What's with mono drum room mics?

[Steenamaroo]

I never tried that. But again, those are all cool techniques, but they don't address how panning 2 mics 100% will make anything sound wider than the distance of those mics.

Take something that's not between the two mics. Maybe a cymbal?

If the two mics are 8' apart, that cymbal might be 1' from mic A and 9' from mic B.


I imagine you probably don't do that anyway, and I'm not being facetious.

 

[heatmiser]

May I jump in here? I was wondering about these same things a couple of months ago.

In my limited experience tracking drums, I've always set up the mics more or less the same in a GJ setup. I have panned the OHs differently on different songs though just because it sounded cooler, or maybe I just didn't know what I was doing.

In terms of realism though, I guess what I was wondering was, since with the GJ setup one OH is directly over the snare and one is off to the left (facing the kit) maybe over the floor tom rim, both equidistant from the snare center, why aren't they panned L-R in a similar way rather than hard L&R?

Meaning, wouldn't it be more realistic to pan the right OH (the one over the snare) closer to the center to mimic where it was set up relative to the snare when tracking, and then pan the left OH pretty far left to mimic where it was over the tom?

I dunno...that just never made sense to me. Panning them hard L-R would only seem to be realistic if the mics were original placed to the far left & right of the snare, right?

 

[ollie99]

in answer to rami, the answer I would have said is what steenamaroo said earlier about how you might not want the drums to be as wide as other instruments that you have panned hard left or right, the drums might just interfere.
About that thing that you said about panning them harder during a chorus sounds cool, I might try that

 

[RecordingMaster]

Everything you're saying makes sense. But you might have mis-understood my point. Or maybe I mis-understood yours. I was questioning why someone would place their mics wide, and then narrow the stereo field in mixing. I was also wondering how something would supposedly sound "un-natural" if the mics weren't placed "un-naturally" wide to begin with.

No, I didn't miss your point, I fully understand (so maybe I'm not explaining it properly haha). Different OH mic'ing techniques yeild either wider,narrower, or "natural" results. Go to that link I posted with all the different mic'ing techniques and how each sounds. I'm pretty positive he had everything panned hard r/l. Each example has either a narrower sound or wider. Spaced is the widest "sounding" for whatever reason (any physicists in the building?). So when I personally pan my stuff hard r/l, it sounds wider than I'd want. Mostly noticeable on the floor tom (being too far over to the left) and the crashes(being too exaggeratedly apart from each other). Look at the pic of my kit. Picture the L mic placed in the middle of my hi-hat and L crash. Now picture my R mic in the middle of my china cymbal and R crash. I wouldn't say my cymbals NOR my mics are spaced too far. Just ends up sounding like that using spaced. Try a spaced next time and you'll see.

Regardless, It doesn't sound smeared on it's own (the OH's) when I pan say 60/60. Just when I bring in a mono room mic up the center. Because all of the sudden the ride, hats, cymbals, toms, everything is the same volume in that room mic up center. Makes no sense to do that imo. Plus it's way easier to hear the separation due to the character of the "sound" of the room mic versus oh and close mics. If it were a stereo pair of spaced room mics, I think it would blend better.

Speaking of which...does anyone here think that if I used a figure 8 mic as a single room mic (null point facing kit), then doubled the track, reversed the phase on one of them, and panned them both hard l/r, that I'd get a "stereo room sound"? Or would this only work in mid-side, as in if I added the center mic? I'm new to the mid-side technique. Just got my first figure 8 so haven't tried it yet.

 

[RecordingMaster]

What's your room like? Is it treated at all? Over the years I've found that a poor sounding room, therefor a poor sounding room mic, does exactly as you describe and smears the stereo image. The best solution I found was building some quadratic diffusers. Really brings most rooms into a manageable place, reflections wise. Now, when I bring up my room mic, it gives me that pleasant sense of space and depth that close mic'ing lacks.

Yup it's treated. Bass trapped slightly as well. Not the best due to pretty low ceilings, but I'll soon be tracking drums in a more "live" room in my house with higher ceilings. So THAT's when I hope I'll be able to use the room mic sound.

And your point about diffusuion etc,means nothing (to me anyway), because regardless of how well your room is diffused, at the end of the day, the room mic is still mono in the center. Smearing all the shit you tried to pan to create a sense of stereo. (again, imo)

 

[RAMI]

Take something that's not between the two mics. Maybe a cymbal?

