Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[J.J. Blair]

Quote by Plush:

Quote:

The "EQ" magazine article about M/S recording in the same issue was riddled with serious mistakes of fact and application. Is there ANY editorial oversight at that rag?

Hudson, having not seen the final edited versions of either articles yet, I can't comment on the content.  I don't know what parts were omitted or even changed, as happens sometimes.  I submitted ten pages, and I know they have limited space to work with.  Perhaps some of my not so "strange" questions didn't make it in the final version?  If you have a problem with any of it, the editorial staff would love to hear from you, I'm sure.  

If you feel that any of my M/S article was inaccurate, please feel free to edify me.  You can PM me your corrections, or even better, take issue with it in the Use Your Ears forum, where everybody has a chance to learn from your knowledge.  If I have something wrong, I sure would love to know about it.  

     http://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/postlist/Bo ard/26/page/1

[Plush]

Hello JJ---

I can easily see how you could have written a proper article and had it modified out of coherence by an "editor" at "EQ" magazine. I always read "EQ" in 30 minutes or less just to see what is being talked about and what advertisers are saying.
Then I throw away the magazine as I do with all the magazines.

However, through the years, the inaccuracies, the mis speaks, the just plain wrong fly around the magazine each month. In contrast, "Resolution" magazine from S2 pubishers in London, is scrupulously accurate. I think the problem with "EQ" is that the editors sometimes are simply not knowledgeable.
I have already thrown out latest issue of "EQ," but I remember reading the boxed article and wondering--- what ho?  (as Sherlock Holmes used to say, not as a rapper says)

In the M/S article, the description of how to set up an M/S array is described wrongly.  The picture of the mics on the piano where there is an R84 and a Gefell is wrong as well. What is pictured is not an m/s array. The Gefell is pointed down at the strings when it should be pointed towards the back of the piano. The mention of setting up at 90 degrees is only applicable to some mics (ie. 414) and not to the majority.

In any case, I extend my appreciation for your interview with Klaus the mic magician.

   

[J.J. Blair]

Plush wrote on Sun, 22 April 2007 14:17

In the M/S article, the description of how to set up an M/S array is described wrongly.  The picture of the mics on the piano where there is an R84 and a Gefell is wrong as well. What is pictured is not an m/s array. The Gefell is pointed down at the strings when it should be pointed towards the back of the piano. The mention of setting up at 90 degrees is only applicable to some mics (ie. 414) and not to the majority.

I'm sorry.  I don't follow.  You are saying that an on axis mic panned center and a figure eight mic in the 90˚ off axis position, properly matrixed is not M/S?  I think you are going to have to re-educate every recording engineer I've ever met about proper M/S technique, then.  I think they will have to redesign the SM23, SM69, C24 and Ela M270, as well.

And I think you are looking at the piano picture wrong.  The Gefell capsule is pointed towards the null direction of the ribbon's figure eight.  If I had been using the stereo version of that ribbon mic, the middle would be pointing in the exact same direction.

[Gone]

Plush wrote on Sun, 22 April 2007 16:17

In the M/S article, the description of how to set up an M/S array is described wrongly.  The picture of the mics on the piano where there is an R84 and a Gefell is wrong as well. What is pictured is not an m/s array. The Gefell is pointed down at the strings when it should be pointed towards the back of the piano. The mention of setting up at 90 degrees is only applicable to some mics (ie. 414) and not to the majority.

Hi Hudson -
I'm confused, too. What's wrong with the Neumann/AEA photo? It looks like an M/S setup to me... Assuming we're not discussing personal preference for where the M/S setup is AIMED.

I will say the description of reversing the phase of one channel  is a little unclear, since it's only mentioned in the "NOTE" section. It makes no mention of which channel to flip - typically the front lobe of the mic is panned left, and the rear panned right and phase reversed (assuming you've aimed the mic that way in your setup).  

Additionally, my understanding has always been that if you raise the output level of the side signals higher than that of the mid, you 'ruin' the resulting stereo image / polar pattern. Certainly, when that happens, you can hear the 'push-pull' of two panned, out of phase signals, rather than their interaction with the mid signal.

Also, the AKG 414 photo isn't as clear because it appears to be aimed at a wall (or is that the back of a piano?) It would have been perhaps more clear in front of an acoustic guitar or something... JJ - did some of that get cut in editing?

Besides the threadjack... I look forward to reading the entire interview. It will certainly be interesting to see what the editors decided to cut!

[Plush]

Hello JJ.--

May I foreswear redesigning anything as you suggest?

I have thrown away the magazine, so I cannot refer to it right now.
May I just say this. . .

The Gefell appears to be an end fire mic and is pointed down at the strings of the piano. To be m/s, it should be pointed not down, but straight ahead towards the back of the piano. The axis of pick-up for the R84 is horizontal, not verticle and this is correct. With the Gefell pointed down instead of aimed the same way the R84 body is oriented, you have the Gefell oriented 90 degrees wrongly.

The picture shows something that would be as if you have a figure eight mic pointing at the stage delineating the left/right position and a cardioid pointed at the floor. The cardioid should be in the same plane as the figure eight.  

