Advantages of stereo matched pair?

[min7b5]

Originally Posted by bradeasley

Thank you for sharing your experience. I have limited experience with the recording side of things. I may be overthinking the matter. It's likely that a single mic for on each instrument would be sufficient. Just making sure that there isn't some magic mojo to be had in a stereo pair that would be the difference between a professional and amateur sounding recording.

One of things about the traditional one mic thing is that it's the ultimate example of the less-is-more thing. At first it seems like more mics would be more better, until you start to learn about "phase cancellation." -research that a bit. It's possible to use more mics on each source, but the odds really good that you'll not get it right and actually get a much smaller sound. I think there's a sweet spot between just having one mono mic on a whole band and the likely mess that having several mics on each instrument. But that's just me. I think simple is better, and usually sounds better. If I was recording a four piece bluesgrass band playing live in a room I could see having four mics and a four channel pre as having a LOT of flexibility, and you can always use less. Unless you also want room mics -then the plot thickens

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by bradeasley

Ok, I'll try to reframe the topic.

Setup:
Let's say you want to record a bluegrass band that has a fairly traditional style/sound. You current have a few assorted mics. Some LDCs, an SDC, and some dynamics. You don't have any 2 of the same condenser mic, and you're recording on a limited home recording setup and budget.

Is there any reason to consider purchasing a pair of the same microphone (matched or not, just the same make and model) such as a pair of SDCs for the sole purpose of micing a single acoustic guitar? Would it benefit how that instrument sounds in that mix context? Could a similar, albeit slightly different, result be achieved by micing with 2 different mics?

I'm just weighing the pros and cons of budgeting for more mics versus upgrading interfaces, but I'm trying to isolate the 2 topics so that the decision isn't influenced by the other.

As far as historical context goes, virtually ALL music was recorded initially with a single microphone.

The "modern" concept of the single microphone for ensemble amplification is a throwback to the early days of public address amplification, and the look of the process is a whole lot more impressive than the result. Fun to watch, not so much to listen to.

Modern recording is almost always done with single or stereo micing of each individual instrument and separate microphones for each vocal performance. The practical use of stereo mics on any individual instrument is quickly lost as the number of instruments increases.

The fewer mics you use the more you limit your ability to edit or mix. The larger problem will be to isolate individual instruments and vocalists and minimize microphone bleed. THAT'S where the rubber truly hits the road.

I've been posting the suggestion to listen to Doug Fearn's "My Take On Music Recording" podcasts for a while now, but there's a lot of great information on live recording of small format acoustic bands that's free for the listening.

[bradeasley]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

As far as historical context goes, virtually ALL music was recorded initially with a single microphone.

The "modern" concept of the single microphone for ensemble amplification is a throwback to the early days of public address amplification, and the look of the process is a whole lot more impressive than the result. Fun to watch, not so much to listen to.

Modern recording is almost always done with single or stereo micing of each individual instrument and separate microphones for each vocal performance. The practical use of stereo mics on any individual instrument is quickly lost as the number of instruments increases.

The fewer mics you use the more you limit your ability to edit or mix. The larger problem will be to isolate individual instruments and vocalists and minimize microphone bleed. THAT'S where the rubber truly hits the road.

I've been posting the suggestion to listen to Doug Fearn's "My Take On Music Recording" podcasts for a while now, but there's a lot of great information on live recording of small format acoustic bands that's free for the listening.

Thanks! I'm thinking more in terms of 1 or 2 mics per instrument and 1 per vocal with isolation of all sources. I know that I said "traditional bluegrass", but I meant more in terms of the overall sound not recording method. So the question boils down to, is there an advantage to using 2 mics over 1 and if 2, 2 of same mics vs 2 different mics? And all of that within the context of an acoustic ensemble recording with bluegrass instrumentation and multiple vocals.

I'll check out that podcast.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by bradeasley

Ok, I'll try to reframe the topic.

Setup:
Let's say you want to record a bluegrass band that has a fairly traditional style/sound. You current have a few assorted mics. Some LDCs, an SDC, and some dynamics. You don't have any 2 of the same condenser mic, and you're recording on a limited home recording setup and budget.

Is there any reason to consider purchasing a pair of the same microphone (matched or not, just the same make and model) such as a pair of SDCs for the sole purpose of micing a single acoustic guitar? Would it benefit how that instrument sounds in that mix context? Could a similar, albeit slightly different, result be achieved by micing with 2 different mics?

