# Close Mics and the Orchestra



## SwedishPug (Apr 19, 2019)

I wanted to hear what the opinions are about there about which instruments should use close mics and which shouldn't. I'm trying to figure out how to set this all up virtually. Additional recording techniques and tips are appreciated too. Thanks!


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Apr 21, 2019)

Your question is good. Nevertheless, I do not know if you will benefit from my information for virtual application (presumably the use of samples).

As a rule, orchestras are recorded in such a way that a main microphone is used, which generally records the orchestra (Deccatree, ORTF, DIN, AB, ...). This creates basically an airy, transparent and beautiful sound. Some of the microphone methods sound rather spatial, but with less good locations of the individual instruments. In other "main mikings", you get a better location, but a little less spatial representation.
Now, if orchestras are bigger, it may be that certain instruments are so far away that they are playing outside the reverberation radius. This means that the direct sound component, which still arrives at the main microphones, is smaller than that of the indirect sound components (delays, echos, reverbs). Such instruments should definitely get close microphones. But "Close" means in classical music still not 20cm. You should set up "Close Mics" at such a distance that the certain instruments appears with its natural sound. In practice this often means 50cm, 100cm or even more.
Additional "close mics" should be "time compensated". This means that one compensates the time differences to the main microphone. Today you often see photos or videos where an orchestra got a "whole forest" of microphones for recording it. The hobby sound engineer then thinks he also has to imitate this. He forgets that with each additional microphone he also adds problems. Because all microphones hear everything, there are more and more extinctions as well, phase errors and so on. All the many installed microphones in the studios are not used at the same time but often only for certain passages. So their can be said: As few microphones as possible is better than the oposite. So one installs "Close Miks" for quite instruments (harp, ...), distant instruments, percussive instruments, bass instruments, solo instruments... The later added "Close-Mic-sound" is usually very low (as soon as you hear the addition you take it back a bit).
These are very general rules about setting up microphones. Of course, everything is a little different, in different orchestras, music styles, etc. Then there are sometimes ideas that you want to implement yourself as a recording engineer or those who have a customer or producers ...


This is an Example with 2 Main Mics and 6 close Mics (Recording of mine)
3 Percussions, 1 Piano (on the left) 1 Bass, 1 Harp (not used in this example)
Very transparent, nice and natural distances (depth)...
Nevertheless, the distant instruments do sound clear and not muddy. Also the bass is nice, dry, clear and deep.


As mentioned, I'm not sure if you can change anything with the information above for mixing samples ...

Beat


----------



## SwedishPug (Apr 21, 2019)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> Your question is good. Nevertheless, I do not know if you will benefit from my information for virtual application (presumably the use of samples).
> 
> As a rule, orchestras are recorded in such a way that a main microphone is used, which generally records the orchestra (Deccatree, ORTF, DIN, AB, ...). This creates basically an airy, transparent and beautiful sound. Some of the microphone methods sound rather spatial, but with less good locations of the individual instruments. In other "main mikings", you get a better location, but a little less spatial representation.
> Now, if orchestras are bigger, it may be that certain instruments are so far away that they are playing outside the reverberation radius. This means that the direct sound component, which still arrives at the main microphones, is smaller than that of the indirect sound components (delays, echos, reverbs). Such instruments should definitely get close microphones. But "Close" means in classical music still not 20cm. You should set up "Close Mics" at such a distance that the certain instruments appears with its natural sound. In practice this often means 50cm, 100cm or even more.
> ...



Thank you for the detailed response and the great musical example! Helps a lot, I like your advice about setting the levels too: "as soon as you hear the addition you take it back a bit." I feel like what you said is going to impact my approach a lot.

You obviously have experience with recording and I was wondering: what your thoughts are on mid mics and far mics? Do you use them? If so, do you approach setting their level in the same way that you approach close mics (taking it back a bit as soon as you notice the addition)?


----------



## danbo (Apr 21, 2019)

I've seen a few live concerts with close mics on the players - I recall seeing Berlin Phil did this once, but generally it's a Decca tree, or often just a equally spaced mics hanging from the ceiling above the orchestra. I played a radio broadcast once from the Musikverein in Vienna that did this. If you think about it from the audience perspective you never hear anything like this.

Having said that I like the sound of the mid mics (EWHO) with the surround mics mixed in, but my ears are probably calibrated from playing in an orchestra and so like the sound of immediacy. The close mics don't sound right to me, I'd probably only use those if I wanted to really remove the recording space.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Apr 21, 2019)

SwedishPug said:


> Thank you for the detailed response and the great musical example! Helps a lot, I like your advice about setting the levels too: "as soon as you hear the addition you take it back a bit." I feel like what you said is going to impact my approach a lot.


Every studio, or say, every audio engineer will, over time, develop a style of how he will record this or that type of music. Specifically, this means that probably someone else would mix in the signals of close mics more. For me it is important that the depth of the room is maintained. So percussion may be heard far away. With the "close microphones" I could theoretically bring them to the height of the front instruments. So there are no rules but rather recording styles.
When it comes to samples, I usually try to exaggerate a bit with front and back, which usually gives a good overall transparency - even if many instruments play along.



SwedishPug said:


> ...what your thoughts are on mid mics and far mics? Do you use them? If so, do you approach setting their level in the same way that you approach close mics (taking it back a bit as soon as you notice the addition)?



