I’ve noticed that,
when I watch old concert footage, the singer is often using two mics.
I’d always assumed that one was being used for recording purposes and
one was being fed to the PA. However, I recently heard that the
Grateful Dead used a two-mic technique for noise cancelling, is this
true, and how would it work?
Via SOS web site
SOS
Technical Editor Hugh Robjohns replies:
You are quite right in that,
back in the 1970s, it was quite common when recording a live concert
for the recording people to simply tape a second mic to the PA vocal
mic to acquire their recording feed. Mic splitters either weren’t
trusted back then or they were too expensive!
The
two-mic noise-cancelling idea is well known and very common in many
sound applications — most notably aircraft communication headsets — but
is rarely seen these days in live sound and PA. The same basic physics
explains why football commentators’ lip ribbon mics work so well at
rejecting the crowd noise.
The basic idea of the
two-mic technique is to have two microphones spaced a short distance
apart (usually between one and two-inches or two to six centimetres) in
front of the mouth, or whatever the sound source is. Both microphones
must be able to hear the sound source directly. If they are cardioids,
they both need to face the sound source, although this is more usually
done with omnidirectional microphones, for the following reasons. The
ambient noise, being inherently diffuse sound, will be captured equally
in level by both mics; their spacing will make no significant difference
to the ambient sound level they capture. By contrast, the wanted sound
will be in the near field of both mics and, provided the front mic is
very close to the sound source (ie. near the lips of the vocalist), the
inverse square law of sound-energy dispersion means that the more
distant mic will receive significantly less energy from the close sound
source than the front mic will.
This also helps to explain why omni mics are
preferred in this role, because otherwise the close mic would have a
far stronger bass response, due to the proximity effect, than the more
distant mic, and odd tonal effects could result. By combining the
outputs of both mics at equal gains but in opposite polarities, the
similar level of ambient noise from each will cancel to a very large
degree, whereas the significantly different levels of the wanted close
sound from each mic will hardly cancel at all. Of course, there will be a
slight level reduction of wanted sound in comparison to using just the
close mic on its own but, given the 30dB-plus of ambient noise
reduction gained by this technique, that’s usually a side-effect well
worth suffering when working in very noisy conditions.
The
physical spacing between the two mics inherently introduces a small,
but finite, time delay, and so when the two mic signals are mixed
together, the frequency response will inevitably become comb filtered. However, if the distance between mics is only an inch or so, the first
deep comb-filter notch will be well above any significant, important
component of the human voice, and the rest won’t have any material
effect on the sound quality either. To return to your original
statement, this noise-cancelling technique really requires two identical
mics spaced a precise distance apart. Most of those old festival
concert photos show completely dissimilar mics mounted with their
capsules more or less coincident, which lends weight to the suggestion
that they were for separate recording and PA feeds, rather than exotic
noise-cancelling techniques.
The Grateful Dead
developed a version of this noise-cancelling technique because of the
very unconventional PA arrangements they used to employ, with all of the
PA set up on stage behind the band as a ‘wall of sound’. In this way
the band heard exactly what the audience heard (no need for separate
monitors!). It was a clever system, with each musical source having its
own set of amps and speakers to improve headroom and minimise
distortion.
No comments:
Post a Comment