I'm just weighing the pros and cons of budgeting for more mics versus upgrading interfaces, but I'm trying to isolate the 2 topics so that the decision isn't influenced by the other.

It's hard to say 'yes' or 'no' without knowing what mics we're talking about and what interface you have. If you give us a run down of your whole system, you'll get better advice.

Originally Posted by bradeasley

I'm thinking more in terms of 1 or 2 mics per instrument and 1 per vocal with isolation of all sources. I know that I said "traditional bluegrass", but I meant more in terms of the overall sound not recording method. So the question boils down to, is there an advantage to using 2 mics over 1 and if 2, 2 of same mics vs 2 different mics? And all of that within the context of an acoustic ensemble recording with bluegrass instrumentation and multiple vocals.

I think you'll be fine with one mic on everything although I'm not sure how you're going to achieve isolation. If you're all in the same room, you're going to get bleed on every mic.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by bradeasley

Thanks! I'm thinking more in terms of 1 or 2 mics per instrument and 1 per vocal with isolation of all sources. I know that I said "traditional bluegrass", but I meant more in terms of the overall sound not recording method. So the question boils down to, is there an advantage to using 2 mics over 1 and if 2, 2 of same mics vs 2 different mics? And all of that within the context of an acoustic ensemble recording with bluegrass instrumentation and multiple vocals.

I'll check out that podcast.

Humm just so many variables at play

Ok so it seems clear you are talking about traditional Bluegrass only in so far as types of instruments and possibly the tunes etc.

So to clarify a bit further it also sounds like you are talking about recording the band playing all at the same time , yes?
If that is case (and assuming you will not be using ISO booths or panels and headphones for each performer ) Then strictly speaking you will not have "isolation of all sources " that is to say you will have some bleed But that is not as big an issue as some may think.
You will have the most bleed between an individuals vocal and their instrument
then you may have (depending on how sensitive the vocal mics are ) some bleed between the performers But I am guessing not enough to worry about in either case .


So that said :: As Joseph mentioned in a band situation, I do not see any "advantage" in trying to stereo mic any instruments. In fact it will likely be less problematic to mix with single mics on the instruments Stereo mic'ing multiple instruments can easily become an indistinct mush of sound .
Me I would single mic the instruments and try to place them Left to Right in the mix, the way the band lines up from the audience perspective .

[sdelsolray]

I only use matched pairs for recording in X-Y, ORTF and Blumlein mic placements. I prefer matched pairs for other configurations, although unmatched pairs (i.e., two different mics) can do some neat things because an acoustic guitar is not a single point source and it sounds rather different at different locations (e.g., the 12th fret vs. the lower bout vs. over the shoulder).

[b1j]

I do only multitrack recording, max of two inputs at a time. I prefer using two mics for a guitar (or sometimes even a vocal) because I like the width it brings to the sound, as someone else here said, whether in headphones or through loudspeakers. It does complicate mixing, and in my case editing, because I do a lot of layers, punching in, and comping to get a track that flows (limited talent).

I’m moving from doing two mono tracks to one stereo track, but that carries its own burden: mic placement and preamp gain must record a balanced signal (in the same dB range) from both mics. With 2 monos, you’d have more control over volume balance.

To the OP’s question, I would not play around with recording the same guitar performance with two mic models. Too many variables, just seems like a rabbit hole. I know I’ll get comparable and complementary L and R tracks with two of the same mic model.

Matched pair? I don’t stress about it. My two LDCs are same model, different years. I used to use one or both of them for guitar, but now they’re just for vocals. Recently I picked up — yes — a matched pair of SDCs and those are now my guitar mics. Who knows if I’m receiving some benefit because they’re matched? I’d probably never be able to tell the difference between using them and using an unmatched pair of the same model. But there’s no cost difference whether you buy two unmatched mics or one matched pair. With my matched pair they threw in an XY bracket and a padded metal case, two nice things to have.

[bradeasley]

Originally Posted by b1j

I do only multitrack recording, max of two inputs at a time. I prefer using two mics for a guitar (or sometimes even a vocal) because I like the width it brings to the sound, as someone else here said, whether in headphones or through loudspeakers. It does complicate mixing, and in my case editing, because I do a lot of layers, punching in, and comping to get a track that flows (limited talent).

I’m moving from doing two mono tracks to one stereo track, but that carries its own burden: mic placement and preamp gain must record a balanced signal (in the same dB range) from both mics. With 2 monos, you’d have more control over volume balance.