If the two mics are 8' apart, that cymbal might be 1' from mic A and 9' from mic B.


I imagine you probably don't do that anyway, and I'm not being facetious.

No, I understand.

But that's just my point. We're sort of saying the same thing but each of us has a different conclusion/solution to the problem.

If you have 2 mics 8 feet apart, and you find that sounds too spread out, you're saying that the solution is to not pan them 100%. My solution is move the mics in closer because you obviously don't like the result of having them 8 apart, so why did you do that in the first place? It just sounds counter-productive to take the time to place 2 mics a certain distance a part, only to move them closer when you mix. If "wiiiiiide" isn't the sound you want then don't set the mics up "wiiiiiide".

You know?

 

[RAMI]

since with the GJ setup one OH is directly over the snare and one is off to the left (facing the kit) maybe over the floor tom rim, both equidistant from the snare center, why aren't they panned L-R in a similar way rather than hard L&R?

Meaning, wouldn't it be more realistic to pan the right OH (the one over the snare) closer to the center to mimic where it was set up relative to the snare when tracking, and then pan the left OH pretty far left to mimic where it was over the tom?

But they do end up panned that way since the mic that's closer to the floor tom picked up more floor tom and the mic over the snare picked more first tom/hi-hat. Thet both picked up the same amount of snare and kik if you measured properly. So, by panning them left and right, you will get the image that represents their placement.

If you panned one to the right and the other to the middle, you'd get snare and kik heavily leaning right, since they both picked up the same amount of snare and kik.

 

[Justsomeguy]

For years i panned OH's hard left and right following the same principles than Rami has said, i.e they are a stereo pair creating a true stereo image when panned hard left and hard right (utilising a spaced pair as my OH's). However, with some of my mixes, as ollie has said, i found that the cymbals in particular were getting in the way of the guitars panned left and right. my initial response was to do as rami suggested; move the OH's to a narrower stereo pair at the source, but this then didn't get the same sound i had with a wider pair. i tried some other OH placements (mainly XY, ORTF, and recorderman) and tried both SDC's and LDC's and, in the end, the easiest solution for me was to simply pan the OH's to lesser extremes in cases where it was needed. As always the old argument of "it depends" comes in to play in terms of the track and the mix, but the majority of the time my OH's are panned about 40 each way (bare in mind i'm using logic where the extremes are 63 one way and 64 the other, so about 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock).

In terms of the OP's room mic question; i've tried both mono and stereo room mics and found that, once again, it depends on the track. if the drums need a nice, open, natural sound then a pair of SDC's as room mic's (normally in X-Y) works really well and only needs some slight EQ and maybe compression just to help it give the kit a nice balanced and natural feel. On heavier, harder hitting tracks, a mono room with a HPF and LPF to cut out the cymbals and bulk of the low end and compressed to hell and back just add's some extra weight to the snare and gives a general "big" feel of the kit. However, both of these only really work in great sounding rooms and the mono room mic is often harder to place as it really is the case of finding the sweet spot. I really like using my Apex 205 for a mono room mic. With the mono room mic, if i left it untreated i can completely see how it would smear the stereo image of the OH's.

 

[Steenamaroo]

But they do end up panned that way since the mic that's closer to the floor tom picked up more floor tom and the mic over the snare picked more first tom/hi-hat. Thet both picked up the same amount of snare and kik if you measured properly. So, by panning them left and right, you will get the image that represents their placement.

If you panned one to the right and the other to the middle, you'd get snare and kik heavily leaning right, since they both picked up the same amount of snare and kik.

Yeah,ok. I see what you mean.
I can't say you're wrong, but I think if realism is the goal, I wouldn't use kit overheads at all.

For me, I'll position the overheads so that I get a nice stereo representation of the kit, then I'll choose how wide I want that to be in the mix.
Narrowing the overheads in the mix isn't counter productive to me, because it wasn't realistic to start with.

That's my point, but I totally get where you're coming from now, man.

 

[MG Eddie]

Why would you use 2 mics to only pan both of them to the centre. Why not just use one "overhead"? And I put "overheads" in quotations because I don't think you're really using them as overheads. You're using them as tom and cymbal mics, as you describe them. Overheads are meant to capture the whole kit, not just the toms and cymbals. 80-90% of your sound should be the overheads, including the snare. If you're just pointing 2 "overheads" wherever, without at least lining them up to be equal distance from the snare, then that snare is going to be out of phase, especially if they're both going mono up the middle.

