ORTF stereo recording: how to record/pan?

[madmaxmiller]

Sprock

(btw but not to change your mic decision, only just because we're at it: I made a good recording of a choir in a concert hall using Decca Tree)

Yeah, I totally believe that. But since I don't have the equipment for a Decca tree, I'll go the ORTF route.

I am thinking though of additionally placing a large diaphragm condenser (the only other mic I have, unfortunately no omni) as a supporting mic for the lower frequencies/fullness.

All I have for mobile recording is two laptop computers, two USB audio interfaces (each with 2 XLR inputs), the small condenser stereo pair (cardioid) and a single large condenser (cardioid as well). So I'll have to use one laptop+USB interface for the stereo pair in ORTF and the other laptop+USB interface (since none of my interfaces has more than two mic inputs) with the large condenser as a supporting mic. That's the best plan I can come up with, working with what I have.



Best of luck for the project. It won't hurt to add the LDC although I haven't experimented adding a different recording of the same event into a multitrack project.But who knows, having the LDC quasi coherent in the middle you might end up with taking this as main recording and the SDC-s for the stereo component. Please let me know how it went, maybe with a photo.

Cheers, MMM

Max's Decca Tree, made from home builder mart plastic pipes and a speaker stand - forgot to take pics at the actual event
               

[bjohnh]

I think the shortest/hopefully clearest way to phrase my main question is this:
When I have a stereo recording made with ORTF setup, is it supposed to be panned 100% hard L/R to get the desired realistic stereo image or another percentage?

Yes.

I record in ORTF frequently (as well as NOS and a few other stereo techniques) and it's always 100% hard L/R to get the proper stereo image.

[Sprock]

Best of luck for the project. It won't hurt to add the LDC although I haven't experimented adding a different recording of the same event into a multitrack project.But who knows, having the LDC quasi coherent in the middle you might end up with taking this as main recording and the SDC-s for the stereo component. Please let me know how it went, maybe with a photo.
 

Thanks! Will do.

.................................................................

I think the shortest/hopefully clearest way to phrase my main question is this:
When I have a stereo recording made with ORTF setup, is it supposed to be panned 100% hard L/R to get the desired realistic stereo image or another percentage?

Yes.

I record in ORTF frequently (as well as NOS and a few other stereo techniques) and it's always 100% hard L/R to get the proper stereo image.

Great! That's exactly the answer I needed, thanks!

By the way: I'd be interested to know, in what cases do you prefer NOS vs. ORTF and vice versa?

[bjohnh]

By the way: I'd be interested to know, in what cases do you prefer NOS vs. ORTF and vice versa?

It mainly depends on the mics but other factors come into play (all explained in the Stereophonic Zoom paper by Williams; if you Google that you should get a direct link to the PDF (the old links to the paper on the microphone-data.com website don't work anymore).

The mics I use for this are Line Audio CM-3s, which are wide cardioid which is not what ORTF was designed for; most users reports best results with NOS. I also have a "wide ORFT" mount from Shapeways specifically for these mics that I also use and honestly I am not sure which I prefer. I usually use NOS with those mics, in part because the NOS Shapeways mount is more convenient (the ORTF mount requires me to use angled XLR connectors). I've tried XY as well on solo guitar, which is pretty good but NOS or ORTF sound better to me, with these particular mics.

If I were using true cardoid mics I'd probably go for ORTF.

I also do a fair bit of M/S recording, which of course is a different setup entirely both in terms of mics and panning, and I also record with omnis in A/B. I haven't tried the Faulkner Array yet, which combines cardioids and omnis, but I don't record anything with a large sound stage so haven't had a need.

[Sprock]

Thank you!

[Sprock]

Last weekend the live recording took place.

The cardioids sound quite different than the concert live, much less reverb/space, more pronounced treble frequencies and less bass/low mids. But I am quite satisfied with the result for my first recording of this kind. (For the next time I'd love to have an additional pair of omnis, though.)

I mixed everything in Mixbus, editing, just a little EQ, adding the LDC with -7dB and low-pass-EQ as a "bass boost", taming of the "wildest" loud spots via volume automation and a touch of digital Reverb (Dragonfly Hall Reverb) to restore more like it sounded live in the church.

