I have to admit I was quite surprised when David and Scott both said they use hypercardioid for their ORTF pairs - if I understand it correctly then it's to actually limit how much ambience and room sound / reverb the main pair gets, and they're controlling this by using a separate ambient pair at a distance, to add like an effect later.

I did my first trials in that church with a spaced A-B pair of omni SDC's and an ORTF pair of cardioids, I didn't use anything tighter. I liked the tonal response of the A-B omnis more but they had more undesirable noise too, esp. the air blower for the organ. Therefore the best result I got was with the ORTF pair but with EQ to restore the LF rolling off below 200Hz or so.

So is that why the tighter patterned mics, to limit the room noise so you have some control of it later? Honestly I would have thought to use cardioid and spend more time positioning them to find the balance. OTOH, tighter patterned mics seem like what I could make the most use of in other applications.
I can understand this if that's the reason, but I'm not ready to buy yet. Whatever I use, I need some more practice.

Would the MK-41's be considered relatively tight for hypercardioids, or are they closer to supercardioid like the MK-012 hypercardioid capsules are? When I do the next recording I thought I would set up some different types to make a comparison so it makes sense to include a pair of those.

My own guess would have been the version of Schoeps SDC's that convert from omni to cardioid.

schoeps' original ortf mic system indeed used a pair of mk-41's; only later they switched to mk-4's...

anyway, for me rear damping is almost always critical than a narrow pattern - hence my preference for cardioids over hypercardioids in most any situation.

that said, i'm a huge fan of the mk-41 as podium mic, for hats, fingerboard of acoustic guitar and double bass, flute, clarinet etc. - or any other situation which requires a mic with a tight pattern and i'm not using any of the above mentioned condenser alternative or dynamic mic such as the m-201, md-441 (or m-160).

can't speak of the soyuz: i have never used one....

To be clear, I think my "desert island" SDC pair would be Schoeps MK5's, simply because sometimes you really do want omni's... but not always. As I remember the past discussion, Bernie thought MK5's cost more than he could spend at this juncture, so we dropped back to discussing fixed-pattern options. At the risk of putting words in his mouth, it was Scott who suggested MK41's as the best single choice. In his recording practice, he often avoids outriggers, preferring to put a single pair farther back where it can capture the full ensemble width. That's where the tighter pattern becomes useful. I mentioned that I did several seasons of work in a hall where there was such bad side flutter that cardioids didn't work, so I used (Josephson) hypers. My main message for Bernie was that there's usually a way to substitute hypercardioids for cardioids, provided you have a firm grasp of near-coincident array theory as taught by Michael Williams. I absolutely adore MK41's, but I don't use them for mains most of the time because they're somewhat lean on the bottom. My point was that I could do that, if they were all I had in my kit, because I understand how to modify and place the array to compensate. I'd be much more likely to do that if I were permitted to add a second, wider-pattern spaced or rear-facing ambience pair. That's a practice I probably employ much more routinely than Scott does.

I stand by my recommendation of the dual-pattern MK5's as a first Schoeps pair -- if Bernie can afford them. Still, if he chooses MK41's, he will never regret owning a pair and will undoubtedly keep them forever.

David

Ah in that case then I hadn't properly understood your previous post. If I were to spend the price of the MK41 stereo set then the MK5 version isn't that much more. I can afford to get either, the issue for me is whether or not I should. I will though eventually even if it's just for informal recordings so long as I do them regularly - IMO that's still worth doing and is a good way to help get my name around in those circles.

I missed the point that you meant you COULD use MK41's in an ORTF pair by placing them at a different distance, and that your first choice would be MK5's so you have an omni or cardioid option. That's what I thought the logical choice would be.
Now that I've tried spaced A-B with omni SDC's in that setting I liked it very much. Until then I'd never been able to try it with something really worth hearing. So I'll always want a couple of good omni SDC's available. I've got the Line Audio OM1's, they're not bad, and the MK-012 omni is widely used, but to use something of the standard of the Schoeps would be a real pleasure. If I went with Schoeps I'm sure the MK5 set would be worth the higher price - IIRC it was Progger who first suggested them in this thread and that's when I looked into them.

Still, I've heard MK 41's and they sound gorgeous on so many things. I think David once you suggested that I could add different capsules over time if I went down the modular route, and I would be happy to do it that way. The MK41 is one of the standards for opera, classical and choral, for soloists and more. They are a mic I would love to be using.

