Drum Phase

[Nick Sevilla]

Take an omnidirectional mic and put it 3" off the snare, then take another perfectly matched mic and place it 9" away. Run them through matched pres set to exactly the same settings and bring them into two channels on a mixer. Run the fader for each channel up to the same mark and listen. You'll (theoretically) have no noticeable phase cancellation.

"SANITIZED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE."

Cheers

[ashcat_lt]

Take an omnidirectional mic and put it 3" off the snare, then take another perfectly matched mic and place it 9" away. Run them through matched pres set to exactly the same settings and bring them into two channels on a mixer. Run the fader for each channel up to the same mark and listen. You'll (theoretically) have no noticeable phase cancellation.

True, but only for frequencies that are approximately the correct length to not cancel at that particular distance.

All others will have increasing comb filtering effect.

That's why it is always best to listen... not just measure.

Oh, and btw, this example uses exactly the sort of stuff you say is not relevant... ie distances.

Cheers.


Ninja out... haaaaaaaaayyyAAAAAA!!!!!

Read it again. This example uses distance to affect the difference in level necessary to make the phase cancellation negligible. The comb won't be deep enough to be heard and it has nothing to do with frequency.

I could have sworn I said exactly the same thing you did, only in a slightly less prickish manner, and with a little more practical illustration. If you've got some special secret, though...

[Nick Sevilla]

If you've got some special secret, though...

"SANITIZED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE."

Cheers

[losthighway]

So, on a theoretical level it appears I was dead wrong on the 3:1 level. All it means is that you have the simple task of making sure the snare signal is a third of the volume in comparison to the snare mic in the case of both overheads and any tom mics, or room mics you might be using. And for that matter your room mics have to be a third of the volume of the overhead mics. This also needs to be true concerning the relationship between your tom mics and the overheads. Clearly a useful approach to recording musical performances. Simple clean science right?

BTW, how many of you keep an oscilloscope between your speakers?

Back in the real world, your room mics can potentially have no destructive phase relationship with your close mics because the delay of the signal is so long.

I don't mean to be smarmy, but perhaps we can chalk this up to a difference between rationalism and empiricism.... or perhaps theoretical vs. pragmatic.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

Back in the real world, your room mics can potentially have no destructive phase relationship with your close mics because the delay of the signal is so long.

i generally find that flipping the phase on the room mics makes a huge difference. one way sounds 'normal', the other way the subs on the kick go nuts and the low mid gets scooped out. i usually go with 'normal'.

but that's for mics ~6 ft in front. for really far mics i think it makes less of a difference, cause in a mix those are usually pretty low in level compared to the close mics.

[Nick Sevilla]

"SANITIZED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE."

Cheers

[ashcat_lt]

So, on a theoretical level it appears I was dead wrong on the 3:1 level. All it means is that you have the simple task of making sure the snare signal is a third of the volume in comparison to the snare mic in the case of both overheads and any tom mics, or room mics you might be using. And for that matter your room mics have to be a third of the volume of the overhead mics. This also needs to be true concerning the relationship between your tom mics and the overheads. Clearly a useful approach to recording musical performances. Simple clean science right?

Yeah, or vice versa to all of that. One of the signals needs to be louder enough. And we're talking about the direct level, not the ambience. If you're using your room mic for nothing but reverb, you're generally going to be okay. Keep in mind, too, that compression can change these relative levels as well.

Back in the real world, your room mics can potentially have no destructive phase relationship with your close mics because the delay of the signal is so long.

In a big room, this is true.

I don't mean to be smarmy, but perhaps we can chalk this up to a difference between rationalism and empiricism.... or perhaps theoretical vs. pragmatic.

Understanding the 3:1 Rule isn't likely to win you any Grammys all by itself. All the book learning in the world is only a starting point. It's still going to come down to listening and moving mics until everything actually sounds good in context.

[ashcat_lt]

And now....

More Tongue Biting...

As you all were.

If you've got something to say, why not just say it? Perhaps you could enlighten some of these poor souls, spread the knowledge, and make the audio world a better place!

This "Tongue Biting" is really just artificially extending thread, and annoying the piss out of me. We get it! You're sooooo much smarter than the rest of us and we're all just wallowing in the muck of ignorance while you stand by gloating.

[losthighway]

I guess my smarmy sarcasm served no purpose. What I mean to say is:

A single snare drum hit is a loud distinct event that has a pronounced transient. It is has a net effect on every mic involved in the drum mic setup. While I absolutely acknowledge the concept that the more mics involved in the setup the more opportunity there is for nasty phase issues (mo' mics, mo' problems), I also think based on the role overhead mics have in so many great snare sounds a strict adherence to the 3:1 rule is comically impossible.

This is not a big concession for me when I do drum sessions, because the 3:1 rule is a concept that someone might use to avoid problems. I listen, and usually find there aren't problems anyways. I can flip phase around to see what's happening there, or maybe move a mic if something sounds wrong. That's not a theory, it's what's actually going on in my setup.

I also acknowledge knowing the theory is not a danger to anyone, and you are not promoting some kind of orthodox attitude towards it. If it's helpful for people to learn the art than 3:1 it up! It just doesn't really fit well with how I see the process of recording a drum performance, or a guitar (I make sure multiple mics are phase aligned). Clearly many people have found it handy and that's why we're still talking about it.

[Nick Sevilla]

"SANITIZED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE."

Cheers

"SANITIZED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE."

Cheers

[@?,*???&?]

nice pic.

I knew this would open up a can of worms. Thanks for all the replies, i think. Okay voodoo masters, I'll give, what the fuck is 3:1?