Recordings of live concerts: There is almost the problem of recording as little of the audience as possible during the concert. So I normally leave it at the natural depths as mentioned above and I am adding a nice algorithmic reverb (Tail only). This glues all instruments and microphone signals together nicely to a total and final result.

When I record an orchestra without audience and the room has a nice sound, then I also work with room microphones (mid and far). I also took room prints (IRs) with a "starter flap" (sports). However, I usually allow myself to flatten these real room signals with an EQ. The disadvantage of many impulse responses from "real" spaces is that they often "color" the music too much. But it is not a problem to correct these IRs. The real spatial impression is usually nicely preserved even if we treat them with EQs >> see here (No. 36).

Now, how strongly one should mix these impressions of space into the music is a matter of taste. Either the customer decides or if I need to do the decision, I always do it on the monitors. I quickly hear if it is too much or too little (to my taste). With headphones I tend to mix too much space.
Adding Space (Tail) in connection with samples is a matter of taste as well of course. In any case: "Depth is more important than having a lot of tail without any depth.

If you are interested in the subject of "depth and instruments" in the context of samples, here are some links:
https://www.beat-kaufmann.com/vitutorials/about-reverbs/index.php
https://www.beat-kaufmann.com/vitutorials/creating-depths-with-breeze2/index.php
https://www.beat-kaufmann.com/mixing-an-orchestra/about-the-tutorial/mixing-videos/index.php

A lot of success
Beat


----------



## Divico (Apr 24, 2019)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> Every studio, or say, every audio engineer will, over time, develop a style of how he will record this or that type of music. Specifically, this means that probably someone else would mix in the signals of close mics more. For me it is important that the depth of the room is maintained. So percussion may be heard far away. With the "close microphones" I could theoretically bring them to the height of the front instruments. So there are no rules but rather recording styles.
> When it comes to samples, I usually try to exaggerate a bit with front and back, which usually gives a good overall transparency - even if many instruments play along.
> 
> 
> ...


Great insight. THANK YOU  Would you like to shed some light on mid mics?


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Apr 28, 2019)

Hi Divico
Mid- or far-mics ... You never know exactly when recording in "venues", what works best in the end. That's why I record the room sound from different distances. 
Although I almost always record the roomsound too, I only can use it in about 10-20% of the cases. Good sound recordings are often not as "original" as possible, because the listener has certain expectations about how certain music or instruments should sound ... So I see my task more in producing the illusion of a certain original. You know, I'm talking about classic recordings here.

Beat


----------



## beekellymusic (Oct 23, 2020)

Hi, old thread but super helpful. How do you handle fade ins / outs for close mic tracks in specific passages? are you gradual with them or more precise?


----------



## Kamil Biedrzycki (Oct 23, 2020)

beekellymusic said:


> Hi, old thread but super helpful. How do you handle fade ins / outs for close mic tracks in specific passages? are you gradual with them or more precise?


Hi, maybe I can help you  All things described by Beat Kaufmann are brilliant, when I record/mix acoustic music I use "main mic array" and "spot mics". I am big fan of time compensate because of better transients and comb filtering but as audio engineer I used to speak a lot with other engineers and some of them know nothing about it  and some don't do it. 
When you record with spot mics then it's better to leave that mics in mix which you really need. Main mics array is always in mix but spot mics I open or close very often. In live recording when you mix on fly on mixing desk it's very hard and sometimes impossible but when you mix in DAW it can be done in really precise way. I cut regions in DAW and mostly use short Fade In and longer Fade Out, it all depends on material, sometimes I cut it really precise for one note, sometimes I make longer Fade In because you can hear it like something weird when you have short fade in. It is really time consuming but in the end your material is more transparent, more punchy and of course has less noise. It's few hours job with full score and personally I love it  
Remember that "spot mics" are used to improve localization, articulation, to complete bandwith of instruments, for better balance.
There are of course other scenarios when you record using main mics array and some mics to capture some larger instruments section. Then in many cases this mics should be open all the time because they create some kind of sound in recording and when you close them you loose your spatial and balance.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Oct 23, 2020)

beekellymusic said:


> Hi, old thread but super helpful. How do you handle fade ins / outs for close mic tracks in specific passages? are you gradual with them or more precise?



To be clear, I'm talking about real sound recordings here and "close-mics" not about those that are offered in sample libraries.

A) More microphones does not mean more problems in the first place. Starting with more noise from the microphones themselves and from what they record. Microphones behind which nothing is played are always muted.

B) I determine the level of the individual microphones at a typical position for each microphone. From now on there are only two states "muted" or the previously set level. As a recording engineer, you should refrain from creating your own music. It is the conductor's responsibility to design the music.

The question now how I handle the "fade ins" and the "fade outs" is quickly answered: so that you don't hear them. Either linear, exponential, ... simply a curve that you can't really hear (as little as possible). This automation of all additional microphones can take a long time in a mix.

Beat

Addition
Now, when I publish my answer, I see that my colleague Kamil Biedrzicki takes a very similar approach. Especially his last sentences I can only support. That is true, of course. I told you that every additional microphone is an additional problem, because all microphones always hear a little bit of what they shouldn't... . Some of them hear a bit very much . These are the very unpleasant ones...


----------