OK I think I understand your position now. The other question for me was choosing between Schoeps and DPA, because there's some possibility I could hire DPA's to my employer (one of them). As I understand it, the client they had in mind actually listed Schoeps MK4's higher on their preferences, but this company would need to buy them in numbers and they have an existing relationship with the supplier for DPA in this country. For the few occasions when I could hire DPA's out I'm not sure it's enough to make me choose them, but even a small hire might be helpful if my name comes up with those productions.

I'm sure I'll buy some pair of high end SDC's for these recording projects sooner or later, I just want to be sure they'll get used often enough before I do.

EDIT it's another 20% for the MK 5 stereo set over the MK 41, for that difference I'd do it. Both are expensive, but I feel like the MK 5 is more than 20% more useful

I guess the question is how much of a discount you can get on the DPA's. I doubt that it's enough to enable buying two pairs, which is what you'd have to do to cover the same ground as a MK5 pair. The most versatile choice might by a pair of DPA 4015's. I love them, but I doubt you'd ever see those listed on a rider. They're fabulous in close-micing applications, but almost nobody knows that yet. Anyone discerning enough to request Schoeps MK4's would probably accept DPA 4011's as a substitute. The latter have been available for many years and are much better known than 4015's. DPA 4006's are very well known, of course; they're what made the DPA brand's reputation. They're used very frequently in classical recording work, but about the only time you'd ever see them used on an amplified stage is if they're buried deep inside a grand piano. DPA 4018's would be the least likely choice, IMO, because MK41's are just too strong a competitor.

I think the Schoeps hypercardioids are actually better off-axis than their conventional cardioids (although of course nowhere near as even as an omni) aside from the lowest octave. I agree that you're less flexible in terms of placement though, unless you're willing to add fake reverb. If I always worked in great-sounding rooms I likely wouldn't touch them, but they can be a big help in bad ones.

Also the hypercardioids are useful as spots or close-in stage mikes and I would consider them more versatile. If I had to have only one pair of mikes it would be the hypercardioids. If I had to have two then I would add a pair of omnis.

not quite my experidnce...

...so let me put it this way: i'm often forced to use mics just a a few inches or feet away from very loud sources (instruments, backline, wedges).
in these situations, i find the mk-4's pattern behaviour to be much more predictable that the mk-41's and hence more easy to keep under control even when an artist is messing with the mic position/angle (which of course is less often the case in the context of classical music) or mics need to get moved/repositioned between takes/bands or depending on repertoire/setup...

...so before i start replacing all my cardioids with hypercardioids, i rather put up a bunch of baffles/absorbers etc - short: in my world, mk-4's rule!

[well, no quite all mk-4's: for some strange reason - possibly habit? - i have a sweet spot for ck-61's and even if i could use all schoeps (which is often the case), i wouldn't; still, schoeps mostly do the heavy lifting...]

Yes that's what I'd like to know too. In retail in this country there's often a steep mark-up on the high end brands but buyers like a production company buying good numbers will be able to bypass that. DPA is the brand I hear about on the riders most often, though I get to hear mostly about the musical theatre productions more than strictly orchestral. Other brands will be getting used too but I get the feeling DPA currently have the advantage in numbers. That might be because of the deals available to the industry. But there is also a reverence for Schoeps and the MKH Sennheisers. Those models of DPA would be an asset but maybe that market is well serviced by the rental companies already.

There are a couple of people I need to talk to to get a feel for what equipment is getting used by whom now. I was able to hear about one user's preferences but there are plenty more. Maybe there's a niche to fill for a recording service with Schoeps

Perhaps not you, but your employer should certainly put some DPA 2012's and 2015's in inventory ASAP. These are specifically intended for live stage use and I imagine the industry discount is very favorable indeed.

David

That's probably exactly what they have in mind, in a respectable quantity. So they should indeed get a great price. If I were to get them to add a couple for me I doubt I'd get a better deal anywhere.

Just at that moment the owner texted me and said, hey, do you wanna try the DPA kick mic and a couple of SDC's? Not sure which model SDC, I think probably 2012 actually. Now let me see, would I like to borrow those to try, hmmm...
(I might also be able to buy their little-used Radial BT-DI. I'd love one but too expensive new)

I just got wind of that kick mic. Never seen one in person. Would love to hear impressions!

