Help With Overhead Placement

[Matt Smith]

With Metal, how vital is it that the snare is exactly in the center of the overheads? I've always heard that's the hard-and-fast rule, and that's how I've always done it, but I'm having some problems with our drummer's setup. He sets his drums up kind of unconventionally, where the snare is pretty far left instead of center and the toms wrap far right. I'm not going to ask him to change the setup drastically, because that's how he's comfortable playing and he's an amazing drummer. I don't want to do anything to compromise the performance, because that's the most important thing.
I was planning on using the positioning that James recommended in this picture he posted, because I like the separation it gives:

The problem is, if I position them so the center of the snare is equidistant from each mic, they're way off center of the big picture of the kit and cymbals. I'm not miking hat or ride separately; there's plenty in the overheads because it's a small kit.

So...is it a HUGE deal for the snare not to be centered since this is very layered Metal and the overheads are mostly used for cymbals (as opposed to jazz or something where most of the drum sound might come from the overheads)? I want him to be comfortable playing, but I don't want to end up shooting myself in the foot sonically. What is the best way to handle this?
Any help is appreciated!

 

[Glenn Fricker]

The quick answer would be to try two mic setups: One with the mics equidistant from the snare, the other with the mics symetrical on the kit, both with a close mic on the snare.
Then, see if the snare pulls to one side or does anything weird with the phase as you bring up your close mic fader.

Record both setups as takes, A/B them, and choose what you like best.
-0z-

 

[Razorjack]

http://www.crownaudio.com/mic_web/tips/mictip6.htm this is the most important thing about overhead placement.

 

[Glenn Fricker]

http://www.crownaudio.com/mic_web/tips/mictip6.htm this is the most important thing about overhead placement.

Unless you're going with an XY setup.

 

[Ermz]

I figured he'd pan the overheads hard left and hard right anyway, thus eliminating the need for the 3:1 rule?

 

[egan.]

I figured he'd pan the overheads hard left and hard right anyway, thus eliminating the need for the 3:1 rule?

You obviously want your overheads in phase, but I don't really feel like the 3:1 address matt's problem here. Personally I try not to get too much snare in my OH's by placing the mics a little closer to the cymbals and towards the outside. IMHO regardless of the kit size it's worth micing the hats and ride seperately.

Other ideas:
Someone (not sure who) posted this link a while back.
http://www.saecollege.de/reference_material/images/Kit%208.gif

OR

Use a coincident or near coincident technique. It won't be as wide but it will be easy to get a centered image.

 

[Matt Smith]

Thanks for all the suggestions, guys. Not sure exactly what I'm going to do yet, but I guess we'll see how it goes...

 

[James Murphy]

i don't like XY set-ups for OH's... great for mono-compatibility, but who listens in mono anymore? to me OH's recorded with XY mic positioning sound much more "mono" even when listening in stereo... blah.

 

[~BURNY~]

Then why not MS?
I think it really depend on what you want to hear. Overall realistic kit image or lot of cymbals and a wide beyond reality kit image.
Most of standard couple are supposed to emulate reality. Most of them sounds better when they're far from the kit.

 

[Impy]

I sort of disagree, you can easily lose the presence in the cymbals when miking from a "distance", the closer you get the less leakage from the rest of the kit and most often better clarity in the cymbals...

 

[~BURNY~]

I sort of disagree, you can easily lose the presence in the cymbals when miking from a "distance", the closer you get the less leakage from the rest of the kit and most often better clarity in the cymbals...

Well that what I meant. When you choose a standard couple, you must consider overhads as a whole kit image microphones, not as cymbals microphones and often mic cymbals separatly or use another spaced pair for the cymbals only.
But metal music doesn't require a whole image kit usually but a good seperation.
When you listen to Andy's work for example, there's no "air" in the drumkit sound but individual isolated elements. And it works great, that's true.

 

[~BURNY~]

I think james spaced pair should be great with an additional MS or XY far from the kit.

 

[Impy]

I've never managed to get good results when using MS, i've tried it a couple of times recording different kinds of music but the results has never been as good as AB or XY, coincident usually works ok too but i've never tried it when recording metal.

