So I have recently landed what will be the best gig of my career as recording engineer for a local science college. This entails recording everything from orchestra and choirs, to jazz combos on a regular basis, both during performance in a concert hall, as well as in a very nicely treated rehearsal space. I have experience recording bands and such where a close mic/overdub approach is most common, but nothing of this scale or method.

We are going for a modern sound with great imaging and detail. Are most engineers using decca trees with spot mics blended in? lots of spot mics and a single stereo pair? I have done a lot of reading and digging and it looks like a lot of people are leaning on ribbons a lot. Ribbons would be great as I feel they are a bit more versatile than omni and could be used on a wide range of sessions.

What is considered to be the modern method of recording these sources? What are you using for your recordings? Microphone choices and placement? Sorry for all the questions but I really want this to work the first time.

Classical Recording by Haigh, Dunkerley, and Rogers might be a good place to start. There are of course many others.

For larger ensembles, I use an ORTF pair as mains, with widish AB omni flanks, and a few selected spots (winds, perc) as needed. Small classical ensembles like string quartet, or sonata pieces (piano plus soloist), I will again use ORTF main pair, plus stereo piano spots and spot(s) on soloist. For jazz, you will still want a main pair for glue, and will want to spot each instrument as well as OHs on drums with kick and snare mics.
I recommend John Eargle’s “the microphone book”, which illustrates a number of mic setups for various types of groups.
I have used many many ribbons over the years, and while there are number of very nice ones these days, I do not use ribbons any longer except for special circumstances. I generally just prefer the sound of good, flat response condensers.
I do recommend that you buy top end mics right off the bat - it will save you money in the long run…

Exactly what he said ^

If the room has some nice acoustic, I've set up ribbons, far from the action, to just get the blend of things. That can work nicely...

Very interesting, thank you. If ya don’t mind.. what do you prefer about the condensers? Is your ORTF pair small diaphram?

I just prefer the sound of good condenser mics. Ribbons can have a beautiful sound however, and many people use them regularly.

I use Schoeps MSTC64 as mains. All of my mics are small diaphragm - SD mics have better off-axis response than LD mics, so are generally preferred for acoustic instrument applications. I also use SD mics for classical vocal recordings.

'modern' to me means lots of spots, the use of filters, dynamics, efx - and no decca tree but immersive setups; ribbons (as spots) only in very specific applications.

___


[how comes you got this job although you have not much (if any) experience on the topic?]

Not OP, but I don't have much experience with live/classical and I live within a 25 mile radius of 3-4 colleges (smaller) and guess what....almost none of them record their choral, orchestra, jazz, etc groups performing regularly.

So hey, I love gear, I love the music they're doing, and noticed no one is recording these performances I'm attending.

There is a more established, volunteer symphony that I have talked to who are under contract, but they're not particularly happy with that contract and want me to come out and talk to them ASAP even though they're not reviewing new vendors until the summer.

I have minimal equipment for this type of music especially mics: SE8 omni, CM4 pair..nothing else suitable. Other gear = Cranborne EC2 + RME UCX II

So I could really use a set of condenser mains and additional pres. I could probably get by with just what I have, no one is playing in any great acoustical halls around here. But I'll likely pick up some AT4051s or KM184s and...no idea on preamp. The EC2 would be great for the mains, and then maybe RME XTC for everything else so I can control them via TotalMix

Rude and unnecessarily personal question -

Lol thats not a bad question man. No doubt there are many more qualified persons, even in our small town of 40K. I have known and worked with the faculty and musicians for years in other capacities. And when I made the suggestion they trusted me with the task.

Sounds like we are in a very similar boat. It seems to me like a really great gig. Great environment, steady pay, and a particularly interesting recording challenge outside the typical session

Does it take a village of tonmeisters to raise a sound engineer ?

you can look at it any way you want...
obviously not everyone sees it that way - see especially the op's reaction:
thanks for answering.

[my question was not in any way malicious, but was only aimed at finding about the 'meachnism' which got you the job even though there might have been more qualified people]

anyway, congratulation: 'fortes fortuna adiuvat'!

Thanks for responses yall. Anyone have any opinions or real world experience with this topic? Especially concerning mic choice or placement preferences.

I found myself in a similar situation many years ago, when the Jewish Temple my wife worked at called me in to record everything from solo piano, to partially amplified pop/jazz groups, to string quartets, to large orchestras/choirs.

Were I to find myself in that position today, with somewhat limited means (you haven't said what kind of gear would be available to you), I'd start out with the Faulkner 4-mic array, which is a pair of cardioids 14.5" apart (or subcards at 18.5") aimed out 90 degrees, on the same bar as a pair of omnis 26" apart; also aimed 90 degrees. Very similar to what jnorman suggested above.

This provides great flexibility for the variety of sources, and two different room you'll be working in. Lots of info in various threads here on such an array. Carefully add spots where/when needed.

Jazz combos will require a very different approach, and is a very lengthy subject in itself.