Yeah I've been really looking forward to trying it out, now it's finally here. It's great timing because I'm actually covering the whole week at the bigger venue with my favourite PA where I can really gun it and hear it properly with some impact.
I think it'll be worth recording some comparisons. I've been using a TGD70, the DPA 4055 doesn't have that tailored self-EQ that kick mics usually do. So I'd like to record one set with the Beyer and one with the DPA 4055 on the same band, at least.
The mic I'd really like to compare to the DPA is an OD-5 on kick drum. I haven't heard of it being used this way but I don't see why it wouldn't work. It's got more than enough SPL handling and plenty of LF extension. Plus as a general-purpose instrument mic, well it's not a flat FR but it's not kick drum mic self-EQ either. It's a fairly typical "presence boost" but broader than some, it starts rising just after 1kHz and gets back to 0 at about 10kHz peaking at around +6dB at 6 or 7k. So if you cut some LMF it wouldn't be too different to a lot of kick mics.

I'll take in my cheesy recorder tonight since I only need to take a little bit of equipment for Tuesday nights, and leave it set up all week. I can't manage my proper rack, too bulky without my own transport. But to compare drums mics the little Zoom will be fine

I'm interested to here the raw stems of course but I want to see how hard it is to turn them into a kick sound I can actually use, ie how much EQ does the "flat" DPA 4055 need before you get a good kick sound? I've got good bands this week so it's good timing.

Very exciting. Do keep us posted. If you can compare it to one of the usual suspects (d112 beta52 and d6) that is always nice to hear. Not that I love those mics, but they are in every club around so it's a useful reference for live. Beta91 would be great too (I do love that thing, I saw you mention it earlier. The built-in eq scoop is excellent, imho.)

We've got a Beta 52A at that venue - I know, ho hum, but at least it's there to make a comparison. I don't have those other mics, there's a D112 at the place I work some Saturdays but I won't be there as I'm filling in all week at the other one.
I've decided to order a Beta 91A and I found the deal I want but I don't think it'll arrive before I have to give back the DPA 4055. But you never know, maybe I can hold onto it for a while, and I think I can get express delivery on the 91 for not much money.

This is one kick mic I should have had in mind when I bought what I'm using now. It was a bit outside my usual thinking to get the TGD70 because I was against that type of dedicated "kick mic" but now I use it on kick every gig. At the time I'd heard too many bad mixes with Beta 91A's and I got the Beyer TGD71 (their competitor) instead. Now I like the 91 better than the Beyer.

For a while I was using an EV ND68, but since I tried the TGD70 again I haven't used it in months. I was using an M88TG then I wanted the 2 I had for brass and I saw the TGD70 cheap, about half what they are now. It's tailored for kick of course and the hypercardioid pattern is almost bidirectional. The rear lobe is almost as big as the front, I guess for maximum side rejection to defeat those internal reflections. It gets a great kick sound but I've always wished I could switch off that internal EQ and hear it flat - well here's a kick mic (DPA) designed for high SPL, lots of bottom end and if there is anything else with that amount of attack then that too. I bet it'd be nice on bass cabs and probably timpani.

At the time I got my other kick mics I think I didn't consider the DPA because of the price, for a mic I had no experience with or even any knowledge of. I also looked at the ATM 250DE (if that's the right name, the one with dynamic and condenser capsules in the one housing) and a couple of Lewitts. All were expensive and I think my plan was to start with a cheaper and more conventional for a kick mic, then consider something like those later. But honestly I'm more than happy enough with the EV and Beyer kick mics.

I also had an EV PL33, that thing was an ultra bargain IMO for what it is. Like a Beta 52 but 1/3 or 1/4 the price. I tried it and it was fine, so long as you use it like a 52 - just outside with no more than the grille poking through the hole in the skin. But I got those others and never used the PL33 so I sold it, for about $10 less than I paid for it and that was still under half the local retail price. It was almost like new with all the accessories etc so the buyer got a good deal and said they liked it.

Anyway, soon I'll know if it would have been worth bypassing all FOUR other kick mics I eventually bought (not counting other mics that can be used on kick)

I have here the DPA 4055 and a matched pair of 2015 wide cardioid SDC's. I didn't think this was the model they had to try out, I thought it might be 2012 cardioid in fact. So I don't think this is a mic for the rock band gigs so much but I'll pop one on the roof-mounted boom as an overhead and see what happens.

