That OTHER stereo micing technique...

[Rudy4]

Since there's been a rash of stereo micing questions lately, I'm curious that the Jecklin disk with a pair of omnis hasn't been brought up in ages.

I'm not particularly interested in doing it myself, but I wonder if anyone is currently using the technique?

Now I'm wondering about that "Head mic" thing, too...

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

Since there's been a rash of stereo micing questions lately, I'm curious that the Jecklin disk with a pair of omnis hasn't been brought up in ages.

I'm not particularly interested in doing it myself, but I wonder if anyone is currently using the technique?

Now I'm wondering about that "Head mic" thing, too...

Hi Rudy4
I used a Jecklin array on/off for a couple years, and found very few situations where it was the best solution (or even better than a spaced pair). And it was more work to set-up than a typical stereo array.

I came to think it would have been a good single-unit solution for recording a choir/orchestra from ground level (under 10 feet) from the center of a room.

The only recording where I think it made a noticeable difference was in recording an incredible percussionist on a pair of congas. It separated the hands well for a fairly strong L/R placement in the stereo field (separate tracks from the other instrumentalists and mixed later).

Doug Young experimented with them and posted a few years back.

[jim1960]

I've heard some technique comparisons that included a Jecklin Disc and was unimpressed. The results were no better than other techniques that don't involve a $300 disk sitting between the mics.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I've heard some technique comparisons that included a Jecklin Disc and was unimpressed. The results were no better than other techniques that don't involve a $300 disk sitting between the mics.

Doesn't have to be an expensive disk, of course (I have a "real" one, I don't recall it costing that much, but maybe I've forgotten or the price has gone up). But the original was, if I recall, an LP (remember those?) wrapped in a piece of wool - a sweater or something. Basically any baffle with some minor absorption should work. I've seen people just put baffles of various kind between mics, without it having to exactly conform to the Jecklin geometry.

I got some nice results with one a long time back, but never used it for anything I released. The setup is a bit awkward.

[Rudy4]

I have a disk made up from instructions I found on the internet; I was very inexpensive to make the disk itself. The trickier part is the mic holders, but that's not all that difficult. I have a pair of Omnis that I could use, but I never got around to doing it because it still takes a properly treated room, especially because of the omni mics, and my other choices just seemed better.

These things tend to run in cycles, so I was surprised that it hadn't popped up recently.

I do seem to remember Doug Young having contributed to those discussions in the past.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Doesn't have to be an expensive disk, of course (I have a "real" one, I don't recall it costing that much, but maybe I've forgotten or the price has gone up). But the original was, if I recall, an LP (remember those?) wrapped in a piece of wool - a sweater or something. Basically any baffle with some minor absorption should work. I've seen people just put baffles of various kind between mics, without it having to exactly conform to the Jecklin geometry.

I got some nice results with one a long time back, but never used it for anything I released. The setup is a bit awkward.

I suspect Jecklin might argue those aren't Jecklin Discs. As I recall, he was quite specific about size and materials, even going so far as to modify his original version with a newer, slightly larger, version at some point.

The only company that I knew of to be making them to Jecklin's specs was Josephson.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I suspect Jecklin might argue those aren't Jecklin Discs. As I recall, he was quite specific about size and materials, even going so far as to modify his original version with a newer, slightly larger, version at some point.

yes, I own the one from Josephson. But that's a modern manufactured version. I seem to recall reading that Jecklin's original used wool over an LP - maybe an old 78? Then, as you say, he evolved, getting more specific. It was an experimental thing. According to wikipedia, the disk was an evolution of Bluemlein's experiments with binaural sound, which leads you into the whole dummy head with mics on the ears and other variants.

Like anything, there are specs, but you can certainly deviate if you want. ORTF has a very specific spec - but no one will arrest you if you don't do exactly 110 degrees and 17 cm, and even if you deviate a bit, it should remain close in spirit. None of these micing techniques were being applied to recording solo acoustic guitar, so I'm less inclined to feel bound by precise specs, since we're already applying the ideas to a whole other situation they were never design for.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

yes, I own the one from Josephson. But that's a modern manufactured version. I seem to recall reading that Jecklin's original used wool over an LP - maybe an old 78? Then, as you say, he evolved, getting more specific. It was an experimental thing. According to wikipedia, the disk was an evolution of Bluemlein's experiments with binaural sound, which leads you into the whole dummy head with mics on the ears and other variants.

Like anything, there are specs, but you can certainly deviate if you want. ORTF has a very specific spec - but no one will arrest you if you don't do exactly 110 degrees and 17 cm, and even if you deviate a bit, it should remain close in spirit. None of these micing techniques were being applied to recording solo acoustic guitar, so I'm less inclined to feel bound by precise specs, since we're already applying the ideas to a whole other situation they were never design for.

Fair enough. I'm not going to launch into a defense of the technique, especially as I don't think it's a very effective one. I've never heard a demo where I thought Jecklin's technique beat out the more common alternatives. Perhaps it's because I wasn't wearing Jecklin Float Electrostatic Headphones (a couple of these are available on Ebay for interested parties).

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by jim1960

Oh man :-) Everyone needs one of those, for sure. It's interesting that the knock on all these binaural techniques was that they really only work correctly in headphones and may not sound as good over speakers. But these days, everyone seems to wear earbuds, so maybe these techniques will have a resurgence.

[Doug Young]

With this discussion, I decided to dig out my Jecklin, clean off several years of dust, and give it a re-try. Below is a short noodle, (I tried to play it close to the same each time, tho inevitably, there are differences), first with Schoeps CMC6/MK2 (omni) with the Jecklin Disk, then second Schoeps CMC6/MK41 (hyper cardioid) as spaced pairs.

