, dark, cloudy and even distant soundfield as 'intimate'...


p.s. even though more difficult in terms of positioning, i favor directional mics (also) when going close...

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 2 weeks ago at 11:09 PM.. Reason: typo
Old 2 weeks ago
  #5
Lives for gear
 
kludgeaudio's Avatar
 
I think you should consider a pair of those Sonodores with a Jecklin-style baffle. In a good room, they can be placed very close in without losing control of balances, and get a very intimate effect. The technique will exaggerate room problems severely but when it works, I think it will give you a lot of what you want. And yes, as noted above, miking in closely will tend to exaggerate dynamics, but this is the 21st century and we have plenty of headroom on the recorder and remarkably transparent compression that can be used subtly and judiciously.
--scott
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalo1004es ➡️
Hi Ray,

Off topic, but I’ve been using RCM402s for years, and recently added Rens’ LDM54, I have to say that the LDMs are just mind blowing, I recommend you to consider them instead of the RCMs. From my experience with Rens omnis, they will end up contributing to at least 95% of the overall sound, so I wouldn’t worry much about the other microphones used
Thanks for the recommendation and comments. I'm curious about your application circumstances and objectives.

Do you like the Sonodore LDM-54 better mainly because of the reduced noise floor, or because of the LDC-ish off axis frequency response character they bring to the game? Or is there something else you like better. . .even in a minimally-reflective space?


Kind regards,

Ray H.

Note: I'm going to have a hard time letting go of the SDC off axis attributes, but could easily talk myself into something like. . .
3 Sonodore RCM-402 + 2 Sonodore LDM-54 + 1 Sonodore MPM-81 tube
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Spearritt ➡️
Being close with mics in classical chamber music works for pianissimo, but when the dynamic rises you have an acoustic compressor on your hands and things get harsh very quickly.

A lot of jazz is recorded like this because it doesn't rise above mp.

The repertoire will be important. Beautiful mics those Sonodore.
Thanks, David -

Your thoughtfulness and sense of aesthetics are always deeply appreciated.

Reflecting on the "best orchestral recording I've ever heard" thread, I am hoping to land very much closer to the Shostakovich recordings than the Rachmaninoff recording. . .only my target is neither at large symphonic arrangements, of course.

Still, I do expect to have some trouble with dynamics on these projects - and will doubtless be back asking about it.


Ray H.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
with mics close to the sources, you'll want to use dynamic, spectral and efx processing to re-establish what 'normally' some air between the mics and the source would do!

dynamic processing brings up low level detail which can lead to an impression of a very intimate soundfield - room size as well as the ratio between dry, reflected and ambient sound also affect the way how close/intimate we hear things.

worth noting that some people however decribe a rather soft, dark, cloudy and even distant soundfield as 'intimate'...


p.s. even though more difficult in terms of positioning, i favor directional mics (also) when going close...
Sensei, arigato gozaimasu.

As always, I take your words to heart.

One aspect [there are several] that is attracting me to these specific omni mics for the application is the increased off-axis sensitivity with respect to higher frequencies.

Issues I found problematic in the referenced recording [Bach: Goldberg Variations , Camerata RCO, via Bert van der Wolf], were the inconsistencies in either location [e.g. a player moved] or a player changed their dynamics in a way that didn't appeal to me.

And in this case, I was thinking the issues were magnified by the shared, closer LDC. . .which spun my mind off into considering my AEA A440 positioned significantly higher?

Well, this is my deepest adventure into the land of omni. And I'm hoping that intimate will not be soft, dark, cloudy and distant for me there.

I'll be back to ask about those 'dynamic, spectral and efx processing' things.


Sensei, arigato gozaimashita.

Ray H.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by kludgeaudio ➡️
I think you should consider a pair of those Sonodores with a Jecklin-style baffle. In a good room, they can be placed very close in without losing control of balances, and get a very intimate effect. The technique will exaggerate room problems severely but when it works, I think it will give you a lot of what you want. And yes, as noted above, miking in closely will tend to exaggerate dynamics, but this is the 21st century and we have plenty of headroom on the recorder and remarkably transparent compression that can be used subtly and judiciously.
--scott
Thanks, Scott -

I too, deeply appreciate your thoughts and suggestions.