Looking forward to trying this 4055 kick mic. The asymmetrical design is neat, designed to help reduce the space used by the boom of a mic stand. I'm going to take my little kick mic stand with me rather than use the claw rim mount I usually use. Since I'm there all week I already offloaded some of my stuff yesterday to reduce the amount I've got to carry with me, including a recorder and looms so I can record all the drums mics easily.
This band does well with an M88 on the female lead vocal, I might try another one on the guitar amp since I've never really been happy with the guitar tone with these guys. About the only difference I'd make from the setup I have on everyone else is to DI the bass off the pickup instead of using the amp's direct out, since she has a nice bass and the PZ-DI on 220kOhm suits it well

This makes total sense. You know, I never really liked any of the Schoeps mikes as close-in spots so I never really considered that comparison. You'd probably be horrified at what I like for spots...
--scott

Bernie, those 2015's would be great as a spaced pair for overheads, or you could use a single one in mono; I wouldn't bother with using them in XY. One reason to go with a single overhead would be to try the other one on something else: acoustic guitar, or upright bass are obvious choices, but you'll need to manage wedge levels very carefully -- easier if folks are on IEM's. I suppose you could try one on an amp, but I've never done that.

I did indeed use one as a mono overhead, and in headphones it sounded pretty good. For a couple of songs I ran with only that and the DPA kick mic on drums, and that sounded fine to me. A pop/rock band on a stage that small in that type of venue is not where I'd normally use a jazz-style drums mic-up, but I tried it out of interest and was pleasantly surprised. The key to it was, of course, placing the overhead lower than I normally would. Height was about my chin level standing up so I guess 1.6m. I didn't know what to expect but it was quite usable. Snare was loudest, that's how this drummer plays, but he has a nice snare sound and I didn't want a ton of cymbals, we hear them clearly without mics anyway.

The wash from the rest of the stage wasn't too bad, the guitarist uses clear acrylic baffles in front of his amp and the bass player wasn't too loud. The loudest single source was the lead vocal monitors, and she was using IEMs so the wedges were mainly for the rest of the band to follow. Loud but not crazy loud.

I didn't use the 2nd 2015, I might try a spaced overhead pair tomorrow. As you say I won't bother with XY. I thought about using the 2nd one as a hi hat or straight cymbal mic but then I decided for the first time out I'd keep it simple.

I also had the 4055 kick drum mic. It sounded really good in fact, but what stood out to me was that it really wasn't so different to the kick sound I was getting already. That's probably because I used a similar mic position, only more so - the mic entirely inside the shell, deeper in than I do with my TGD70 or ND68. All I really noticed was I cut the LM Eq a little more than I might with my other kick mics. LF and HMF boost were modest, I thought I might have to use more but it wasn't necessary. I'm sure this is more about the sound of that kick drum than the sound of the mic, but I would also like to try this mic vs. my usual kick mic on other sources. I'm pretty confident my TGD70 would sound mid-scooped compared to the DPA.

I've got a 6-track recording of the close mics plus the mono overhead taken from the direct outputs of the channel. I had gates on toms and a compressor/gate on the kick drum but the direct out on that console is pre-everything - EQ and insert point, and of course fader, so none of my processing will affect those tracks. It's late and I need to call it a night but I'll upload those stems tomorrow and post a link, and if I get time I'd like to apply similar basic processing in my DAW and post a typical gig-style quick mix of those tracks. I was pretty pleased with the drum sound tonight so I'm interested to see how a mix like that of those channels turns out

I used:
Kick - DPA 4055
Snare - Beta 98AD/C with cardioid capsule
Hi Hats - MC930
Rack tom - ND46
Floor tom - Austrian Audio OD-5
O/H - DPA 2015

(There will be some bleed from the drummer's monitor speaker, a 2x15" and horn bi-amped box, EV Mongoose IIRC, we'll hear some kick drum from that but I think the vocal wedges will end up louder)

I've been reading your posts and get that sometimes you don't get the result you predicted when miking the guitar amp with a known mic. Are you familiar how guitar speakers behave, what kind of tone you get around the speaker? I'm asking, because I've learned that a lot of people aren't.

