Browsing Category

Audio Gear

Audio Gear Audio Projects

A tale of two MKH 8030 mics, a native B-format array and a pipe band. Part 2: recording.

August 4, 2024
Members of the City of Norwich Pipe Band arranged in two arcs, in the rather wonderful setting of Wymondham Abbey.

Introduction

In part 1 of the blog posts on recording test sessions with the City of Norwich Pipe Band (a prelude to a CD recording, with the tests focused on establishing whether recording indoors or outdoors is preferable), I covered the rationale and detail behind the microphone choices. To recap, with the band formed in both a circle and a near circle, I decided to go with a native B-format array of two fig 8s (Sennheiser MKH 8030) and an omni (Sennheiser MKH 8020), which, in terms of the required stereo end product, gave me options of mid-side with two fig 8s (i.e. decoding to a Blumlein pair), omni mid-side, and double mid-side (the latter with any polar pattern for the mid mics). And just to cover all bases, I also elected to add a spaced pair of omni mics (Rycote OM-08s). This second blog post is concerned with the recording and the results.

Location

Recording a pipe band indoors requires a large space. In the absence of a massive purpose-built recording studio (ruled out due to cost and because this was always intended as a location recording of a non-competition pipe band), I was glad to be able to arrange for use of Wymondham Abbey (many thanks especially are due to Brian Randall, churchwarden, for his help and support). The early 12th-century nave that survived the demolition of the rest of the abbey at the Dissolution (to function thereafter as the parish church for the town) is substantial, being twice the size of Abbey Road Studio One: if a small pipe band (the recording involved some members only – we had five pipes, one tenor drum, one side (or snare) drum and a bass drum) was to overwhelm the abbey church, then indoor recording would evidently be a non-starter outside a studio or concert hall.

Arranging the band

The regular formation used by pipe bands is a circle, and I could see no reason to, say, go for a more linear concert-style arrangement for recording. On the one side, recording a band in a circle is a challenge, but, as we have seen in the previous post on mic array selection, one that is solvable. But aside from the easy benefit of intervisibility for band members, this arrangement offers an additional benefit for loud acoustic instruments such as bagpipes and drums: direct sound will predominate over reflected sound from all directions. That is certainly the case if an unbroken circle is adopted, but balancing this with the array options (which included mid-side with two fig 8s) meant that these tests comprised both a full circle and a very broken circle – i.e. two opposing arcs each just under 90 degrees. With a modest contingent of the band for the test session, for the full-circle version we had the pipers occupying a little more than half the circle, which had a radius of around 2 metres. For the two opposing arcs, the pipers were all on one side facing the three drummers on the other side, with a radius of 3 metres for both arcs. We will replicate the arrangements for the outdoor test session in due course, but, evidently, any CD recording with a larger number of band members is likely to require some tweaking of the radius to accommodate everyone. That said, the band members were far from squashed together on this initial session.

Recording

Prior to the recording test session, I dropped into one the regular practices to meet the band. They hold these in the former Regal Cinema (now part of the Wymondham & District Ex-Services Social Club), so, while not a remote glen, it is far from a small room with a low ceiling. The sound of the band, however, came bouncing back from all directions and, given the reputation of bagpipes, I was a little concerned about levels before the test session. With only one pad on one of the mics (courtesy of the single MZF 8000ii filter I have – more on that soon) I was crossing fingers that I would be OK in terms of volume: with healthy max SPLs of 139dB for the MKH 8030s and 138dB for the MKH 8020, I was happy with the Sennheisers, but the Rycote OM-08 with its max of 127dB was an order lower. And then, what about levels into the recorder? Well at least with the Sound Devices 788T I had the option of using line inputs, which can still supply 48v phantom power, if things got overly hot. Needless to say, such slightly nagging concerns were entirely unfounded: with the more distant 3 metres of the two arcs I was able to set all the mic input trim/gains at 20dB, and with the shorter 2 metre radius of the full circle, I was fine with 15dB. Perhaps more reassuring too, the reflected sound in the aisled abbey church seemed much less overwhelming than the practice rooms: or was I just acclimatising!

Set up in the south aisle with the Sound Devices 788T. No overloading of mics or recorder, and I didn’t even resort to the earplugs I brought along!

The results

With the native B-format array, the options are endlessly variable, but what follows are some short clips (around 30 seconds long) from the beginning of Scotland The Brave (my request, as familiar to many: but we did record a couple of other tunes too), covering the main options.

Another view of the band set up in two opposing arcs.

Starting off, here are clips from the recordings of the band arranged in two opposing arcs:

First, we have fig 8 mid-side with the two MKH 8030 mics, which, of course, decodes to a Blumlein pair:

The stereo imaging is good for this, but the bass drum is very light. Looking at this in an FFT frequency spectrum analyser (Voxengo SPAN), the fundamental of the drum is around 35Hz, so the lack of low end in the MKH 8030 (whilst unusually good for a fig 8) is rather exposed. With a coincident omni in the array we can add this in a variety of ways, but just to keep things straightforward here is the same clip above with the bottom end of the omni MKH 8020 mixed in (with a 100Hz low-pass filter) at -6dB.