There’s a lot of info already on this site, if you Google or search through it a bit.

Typically, engineers will approach orchestral recording from 3 perspectives. Closest to furthest: spots, mains, ambience. There are different schools of thoughts on how to approach each of these elements, and what the balance between the 3 should be (and how each should function relative to the other) but almost every setup on orchestra you see has those 3 perspectives accounted for to some extent, with the ambience capture sometimes subbed out for artificial reverb.

In terms of spotting, it depends on the perspective you’re going for, and how many channels of mics you want to manage. A simple spotting setup might see a pair of mics for the rear of the orchestra, with additional spots for soloists and easily lost or muddied instruments like harp, contrabass, marimba, timpani, etc. depending on the repertoire. One can make this more sophisticated by spotting the different sections individually: woodwinds and strings mic’d either as sections, or by pairs, trios, or quads of players by instrument, horns and brasses by location and/or by instrument group, targeted area spots for percussion. Often you’ll see engineers use directional small diaphragm condensers for these kinds of spots, though ribbons and large diaphragm condensers, and omnidirectional microphones aren’t necessarily uncommon especially for closer or soloist placements.

For main microphone arrays, you’ll see many different approaches depending on how much of the core of sound this array is intended to contribute. Things like the Decca tree, or M3 (3 wider spaced, usually omni mics), and historically later the aforementioned ORTF and flanks were created with the intention of generating most of the sound of what they were recording, and can function with fewer, often more distant spots turned up to a relatively low level to provide just a bit of detail. Some engineers from I suppose the more Germanic tradition (though the practice is widespread now) approach orchestral recording by blending spots and main mics at a more equal level, and for these setups you’ll often see widely spaced pairs and trios at a slightly higher and farther distance, where the mains function more as an ambient “glue” for the closer mics (though the perspective is still closer than true ambience capture microphones). Often a hybrid of these 2 approaches is pursued, and techniques like the M3 and Decca tree will be used in this more gluelike capacity, with a heavier balance of spots than a traditional pre-2000s Decca Tree or Philips M3/Onno recording might showcase. Common mics for use in mains will again be primarily small diaphragm condensers, with omnis in these setups showing a slight HF lift.

Ambience capture is usually achieved by mics placed further into the hall, maybe 20 feet from the stage and higher in the air. Engineers will use a variety of mic types and arrangements in these setups, again depending on how the ambience is intended to blend with the closer and main sounds.

Some favorite mics you’ll see regularly used for orchestral recordings these days include DPA’s (4006, 4011, 4015), Schoeps (2H, 2S, 21, 4, 5) Neumann (vintage: M49, M50, KM5x/6x/8x, modern TLM170, KM130, 140, 183, 184), Sennheiser (mkh20/30/40/8020/8040/8090). There are many others that work well but these are always the first that come to mind for me.

Get the aforementioned Dunkerley book, or Eargle’s The Microphone Book, for some very good and detailed writing on how to approach what’s been discussed above.

Sounds like the exact same situation. Kinda of a “be ready for anything “ kind of gig. Thanks for the reply, i had never heard of this faulkner method and will definitely be checking it out.

Wow great insight, thank you very much ? much of this info is the first i have heard of it and really like this way of splitting the capture into three separate sections. Great way to think about it. I am not flush with vintage neumann’s so i will really need to put my money on the main array, and the more methods i can learn about better informed these decisions will be. I have never heard of an M3 array (or faulkner for that matter^^) so that gives me a new place to look.

mics: the usual suspects from schoeps, neuheiser, dpa, akg, sanken etc. but these days, there are affordable mics from beyer, shure, rode, b9 audio, line audio etc. which are quite good - and frankly, the mics don't matter that much, assuming they are of decent quality: no one in the world can tell from listening to a mix which mics, preamps, converters, dilters, dynamic processors, efx you used...

technique: depends on the ensemble, room, what you are trying to achieve, your taste, your mixing skills, how much time you get to mix, distribution format, audience etc. - there is no generic setup that will cover all situations equally well/different genre will require vastly different approaches.

I have a radical suggestion.
I don't know where you are located, but perhaps you can hire an experienced remote engineer to be your "assistant" on the first orchestral recording date.

I am not suggesting that the other engineer take over your gig. Rather this would be a one-off affair; the purpose of the other engineer being there is to act as your "consultant", i.e., to show you the "proper" way to do it. (This purpose should be fully explained to and understood by, the hired engineer.)

Many of us learned the ropes at the feet of more experienced pros. My suggestion is an attempt to make this happen for you.

Of all the ways of suspending or supporting mics in a Decca Tree array...I'd have to submit that this prototype (worth looking at if only to get a glimpse of Michael Williams/Mr Stereophonic Zoom himself !) is perhaps the most "tree-like" you'll encounter. I mean...it even has branches that resemble the real thing !!