I've never used a Jecklin disk or baffle. So, on your recommendation, I'll be looking forward to it.

Note: I was most likely intending L/C/R main omni mics on the trio stuff. . .with a shared 'LDC, or ribbon or something' to balance my desire for intimacy, glue, and luck.

With respect to headroom, I'm first intending to run the Sonodores straight into my Pro Tools MTRX [DAD] - which has pretty effective dynamic range - and, internally, each pristine mic preamp and its converter are very close to each other.

I'm kinda hoping that outboard compression will not be required? But, I've hoped for other things before. . .

. . .a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted.


Thanks much!

Ray H.
Old 1 week ago
  #10
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Ray, I can't add anything of value to the foregoing, but bonne chance and bring us back some sample to listen to (if possible).
Old 1 week ago
  #11
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
For the blend of intimacy (close focus) you seek while avoiding the acoustic compression that David notes when the dynamic rises, it's possible to integrate more distant mics and 'slide between' them dynamically...so that there's a subtle (hopefully both timely and undiscernable !) transition between intimacy and ambience...and most importantly while avoiding any noticeable shifts between the pairs !

Whether this is done manually or automatically via setting thresholds, attacks, releases, knees etc would depend on your preference and the integrity (credibility !) of the results, and another factor to consider would be the selection of mic patterns for each of the discrete pairs. Presumably delay compensation between the pairs would be necessary to hide one's tracks ...

My tip would be for omnis up close and cardioids or sub-cards at the distance, so that the contrast of ambience and detail picked up by the pairs was minimised, and the distance between the pairs became the dominant tool (for dampening the harshness and volume leap of increased playing dynamics)

It's not a new idea, but the fact that it's not universally adopted as a go-to solution is suggestive that it's fraught with either logistical or credibility problems ?

Anyway...it worked for David Bowie's voice at Berlin's Hansa studios on the 'Heroes' song (detailed in the "Accidental Muses" section near the end of the following Classic Tracks article !
https://www.google.com.au/url?q=http...r3uQWFQRK43hH6

Last edited by studer58; 1 week ago at 01:15 AM..
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimjazzdad ➡️
Ray, I can't add anything of value to the foregoing, but bonne chance and bring us back some sample to listen to (if possible).
Thanks much, Jim -

Rens wrote that the Sonodores should only take a couple weeks to deliver. I won't likely execute the transaction until February. So, hopefully useful samples somewhere in the 2nd quarter?


Kind regards,

Ray H.

BTW, one of my New Year's resolutions is to start posting samples on GS. . .I hope I can make that one take.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 ➡️
For the blend of intimacy (close focus) you seek while avoiding the acoustic compression that David notes when the dynamic rises, it's possible to integrate more distant mics and 'slide between' them dynamically...so that there's a subtle (hopefully both timely and undiscernable !) transition between intimacy and ambience...and most importantly while avoiding any noticeable shifts between the pairs !

Whether this is done manually or automatically via setting thresholds, attacks, releases, knees etc would depend on your preference and the integrity (credibility !) of the results, and another factor to consider would be the selection of mic patterns for each of the discrete pairs. Presumably delay compensation between the pairs would be necessary to hide one's tracks ...

My tip would be for omnis up close and cardioids or sub-cards at the distance, so that the contrast of ambience and detail picked up by the pairs was minimised, and the distance between the pairs became the dominant tool (for dampening the harshness and volume leap of increased playing dynamics)

It's not a new idea, but the fact that it's not universally adopted as a go-to solution is suggestive that it's fraught with either logistical or credibility problems ?

Anyway...it worked for David Bowie's voice at Berlin's Hansa studios on the 'Heroes' song (detailed in the "Accidental Muses" section near the end of the following Classic Tracks article !
https://www.google.com.au/url?q=http...r3uQWFQRK43hH6
Thanks, Ray -

I appreciate the comments and the tip. It is definitely going to bring another learning curve for me to climb up. And - since these are my own projects - I will be more inclined to push some of the dynamic ranges toward critical-mass. . .maybe see where my techniques fall apart.