Sort of - I know about listening to their tone and then how I can move the mic closer/farther from the centre to compensate somewhat, and going farther out from the grille, but I don't consider myself an expert. In fact since I got my own mics I would say I'm learning some of that over again for the types I use now. It's all close miking of course, on stage with a loud-ish band (I'm fortunate that I work with bands that are pro and smart enough not to blow the stage away with excessive volume), as opposed to having the amp isolated, like in a studio or an amp room.

Since I do so many covers and tribute acts then at least I usually know what sound I'm supposed to be going for. But then it's a question of whether the guitarist is sending me close to that sound in the first place.

It sounds like you've done the work on this and know what you're talking about. So I guess you know how to go about miking up, if you have some good rules of thumb I'd be glad to hear them. If the band has a good guitar tone to start with that's no problem but I'm sure you're familiar with how the average guitarist has an average sound, and only the great ones have a great sound!

I was going to post how it wasn't really working for me with tonight's guitarist with that baffle in front of his amp and an M88TG on it. I asked him to pull the baffle farther back and that really helped. I was sure it had to be reflections off that hard plastic and into the mic that were messing things up and sure enough moving the baffle made a big difference. But I would definitely value some advice from someone such as yourself who knows more about it.

Many of my gigs I don't get time to soundcheck, it's just put a mic on it, do the minimum possible line checks with the whole band in a few minutes, then off we go. Tonight before I asked him to move that baffle I was starting to wish I'd just put a 57 on it, then at least I'd have the first 25 years experience of my career (until the venues all got e906's) to draw on. I must admit, if you don't know the player and their tone this is probably the easiest point to start from, and setting up my M160 or M88 presupposes a certain tonal quality that they don't always have

+1 one using mics that are “known quantities” for throw and go situations. When time is pretty much non-existent, it makes pulling toned and troubleshoot so much easier when you know exactly what a mic is giving you on a day-to-day basis.

I made a quick picture for reference (please don't judge, I'm not a graphic designer..). You might be familiar with what follows, but in my experience not all of this is common knowledge.

All engineers know that the center of a guitar speaker is brighter than the sides. It's true, but not nearly the whole story. Even though the speaker is round, it doesn't emit the same sound in every direction 360 degrees. See the two little glue tabs on top of the dust cap? That's where the positive and negative speaker wires are attached, the terminals are on the other side. Those two glue tabs work exactly like moongel or duct tape on a drum head, they dampen overtones. Positions 2 and 4 don't sound the same, rather 2 is noticeably brighter than 4, and 3 somewhere in between. With brighter tone the difference is of course more evident, but it's audible with any amp, any speaker.

In 1x12 combo amps, the glue tabs are most always on top. Because the speaker wires go up, it's the shortest path to the amp and the only sensible way to put in the speaker. However, in 2 or 4 element cabinets there's variation. In horizontal two element cabinets the glue tabs are usually facing each other, again because it's the shortest way for conventional wiring. With four speaker cabinets, the left and right speakers are usually facing each other. Notable exception would be Mesa/Boogie, who wire their 4x12 cabinets with the speaker terminals of all four speakers facing towards the center of the cabinet. I've also seen 2x12 / 2x10 cabinets with the speaker terminals pointing up. With vintage amps it's a gamble, and of course if someone changed the speakers to their cabinet, they could be installed in any direction. Many people tend to look at the brand logo and rather have that straight... The only way to know is to look with a flashlight. If two players have a balanced sound when listening in front of the amp, and using the same mic within the same distance, in the same position you get a wildly different capture, look at the glue tabs and see which way they are, it might be that your miking one player's speaker from the opposite side of the glue tabs / speaker terminals.

Here's my subjective take on the seven positions. I only use positions 5-7 if I want a dull and distant tone (guitar is not the featured element or main accompany in the music), or need to compensate an insanely bright sound that the player is unwilling to change. Even though there's more low frequencies (mostly low mids) in relation to high frequencies, miking the paper yields also the smallest tone. Positions 2-4 are the usual go-to's. For an SM57 (which I regard an excellent guitar cab mic), 4 or 3 are good, 2 is usually too bright, unless the player has a dull tone that needs to be compensated. Position 2 or 3 would usually be good for an M160, M88TG or any other beefy mic which might benefit from some bite. For most any common dynamic mic, dead center is way too hairy. However, that's where I stick a Royer R121 ribbon when recording in studio, and it's an awesome sound. Air really is the most natural sounding compressor, so pulling back the mic not only reduces proximity effect but tames the sound some, as does angling the mic. I don't remember the last time I angled the mic though, knowing how the speaker behaves has given me enough variations to work with.