I'm not saying what you're doing is wrong (not saying it's right either), but you're not really using your "overheads" as overheads.

Your right, because I didn't think of it until this thread and I really don't use them in a conventional manner. Once I upgrade my interface from 6 to 8 channels I'll probably mic the toms seperately, unless I like one technique over the other.

 

[Farview]

With any stereo mincing technique, the possible "width" is determined by the proximity of the mics to the source.The closer the mics , the wider the image.

Panning the stereo pair 100% will give you a realistic image of what the mics were hearing at that placement. If it seems too wide,the mics are too close for the image you want.

 

[Steenamaroo]

With any stereo mincing technique, the possible "width" is determined by the proximity of the mics to the source.The closer the mics , the wider the image.

Panning the stereo pair 100% will give you a realistic image of what the mics were hearing at that placement. If it seems too wide,the mics are too close for the image you want.

Why couldn't have said it like that!

Thank you, Farview.

 

[RAMI]

With any stereo mincing technique, the possible "width" is determined by the proximity of the mics to the source.The closer the mics , the wider the image.

Panning the stereo pair 100% will give you a realistic image of what the mics were hearing at that placement. If it seems too wide,the mics are too close for the image you want.

OK, now I'm totally confused. I got this part :

Panning the stereo pair 100% will give you a realistic image of what the mics were hearing at that placement.

In fact, that's EXACTLY what I've been trying to say for the last 3 pages.

But I don't get this:

The closer the mics , the wider the image.

and

If it seems too wide,the mics are too close for the image you want.

has completely tronw me off. I would think it's the complete opposite. But again, I might be missing something.

 

[heatmiser]

With any stereo mincing technique, the possible "width" is determined by the proximity of the mics to the source.The closer the mics , the wider the image.

Panning the stereo pair 100% will give you a realistic image of what the mics were hearing at that placement. If it seems too wide,the mics are too close for the image you want.

This is getting confusing..assuming in these hypothetical scenarios that the 2 OH mics are always equidistant from the snare, doesn't their distance from one another also have to remain constant for the above to be true?

I can understand in terms of geometry how, if you take 2 mics say 6 feet apart from each other and move them further and further from the kit, then the stereo image would shrink, but if you are also increasing the distance between the two mics as you pull them away, wouldn't the relative width of image stay the same?

 

[RecordingMaster]

OK, now I'm totally confused. I got this part : In fact, that's EXACTLY what I've been trying to say for the last 3 pages.

But I don't get this: and

has completely tronw me off. I would think it's the complete opposite. But again, I might be missing something.

Low ceiling in my (originally set up to be) "drum room", would be the culprit for me here then! That's why I end up with a wide image, because I have the mics a little closer to the source than I'd like. Which is fine, becuase if I want wide I can have it, and if I want narrow, a pan them in narrow.

Rami, The reason for the wider image being due to the mics being too close (not too close together, but too close to the source), is because mic Left is picking up more sounds more prominently that are directly in front (below) of the mic, and rejecting more of the stuff over to the right. And vice versa for the right mic. Each overhead is more isolated.

PICTURE THIS: You have your overheads in a spaced pair (or xy or or any stereo technique for drum oh's). Now raise them up 100 feet above the drum kit. The stereo image will likely be very unclear. Since the drums are so far away from the mics, the floor tom will likely be just as loud in both mics, and same goes for anything on the kit. Therefor a narrower image. Less distinction between what came from what side of the kit.

 

[RAMI]

Low ceiling in my (originally set up to be) "drum room", would be the culprit for me here then! That's why I end up with a wide image, because I have the mics a little closer to the source than I'd like. Which is fine, becuase if I want wide I can have it, and if I want narrow, a pan them in narrow.

Rami, The reason for the wider image being due to the mics being too close (not too close together, but too close to the source), is because mic Left is picking up more sounds more prominently that are directly in front (below) of the mic, and rejecting more of the stuff over to the right. And vice versa for the right mic. Each overhead is more isolated.