So now moving on to the omni mid-side pair itself, which, of course, has no problem with the bottom end of the bass drum. As you would expect, the drums have swapped sides (most obviously the snare is now on the left as it was in reality) as this and the subsequent clips don’t have the flipped LR stereo of the rear side of fig 8 MS and Blumlein pairs:

Leaving the various outputs of the native B-format array for the moment to compare omni-based recordings, here is the omni AB (spaced pair) of Rycote OM-08 mics at 840mm spacing (the spacing chosen to match the stereo recording angle of the Blumlein pair, decoded from the fig 8 mid-side pair, which lay behind the two opposing arcs formation):

Next up we have double mid-side. This uses forward and backward cardioid mid mics (created by mixing the omni and forward-facing fig 8 in the native B-format array) with the two resultant cardioid mid-side arrays mixed at the same level:

This might well be fine with the full band (and the low end is certainly present, due in no small part to the fact that the cardioids are created from a mix of the forward-facing fig 8 MKH 8030 and the MKH 8020 omni, so, as my preparatory tests demonstrated, have a better bass response than the MKH 8040 cardioid), but the level of the very small drum section is a bit low. Of course, we can change independently both the polar pattern of the two mid-side arrays that make up a double mid-side array and, more relevant here, can change the relative levels between the front and the rear. So here is more of the same, but with the rearward-facing component of the double mid-side array 6dB louder than the front:

And to demonstrate this flexibility a bit further, here is the double mid-side array again, but with the rearward-facing component of the double mid-side array 12dB louder than the front:

And then in a full circle, with a tighter radius.

Moving on, here are clips from the recordings of the band arranged in a full circle. Again the clips comprise the opening part of Scotland The Brave.

As before, first off we have fig 8 mid-side with the two MKH 8030 mics:

This still lacks the bottom end of the bass drum as with the fig 8 mid-side recording of the two arcs, but I must admit that the effect of the full circle (i.e. not avoiding direct sound from the side, with the consequent phasing issues arising from the fact that such sound is picked up by the front of one capsule and the rear of the other) is much less noticeable than I thought it would be. Perhaps that’s just my ears (I have been listening to a lot of bagpipe recordings over the last few days)! Anyway, I think it might still be one to steer away from and, accordingly, I haven’t included a version of this clip with added low end from a low-pass filtered omni mic.

On then to the omni mid-side pair, which, as before, has no problem with the bottom end of the bass drum. Again note that the drums have swapped sides (most obviously the single snare is now on the left as it was in reality) as this and the subsequent clips don’t have the flipped LR stereo of the rear side of fig 8 MS and Blumlein pairs:

Here is the omni AB (spaced pair) of Rycote OM-08 mics at 460mm spacing (i.e. narrowed from the previous 840mm spacing to give the wider stereo recording angle required for the full circle: 180 degrees):

Next up we have double mid-side. This uses forward and backward cardioid mid mics (created by mixing the omni and forward-facing fig 8 in the native B-format array) with the two resultant cardioid mid-side arrays mixed at the same level:

As noted in the two opposing arcs set up, the drums in the double mid-side recording here are a bit on the quiet side, reflecting the lack of tenor and side/snare drums, although, perhaps counter intuitively, they are clearer than in the equivalent recording with the two arcs, despite the pipers spreading into the rear half of the full circle. As noted before, we can change, independently, both the polar pattern of the two mid-side arrays that make up a double mid-side array and, more relevant here, the relative levels between the front and the rear. So here is the same as before, but with the rearward-facing component of the double mid-side array 6dB louder than the front:

And to demonstrate this flexibility a bit further, here is the double mid-side array again, but with the rearward-facing component 12dB louder than the front:

High-frequency loss with vertical omni

As mentioned in part 1 of the blog post, omni mics are increasingly directional with high frequencies, which is the main reason to orient the mic vertically in the native B-format array if dealing with a sound source in a circle rather than, more typically, largely in front of the mics: that is, to ensure an even response in the horizontal plane round the full 360 degrees. But, of course, it also means that this approach reduces the high-frequency response (albeit equally) in the horizontal plane. As I said in the section on mic arrays, I didn’t expect that the high-frequency losses would be hugely significant with a pipe band: indeed, it could be useful given the nature of bagpipes and snare drums. I certainly don’t feel that results are weak in that regard, but, for the sake of completeness, here is a clip of the omni mid-side recording of the band in the full circle, with the omni mic given EQ to compensate as per Sennheiser’s polar plot for the MH 8020:

Using a plugin for processing the native B-format recording: in this case the (free) Soundfield by Rode plugin.

Processing

The native B-format array offers a lot of flexibility, which is only partly explored in the already rather numerous clips provided above. These have all been produced manually in Reaper, albeit using a mid-side plug in for the MS processing. Further tools can aid the process, be that Schoeps’s double mid-side plugin or, more usefully, plugins that can use the WXY tracks of the native B-format directly. So finally, here are the WXY clips (for both the opposing arc and the full circle set ups) for anyone who wants to play with them in an ambiosonic audio processor such as the Soundfield by Rode plugin, with which I have had fun dabbling.

The verdict?

Well this may be too early to call, given that this recording session was designed to be the first of two tests to compare indoors vs outdoors recording of the pipe band. The outdoor session will probably have to wait until September, due to holidays and a flurry of summertime engagements for the band, and then we will have to juggle the vagaries of the weather. But, even before this second test, I must confess I am much happier with recording the pipe band indoors than I was beforehand: I was very much in the ‘record a pipe band outside’ camp (indeed, perhaps the only voice in this case!). The set up in the abbey worked extremely well from my perspective: OK, the part-band was imbalanced in terms of pipes vs drums (and, indeed, imbalanced within the drum line with just one tenor and one side/snare), and there are some tweaks that I would like to make when we have a fuller drum line (e.g. bringing the tenor drums forward of the snare/side drums), but the acoustic was excellent and vastly different to the practice room.