My observations: I recall one reason I stopped using the disk: It forces the mics a fair distance from the guitar, at least a foot. That's not terrible, but the technique does use omnis, where, as we were discussing in a different thread, one benefit is being able to *very* close mic, and we're not doing that here. Even at that distance, the disk edge is close enough that I have to be careful not to hit it with my picking hand.

The Jecklin setup has a much more stable stereo image, which isn't too surprising given that we've got two omnis 7 inches apart, even with the disk between them.

To my ear, I hear more room sound with the Jecklin than I want. It's fairly subtle, but I hear some midrange congestion or something. I made a short attempt to EQ that out, before realizing that what I was hearing was "room sound". In contrast, the spaced pairs (which were closer to the guitar, as well as being directional, as well as wider spaced of course), sound more open and more direct at the same time. In a glorious-sounding room, the Jecklin/omni's might have an advantage they're not getting here. In the end, both clips have identical EQ (just a high pass filter) and the same reverb.

I tried to match volume between the clips, and loudness meters tell me I succeeded, but the combination of more direct sound from the spaced pairs along with just being a different performance make the spaced pairs leap out a bit more to me.

[FrankHudson]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

With this discussion, I decided to dig out my Jecklin, clean off several years of dust, and give it a re-try. Below is a short noodle, (I tried to play it close to the same each time, tho inevitably, there are differences), first with Schoeps CMC6/MK2 (omni) with the Jecklin Disk, then second Schoeps CMC6/MK41 (hyper cardioid) as spaced pairs.

My observations: I recall one reason I stopped using the disk: It forces the mics a fair distance from the guitar, at least a foot. That's not terrible, but the technique does use omnis, where, as we were discussing in a different thread, one benefit is being able to *very* close mic, and we're not doing that here. Even at that distance, the disk edge is close enough that I have to be careful not to hit it with my picking hand.

The Jecklin setup has a much more stable stereo image, which isn't too surprising given that we've got two omnis 7 inches apart, even with the disk between them.

To my ear, I hear more room sound with the Jecklin than I want. It's fairly subtle, but I hear some midrange congestion or something. I made a short attempt to EQ that out, before realizing that what I was hearing was "room sound". In contrast, the spaced pairs (which were closer to the guitar, as well as being directional, as well as wider spaced of course), sound more open and more direct at the same time. In a glorious-sounding room, the Jecklin/omni's might have an advantage they're not getting here. In the end, both clips have identical EQ (just a high pass filter) and the same reverb.

I tried to match volume between the clips, and loudness meters tell me I succeeded, but the combination of more direct sound from the spaced pairs along with just being a different performance make the spaced pairs leap out a bit more to me.

I hear the same "Midrange congestion" you mention on my JBL monitors. It doesn't sound terrible, just not as good as the second, spaced pair. It was closer with a set of AKG K240 cans on my ears, but the Jecklin didn't jump up as better than the spaced pair when listened to on headphones.

As to headphones vs. monitors, discussed up-thread, I now try to test my final mixes anytime time allows with smartphone earbuds because I suspect that's how the majority of listeners hear my recordings. I also try to listen to them on an iPad through its tiny internal speakers. I don't mix on those, but if it doesn't sound good on earbuds the mix needs tweaking for me these days.

I have no idea what professionals do with music these days in terms of testing for less than optimal or "honest" monitors, but "translating" to headphones/ear buds must be important to the end-listener experience.

[KevWind]

Humm interesting demo
Just listening on my laptop speakers:
I would agree the spaced pair seems to be a wider stereo field and more forward
The Jecklin seem a less wide ( is that more stable ?) and not as forward
But maybe thats more to do with Omni's vs Hyper Card ??

But the real question is the guy in the photo Dr. Jecklin or Mister Hide

Any way thank's Doug

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by KevWind

The Jecklin seem a less wide ( is that more stable ?) and not as forward
But maybe thats more to do with Omni's vs Hyper Card ??

I think the image width is both - partly mic distance being 20 inches vs 7, but also cardioid vs omni. Two omnis a few inches apart is going to be almost mono without the baffle in the middle.

My comment about stability was just from setting up the mics. I use a stereo meter that shows a ball that indicates the center point while I'm trying to balance things left to right:

Screen Shot 2021-01-26 at 11.10.44 AM.jpg

With spaced pairs, you sort of have to eye-ball this, as everything bounces around a lot, left to right as I play. With the Jecklin, the ball just sat there in the middle - like the image above, very little movement most of the time. Mono would, of course also sit perfectly still, so the narrower image is a big aspect. But I could imagine narrow unstable images, or wide stable ones. But in this case, what I very well might have been noticing was just the much narrower stereo field.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I think the image width is both - partly mic distance being 20 inches vs 7, but also cardioid vs omni. Two omnis a few inches apart is going to be almost mono without the baffle in the middle.

My comment about stability was just from setting up the mics. I use a stereo meter that shows a ball that indicates the center point while I'm trying to balance things left to right:

Attachment 50591

With spaced pairs, you sort of have to eye-ball this, as everything bounces around a lot, left to right as I play. With the Jecklin, the ball just sat there in the middle - like the image above, very little movement most of the time. Mono would, of course also sit perfectly still, so the narrower image is a big aspect. But I could imagine narrow unstable images, or wide stable ones. But in this case, what I very well might have been noticing was just the much narrower stereo field.

Thanks , the stereo meter difference makes sense as being considered more stable . Is that meter a Logic plugin ?

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Thanks , the stereo meter difference makes sense as being considered more stable . Is that meter a Logic plugin ?

It's one of the views in iZotope Insight.