Also, I enjoyed the SOS article on Bowie - and read it from top to bottom. Very fun thinking about their creative processes. . .very not fun thinking about editing those tapes.


Thanks for all of the great posts and inspiration,

Ray H.
Old 1 week ago
  #14
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
There's a seductive intellectual simplicity about a mic (or pair) in the 'right' (or best compromise) location, and manipulating its response to incoming dynamics ...versus another or more pairs and sliding between them selectively yet unobtrusively, if it's possible ?

Bowie and Visconti used a series of mics at increasing distance from the singer, and gates employed to progressively admit more hall ambience ....somewhat of a similar approach but less likely to work on solo piano.

I dunno, try it out and report here with your findings !
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #15
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 ➡️
My tip would be for omnis up close and cardioids or sub-cards at the distance, so that the contrast of ambience and detail picked up by the pairs was minimised, and the distance between the pairs became the dominant tool (for dampening the harshness and volume leap of increased playing dynamics)
i do it the other way around: i use directional mic up close and progressively go to omnis, the further away i put mics.

reason for doing so is that close mics often need to get eq'd: when using omnis, you also eq the room while a directional mic close to the source picks up mostly direct sound and hardly any room...
Old 1 week ago
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Going close in works if the players are very good. However, most instruments do not sound good close up. They are made to breathe in to the room. So close is not really recommended here.

The reason is that when you go in close with your microphones, it sounds "microphoned" and not sound natural.

Chinese Communist Party not approve that method. Stick to The People's micing method taught to you as a young child.

indoctrination camp insist to have the recording sound like it is not miced, but that it is just happening in the room. Chinese made microphone is eschewed in this case.

Rens's mics have a lot of beautiful detail. Maybe you like detailed. I would use that term rather than "intimate."

Intimate is for audiophiles.

Last edited by Plush; 1 week ago at 05:26 PM..
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
i do it the other way around: i use directional mic up close and progressively go to omnis, the further away i put mics.

reason for doing so is that close mics often need to get eq'd: when using omnis, you also eq the room while a directional mic close to the source picks up mostly direct sound and hardly any room...
Brain chemicals not aligned today for you. Take hogmeat and more croissant on board.

Get that brain nourishing fat into the system.

The convention for proper pick up in music recording--not sound reinforcement, don't bring in that--is omni front and more and more upstage, directional mics.
Attached Thumbnails
Intimacy on location-brain.jpg  
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #18
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush ➡️
Brain chemicals not aligned today for you. Take hogmeat and more croissant on board.

Get that brain nourishing fat into the system.

The convention for proper pick up in music recording--not sound reinforcement, don't bring in that--is omni front and more and more upstage, directional mics.
operating two studios in the french speaking area, i doubt you'll beat me in terms of consumption of croissants...

(...or in any other area, except of course in terms of the reactionary defense and exclusive promoting of old approaches!)

___


for those also interested in newer approaches: i'm using mainly directional mics not only in amplified situations (in which they are mostly mandatory) but because i find many of the highly lauded european rooms/halls with allegedly good acoustic properties not that good and hence don't want to rely on a baked-in room sound - certainly not when using a multi-mic approach which allows for great detail and intimacy...

my experience stems from measurements in and room samples of almost all major european concert halls - ymmv.

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 1 week ago at 12:57 PM..
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #19
Lives for gear
 
kludgeaudio's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayHeath ➡️
Do you like the Sonodore LDM-54 better mainly because of the reduced noise floor, or because of the LDC-ish off axis frequency response character they bring to the game? Or is there something else you like better. . .even in a minimally-reflective space?
I can't speak for him, and I have not used the 1" Sonodore, only the 1/2" one. But I will say personally that I like the 1" measurement capsules more than the 1/2" ones because of the beaminess; they are bright in the center of the stereo field and fall off at the edges on the top, almost like a cardioid. This allows me to toe them out and get a little more separation at high frequencies, with or without a baffle. The improved noise floor is a free bonus.