And, beyond that, this first session has been extremely useful for assessing the different means of recording the band in a circle or in a broken circle of two arcs: I am happy with both formations although, of course, the different mic arrays performed differently in the two configurations of the band. The omni AB, or spaced pairs, worked reasonably, but lacked clarity on the snare drum so would require extremely careful placement of band members to get the (baked-in) balance right, if possible: in the context of a loud pipe band with members understandably not used to protracted setting up for recording and the lack of really good (and isolated) monitoring on location, I would be loathe to go down this route. This isn’t unexpected, as I included the spaced omnis as something of a control in this test. The native B-format array was a great success in giving so many options from a three mic set-up, and producing what I think is the better sound. Using the two fig 8 MKH 8030s alone, as a fig 8 mid-side pair, underplayed the low frequencies of the bass drum, understandably, but, as we have seen (or, rather, heard), this can be supplemented by a bit of bass from the omni MKH 8020 mic. Again using just two mics, the omni mid-side (MKH 8020 and MKH 8030) pair gave a good result in both the opposing arcs and full circle arrangements. The (virtual) double mid-side array from the three mics, however, is my preference: while sharing the ability to vary the levels of front and rear with a conventional double mid-side array (say made with two cardioids and a fig 8), the fact that in this case it was derived from the native B-format array gives it additional advantages. First, it keeps the low end intact (by virtue of the increased low-frequency response of the two virtual cardioids made by combining the MKH 8020 and forward-facing MKH 8030). And, second, it has complete flexibility in post in terms of the polar patterns of the mid mics. Playing around with all this is certainly easier in something such as the Soundfield by Rode or Harpex-X plugins, and they make steering the mic arrays (not that useful in this instance) easier too. In short, I’m really impressed by the MKH 8030 and MKH 8020 native B-format array for recording musicians in a circle: I suggest that it is worth giving something similar a go if you have a comparable challenge and suitable mics to hand.

Audio Gear Audio Projects

A tale of two MKH 8030 mics, a native B-format array and a pipe band. Part 1: the mic arrays.

August 4, 2024
Some of the members of the City of Norwich Pipe Band at Wymondham Abbey for the recording test.

Introduction

A happy coincidence of an interesting recording project and the arrival, a few weeks ago, of a second MKH 8030 fig 8 mic from the folks at Sennheiser set me thinking. The recording was to be of the City of Norwich Pipe Band: that is bagpipes and drums (side/snare, tenor and bass). Pipe bands often play in a circle, so they can all see each other, and for this recording the plan was to maintain that approach in broad terms. The circular formation, with the band members’ backs to any audience has given the BBC’s sound engineers a challenge when recording the world pipe band championships outdoors in Scotland each year. At that event they are obliged to record outside the circle formed by the band (who, to make things yet more complicated for recording, march forward while playing before forming the circle), making the best of a difficult situation. For this recording, which was not in the context of a competition or, indeed, a public performance, I had the advantages of a static pipe band, being able to place mics inside the circle, and, also, being able to tweak that circle idea a little bit.

Both the recording of a pipe band and the recording a group of musicians in a circle, or near circle, are challenges, and in this case extra complexity was introduced since the overarching aim was to do two test sessions, one inside and one outside, as a prelude to possible recording of a CD (opinions generally are a little split on whether a pipe band should be heard/recorded indoors or, in its more natural habitat, outdoors). Rather than one overly long write up, I am breaking this down into separate blog posts: this first one explores the mic arrays used, and the second discusses the recordings from the indoor test (and includes samples of them).

Options for recording musicians in a circle

There are various ways to tackle recordings of a circle of musicians, with the end results ranging from mono to surround sound: in this case we were after stereo. Obvious options for such recordings would be a Blumlein pair or mid-side with two fig 8s; omni mid-side; double mid-side; and a spaced pair of omni mics. The last three options would work with a full circle (though omni mid-side suggests flattening the circle a little front and back, due to less sensitivity of the back-to-back cardioid pattern of the resultant, decoded, LR stereo pair). And the Blumlein pair or mid-side with two fig 8s options suggest modifying the circle to form two opposing arcs, say of 70-90 degrees each, avoiding any direct sound from the musicians in the more difficult (i.e, phasey) side quadrants. Choosing from these options is not easy as there are pros and cons. Blumlein or mid-side with two fig 8s (which mathematically decodes to Blumlein, but which inevitably sounds a little different) offer the prospect of excellent stereo imaging, albeit with the reversal of the rear side (not an issue in this or, indeed, many situations); omni mid-side and spaced omnis offer the prospect of a better low end (relevant here to the bass drum); and double mid-side offers the scope of having different mid-mic polar patterns front and rear and, more significantly, the option of changing respective levels in post (useful for tweaking the balance of the drums and the pipes on either side of the circle). Well, given that this was to be a test recording, the obvious solution was to do all of these options simultaneously. This didn’t require a proliferation of mics vying to be in the same place at the same time, but, rather, a simple set up of three mics in a pantophonic (i.e. horizontal, or 2D) native B-format (WXY) array for all the coincident mic options, flanked by a pair of omni mics to cover the spaced-pair option. So five mics in total.