To clarify: I am recording myself drumming, so can't do the listen while recording trick. I totally understand the math and logic of phase - have done this shit countless times, but what I'm after here is preventing the phase prob before mixing.
I've got a project starting soon & am going to try out several different combined micing tricks (mccarthy's Spoon snare trick, etc...), all of which mean adding extra mics that I don't normally use.

3:1 rule was born eons ago.

It has to do with LEVELS. There will be here some who don't have a clue, and say it has to do with where the microphone is. This is the furthest thing from the 3:1 rule ever imaginable.

This is the rule, paraphrasing here so don't shoot me...

Your DIRECT SOUND SOURCE MUST BE 3 TIMES LOUDER THAN YOUR INDIRECT SOUND SOURCE.

In plain simple terms, the thing you are trying to record should be, AT LEAST, three times louder than anything else the microphone is hearing, ie background noise, room noise, another instrument, such as another tom, etc.

And, just for kicks, because I know someone is going to say I'm wrong, I will say it again, so I can be properly "ridiculed" :

The 3:1 rule has nothing to do with distances, only with levels.

Cheerio.

Dude, you're so wrong with your definition it's almost insane.

Buy the book and you will be educated.

Somehow you're confusing the Inverse Square Law with this.

And the flag goes up. That definition comes from a guy working professionally in Los Angeles.

[ashcat_lt]

nice pic.

I knew this would open up a can of worms. Thanks for all the replies, i think. Okay voodoo masters, I'll give, what the fuck is 3:1?

To clarify: I am recording myself drumming, so can't do the listen while recording trick. I totally understand the math and logic of phase - have done this shit countless times, but what I'm after here is preventing the phase prob before mixing.
I've got a project starting soon & am going to try out several different combined micing tricks (mccarthy's Spoon snare trick, etc...), all of which mean adding extra mics that I don't normally use.

3:1 rule was born eons ago.

It has to do with LEVELS. There will be here some who don't have a clue, and say it has to do with where the microphone is. This is the furthest thing from the 3:1 rule ever imaginable.

This is the rule, paraphrasing here so don't shoot me...

Your DIRECT SOUND SOURCE MUST BE 3 TIMES LOUDER THAN YOUR INDIRECT SOUND SOURCE.

In plain simple terms, the thing you are trying to record should be, AT LEAST, three times louder than anything else the microphone is hearing, ie background noise, room noise, another instrument, such as another tom, etc.

And, just for kicks, because I know someone is going to say I'm wrong, I will say it again, so I can be properly "ridiculed" :

The 3:1 rule has nothing to do with distances, only with levels.

Cheerio.

Dude, you're so wrong with your definition it's almost insane.

Buy the book and you will be educated.

Somehow you're confusing the Inverse Square Law with this.

And the flag goes up. That definition comes from a guy working professionally in Los Angeles.

Then why don't you enlighten us?

How does all this dick waving - saying "I know the 3:1 Rule better than you!" - help anybody or contribute anything useful to this thread?

Do you get royalties or commission from the sale of that book?

[ashcat_lt]

Wow. SO much read into one Tongue Biting.

Nothing of that is thought when I am Biting my Tongue.

I am simply biting my tongue.

This does not make me smarter. It makes me quieter.

Cheers

Well, I can't see to tell exactly what you might or might not be biting, but I understand that you mean to say that you're withholding comment. But you're really not. If you were actually withholding comment there would be no posts in this thread from Nick Sevilla, it would be noticeably shorter, and (to my mind anyway) a somewhat nicer read.

What you are doing is stopping in periodically to let us know that you are withholding comment. This implies that you know something the rest of us don't, but can't be bothered to share your knowledge and help disabuse us of our misconceptions. So, thanks for that.

[@?,*???&?]

nice pic.

I knew this would open up a can of worms. Thanks for all the replies, i think. Okay voodoo masters, I'll give, what the fuck is 3:1?

To clarify: I am recording myself drumming, so can't do the listen while recording trick. I totally understand the math and logic of phase - have done this shit countless times, but what I'm after here is preventing the phase prob before mixing.
I've got a project starting soon & am going to try out several different combined micing tricks (mccarthy's Spoon snare trick, etc...), all of which mean adding extra mics that I don't normally use.

3:1 rule was born eons ago.

It has to do with LEVELS. There will be here some who don't have a clue, and say it has to do with where the microphone is. This is the furthest thing from the 3:1 rule ever imaginable.

This is the rule, paraphrasing here so don't shoot me...

Your DIRECT SOUND SOURCE MUST BE 3 TIMES LOUDER THAN YOUR INDIRECT SOUND SOURCE.

In plain simple terms, the thing you are trying to record should be, AT LEAST, three times louder than anything else the microphone is hearing, ie background noise, room noise, another instrument, such as another tom, etc.

And, just for kicks, because I know someone is going to say I'm wrong, I will say it again, so I can be properly "ridiculed" :

The 3:1 rule has nothing to do with distances, only with levels.

Cheerio.

Dude, you're so wrong with your definition it's almost insane.

Buy the book and you will be educated.

Somehow you're confusing the Inverse Square Law with this.

And the flag goes up. That definition comes from a guy working professionally in Los Angeles.

Then why don't you enlighten us?

How does all this dick waving - saying "I know the 3:1 Rule better than you!" - help anybody or contribute anything useful to this thread?

Do you get royalties or commission from the sale of that book?

*cough*

http://www.wikirecording.org/3_to_1_Rule

and

"Inverse Square Law - States that direct sound levels increase (or decrease) by an amount proportional to the square of the change in distance. "

[qued]

'chirp chirp'