Many of you will be familiar with this website. (If not, you're in for a treat.)
But in the context of this discussion, I find it amusing that this comparison page is titled "Why we use many microphones" when it's a very conservative number by modern standards.

I really like the omni pair alone on these Rachmaninov samples. The other mixes certainly don't sound worse, but I don't miss the other mics at all when I remove them. Maybe that's just because the main pair is so well placed? Still, 12 spots isn't a whole lot.
http://kazuyanagae.com/20220103OrchMIX/

This is quite possibly the coolest thing I have been turned on to this year.

That was exactly my reaction when I found it. As a pianist, I especially love the piano demos with omni pairs at many different positions and heights.

The same people were involved in this site, which focuses on solo orchestral instruments:
http://soundmedia.jp/nuaudk/

And if you want to go incredibly in-depth on piano comparisons, this project is almost beyond belief:
http://soundmedia.jp/nuaudktua/

Maybe these three links could be a pinned post on the board?

This is not a lot of mics, a reasonable approach.

The more I read the DECCA book, the more I know why I really like their sound, also the piano recordings - the properly balanced piano in real space... also pleasant when it gets fff.

In this example I also like the main pair alone and the Schoeps room sound... and the non time alligned mix sounds better to me - the time alligned sounds muddier and not so nice to me, also I wonder how the non alligned mix would sound with a tad more room sound and no additional artificial reverb - which sounds terrible on its own in this case.

Wow, this is badass.

Thanks Herr Mahler!

Really great, thanks!

Wow this is really cool, thanks for sharing!

I just clicked the link and I'm listening to the first sample on my HD 650 headphones.

I actually like the B All Mix (No time alignment) the best.

It has the most movement and depth to my ears.

great! thanks for sharing.

Look forward to trawling through the piano pages! For me, a single microphone, either mono or stereo, with no processing, will always rule. Once I learnt to identify phase, I can't un-hear it.

I agree, the main pair are at least as good as any of the others. Considering the massive additional effort to setup, teardown and especially MIX the All.

Is amazing is that huge piano specific project is, I get more out of the piano focused pages on the main site from my first post:
http://kazuyanagae.com/

comparing signals from mics in different positions (and in different quantity) alone doesn't tell the whole story...

rather, this example imo illustrates exactly two things, namely that a multi-mic approach

• needs to have a purpose/goal
• requires a different/more elaborate mixing strategy than just blending in additional signals

Agreed. It's the artistic impulse/intent/aim that should form the method. I think it was Dinu Lipatti who said the foundation of piano technique is listening and a clear mental conception of the desired musical outcome. Or something along those lines. An example of this in the studio would be Glen Gould with his microphone system, placement and choice were dictated by the initial sound in his head.

Obviously, there are inumerous wonderful multi-mic recordings, but the sonic delicacy and imaging a single mic with zero processing provides is addictive, even if impact and "immediacy" are lost in the listening room. But right, not always the best option!

..recently I picked up a Gershwin orchestral recording that has everything close mic with no room, really dry. It is a great listen, really thick warm and punchy, and the lack of reverberation allows the listener a feeling of climbing inside the spaces between the instruments. Almost as if the multi-mic setup and tonal separation are deliberately expressed as an artistic feature.

This is perfect, everything necessary, nothing unnecessary, rather minimal. The omnis sound great, but the whole mix much better.

Is there another part to this, because it's weird to frame this site as a comparison for "Orchestra Recording" and choose a piano concerto as the only recording. Perhaps the people doing it are piano players?

That's really interesting....thanks for sharing that, it's exactly aligned with my primary interest!

The "big mix" is more "full" sounding but what is interesting to me is that 95% of the effect is captured by the main pair only. Not that this is a surprise, exactly, but it's just another example.

I'd love to hear the main pair plus, for example, the room mics.

There are several orchestral examples without piano if you explore other parts of the site.
http://kazuyanagae.com/

This site has just had perhaps its most significant comparison posted so far! Give yourself plenty of time to digest this one.

http://www.kazuyanagae.com/1986Hauptmikrofon/

Late to this thread, sorry.

On the same site I found this one which is about trumpet: http://soundmedia.jp/nuaudk/12Tp/index.html

I am surprised how dry the PZM mics are!

Regards, C.

Yes, I also noticed it for the cello examples... Lack of floor first reflections... Could be really useful for some cases... mixed with other mics...

Well the BLMs (incorrectly labeled "PZM" on the diagram) are the only pair that completely eliminate all floor reflections.

Yes, I always use a pair of BLMs straight under the main array (with the same gap between them as the main array uses) so that I have some control over the amount of early reflections in the mix.

I somehow missed this part.

That head does sound fantastic... KU81... but also different, that I wonder if it is the "shock" of the ears when changing... and that a bit more lower midrange from the other setups would be missing in some playback systems... but it sounds wonderfully open and clear.

This comparison also confirms to me that I completely dislike XY and that AB sounds mostly the nicest to me, with MS as close second...
and ORTF as OK.

Another thing that this comparison confirms is that with great orchestras and halls most all approaches sound fine.

I’m wondering about the phase implications of summing these 2 pairs. Let’s assume a singer of 168 cms height and the main pair mic stand height of double that, and BLM’s on the floor of the mic stand base. In other words both mic pairs are equidistant from a line perpendicular with the singer’s mouth.

In the above condition I’d expect complete in phase summing, unless there was a path length difference between the 2 mic pairs (ie the upper pair significantly above or below the 2x singer height ?)

Additionally I’d expect an ambience component difference, with the floor pair being dry and the upper pair wetter due to reflections of side walls, ceiling and even a little floor bounce.

Just for good measure, let’s also throw in a timbral variation in voice character between it projecting upwards vs downwards from the mouth …

I may also have completely the wrong idea about all this (just idly speculating aloud)….