[J.J. Blair]

Quote:

I will say the description of reversing the phase of one channel is a little unclear, since it's only mentioned in the "NOTE" section. It makes no mention of which channel to flip...

Again, not having seen it yet, this doesn't sound like how I wrote it.  Sounds like some editing was done.  What I wrote was: "The figure eight signal is then mult’d to two channels, panned hard left and right, with the right hand side’s phase inverted 180˚."  

As for the M/S situation: Hudson, first off, remember that the figure eight pattern is in three dimensions, not two.  What you are suggesting is that to record the cross section of the strings as I am doing, I should have orientated the R84 vertically.  The R84 is side address, as you well know.  And honestly, it doesn't matter which direction the Gefell is facing as long it's pointing into the off axis null of the figure eight.  But in this particular instance, it is positioned correctly.  And do you know how I know that?  Because the piano images right to left at the cross section of the strings, as I intended.  If the imaging of the R84 were horizontal in this position, as you suggest, there would be no left to right travel when the keyboard is played.

[Gone]

J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 23 April 2007 09:50

Again, not having seen it yet, this doesn't sound like how I wrote it.  Sounds like some editing was done.  What I wrote was: "The figure eight signal is then mult’d to two channels, panned hard left and right, with the right hand side’s phase inverted 180˚."

Sheesh! Unfortunately, "with the right hand side's phase inverted 180

[Extreme Mixing]

I have to agree with JJ on the M/S placement.  It should be fine, since the lobes of the microphones are 3D.  I'm not a fan of M/S micing, but this looks like it's set up properly to me.

Steve

[J.J. Blair]

I hate having my stuff edited to where the result is me looking like I don't know what I'm talking about.

[Plush]

I wish I could draw a diagram for you. I am not saying you need to change the position of the R84 mic,  J.J.
Of course the R84 is going to give you a strong left to right image. It is perfectly correct as you say. It is the mid component that is positioned strangely.

I am saying that the correct positioning is to have the Gefell pointing towards the back of the piano, not down to the strings. The Gefell should be positioned along the SAME axis as the R84--like two fingers on top of each other pointing straight ahead.
It should comprise a mid component sound looking AT the piano not down into the strings.
I do not need to continue to discuss this here since there are ample tutorials on m/s technique on the AEA, Schoeps and other web sites.

In any case, my complaint about J.J.'s article or how it was edited is a mild complaint. What is not a mild complaint is how "EQ" magazine consistently extends no knowledgeable editor oversight to the material they publish.    

[Tomas Danko]

J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 23 April 2007 17:57

I hate having my stuff edited to where the result is me looking like I don't know what I'm talking about.

So who do you blame for the editing of what you write at the REP then?  


Kidding dude. I just wonder for how much longer you will remain your cool self towards the editor at EQ. They should treat your input with much more care, unless they just want Gearslutz people to buy into the ads and that's it.

[Barry Hufker]

Isn't this the picture we're discussing?  J.J. had posted this earlier in another thread.





The fat microphone is omni and the other is an AEA ribbon with Figure 8.  If it works, it works.  I don't see a need for it to face towards the piano's rear.

Personally, I have done M/S with the M microphone some distance forward of the S.  Then I use time delay to make it seem as tho' both mics are in one location.  This works just fine as well.

Barry

[J.J. Blair]

Barry, you are correct.  That is the configuration we're discussing.

[Gone]

Plush wrote on Mon, 23 April 2007 12:48

I am saying that the correct positioning is to have the Gefell pointing towards the back of the piano, not down to the strings. The Gefell should be positioned along the SAME axis as the R84--like two fingers on top of each other pointing straight ahead. It should comprise a mid component sound looking AT the piano not down into the strings. I do not need to continue to discuss this here since there are ample tutorials on m/s technique on the AEA, Schoeps and other web sites.

These seem to be two different issues. As far as "where' the M/S setup is aimed, that would seem to be personal choice - ie, I could record a drum set from overhead, or from in front of the kit, for different results - but both using technically correct M/S technique. I don't see why the 'mid' mic of an MS setup shouldn't face the strings - not from a technical standpoint.

What you're saying about the axis (or planes) of the mics, to me, seems to suggest that the 'figure 8' pattern of the AEA mic is different if used horizontally versus vertically. Are you saying, for example, that if he WANTED the mid mic to point at the strings, then the AEA mic should have its top facing the strings, rotated 45

[Gunnar Hellquist]

I find it a bit odd to introduce the "copy and invert the S-signal" into an article for beginning users of M/S as audience.

I know that is the way you had to do it on an analog mixer, but today just about everyone is using some kind of DAW. Then the first choice would instead be to recommend using a decoding plug-in.

Voxengo MSED is free to download for VST PC if your DAW does not have one. There are probably others for Mac to find as well.

Well, my five cents.

Gunnar

[megaphone]

As far as capsules positioning is concerned, I see nothing wrong with this picture. Now, I always thought the M microphone in an M/S setup had to be cardioid, which is not the case here as Barry pointed out (CMV 563 with M55K omni capsule). Am I wrong here?
G

[Barry Hufker]

G

[Plush]

I am pleased to see the picture posted here now.
...

