OC18/OC818 & AKG c414 B-ULS vs AT4050

[Tonio]

HI All,

I hate vs. threads but its tax refund time

So, I have a AKG C414 B-ULS, and a AT 4050 for my utilitarian LDC's , among other mics.. Wanted to see what ya'lls opinion is about options to have a "stereo set", not necessarily " matched" . Or is that a bad idea?
I can easily get another AT4050 for a stereo set, but I tend to like the 414 a bit better for " that tone". Since I would rather not get a used 414, I'm wondering if a Austrian Audio OC18 and/ or OC818 would suffice to complete a "set" w/ the 414?.

Anyone know if Sweetwater accepts mic returns?

Thanks any for any thoughts,

[mikehalloran]

Can of worms.

A) Buy nothing. Either mic can be used as the M (set to cardioid or omni) in an M+S array with the other in figure 8 mode as the S.

B) For Blumlein, near-coincident, X/Y, spaced omnis, ORTF etc. you will need two identical mics for best results in getting a stereo image. Pick one and match or

C) Buy another stereo pair or a stereo mic.

[HCMarkus]

Hi Tonio. Are you recording an orchestra or other live to two-track acoustic ensemble where the room is creating the stereo image and there are few or no overdubs being added?

If yes, then a matched pair might be desirable.

In almost every other situation, it is my belief that a matched pair of mics is a nothing burger. One could even argue a mis-matched pair of mics will provide a more interesting stereo perspective when a single instrument is being mic'd for blending with other mix elements.

But that's just me.

[mikehalloran]

At the risk of giving the same advice in three threads in one day,: You're asking advice on how to do something without telling us what you wish to accomplish.

To Mr. Marcus's point, if the goal is an interesting sound in a stereo track, then matched—or even complimentary—mics are not the goal and may work counter to what you want.

I do a lot of capturing the sound stage in as realistic an image as I can given the limitations of ensemble, room, space etc. The better matched my mics, the easier I can get what I want.

BTW, I do a lot of 3-channel stereo recording but only two of the mics need to be matched. That's a topic for another day.

[Tonio]

Thanks Mike, yes it seems like a can or worms LOL

I have tried M/S ( thanks to DP's M/S plug)w/ the 4050/ 414, and XY and ORTF ad some spaced pairs via cardioid w/ SM81's in the past. My main goal is to learn more stereo type mic settings and adapt them to mixing situations with certain instruments occupying the stereo field.i.e. stereo guitar capture , or drum OH's instead of using a plug in.
I don't record live , or large ensembles, but more on the "band" type scenarios with overdubbing occasions.

Reading some references, appears many settings may cause non compliance with mono fold downs which I want to avoid.

For a identical pair, the 4050 would be obvious. Just not sure I would go that route, especially due to the cost things currently.

[Tonio]

In almost every other situation, it is my belief that a matched pair of mics is a nothing burger. One could even argue a mis-matched pair of mics will provide a more interesting stereo perspective when a single instrument is being mic'd for blending with other mix elements.

But that's just me.

HI HC, nothing burger classic

Agreed, like multi mixing a gtr amp. reminds me when I was a musician ( still try occasionally), recording a few demo songs @ Peter Sprague's studio early 2000, he used 414's in space pairs setting like 6ft apart. on my congas- sounded great.
I'll see if I could dig that up .

T

[mikehalloran]

I would get a RODE NT4. It’s an excellent single point X/Y stereo mic that can be found used as low as $250 if you shop around. Bruce Swedien was one of many who sang its praises. Essentially, it’s a pair of NT5s but very easy to set up.

If you feel the need to buy it new,
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detai ... microphone

[HCMarkus]

This discussion leads me to ask how folks here feel about mono compatibility... has its importance waned in this age of ubiquitous stereo?

I check mono compatibility for gross anomalies but, as Tonio suggests, a spaced pair of mics give such a rich stereo spread, especially when compared to X/Y.

[mikehalloran]

Ok, maybe this is the thread for 3-mic stereo arrays.

Only M+S can fold to mono perfectly and that's done by eliminating the S. Usually, however, the goal is to make mono acceptable—perfect is not a requirement.

For years, I had contracts with school districts to record the high school concerts. I charged nothing and made my money selling cassettes to the parents. Throughout the '70s and into the mid '90s, it was a pretty good gig. I tried every stereo array I ever heard of at AMPEX or read about in MIX. Mono playback on portable players was still a thing despite the strides made by the Walkman.

With X/Y, ORTF, Blumlein etc,. the narrower the angle, the better the mono fold down. This is easiest to hear in the bass. With small ensembles, don't have anything in the center—that helps a lot. ORTF is the worst since it the cardioid capsules are angled 110° and spaced 17cm. I quickly learned that 90° is great because it's simple to understand and looks good on paper but otherwise, there's nothing special about it. Both X/Y and Blumlein are based on it. Blumlein requires a decent sounding room and a pair of Figure-8 mics.

In the early days, I couldn't afford a Figure-8 and often couldn't borrow one. Add to that the matrix required for M+S in analog and I started wondering if 3 cardioids with two back-to-back as the S wouldn't work as well. Plus, I could record to 3 channels with no matrix required, just hard pan the sides R/L. This worked surprisingly well and I did it a lot. With some rooms, ORTF was still a better choice but adding a 3rd mic to pick up the center solved the mono compatibility problem as I could blend in that center mic with a low pass filter to restore the bass when summed (it doesn't take much).

With X/Y or Blumlein on an ensemble, I keep players out of the center. If using X/Y on a guitar, I don't bother since it's an effect and I'm not really worrying about mono this far into the 21st C. On the rare commercial bed or KLOVE track I do anymore, there are no stereo tracks going into the mix since mono playback is still a possibility.

I still love spaced omni and Decca Tree but those require large halls and more set up than I am capable of since my stroke. Mono fold down is not much of an issue with either.

[mikehalloran]

Anyone interested in audio recording should take the time to read this Q&A with Bruce Swedien.

https://gearspace.com/board/interviews/ ... st15669795

Among other topics, he covers a lot of ground on stereo recording. He wasn't much into M+S liked Blumlein more than I (with great sounding rooms, one can afford to).

[Tonio]

I would get a RODE NT4. It’s an excellent single point X/Y stereo mic that can be found used as low as $250 if you shop around. Bruce Swedien was one of many who sang its praises. Essentially, it’s a pair of NT5s but very easy to set up.

If you feel the need to buy it new,
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detai ... microphone

Interesting- the NT4 would be a quick set up even runs on a battery. I remember Bruce praising it. Must be great for
field recording.

Funny , I use a Rode stereo bar for my SM81's.

Wish Beyerdynamic would make their MC930's optional w/ omnis. Been eyeing them for a while.

T

[mikehalloran]

…
Wish Beyerdynamic would make their MC930's optional w/ omnis. Been eyeing them for a while.

That's the 910 but I don't think the capsules can be swapped.

You have to go back to the 803 with the 801 capsule.

OTOH, RØDE does make omni capsules for the NT5. Yea, they fit the NT4 but what's the point of that?

I have a birthday coming up if anyone wants to gift me with this.

https://reverb.com/item/65310455-schoep ... 40-spheres