Here a downloadlink to a sample to listen to (feel free to comment, please. I have still much to learn):

https://c.web.de/@337141881332832878/BSn...hAElvZxp0Q

As for how it looked (madmaxmiller asked for it):

   
(Don't be surprised to see two celli while the sound file I linked has only one. They did 4 different pieces that day: Three quintets in different combinations (on the picture you see the Schubert quintet) and one sextet.)

   
That is where I sat while recording. (By the way: I did buy a new USB audio interface beforehand so I have now 4 mic pres and was able to record all three mics with one laptop/interface.)

[sunrat]

Nicely played and a beautiful piece. The recording sounds excellent although I'm not a classical aficionado.

[madmaxmiller]

Last weekend the live recording took place.

The cardioids sound quite different than the concert live, much less reverb/space, more pronounced treble frequencies and less bass/low mids. But I am quite satisfied with the result for my first recording of this kind. (For the next time I'd love to have an additional pair of omnis, though.)

I mixed everything in Mixbus, editing, just a little EQ, adding the LDC with -7dB and low-pass-EQ as a "bass boost", taming of the "wildest" loud spots via volume automation and a touch of digital Reverb (Dragonfly Hall Reverb) to restore more like it sounded live in the church.

Here a downloadlink to a sample to listen to (feel free to comment, please. I have still much to learn):

https://c.web.de/@337141881332832878/BSn...hAElvZxp0Q

As for how it looked (madmaxmiller asked for it):


(Don't be surprised to see two celli while the sound file I linked has only one. They did 4 different pieces that day: Three quintets in different combinations (on the picture you see the Schubert quintet) and one sextet.)


That is where I sat while recording. (By the way: I did buy a new USB audio interface beforehand so I have now 4 mic pres and was able to record all three mics with one laptop/interface.)

Thanks for following up with this. Very nice! I'm a sucker for classical music anyway.
I don't know if my work headset is correct (it's meant to do Teams meetings, not music haha) but the celli+viola came out mid/left, the violins on the right - which made it a bit weird, especially when looking at the picture while listening. When I flipped the headset it sounded much better - talk about psychoacoustics...

Cheers, MM

[bjohnh]

The cardioids sound quite different than the concert live, much less reverb/space, more pronounced treble frequencies and less bass/low mids. But I am quite satisfied with the result for my first recording of this kind. (For the next time I'd love to have an additional pair of omnis, though.)

Congrats on the recording! Regarding what you said above, I don't think any recording will sound exactly like the concert live. I copied the text below a while back from somewhere, I think it was on gearspace (formerly gearslutz) but can't find the original now:

"Good recordings are illusions. I think this is for a number of reasons. One main reason is that even listening to a live performance is an illusion in a sense. Our eyes can only see a very small area in any detail. Our brain fills in the rest and makes us think we can see everything in detail. I think something akin to this happens when we listen. We hear a live performance and think it sounds amazing. But could we really hear each ride cymbal hit clearly? Could we really hear every bit of subtle snare work, the breathiness of the sax, the rosin on the bow of the violin even though there is piano or guitars playing at the same time? Perhaps you'll hear some of this detail but probably not all of it. Yet on a recording the expectation is to be able to hear all these things clearly and at the same time hear the music as a cohesive whole. This expectation is increased because of the ability to listen repeatedly. In a sense the expectation is for something in a recording that is beyond real life. My opinion is that achieving in a recording and a mix, is in part the art of illusion."

[Sprock]

Thanks for following up with this. Very nice! I'm a sucker for classical music anyway.
I don't know if my work headset is correct (it's meant to do Teams meetings, not music haha) but the celli+viola came out mid/left, the violins on the right - which made it a bit weird, especially when looking at the picture while listening. When I flipped the headset it sounded much better - talk about psychoacoustics...

Cheers, MM

Then your headset has a flipped stereo image.

It's definitely correct here. Cello is on the right, violins left. As it should be.

(It's only one cello and two violas what you hear by the way, the sound sample is the Mozart quintet not the Schubert with two celli that I posted a picture of.)