Obviously aimed at surround or 5.1 type capture in this prototype...the approach has another inherent advantage when it comes to weight and safety: the centre of gravity is truly centred (on the main vertical pole)

You'd need to calculate the degree of splay-out and telescopic extension on each arm to get the necessary mic separation, and for a 3 mic tree you'd still need to factor in some counter-weighting (to balance-out the forward facing branch)

Also necessary would be a clamping or locking mechanism to prevent further splay-out of the branches once in the desired position

There's an appealing elegance and simplicity to this...arboreal splendour even...not unlike an inverted umbrella in mechanism ? And for Christmas concerts... you could wrap holly and mistletoe fronds around the branches...

You'll see the prototype pictured here ...http://www.mmad.info/MSS/mmss.htm

...and significantly more info here: https://www.mmad.info/Collected%20Pa...%20Session.pdf

Perhaps of particular interest, when setup time on location is a rare commodity: "The symmetry of adjustment of the left and right microphones of each part of the system (left and right microphones of the front triplet, and left and right microphones of the back pair), is automatically maintained by gear coupling of the movement of respective left and right arms" !!

Additionally..."The complete support system, when folded for transport, is no larger than the size of a standard camera tripod and considerably lighter, as shown in Figure 5"

** for those wondering about the elegant timber crocodile pictured below it...you'll find its construction and use outlined in pp.16-17 here: https://www.fullcompass.com/common/f...elWilliams.pdf

FWIW the groups I use to record would NEVER allow anything like that in front of their group. Too big and too intimidating. I had a lot of problems with even a simple ORTF setup. This is especially true if the concert is being video recorded.

If you (or the video crew) can’t even make a “Recording 101” ORTF pair disappear for the cameras….you’re seriously under skilled, or a rank newcomer to recording…or the group you’re recording is not ready to record. Or maybe you’re just being needlessly/frivolously provocative and attention-seeking with your assertion…it’s hard to tell ?

The pic of the array shown is clearly at ground level….and folded ! Exercise your imagination to envisage it 10-12 feet up and unfurled as intended…it then becomes no more visually intrusive than a Decca Tree, or any other type of surround multi-mic array….supported (as mentioned above) by a single stand directly below the array’s centre of gravity

You’re displaying an imagination deficit Tom…but for now, let’s devote some attention to this impossible-to-conceal ORTF pair of yours….

Start with small set ups of 2-4 mics. Master working with the sound that these pick up. Do it for 2 years before adding more mics.

Quality beginner ORTF orchestra set ups could use Shure KSM 141 mics, Austrian Audio mics, RODE TF mics, AKG 451 (new ones) mics.

Record in hi-res, at least 96kHz. Use a quality DAW like Samplitude--never Pro Tools or the like aimed at multi-track pop recording.

Preferably use only 2 mics for 2 years as a start.

When we did the video NO PROBLEM. It was with the outside videographer that we had the problems. He always set up his video camera dead center at the back of the hall and that is where he wanted to be and refused to setup anywhere else and OF COURSE he always complained about the mic stand with the two mics on it. He could not get it out of his shot the way he was set up. We normally did a two camera setup and never had a problem with the placement of the microphone. This videographer also seemed to have problems with the audio feeds we were sending him and could not somehow switch his camera from mic to line level input. Long story but we finally started doing all our own video work and never looked back.

I too would start with a bare minimum of microphones. Two would be ideal 4 would be OK but certainly no more than 4 to start and do that for two years or until the poster feels comfortable with the setup and the results he is getting.

Congratulations! The last post in the original thread was 9 months ago and it is now reborn! Or is it a zombie thread in gestation!

I just saw a reply to a post from 2000 so....????

Still in this decade! While we are going though humor in the thread, I enjoyed where someone a question about your qualifications to post here!

BTW there is relatively a good time to write this self standing, it is a pleasure reading your posts.

TTFN

Thread revived!

Well it's been about a year now that I have been recording for the college, and it has been an incredible learning experience. I have received lots of positive feedback, and they keep inviting me back each semester.

There are a handful of conductors that I record for, and they each want something a little different for their session. This largely determines how I approach their respective session. One conductor wants the most accurate representation possible for the purpose of reference and determining what he needs to work on. For this I use a basic ORTF hanging pair, and omni outriggers.

Another conductor wants more creative captures for his own collection, and for sharing with his students. If he wants something very modern we will do the main ORTF main pair + outriggers + spot mics. I will try to get a spot mic on every section of instruments. Often heavy baffling is used on loud instruments like timpani to reduce bleed and increase separation. This makes for a more "cinematic" sound that I really dig. Recently we did a jazz band recording and we went for a classic 60's "Buddy Rich/Big Swing Face" type sound. We used very similar mic techniques to a normal session, but instead of staying as clean as possible, I used as much tube gear as possible and let the mic pres clip just a touch when the loudest bits came. I also had lots of fun adding tape saturation and analog modeling plugins during post.

I have not had a chance to use a Decca tree yet but I do intend to at some point. I have been very happy with the results I have been getting and so are my clients and that's what its all about in my book.