Spaced pair

The spaced pair of omnis option hardly needs much explanation, as it will be familiar to most, if not all, readers: the key points here being aiming the mics upwards to get an even sound in all horizontal directions (omni polar patterns being increasingly directional at higher frequencies), deciding on setting the height (with no musicians behind others and wanting to get a balance between upwards projecting drones at the rear of the pipers and downwards pointing chanters at their fronts, and to avoid over dominance of the snare drums (or, in the first test, single snare drum), I settled on 1500mm), and choosing a spacing. For the latter, with the full circle I wanted a stereo recording angle (SRA) of 180 degrees, so that meant a spacing of 510mm or less: I went for 460mm. For the two arcs, however, it made sense to narrow the SRA to match a Blumlein pair (i.e. 76 degrees) so that meant a spacing of 840mm. And for the mics, not having two more MKH 8020s, I settled on a pair of Rycote OM-08 mics.

Omni spaced pair at 460mm (for the full circle recording) flanking a native B-format array.

Coincident arrays: Blumlein, mid-side, double mid-side, and native B-format

The native B-format set up is likely to be less than familiar to many readers. B-format components (W, X, Y and Z) can be derived from the A-format outputs of the tetrahedral (or, indeed, octahedral) arrangements of ambisonic mics, such as the Soundfield. With ambisonic mics, the W, X and Y components (we can dispense with the Z or height component here as irrelevant to our stereo end product) are derived from combining the different capsules, creating three virtual mics – forwards and sideways facing fig 8s (X and Y respectively) and an omni (W). A native B-format set up, needless to say, just uses two real fig 8 mics and a real omni mic. The combination of mics allows all of the planned coincident arrangements to be achieved and, indeed, allows the array to be steered: perhaps not that relevant in this case, though this could be handy for some circular set ups. The native-B array, which today can be found in single mics such as the Josephson C700s (for a cool £7,600), was pioneered by Dr John Halliday at Nimbus Records and is often referred to as the Nimbus-Halliday array: the two fig 8s (vertical and end-to-end) are separated by a forward-pointing omni mic. Such an arrangement wasn’t ideal for the purposes of this test: first off, in the Nimbus-Halliday array the omni is facing forwards, so the sound will be different from the rear; and, second, the mics aren’t as coincident as they could be (thinking here of comb filtering that will concern the purists) for some of the two-mic options first envisaged for this pipe band recording. For example, the two fig 8s, if used for mid-side, are separated by the omni mic, which would result in 54mm centre-to-centre spacing with two MKH 8030s: better than 68mm with a pair of MKH 30 fig 8s, but far from ideal. Taking suggestions by Daniel Courville and Paul Hodges of swapping the omni with one of the fig 8s (to remove the directionality of the omni mic at high frequencies) helps, but this can be much improved by rotating the whole array by ninety degrees, which swaps the orientation of the two fig 8s. This then gives a spacing of the omni and forward-facing fig 8 of 16mm centre-to-centre: very effective when combining these two mics to make a cardioid or, in different proportions, any other polar pattern for the mid mics in double mid-side. And the two fig 8s (thinking of mid-side with two fig 8s) become set at 27mm centres (half what they would be in the Nimbus-Halliday array if using the same mics); and, finally, the two most distant mics, the omni and side fig 8 (for omni mid-side) are at 43mm centres. Turning the omni vertical evidently reduces the high-frequency response in the horizontal plane a little, but, if required, a little high-frequency lift could be added. I didn’t anticipate this being much of an issue with bagpipes and snare drums: a little reduction in such frequencies could well prove useful. In terms of elevation of the array, this followed the height and rationale of the spaced pair.

Spot the difference! Left: the conventional, or Nimbus-Halliday, native B-format (or native 2D first-order ambisonic) array, which, top to bottom, comprises Y, W and X. Right: the revised version that I used, which, top to bottom, comprises Y, X and W. I used some thinner cables in the final version, not least as it made aligning easier when using shockmounts.

Taking the array outside: wind protection

With the pipe band test sessions being planned to determine whether any full recording session(s) for a CD should be recorded indoors or outdoors, the native B-format array needed to fit in a windshield. Inspired by ex-BBC sound recordist Roger Long’s experiment with a version of the Nimbus-Halliday array with the three mics (two MKH 30 and one MKH 20) all set vertically in a single suspension (the fig 8s side-by-side, and the omni in front), it is easy to rig the smaller MKH 8000 series mics in such a way as they fit into a normal blimp, which I duly tested (see photo below).

A very compact option for the native B-format array, fitting inside a standard windshield (in this case, a Rode blimp mk 1). I’d have been happy enough using it as shadowing effects and, indeed, any comb filtering arising from the non-coincidence on the horizontal plane are much exaggerated by the theoreticians that plague recording forums, but, given that I could fit the larger and nearer to ideal array into my DIY blimp, I decided against it for this project: but one to test more in the future perhaps as it is certainly much easier to manage in the field.

But given that use of the array in that set up means that the mics are not so well aligned in the horizontal plane, and that some will argue that acoustic shadowing results (always more theoretical than real), I thought it was just simpler and more consistent to use the same larger and more ideal array indoors and outdoors, taking advantage of my massive DIY blimp, originally built for LDC mics. A couple of welded additions by my ever-helpful friend Rob Moore, who built the original blimp basket, meant that the blimp was ready for my native B-format array.

And here’s the larger native B-format array inside my massive DIY blimp, originally built to accommodate an LDC mid-side pair for those occasions when extremely low self-noise is required: a few minor adaptations needed (thank goodness for its adaptable stainless steel construction).