 

[James Murphy]

I've never managed to get good results when using MS, i've tried it a couple of times recording different kinds of music but the results has never been as good as AB or XY, coincident usually works ok too but i've never tried it when recording metal.

XY and Coincident are the same thing actually.. XY referring to the axis (plural, not sure how to spell that but pronounced "ax-eez", ) at which the mics cross and coincident referring to the fact that the capsules are right on top of one another....so, MS is also a Coincident technique. maybe you mean "semi-coincident", in which the the capsules are about a foot and a half apart.

Burny... as you said, we don't want a "whole kit image" in metal most of the time.. at least it's not a current trend, so i wouldn't advise Matt to add an XY or MS to the spaced pair unelss he wants a "retro" sound. you seemed to notice that Andy doesn't use XY or MS and gets great results not doing so, but then advised Matt to do so... confusing for Matt i'm sure.

the stereo picture in MS, XY and other coincident pairs is largely based on the intensity of sound arriving at each capsule while spaced pairs are based more on "time-of-arrival", and that's what leads to the concerns of phase issues, but if you close-mic and adhere to the 3:1 principle you wont have those issues at all. as you can see in the pic of mine that Matt posted at the top of this thread, the mics are quite a bit more than 3 times as far from each other as they are to the sources. this provides more than 9db of attenuation of between the sound actually arriving in both mics.. more than enough to bury any comb filtering well below the sound of the sources (which includes the direct snare mic or "sound-replaced" snare)... masking it entirely.

and i don't think this is "larger than life" stereo at all (not that that is a bad thing in metal, or pop for that matter).. rather, it's "drummer perspective".. it sounds more like you are in the drummer's seat rather than standing back watching a band from a distance. personally i always pan drums from this perspective as well.... air drummers love it, as do the drummers themselves!

 

[Impy]

XY and Coincident are the same thing actually.. XY referring to the axis (plural, not sure how to spell that but pronounced "ax-eez", ) at which the mics cross and coincident referring to the fact that the capsules are right on top of one another....so, MS is also a Coincident technique. maybe you mean "semi-coincident", in which the the capsules are about a foot and a half apart.

I wasn't sure of the name for it, in sweden we call it "öronavstånd" or losely translated "distance between ears".
And that teqnique is nothing like MS, which i guess you know, so that is why i distinguished between the two...

 

[James Murphy]

I wasn't sure of the name for it, in sweden we call it "öronavstånd" or losely translated "distance between ears".
And that teqnique is nothing like MS, which i guess you know, so that is why i distinguished between the two...

ahh... Binaural perhaps? probably not .. the stereo image created using it sounds best when wearing headphones and a dummy "head" is used usually for true "distance between the ears" effect though and you didn't mention that.

never seen anyone use that for overheads anyway... seems kind of silly with the fake head.. i've never even seen one in person, just heard some test recordings using the technique.

 

[~BURNY~]

There was an album but I can't remember the band name, where you could hear a dog turning around you when using headphones. Maybe some Pink Floyd stuff also.
Distance between ears... I guess you're talking about an AB/ORTF pair. 110° opened angle/17cm (average distance between human ears) between the two microphones. Stunning stereo image btw.

 

[James Murphy]

ortf never appealed to me.. to many phase problems when i've tried it.. i even bought a specially designed mount for the mic stand.. not far enough away from each other for a spaced pair.. for drum overheads/cymbals in a modern metal recording anyway, which is what Matt was asking about to start with.

 

[~BURNY~]

ortf never appealed to me.. to many phase problems when i've tried it.. i even bought a specially designed mount for the mic stand.. not far enough away from each other for a spaced pair.. for drum overheads/cymbals in a modern metal recording anyway, which is what Matt was asking about to start with.

Agree, sorry for adding confusion... :Spin:

 

[Impy]

The one i've used is basically ORTF and it has worked out great, most of the time i polaced the mikes behind the drummer facing the kit so to speak, but i'm not sure thatäd work for metal, and definately not for what this thread is about since you get massive snare leaks into the OH's.

As for the dummyhead, never used that, never seen or heard of it being used. Like you said, it seems a bit silly and it can't be that good since no one uses it. So that was obviously not what i used