Once I figured all this out, I stopped listening to sound demos of mics and guitar cabs. I haven't seen one where the presenter would make it clear from which side of the dust cap they're miking the speaker. Also, in many demos where a bunch of mics are recorded at the same time, they're positioned around the dust cap, I guess I don't have to underline what's the problem with that.

About the acrylic baffles, yeah... As you noticed, positioned too close they tend to create catastrophic reflections and in my opinion should be the last desperate resort to fight volume. I love my '59 4x10 Bassman and Bogner 4x12's, but bringing a right size amp for the gig really is the way. What players fighting with volume should consider, is putting in a speaker with 3dB lower sensitivity. This way they'd effectively cut the wattage of their amp to half. It will not make a 50 watt, or even a 5 watt tube amp a bedroom amp, but at modest rock band volume levels, dropping the overall volume by that much would be huge.

Very cool AIMus. I, for one, did not know about the effect of the speaker wires. Makes a lot of sense!

Re: Acrylic Shields. Someone should make a gobo with broadband absorption on the inside and a thin reflective surface on the outside to mitigate the harsh reflections. That wouldn't be transparent though, so they should have a photorealistic lifesize picture of the amp on the front. Audience might not even notice... lol. Quirky idea but I would laugh and appreciate it if a guitarist ever brought one in.

Welcome back sir - you were missed!

Question: what sort of mic distance are you using here?

I'm wondering if you're staying fairly close to the centre of the speaker to balance out the LF rise from proximity effect.


Perhaps I'll fire up REW and measure the 12" cab I've got here.

Chris

@ AIMus thanks for that great post! I certainly hadn't considered positioning from this point of view. I knew speakers don't necessarily radiate evenly and especially guitar speakers flap and bend and shimmy, they're supposed to, that's part of the sound. But I didn't consider it this way. I could tell you must know what you were talking about and it's clear you've done the work on it. Thanks for sharing and adding something about considering which mics are in use too, knowing all that is an asset. I'll put it to work tonight!
Sometimes I seem to hit a sweet spot, sometimes I chase the guitar sound and I don't know why I can't find it. This knowledge will really help.

One of the most important tools I have with me at all gigs is a bright LED torch with a focusing lens and different brightness controls. So much so I bought a belt holster for it. My middle aged eyes have a hard time finding the stuff I put down or drop and can't find for one thing, but I like to focus the beam sharply and shine it through the grille to find where the speaker's edge and dust cap are. But til now I've only been looking for a position somewhere between the two - always I've just thought of a horizontal line through the centre and my mic points somewhere on that. So somewhere from positions 3 to 6 on your diagram. No wonder sometimes I get lucky with it and sometimes I don't.

I can understand now why you don't bother listening to mic demos on guitar cabs unless they show exactly how it's miked. The few that do probably haven't considered what you take into account.

How do you feel about rear-miking? Part of what I have always liked about it is that it forces the microphone to basically be in the same position every time. It doesn't get any of the top end off the dust cap and that creates a duller tone, but it's a consistent tone.
--scott

FWIW, there are some Roland amps with aluminium dustcaps. Rear-micing is basically mandatory there - the >4kHz range can be brutal.

Unless you get the mic in really close to the cone, rear micing will pick up a lot of the "colouration" that occurs from all the reflections inside the cabinet. It'll sound different, for sure.

Chris

A jazz guitarist I knew replaced the speaker drivers in a JC120 with 300 watt Renkus Heinz PA speakers, in the early 90's. He played it at my very first long term in-house job and there was only one 57, which I used on snare. I remember I miked it up with an EV N/D308, now I'd probably put the 308 on snare and use the 57 on the amp

on open cabinets, i often use a second/different mic on the rear: to get an alternate sound and/or to get a fake/pseudo stereo image. on very 'busy' stages i use the rear mic for redundancy: i've experienced more than once that the front mic got kicked away by mistake! 'part of the show' one might argue?! - on closed combos/stacks, i often use two different mics anyway...