Now by this point some readers may be wondering why I didn’t simply use an ambisonic mic. Well, other than not owning one and wanting to achieve a flexible approach with the excellent mics I am fortunate enough to own already, the key point is that the recording was not for surround purposes, but chiefly to determine the best approach for subsequent recording of a CD that is quite likely to involve a simpler approach. And, like many others, I have yet to be persuaded that the cheaper capsules in at least the more affordable ambisonic mics are in the same league as those of the MKH 8000 series mics. My biggest fear about the native B-format array was that the combination of mics – especially the combining of the omni and fig 8 – would fall well short of other MKH 8000 mics designed with a particular polar pattern. So at the planning stage I tested this by rigging an MKH 8020 omni and MKH 8030 fig 8 alongside an MKH 8040 cardioid, to compare virtual cardioid and actual cardioid mics. The consistency was remarkable, with the only audible difference to my ears being the slightly increased bass component of the virtual cardioid (not surprising: the MKH 8040 is no slouch in terms of bass, but it still lacks the bottom end of a pure pressure omni). So, happy with this key test, and with a workable native B-format rig, it was time to record: see part 2 of this blog post, for the first (i.e. indoor) recording session and results.

Top to bottom: MKH 8040 cardioid, MKH 8030 fig 8, and MKH 8020 omni. A simple test rig to compare the sound of the omni + fig 8 (mixed at 50:50 creating a cardioid) vs a purpose-built cardioid. This sort of virtual polar pattern creation is at the heart of the rig I was proposing, so thought a simple direct mono comparison like this a useful reality check before committing myself to recording with the native B-format array. The actual and virtual cardioids sound remarkably similar, although the additional bass response of the omni means that this is evident in the virtual cardioid: a high-pass filter could always reduce it if needed, but with the bass drum of the pipe band I thought this would be useful (as, indeed, proved the case). Changing the proportions of fig 8 and omni in the virtual mic means all polar patterns between fig 8 and omni can be created.
Audio Gear

A Few Thoughts on Field Recorders

July 15, 2024
Top to bottom: Sound Devices MixPre-3, Zoom F8n and Sound Devices 788T.

Introduction

As a bit of a change from microphones and windshields, I thought there might be a little value in some ramblings on the three recorders I use currently: not so much a review or test of any of them – none of them are new or even current products – but, rather, covering what I see as their different good (and bad) points and their uses to me. That is, for a mix of location music recording (mostly acoustic), sound effects, ambiences, and some dialogue recording for films (for YouTube). With luck this might be of interest to one or two others pondering these recorders or, indeed, their updated versions (for which many of the points remain pertinent): and on the latter, I’ll also cover why I haven’t yet found compelling reasons to buy the updated versions.

Perhaps first I should talk about sound quality. Much has been said and written about the different preamps (and, though less often discussed, ADCs) in the Sound Devices 788T vs the MixPre-series vs the Zoom F8/F8n/F8n Pro, mostly, but not always, placing them in that pecking order from top to bottom. Doubtless there is prejudice involved in some cases, but I am not going to quibble with highly experienced sound engineers with more finely-tuned hearing or, at least, listening skills: indeed, I would agree with them that the 788T has the edge, with little to choose between the MixPre-3 and the Zoom F8n. There are – I would hope – a lot of comparative recordings out there, but just to add to them, for a bit of fun I took the three recorders out with me this morning when taking advantage of a dry and fairly windless day (all too rare this summer in England) to have another go at a passing steam train recording for the current sound library project. It wasn’t a perfect recording (aeroplane noise yet again preventing a long intro from the train a mile or so off), but it will do for our purposes. The mics used were an MS pair (Sennheiser MKH 8040 and MKH 8030).

Set for recording a passing train with the three recorders: yes, I know a passive splitter may not be ideal, but there is no perfect way for such comparisons. The MixPre-3 was on the parallel (straight through) outputs of the Palmer PMS-02, and the F8n and the 788T were on the two transformer-isolated pairs of outputs.
Here’s what came past, working hard up the incline as it entered the cutting.

Make what you will of this field-recording example (and if really keen, download and do a randomized comparison, preferably listening to very short sections on repeat: I found the sections with the carriages passing, after the loudness of the loco, most revealing), what is indisputable is that there are differences, but they are subtle (for many) and for much use pale into insignificance compared to mic choices and mic placement.

A tiny three-channel (OK, now five-channel) recorder: the Sound Devices MixPre-3

The MixPre-3 was introduced back in spring 2017, along with its larger siblings – the MixPre-6 and the Mixpre-10. In 2018 the MixPre-3M, MixPre-6M and MixPre-10M were introduced: these were different versions of the recorders designed for music recording only, with such features as overdubbing, track laying, punch in/out, bounce, reverb and metronome. All these features were then made available to the original MixPre-series recorders via purchase of a plugin. In 2019 the MixPre-series ii recorders replaced the original models, with the main changes being the addition of 32-bit float recording to the series, internal timecode generation added to the smaller recorders (the MixPre-10T had it from the outset), and the addition of 192kHz recording to the MixPre-3 (its larger siblings already had it in the first series). The M series disappeared, with the Musician plugin continuing to be available as it is today.