PICTURE THIS: You have your overheads in a spaced pair (or xy or or any stereo technique for drum oh's). Now raise them up 100 feet above the drum kit. The stereo image will likely be very unclear. Since the drums are so far away from the mics, the floor tom will likely be just as loud in both mics, and same goes for anything on the kit. Therefor a narrower image. Less distinction between what came from what side of the kit.

Right. Makes sense now that you put it that way. Thanx man, I just needed to picture it in an extreme example.

 

[RecordingMaster]

Right. Makes sense now that you put it that way. Thanx man, I just needed to picture it in an extreme example.

Lol, I actually never really knew/thought of that either until I explained it (what I really mean is after reading Fairview's knowledgeable post)!

 

[Steenamaroo]

Right. Makes sense now that you put it that way. Thanx man, I just needed to picture it in an extreme example.

Hey Rami.
You should set up a hifi with the two speakers 6 feet apart or so.

Hold two live mics, one in each hand, get the headphones on, and just move them around.

Holding them both bang in the middle is going to be as good as mono; Both far apart is going to be wide stereo sounding.


You'll be able to make the hifi sound wider than it would if you took the headphones off.

 

[toddyjoe]

The hi-fi system example is actually a pretty good one to answering RAMI's question about 100% panning. If you have two stereo overhead mics above a drum kit, each mic records how that particular sound source IN THAT EXACT SOURCE LOCATION sounds to a listener or listening device (like a mic) IN THAT EXACT LISTENING LOCATION. Thus, if you pan two stereo overhead mics 100% in your mix you will hear the drum set as it "naturally" sounds to a listener sitting EXACTLY in the drum set location with stereo speakers positioned EXACTLY where those overhead mics were positioned. If you mess with these reproduction conditions -- such as listening through headphones with their 180-degree stereo spread or through differently-positioned stereo speakers -- you are messing with the reproduction of the "natural" sound recorded by those mics, meaning 100% panning is not going to sound accurate. 100% panning is also not going to sound accurate if you want to hear the "natural" sound of those drums from a different listening position or perspective -- maybe from the perspective of an audience member or listener out in front of the drums of in front of the band instead of a listener sitting on the floor in the exact spot where the sound source (drum set) is located.

Panning is just one way to adjust for the facts that your listener is not always in the same place as the sound source and your sound reproducers are not always in the same place as your sound recorders.

EDIT: Had to replace word "is" with "in" due to silly oversight. Sorry!

 

[RAMI]

Hey Rami.
You should set up a hifi with the two speakers 6 feet apart or so.

Hold two live mics, one in each hand, get the headphones on, and just move them around.

Holding them both bang in the middle is going to be as good as mono; Both far apart is going to be wide stereo sounding.


You'll be able to make the hifi sound wider than it would if you took the headphones off.

The hi-fi system example is actually a pretty good one to answering RAMI's question about 100% panning. If you have two stereo overhead mics above a drum kit, each mic records how that particular sound source IN THAT EXACT SOURCE LOCATION sounds to a listener or listening device (like a mic) IN THAT EXACT LISTENING LOCATION. Thus, if you pan two stereo overhead mics 100% in your mix you will hear the drum set as it "naturally" sounds to a listener sitting EXACTLY in the drum set location with stereo speakers positioned EXACTLY where those overhead mics were positioned. If you mess with these reproduction conditions -- such as listening through headphones with their 180-degree stereo spread or through differently-positioned stereo speakers -- you are messing with the reproduction of the "natural" sound recorded by those mics, meaning 100% panning is not going to sound accurate. 100% panning is also not going to sound accurate if you want to hear the "natural" sound of those drums from a different listening position or perspective -- maybe from the perspective of an audience member or listener out in front of the drums of in front of the band instead of a listener sitting on the floor in the exact spot where the sound source (drum set) is located.

Panning is just one way to adjust for the facts that your listener is not always in the same place as the sound source and your sound reproducers are not always in the same place as your sound recorders.

EDIT: Had to replace word "is" with "in" due to silly oversight. Sorry!

Thanx guys, makes sense. I wasn't taking the variables into account. I was just looking at it as "if your mics are 4' apart, they should sound 4' apart", without realizing there's more to it than that.

I still think that if you don't like the width of a stereo mic'd instrument, you should fix that at tracking time, but I see the points you're making too.

One thing, though...I think we're all making a mistake when we use the word "natural". Very little about recording is natural.