To the OP’s question, I would not play around with recording the same guitar performance with two mic models. Too many variables, just seems like a rabbit hole. I know I’ll get comparable and complementary L and R tracks with two of the same mic model.

Matched pair? I don’t stress about it. My two LDCs are same model, different years. I used to use one or both of them for guitar, but now they’re just for vocals. Recently I picked up — yes — a matched pair of SDCs and those are now my guitar mics. Who knows if I’m receiving some benefit because they’re matched? I’d probably never be able to tell the difference between using them and using an unmatched pair of the same model. But there’s no cost difference whether you buy two unmatched mics or one matched pair. With my matched pair they threw in an XY bracket and a padded metal case, two nice things to have.

Thank you for sharing your experience. My question was primary aimed at the advantages of using 2 of same mic (regardless of the "matched" part) vs 2 different mics, and your answer really touched on that. This inquiry stems from thinking about going from one mic to two for instruments, and what variables I need to consider. The responses people have shared have been really insightful. I'm beginning to think I'm not at the point yet where the advantages of using 2 mics outweigh the added complexities of mixing 2 mics for someone who is a recording amateur like myself. I think my best course of action is to get a better interface and work with the mics I have.

[b1j]

Originally Posted by bradeasley

Thank you for sharing your experience. My question was primary aimed at the advantages of using 2 of same mic (regardless of the "matched" part) vs 2 different mics, and your answer really touched on that. This inquiry stems from thinking about going from one mic to two for instruments, and what variables I need to consider. The responses people have shared have been really insightful. I'm beginning to think I'm not at the point yet where the advantages of using 2 mics outweigh the added complexities of mixing 2 mics for someone who is a recording amateur like myself. I think my best course of action is to get a better interface and work with the mics I have.

Mixing two tracks isn’t that hard. For me it’s the editing that’s complicated, because I comp from sometimes a dozen takes (limited talent), and I have to keep the takes (layers) straight, kind of a pain. But if you can play the song all or most of the way through, I want to encourage you to try two mics.

Yes, there are 4 or 5 classic placement setups, but you can home in on one you prefer after a few trials. Once you get that down to practice, mixing is easy. You balance the volumes of L and R, and decide on how much you want to pan — and where you want the guitar to come from in the stereo field. (For solo guitar it’s just hard L and hard R.) When you have balance and pan dialed in, you buss both tracks to a guitar buss for any additional mixing plugins you might want. Mixing the buss is exactly like mixing a single mono track, only it’s in stereo. That’s why I use two mics.

As an alternative you can record into one stereo track, but you’re stuck with balance and pan to a greater extent that way.

(A fanatic might want to go artificial and EQ the 12th fret mic higher and the lower bout mic lower, sort of like expanding the contrast of a B&W photo. But I think we would agree that would border on obsession.)

But back to your central question: just forget about matched or not. I do think you make your life easier if you use two of the same model.

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by bradeasley

Thank you for sharing your experience. My question was primary aimed at the advantages of using 2 of same mic (regardless of the "matched" part) vs 2 different mics, and your answer really touched on that. This inquiry stems from thinking about going from one mic to two for instruments, and what variables I need to consider. The responses people have shared have been really insightful. I'm beginning to think I'm not at the point yet where the advantages of using 2 mics outweigh the added complexities of mixing 2 mics for someone who is a recording amateur like myself. I think my best course of action is to get a better interface and work with the mics I have.

I'm reluctant to jump in here cause we've discussed this component to a ridiculous degree, however. In a home enthusiast recording environment, especially one that already has a decent mic collection and an interface, absolutely nothing is gonna make a bigger sonic improvement than working on the room.

Assuming great talent and great instruments a $3200.00 U-87 in a troubled room is gonna sound bad and there's absolutely no way around that. Conversely, a $99.00 AT 2020 in a great room will quite simply outperform the U-87 in a bad room. The same scenario goes for interfaces. A great interface in a bad room is gonna sound bad.

Again, besides talent and great instruments (when microphones are being used) the room is the single most critical component of sonics in recording, particularly acoustic instruments.

If there's a budget to be spent my advice is always, always the room first.

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

If there's a budget to be spent my advice is always, always the room first.

I second that.

[bradeasley]

Great advice. What can be done to improve a room on a limited budget?

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by bradeasley

Great advice. What can be done to improve a room on a limited budget?

Check out page 2 of the sticky at the top of this topic. Lots of info on room treatment, including some budget options. I agree, room acoustics are the most important thing by far. Very little else matters if the room sounds bad.