I got my order in early and received my MixPre-3 in May 2017, so went through all the flurry of firmware updates that followed initial launch (indeed, reported on some required bug fixes and requested additional capabilities): the most useful refinement to firmware was, perhaps, in relation to mid-side recording, where decoding could be applied to the MS signal going to the LR mix only. Seven years on, I remain impressed by the recorder: aside from excellent sound quality and flexible set up, the key values for me are its diminutive size (less evident with its larger siblings), three P48 channels (so much handier than just two: think double mid- side, a stereo pair plus shotgun etc.), which can now (since 2023 with the +2 plugin) be used at the same time as its USB or aux inputs (think lav mics) to give five channels, and very straightforward operation. If the channel count has me covered, then this is the recorder I will take into the field when needing to travel light and compact for nature, ambience, effects and simple music recording. And with the unique (for a field recorder) ability of the MixPre-series to do overdubbing (recording up to 12 tracks: yes, even on the little MixPre-3 model), then this is the only recorder I have that will allow building up of a song on location sans laptop, musician by musician (think Playing for Change). By way of an example, back in the summer of 2018 I put the MixPre-3 with the new plugin to early use:

So why didn’t I replace the MixPre-3 with the later version, or, indeed, a larger version? Well, the latter is easy to answer: a larger version would lose the size advantage. That isn’t just the recorder, but also its power supply: the MixPre-3 can run three P48 mics for around 2.5hrs on rechargeable Eneloop Pro AAs, so, for my purposes, there’s no need for clunky external batteries (the battery sled allows changeover to spare sets of AAs in seconds). And the MixPre-3ii hasn’t attracted me by its virtue of its timecode generator (not something I use) or 32-bit float recording: even recording sound effects (such as the steam train recordings above) doesn’t give me level setting issues. Doubtless some find 32-bit float handy (e.g. for drop rigs for nature field recording, or for inexperienced recordists), but, personally, I see it as a solution to a problem I don’t have. To each their own. Now there are some aspects of the MixPre-3 that I wouldn’t mind seeing improved: on the hardware design side, surely the three XLR inputs could have been moved to the one side, in so doing improving the position and form of the fiddly on-off switch; and on the software side, it would be useful if the gain/trim could be adjusted more finely than whole dBs, if the front knobs could be used for the 76dB of input gain/trim rather than as faders (or, in basic/custom mode, as combined gain/trim and faders), and if individual MS channels could have gain/trim adjusted despite being linked to allow for different sensitivity of mics. Minor quibbles, all of these.

Eight-channel recording: the Zoom F8n and the Sound Devices 788T

For larger counts than three P48 channels I used to use a mixing desk with ISO outputs to a laptop, but I really don’t like being dependent on a PC when tracking and, of course, this doesn’t lend itself so well to field recording. Looking for a field recorder with more channels, and having prior experience of the MixPre-3, means that the MixPre-10 was a serious contender. But a combination of factors – not least the massive jump in prices of these in the UK – made me consider the alternative of the Zoom F8n. By then (autumn 2022) the 32-bit Zoom F8n Pro had just been launched, so prices were very keen for the older model and, evidently, I wasn’t bothered by the 32-bit update. The form is more conventional, perhaps, than the MixPre-series, which is good for bag use (no trim/gain knob on the side), and the user interface and menus are all straightforward: the knobs and buttons are very small, but so are my hands, with the fiddliest being the on-off button again. I was pleasantly surprised by the sound quality, and don’t feel I am dropping down in that regard in any significant manner when upping the channel count has seen me use the F8n instead of the MixPre-3. An increase in channels has meant that rechargeable AAs are no longer feasible (and the eight of them are clunky to change compared to the four in the MixPre-3), so they are just there for back up: I power the recorder via its hirose socket with a L-mount battery (and Smallrig 3018 battery adapter plate). The two-card recording is a step up from the MixPre-3, providing redundancy, and the physical build quality is OK: excellent top and bottom aluminium plates, not quite matched by the front panel – a slight wobbliness to the fader knobs just doesn’t give reassurance of longevity. But solid enough for bag use. There are some great functions built in (e.g. holding down two channel buttons to link and unlink mic pairs), but I was disappointed that choosing the trim mode for the front knobs means that you lose use of a decent screen showing metering of individual tracks: so I am stuck with using those knobs as faders (when not really concerned about the LR mix). Amongst other limitations are the lack of word clock as, more latterly, I would like to be able to link recorders for higher channel counts (there is a lot disinformation out there, but, after pursuing this thoroughly, not least with Zoom, the F8/F8n/F8n Pro lacks the ability to provide the clocking for a slave unit and get sample-accurate sync); a lack of routing options, which include the inability to decode an MS linked pair to the LR mix whilst recording the M and S to the ISO tracks, and, of course, a lack of outputs; and some operational details such as back-lit buttons (you try operating the Zoom F8n in near darkness and see what I mean!). Additionally, the limiters aren’t perfect (they noticeably inject hiss).

A side on view of the three recorders: take away the XLR inputs on the two top recorders, and the gulf between them and the 788T becomes more obvious.