Other people disagree with me. I have asked David Josephson about making a 1" version of his 617 microphone and he just makes faces at me when I suggest that.
--scott
Old 1 week ago
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
To post #18 :

Nonsense and laughable. The sound field is properly presented in general in front and more specifically up stage.

Poo pooing hall sound means you went to the wrong places. And you didn't measure nothing.

I incarcerate you at the Lisinski Palace Hall in Zagreb, Yugo-SLAVE-ia.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #21
Lives for gear
 
pentagon's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kludgeaudio ➡️
Other people disagree with me. I have asked David Josephson about making a 1" version of his 617 microphone and he just makes faces at me when I suggest that.
--scott
... But Josephson does offer a way to use the c617 mic preamp with the 1" Gefell measurement capsules. I know David doesn't think it's a good idea/response but the option is there now.

And of course, Gefell now markets the Gefell M102
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush ➡️
Going close in works if the players are very good. However, most instruments do not sound good close up. They are made to breathe in to the room. So close is not really recommended here.

The reason is that when you go in close with your microphones, it sounds "microphoned" and not sound natural. [. . .]
The only musicians under consideration are unambiguously superior at what I need them to do. . .and are indeed great players. I'm not a studio that is in any way open to the public.

Yes, recordings can sound pretty bad when mics are in the 'wrong places' for the tune, arrangement, instrument, part, player, environment and/or project/mix objectives.

I'm still expecting feet to yards in most cases. Look again at the photo attached to the first post. As mentioned, I have concerns with the close, shared LDC. . .tending to blame a couple issues in the associated recordings on its selection and/or [its too close?] placement.

Bert van der Wolf is a far more competent and compelling recordist than I will ever be. In this case, I wanted something close to what he was doing but maybe slightly more forgiving of [talent] movement? Hard to say as I wasn't there. With respect to the [other] dynamic changes that I didn't like, those would have demanded a 'do over' and/or talent replacement in my world.

Quote:
[. . .] Chinese Communist Party not approve that method. Stick to The People's micing method taught to you as a young child.

indoctrination camp insist to have the recording sound like it is not miced, but that it is just happening in the room. Chinese made microphone is eschewed in this case. [. . .]
Amazingly talented and experienced recordists often comment approvingly about some microphone or another that does have a Chinese capsule. But I don't own any, and haven't in well over a quarter century. So, . . .pleading ignorance there.

But, I love every Schoeps mic I own. And I'm expecting to love the Sonodore mics mentioned above in my response to @ gonzalo1004es [3 Sonodore RCM-402 + 2 Sonodore LDM-54 + 1 Sonodore MPM-81 tube]. . .and I love a very few other mics as well.

Most well-respected mics, adored on these forums, inspire no attraction to me whatsoever.

Quote:
[. . .] Rens's mics have a lot of beautiful detail. Maybe you like detailed. I would use that term rather than "intimate."

Intimate is for audiophiles.
You are right: I like detailed. But, no: In this case, I want 'intimate'. So far as I can tell, that word brings along the most precise semantics. I'm not much aware of audiophile culture - they can use whatever terms they like. . .I won't care.


Thanks, Hudson, for the thoughts and advice. They are much appreciated.

Ray H.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #23
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 ➡️
For the blend of intimacy (close focus) you seek while avoiding the acoustic compression that David notes when the dynamic rises, it's possible to integrate more distant mics and 'slide between' them dynamically...so that there's a subtle (hopefully both timely and undiscernable !) transition between intimacy and ambience...and most importantly while avoiding any noticeable shifts between the pairs !

Whether this is done manually or automatically via setting thresholds, attacks, releases, knees etc would depend on your preference and the integrity (credibility !) of the results, and another factor to consider would be the selection of mic patterns for each of the discrete pairs. Presumably delay compensation between the pairs would be necessary to hide one's tracks ...

