Crap 'phase' info in EQ mag Unbelievable.

  • Thread starter Thread starter mixsit
  • Start date Start date
M

mixsit

Well-known member
"To avoid phase issues, the first step is to record everything in phase."

"This occurs through proper mic placement and adhering to the 'Three to One Rule' : When using multiple mics.. blah blah blah..."

"This means that if one mic is three inches from a guitar cab, the second mic should be a least nine inches from that mic."

Jeff Anderson and is this Dr P. T. Cilham?

This is as it stands in the article. It's wrong on about nine different levels. It is not corrected later in the article.
Hello?
 
I've stopped reading US magazines altogether. The British mags are far ahead in being helpful, entertaining and informative. They bundle DVDs chuck full of goodies with each mag, audio and video tutorials. And even if they slip sometimes here and there, in general the quality of their advice is far superior than what you'd get from EQ, Electronic Musician and others. About the only US mag I read is MIX, and only because of Stephen St. Croix.
 
many of the bigger us mags, along with the recording schools, or should I say "together" with the recording schools are nothing more than ads, aimed at selling customers to marketers

I know thats the goal of any media, but usually its a little more balanced with the goal of informing

Don't worry, the british press will catch up soon :(
 
It's a problem with having an editor who has no knowledge of the subject, or one that's forced to accept articles of dubious quality because they just aren't getting the submissions from people who actually know what they're talking about.

It's a bit of both, I think. There are very few good engineers left below the age of 60 these days, and if those old fogies are good writers they are already sitting back collecting royalites for their books or saving their material for a new book, and not interested in whoring for a little magazine.

G.
 
yeah, rolled my eyes when i read that in EQ as well.

but ya know, i don't read the mags for the "help". i read them for the interviews and gear reviews and nothing more. even those things you gotta take with a grain of salt and a shot of tequila.

that said, this is just another reason why everyone needs a subscription to Tape Op.


cheers,
wade
 
Only Mag i ever read is 'Sound On Sound' and thats mainly because of Paul White who's stuff i find entertaining. Theres also some other real good stuff in there as well. I read it on planes mostly. I find it puts me at more ease than "Plane Crash Monthly"
 
noisewreck said:
I've stopped reading US magazines altogether. The British mags are far ahead in being helpful, entertaining and informative. They bundle DVDs chuck full of goodies with each mag, audio and video tutorials. And even if they slip sometimes here and there, in general the quality of their advice is far superior than what you'd get from EQ, Electronic Musician and others. About the only US mag I read is MIX, and only because of Stephen St. Croix.
Click to expand...
Mon the SCots!! well Brits! :D

Eck
 
mrface2112 said:
yeah, rolled my eyes when i read that in EQ as well.

but ya know, i don't read the mags for the "help". i read them for the interviews and gear reviews and nothing more. even those things you gotta take with a grain of salt and a shot of tequila.

that said, this is just another reason why everyone needs a subscription to Tape Op.
Click to expand...

Well said sir. I couldn't believe that article either, and as I was reading down this post I was about to mention tape op also, but you beat me to it. I think another part of their problem is sometimes they do know what they are talking about, but at the same time, they try to dumb things down for people so much that the advice they give no longer helps the majority of their readers.
 
nawwwww.......i use 2 mics both up close to the grill......both are equal distance away from the grill.......i get no phase issues what so ever.............
 
I been reading the Electronic Musician and Recording magazines religiously for the last 3 years and I have to say I rarely come across misinformation aside from the normal hype of over rating certain equipment.
 
I actually like to hang between 20 and 30 mics all around the amp - front back, sides, top, bottom (did I mention the amp is suspended about 4 feet in the air???), at a couple different distances. No phasing issues there :D

To solve the problem, I mix on my surround system - 14.3 - yep, there are three independant subs on MY system :p
 
mixsit said:
"This occurs through proper mic placement and adhering to the 'Three to One Rule' : When using multiple mics.. blah blah blah..."

"This means that if one mic is three inches from a guitar cab, the second mic should be a least nine inches from that mic."
Click to expand...
That misinformation is common on a number of recording sites and forums. Pseudo-science is frustrating to see occur.
 
Is it to avoid phase issues, or a delay issues ?

Since my ears are about 1 ft apart, I never listen to guitar cabinets at less than 3 feet away.
 
Doh!

I just subscribed to EQ a few weeks ago.

Should have maybe subscribed to SOS instead.

Oh well.... so far, I've liked both.
 
The Axis said:
Is it to avoid phase issues, or a delay issues ?

Since my ears are about 1 ft apart, I never listen to guitar cabinets at less than 3 feet away.
Click to expand...

As long as you don't sum your ears to mono, I guess you will be OK either way. ;)


I don't really have much problem with the way he describes the magical "3 to 1 Rule" in the article. The thing that bothers me is when people think you have to put the second mic exactly 3 times as far away and then there will be no phase cancellation (instead of at least 3 times as far away, to help minimize some phase issues). Another thing that bothers me is when people think the 3to1 rule can never be broken. After all, sometimes you can use phase cancellations to your benefit...
 
The 3:1 rule applies to multiple sources, each with its own mic, that are going to be summed, with the purpose of minimizing phase cancellation caused by bleed. It's not about multiple mic's on a single source.
 
XLR said:
The 3:1 rule applies to multiple sources, each with its own mic, that are going to be summed, with the purpose of minimizing phase cancellation caused by bleed. It's not about multiple mic's on a single source.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, how quickly I forget. In that case the article is quite stupid. :D
 
XLR said:
The 3:1 rule applies to multiple sources, each with its own mic, that are going to be summed, with the purpose of minimizing phase cancellation caused by bleed. It's not about multiple mic's on a single source.
Click to expand...

One niggling little qualification/correction to that:

Actually it is -- atomically speaking -- about multiple mics on a single source... in a sense -- because you're trying to minimize the phase-cancellation effects of combining the audio signal reaching those mics from a given source when they're summed.

But -- yes -- it's usually invoked when talking about drum mic set ups since that's the big bugaboo for most tyro engineers.

So, in that context, the 3-to-1 rule would suggest that the hi hat mic should be at least three times farther from the snare than the snare mic is -- to avoid phase cancellation/anomalies of the snare signal when those two mics are summed (with the others, of course) in your drum mix. And the snare mic three times farther from the hat than the hi hat mic.

And -- according to this rule of thumb -- the same 'rule' applies to each individual pair of proximate mics and their respective targets. So, if there's one mic per drum, and, say, two rack toms, you would want the right tom mic to be no more than 1/3 the distance from the right tom to the left tom mic -- so as to minimize cancellation effects of the right tom when the signals from those mics are summed in the mix -- but the inverse applies, as well: the left tom mic should be no further from its target than 1/3 the distance to the next closes mic (presumably the right tom mic).

But... you guys knew all that. I think my argument is more with the way XLR phrased it.


And -- of course -- going back to the original quote (and I have not read the article so I cannot comment on it) -- in the case of a multi-mic miking on a guitar cab you're probably going for effect, so you'll probably position your mics for the sound, regardless of phase issue rules-of-thumb.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top