The subsequent F8n Pro addresses the limiter issue, but finding a recorder that doesn’t have the other limitations is not easy: other than the MixPre-10Tii (around £2000), which has word clock but doesn’t fix most of the other shortcomings, the current field recorder options are a huge step up in terms of cost: e.g. the Sound Devices 888 (8 channels of P48 preamps) at £9600, the Sound Devices Scorpio (16 channels of P48 preamps) at £12000, or the Sonosax SX-R4+ with the AD8+ preamp (giving 12 channels of P48 preamps) at £10000. And, also, these machines offer functionality beyond my modest needs, such as Dante. While happy with my MixPre-3, I remained unconvinced by the MixPre-10Tii and found myself increasingly hankering after the Sound Devices 788T. Introduced in 2008 (and discontinued in 2019), this was the precursor to the current 888, and retailed for around £7,300 (updated for inflation). The 788T features word clock, AES inputs, as much flexibility in routing as you could imagine, more outputs than the F8n, trim/gain control knobs, dual recording (triple if you like Firewire today!), illuminated buttons etc. and is built like a tank. After looking at the market for some time, I snaffled a beautifully cared for example from an LA sound mixer for about £1400 (inc. VAT and delivery), so that my most recently added recorder is also the oldest. Soundwise there is, as I said at the start of this post, not a lot in it: but at least I know I’m not shooting myself in the foot or under-serving the mics that I have. Functionality wise, there were a few surprises I somehow missed: the fast headphone routing selection, and not least of all, the fact that the main screen turns red when recording (and green when playing back) – an elegant way of reducing the cock-up factor. There’s an element of the 788T that appeals because of its amazing yet slightly old-school engineering (the sort of thing that means I might be tempted to buy a Nagra IV-S at a weak moment, if – unlikely – having surplus cash sloshing around!), but at the same time it stands up to the more modern MixPre-series and Zoom F8n/F8n Pro and has professional features and build-quality that are well above them. OK there’s a risk of failure with older electronic gear, but they remain repairable, and I’m not earning a crust recording production sound for Hollywood films.

The three recorders in record mode: you’ve just got to love that the 788T LCD screen turns red (and green for playback), and it alone has back-lit buttons to aid control in the dark. Add in the wonderful old-school Sound Devices LED level meters and the coloured-rings round the trim controls (something that the MixPre-series recorders use too), and you’ve got a lot of visual feedback on recording status and levels.

Conclusions

So where does this leave me? Above all, reassured that none of my recorders lack much in terms of sound quality: the 788T has a fantastic reputation in this regard and even I can hear this difference, and the other two are close enough for most purposes. And for use, well that’s the MixPre-3 for field recording with minimalist kit, such as for sound effects, or for anything that requires overdubbing; the 788T for music recording where I need a larger channel count; and the F8n where I need a larger channel count in the field, yet want a lighter recorder than the 788T, and also as a back-up to the 788T. Any of the three work fine for dialogue: usually I go with the MixPre-3 as my needs in that area are simple, so lightness wins out. Longer-term, a second 788T would give me 16 channels for ambitious projects, if needed: that could be borrowed or hired for those occasions if I don’t stumble across a real bargain over the years. If I do pick up a second 788T, doubtless the F8n will go: the weight advantage for high mic-count field recording is rather moot since, inevitably, that involves more mics, stands, cables and windshields (i.e. a whole lot of other gubbins). We all have different recording needs, but, just possibly, some of this may chime with somebody and give them food for thought.

Audio Gear

Field recording with a Blumlein pair of Rycote BD-10s

June 26, 2024
Rigging two fig 8s end-to-end for Blumlein or mid-side field recording in a Rycote Modular WS4.

With a pair of the final production versions of the BD-10s in hand, I thought it was high time that I followed up my earlier studio tests of the mics in a Blumlein pair with some field recordings. It’s not often you come across Blumlein pairs (or, indeed, mid-side pairs with two fig 8s) used for anything but music recording. I suspect this has to do with two different things: first, field recordists rarely have multiple fig 8s, perhaps only having one for mid-side recording; and, second, I wonder whether there is a bit of concern about the inversion of the rear ‘image’ of the mics. What might be a boon in the studio – arranging a group of musicians in an arc in front of the mic and doing likewise with a facing group to the rear, so that all combine beautifully into stereo with the rear musicians naturally flipped the right way round (listen to John Cuniberti’s wonderful OneMic recordings if this seems alien to you: and you can read about my Cuniberti-inspired recording of the Lucy Grubb band in an earlier post) – might seem problematic outside, where things usually can’t be controlled so well. What will happen if that bird sings from the front right instead of the rear left?! And what about those grey areas to the sides of the pair, where imaging transitions from the ‘correct’ to the ‘wrong’ way round: won’t the world in those areas come crashing down into a phasey mess? In a recording world where much about Blumlein and mid-side with two fig 8s puzzles beginners (and many who should know better), it is easy to see why the techniques see little use outside.

Just to kick things off for those not familiar with how Blumlein and mid-side with two fig 8s (which decodes to Blumlein) reverse L and R to the rear of the mic, here are two simple recordings (made indoors) in which I walk round the mic pair at the same distance, calling out the degrees as I do so. First up is a recording with a pair of BD-10s, in this case set up as an MS pair to allow simultaneous recording of a comparison with omni mid-side:

At face value the recording might appear to show that there is real reason to avoid using pairs of fig 8s: certainly, for example, a Blumlein pair (or mid-side with two fig 8s) wouldn’t suit recording a group of singers forming an unbroken circle around a pair of mics (which is essentially what this test did, albeit sequentially and, thankfully, without my singing involved!), although, nonetheless, some do this. But what single stereo pair of mics (as opposed to a surround set up) would work best for such a scenario? MS with an omni mid would seem obvious, although, of course, there would be no distinction between, say, 45 degrees and 135 degrees, and the equivalent this produces with a 50:50 ratio (i.e. equivalent to back-to-back cardioids) means that sensitivity of the pair isn’t constant around the 360 degrees. You can hear this in my second demonstration, recorded at the same time as the above test, but using omni mid side with a Rycote OM-08 as the front mic and a BD-10 as the side mic:

But what do most field recordings have to do with direct sound coming to a mic pair at equal amplitude from 360 degrees? Many, if not most, field recordings will involve sounds that are louder in one direction, or across an arc: a car or train passing, the main animal of interest in the foreground, a clearly localized person undertaking some activity. The full 360 degrees might be wanted for ambience, but whether a background bird rear left is heard front right in the stereo field rather than front left is likely to be immaterial: and, in the absence of surround sound, is mislocated anyway. Likewise, if the main focus of the recording is within the main arc of the Blumlein pair (say 70 degrees) then any ambiguity – and any phasiness – to the sides is of little significance. And what makes such care worth it for a Blumlein pair in the field? Well, the answer is twofold: first, Blumlein (or an MS fig 8 pair decoded to Blumlein) gives a uniquely accurate stereo image across those front and rear arcs; and, second, it does this while still recording sound from 360 degrees. In short, it’s another tool for the job: not suited in many cases, but useful to be able to deploy when the occasion arises, even outside.