My tip would be for omnis up close and cardioids or sub-cards at the distance, so that the contrast of ambience and detail picked up by the pairs was minimised, and the distance between the pairs became the dominant tool (for dampening the harshness and volume leap of increased playing dynamics)

It's not a new idea, but the fact that it's not universally adopted as a go-to solution is suggestive that it's fraught with either logistical or credibility problems ?

Anyway...it worked for David Bowie's voice at Berlin's Hansa studios on the 'Heroes' song (detailed in the "Accidental Muses" section near the end of the following Classic Tracks article !
https://www.google.com.au/url?q=http...r3uQWFQRK43hH6
Somewhat related to this is something I like doing with classical voice/piano (especially soprano); using the Faulkner 4-mic, subtly pulling the mix level down on the directionals only during fortissimo, rather than overall level, the sound nicely 'backs off' the singer; lowers the level and puts more space around it; somewhat similar to a pop singer pulling the mic further away when 'belting'.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #24
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayHeath ➡️
Thanks for the recommendation and comments. I'm curious about your application circumstances and objectives.

Do you like the Sonodore LDM-54 better mainly because of the reduced noise floor, or because of the LDC-ish off axis frequency response character they bring to the game? Or is there something else you like better. . .even in a minimally-reflective space?


Kind regards,

Ray H.

Note: I'm going to have a hard time letting go of the SDC off axis attributes, but could easily talk myself into something like. . .
3 Sonodore RCM-402 + 2 Sonodore LDM-54 + 1 Sonodore MPM-81 tube
Hi Ray,

The RCM402s have been my main pair for years, and I chose them over Schoeps and DPA4006TLs that I also owned, so they occupy a special part in my heart, but I can't help but feeling that the LDM54s are better, not only different, but better. In fact, better that any microphone I've tried. The main point with them, compared to any other microhone I know (except for the DPA4041s, but these ones on the bright side), is that they sound simply more transparent, it is, simply put, like going from 1080p to 4K. If you want, I can send you some samples done with both microphones (RCM and LDM) and you will agree with me. But at the same time, probably because of the size of the diaphragm, the detail is never harsh, it's of oustanding refinement, to my ears RCM402s (and evem more so Schoeps and DPA4006 microphones) sound slightly grainy when you compared them to the LDM54s. This is specially evident with bowed string instruments, the LDM54s deliver, to my ears, the best sound I know of.
Have in mind that all my recording are based on them as main pair at a certain distance, not looking for the kind the sound you probably have in mind, so I can't predict if they will be what you're looking for.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by M50k ➡️
Somewhat related to this is something I like doing with classical voice/piano (especially soprano); using the Faulkner 4-mic, subtly pulling the mix level down on the directionals only during fortissimo, rather than overall level, the sound nicely 'backs off' the singer; lowers the level and puts more space around it; somewhat similar to a pop singer pulling the mic further away when 'belting'.
Yes I can immediately see how this works dynamically, and you've got both pairs intrinsically time (ie distance) aligned to the source, so none of the delay compensations needed as for close vs distant mics for example.

What you'd need to strictly confirm would be both of your Faulkner pairs giving you congruent image width overlay on each other....lest you get a widening and narrowing (accordion-bellows-like) of image as you dynamically adjust between mic pairs !
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #26
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 ➡️
Yes I can immediately see how this works dynamically, and you've got both pairs intrinsically time (ie distance) aligned to the source, so none of the delay compensations needed as for close vs distant mics for example.

What you'd need to strictly confirm would be both of your Faulkner pairs giving you congruent image width overlay on each other....lest you get a widening and narrowing (accordion-bellows-like) of image as you dynamically adjust between mic pairs !
Which I believe is the chief reason Faulkner has the center pair wider than any standard near-coincident config. If you plug TF's numbers into the Sengpiel visualizer, you'll his cards spacing images nearly identically to the 67cm omnis.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #27
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalo1004es ➡️
Hi Ray,

