Towards an easier ORTF setup

[Colin McDonald]

Another reason I personally use an MS mic ( Sony ecm-MS-957) it is far easier to place and is less likely to be in shot or disturbed.

That MS mic sounds like a neat solution. Fortunately, no-one suggested a video of the concert (least of all me), so I could get away with the central stand and the slightly clumsy rig.

For MS, I have to make up that, too, the hard way:-) The only figure 8 mic I had available was a Røde NT2A which weighs in at 1.16 kg with shockmount, I didn't fancy having that plus a cardioid at the end of the boom however stable the K&M stand was!

I'm a bit amazed to be honest here...

:-) Thanks for coming in on this, Paul. What exactly you are amazed at? The choice of ORTF? Or that someone would actually check the distance or the angle between the mics rather than guess it? I think I could do a reasonable stab at 90° but I find 110° a bit tricky. You might be able to judge 17 cm accurately without a tape, but I can't, especially when the mics have to be offset vertically so that I can get the damn things to fit together. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds that it can be hard to get two mics with shockmounts and standard XLR leads to fit together in close proximity on a spacing bar at the distance/angle desired.

Without wishing to duplicate the huge threads full of ORTF discussions elsewhere, I like to start off with a properly measured true ORTF* and take it from there. If the distance an/or angle need changed (thus making it what I see some wag on Gearslutz has called FTRO - = "Find The Right One" rather than the carefully specified ORTF), I rather like to know what I've changed it to, so if there's a repeat of the gig next year I can start from there.

*I have to admit that using wide cardioids like the CM3s may well disqualify the rig from being ORTF in the opinion of some, and one in particular who used to frequent the 'All Things Audio' forum here :-)

For reasons explained in the original post, rightly or wrongly I decided to go for ORTF rather than AB, XY, or NOS or another near coincident arrangement. It ended up doing the job and kept the choir happy, though as you say, it might have sounded much the same (or even sounded better) recorded with any of other technique or variation thereof. But that was not what I was posting about.

You are perfectly correct on your comments on what's important - but I know that church well and its physical constraints, had listened to the choir rehearsing there so there were no surprises in numbers or angles on the night.

[Jim Feeley]

Originally Posted by Steven Reid

@Colin, I use a ShapeWays mount for a pair of Line Audio CM3s in wide ORTF configuration. There is nothing faster, easier, and more compact (visually unobtrusive) that I've found for mounting a stereo pair in my years of recording (see pic).

Sorry for the small hijack...

Steven, I hear good things about the Line Audio mics. But where did you buy them? Directly from the company in Sweden? Off Reverb or eBay? Or is there a US-based dealer?

Thanks,

Jim "likes ORTF" Feeley

[Steven Reid]

Originally Posted by Jim Feeley

Sorry for the small hijack...

Steven, I hear good things about the Line Audio mics. But where did you buy them? Directly from the company in Sweden? Off Reverb or eBay? Or is there a US-based dealer?

Thanks,

Jim "likes ORTF" Feeley

No US dealer that I know of. Many others and I bought them here. 100% reputable.

[John Nantz]

That "Line" logo is REALLY cool! Worth a visit to the web page.

[Paul R Johnson]

My amazement comment was because we're talking very precise and often almost impossible to hear micro-adjustments in a precise technique, and we never get a chance to record twice, and compare the results. We need to record the job in hand, and if the problem is the musicians are too wide for where we MUST place the mics, do we insist on 90 or 110, or do we aim them sensibly and accept 96 degrees? It's just impractical to micro-set mics. The notion of people using protractors to set their mics just makes me laugh. It's drifting into hi-if audiophile stuff.

When I record direct to stereo I always take an amp and a pair of speakers. I can then make judgements and record little chunks and have a listen. I see many recordists who seem to do the job mechanically. They spend ages on the physical placements and adjustment, as if this guarantees the best recording, and it doesn't! Perfect ORTF or something else that just doesn't work.

The theory is important, but if I heard two recordings of one performance, one ORTF and the other X/Y I know I could not tell which was which. I suspect I could spot it on a scope, but not with my ears. In a BBC studio with standard monitoring maybe? In a random performance venue, I'm not so sure. I'm a theory enthusiast, but a practical recordist.