Two BD-10s side-by-side in a stereo Cyclone: those markings are still useful for orientation even when not in an end-to-end configuration: at this point I hadn’t reversed the lyres or removed the rods.

Before even thinking of using a pair of fig 8s outside, the first thing is to house them in decent wind protection. This is a pretty simple matter with small SDC fig 8s like the BD10s, which can easily fit end-to-end in a fairly standard windshield: in this case a Rycote Modular Windshield WS4. This doesn’t have stereo cabling, of course, so you end up routing the second cable along the basket and have to squeeze it out of the cable exit by the end cap. Neither are major issues, but admittedly aren’t perfect. But as ex-BBC mid-side and Blumlein expert sound engineer Roger Long has long advised, it’s so easy to get bogged down in theory: practical experience – with ears with that have more finesse than mine – shows that the shadowing effect of placing two fig 8s side-by-side is essentially undetectable. This opens up scope for using more conventional mid-side rigs, and just using them vertically. The best fit windshield that Rycote make for their SDC mics is the Cyclone Stereo Kit 5, so that’s what I have used for the side-by-side Blumlein rig too: I made a couple of minor adjustments, rotating the lyres to remove a clunky bit of plastic away from the side-address capsules and also removing the metal rods that spanned between the lyres (and were redundant) so that I could then move the lyres closer together.

And here with one half of the basket attached, showing the lyres reversed and the rods removed, which is helpful for the BD-10s and essential for the shorter Rycote SDC mics (OM-08, CA-08 and SC-08).

With a couple of rigging options for outdoors sorted, let’s get on to some recordings. First up, here is one of my now all too familiar front garden recordings, with birdsong, my footsteps, cars driving past (crossing right to left), and a neighbour doing a bit of DIY.

Getting out of the garden, and picking up on the idea of testing a wide passing noise, here is a test on a track of a horse walking past. I was to one side of the track aiming the Blumlein pair (rigged side-to-side) across it, with the horse approaching from the right and walking past. The sound changes as the horse comes up to me for the simple reason that he veered onto the grassy verge to keep as far away from me as possible (who can blame him, seeing a bloke with headphones and a stand with a dead cat on it?!), but I think the recording still works and demonstrates that even from an angle of almost 90 degrees, passing through 0/360 degrees and ending at just over 270 degrees, the sound moves clearly across the stereo field.

Blumlein recording in the field (or a field!): the horse that whinnies in the recording below isn’t the miniature Shetland seen through the gate, but out of view, at over ninety degrees to the right.

In this next sample recording I set up in front of a field gate (see photo above), and you can hear me open and close the gate and then a horse whinnies in the distance. The horse was located slight to the rear of hard right so, due to the reversal of the rear of the Blumlein pair, appears to come from the front left.

Blumlein recording under an oak tree.

This next recording is a quiet ambience of surprisingly subdued birdsong, along – as gain was cranked up, with the distant sound of traffic, recorded under an oak tree in a fragment of ancient woodland.

Ok, so nothing stunningly conclusive here, but, I hope, food for thought. The attractions of Blumlein (and mid-side with two fig 8s) recordings for music are well known – at least among those making recordings of acoustic music in decent sounding spaces – but the approach can work equally well outdoors, even for 360-degree ambiences. Given that a pair of SDC fig 8s is not hard to rig in a windshield, either end-to-end, side by side, or fore and aft, it is easy enough to try if you have – or can get hold of – a pair of fig 8s such as the BD-10s. And, for my part, I have an upcoming recording session that combines acoustic music and the great outdoors – recording a pipe band – so will be including a Blumlein pair in tests for that: more anon.

Audio Gear

Rycote BD-10: the final production version

June 26, 2024
The final production version of the BD-10 with its laser-etched alignment markings on the end.

Back when I was testing the Rycote BD-10 production version fig 8 mics with a Blumlein recording of Lucy Grubb’s band, my ageing eyes struggled rather with aligning the two black mics end-to-end at ninety degrees: what should have taken a couple of seconds seemed to take an age in subtle studio lighting. The fairly standard dot indicating the front lobe of the BD-10 is great for orienting the mic for mid-side recording, but I began to think how a few more discreet markings on the end of the mic body would help hugely with Blumlein or, indeed, mid-side with a pair of fig 8s. I sent off a quick Photoshop mock-up to the folks at Rycote and, a little to my surprise, they have run with the idea, laser-etching the four markings as shown in the photo above. I was so chuffed when a pair of the updated mics winged their way from Wilsonville, Oregon (where the Rycote mics are now made in the Audix factory) to rural Norfolk here in the UK. But I should say sorry, though, to those of you who had to wait a little longer for the BD-10 to start shipping as a result! A tiny detail, and a short post, but I hope others find the markings useful too.

Using the markings to rig a pair of BD-10s end-to-end.

NB see this post for my original review and tests of the BD-10