The RCM402s have been my main pair for years, and I chose them over Schoeps and DPA4006TLs that I also owned, so they occupy a special part in my heart, but I can't help but feeling that the LDM54s are better, not only different, but better. In fact, better that any microphone I've tried. The main point with them, compared to any other microhone I know (except for the DPA4041s, but these ones on the bright side), is that they sound simply more transparent, it is, simply put, like going from 1080p to 4K. If you want, I can send you some samples done with both microphones (RCM and LDM) and you will agree with me. But at the same time, probably because of the size of the diaphragm, the detail is never harsh, it's of oustanding refinement, to my ears RCM402s (and evem more so Schoeps and DPA4006 microphones) sound slightly grainy when you compared them to the LDM54s. This is specially evident with bowed string instruments, the LDM54s deliver, to my ears, the best sound I know of.
Have in mind that all my recording are based on them as main pair at a certain distance, not looking for the kind the sound you probably have in mind, so I can't predict if they will be what you're looking for.
Thanks for the additional perspective, comparisons, and history. Your comments were very helpful.

Samples with both would be appreciated. If not too much trouble, DM me or drop links to them here for others to appreciate and learn from.

I had already listened to every link available from the Rens' website, and then some. But looking for the Sonodore LDM-54, specifically, on YouTube leads pretty much to nothing but air.

Currently, I'm feeling pretty good about the 3 + 2 + 1 scenario as a mix for the order. I'll need to tell Rens that you get credit for the Sonodore LDM-54 set. So, do DM me if you want me to reference your name in my correspondence with him. I expect to initiate the transaction in February.


Much obliged,

Ray H.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #28
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by M50k ➡️
Which I believe is the chief reason Faulkner has the center pair wider than any standard near-coincident config. If you plug TF's numbers into the Sengpiel visualizer, you'll his cards spacing images nearly identically to the 67cm omnis.
Is that for regular or wide (sub) cardioids....I've seen both advocated almost interchangeably....depending how far down the 'Chinese whispers' chain from the TF source you're hearing or reading it ?

I'd use Sengpiel, Williams and other charts for 'roughing it in' re measurements....but always make speaker and headphone (alternately for cross-check) listening the final decisive arbiter !
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #29
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 ➡️
Is that for regular or wide (sub) cardioids....I've seen both advocated almost interchangeably....depending how far down the 'Chinese whispers' chain from the TF source you're hearing or reading it ?

I'd use Sengpiel, Williams and other charts for 'roughing it in' re measurements....but always make speaker and headphone (alternately for cross-check) listening the final decisive arbiter !
The spacing he himself has mentioned most often (here and in interviews) is 46-47cm with subcardioids (CCM21 or KM143).

Using the Sengpiel visualizer, spacing for other patterns to produce the same localization are:

Cardioid - 37cm
Supercardioid - 32cm

All are wider than ORTF, DIN or NOS.

An excellent quote from a TF post here some time ago; especially in the context of this thread (the arrays he refers to are the parallel 8s, and the 4-mic that bear his name):
Attached Thumbnails
Intimacy on location-faulkner-4-mic_last-pragrph.jpg  
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #30
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by M50k ➡️
The spacing he himself has mentioned most often (here and in interviews) is 46-47cm with subcardioids (CCM21 or KM143).

Using the Sengpiel visualizer, spacing for other patterns to produce the same localization are:

Cardioid - 37cm
Supercardioid - 32cm

All are wider than ORTF, DIN or NOS.

An excellent quote from a TF post here some time ago; especially in the context of this thread (the arrays he refers to are the parallel 8s, and the 4-mic that bear his name):
I'm in agreement about the forward gain factor also extracting required detail, with both types of his phased arrays.

The last undeclared spec here is the mic angling, which I've always understood TF to recommend as 90 degrees. Is that also the included angle you've used in the above listed Sengpiel spacings ?

* When I've used the Line Audio family as my 4 mic phased array, I've always considered the CM3 (polar plot below) to be effectively sub-cardioid...any disagreements there ?
Attached Thumbnails
Intimacy on location-image.png  
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 1 views: 1032
Avatar for drBill
drBill 7th June 2010
replies: 44 views: 4629
Avatar for John Willett
John Willett 17th March 2020
replies: 3306 views: 70426
Avatar for Synth Guru
Synth Guru 21st August 2021
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