My complaint is that classic m/s technique would require one to roll the whole arrangement up 90 degrees. You would still have the R84 giving you the left to right, and now the omni Gefell would fill in the center pointing at the back of the piano and picking up the overall sound, not the close miced sound of the strings.

These are two different approaches, one a poppy or jazzy style, and the one I'm oriented towards, a classical style.  

The one thing I do agree with in the picture is that an omni mic can often be a spectacular success in m/s technique.

[kats]

Quote:

You can't "copy" a track or signal on an analog desk (and maybe not a digital console). So while I can't speak for J.J., it seems to me this applies directly to a DAW.

What I do on a half normalled patchbay is feed to S signal into a third track - in essence making a copy. Then I just press the invert button.

[iCombs]

Plush wrote on Tue, 24 April 2007 10:06

...These are two different approaches, one a poppy or jazzy style and the one I'm oriented towards, a classical style.   An omni mic can often be a spectacular success in m/s technique.

This sounds like a debate over the application of a technique rather than a technique itself.  

I've seen pics of Bruce Swedien micing a Marshall cab m/s with 2 Royers that were touching the grill cloth.  There's no rule that says "you have to orient your mics this way."  

If you want a more open sound, then keep the mics up away from the strings.  If you want more attack and aggression, get the mics down in there!  I see no problem with JJ's micing technique, or its application in this instance.

[Gone]

Gunnar Hellquist wrote on Tue, 24 April 2007 00:28

I find it a bit odd to introduce the "copy and invert the S-signal" into an article for beginning users of M/S as audience. I know that is the way you had to do it on an analog mixer, but today just about everyone is using some kind of DAW. Then the first choice would instead be to recommend using a decoding plug-in.

Is it really necessary to 'dumb down' such a simple set-up even further? If you're an 'engineer', student of audio, or otherwise, and you can't grasp multing on a console or 'copy and invert' in a DAW, you probably should be doing something else...

Actually, I had the opposite reaction;
I'm always happy to see the ACTUAL technique presented, rather than the often-written: "Now, plug your two mics into a pre that has M/S decoding..." Give me a break!

[audibell]

I use M/S a lot, not just the main stereo pair. I would agree with Ealing if the Middle mic is an omni, because the side lobes of the AEA ribbon are approximate spheres, so as long as another mic collects sound from the front portion of the spheres, all will be well with the algebra (Mid + Side = (L+R) + (L-R) = 2L) and (Mid - Side = (L+R) - (L-R) = 2R)
However, if the Mid cardioid mic, whose lobes are much less spherical, is pointed along the longitudinal axis of the AEA "like two fingers" then I would expect the stereo image to be less successful.
I have found using an omni, km83 or gefell m294, in a dry smallish room preferable; in a stoney church, a cardiod gefell m300, has yielded better definition. I track all mics straight to recorder and un-matrix later in DAW but I monitor the split signal (usually unbalanced 2nd output from pre-amp) into a small mixer and use a phase reversed 12 inch patch for the side -ve signal;
A useful tip is to turn the Mid off, pan center the Side + and - signals and adjust the gain until you hear nothing: note the relative positions of the faders in case you have to go up or down. Now pan left & right for width: bring up the Mid until you have a pleasing stereo image in the L/R buss. Don't use the mixer to adjust the gains, use the outboard pres and you shouldn't have to re-adjust the side signals. If you can route the three signals to one Aux buss, then you can control the whole  thing w/one fader.
If you want to add another M/S pair, I've found it usually better to mix the side signals to taste first and then the Mids; then de-matrix the whole thing once. If you de-matrix to L & R first you'll run out of inputs & busses. You eventually learn to judge how a M/S signal will "pan out" just by judging the reverb-to-direct ratio but a $50 monitor-only mixer for each pair works & is a lot cheaper than a $500 decoder.
WT

[J.J. Blair]

WT, I don't remember if I mentioned that the sides should cancel when in mono, but that is precisely how I always adjust the side levels.  But I know that I said in the article that I like to bring the mid up in that mix to where if I sum to mono, I don't lose any over all level.

And personally, I always print my M/S tracks as a stereo track.  I don't leave that stuff for later.  But I'm always about less tracks, and committing to decisions.  But that's just me.  YMMV.

[davebl]

Im sure the set up sounds fine if your happy with the mic set up.

Id add that using diferent types of mic that have very different forms of capsule will not give result in a good M/S array that is mono compatible which is a major benifit of M/S mic arrays. The best M/S arrays use capsuels coming from the same family of mics eg Schoeps mk4 or 2 and a mk 8 or Sennheiser mkh series 20/30 or 40/30 pairs. As I see it the problem of using differnt types of capsuel is that any listener in Mono will result in only the M capsuels output. This assumes the M/S array is panned fully left and right. If it is narrowed down in the mix then the effect in mono would be less problematic.

Dave Blackham
UK

[Barry Hufker]

I hope there is no one listening in mono anymore.  And I wouldn't accommodate that (one) person!  I know mono compatibility is a good indicator that "all is well" technically but...

Barry

[Tomas Danko]

I agree.

So I've basically stopped going all the way to maintain great mono compatibility. I'm more interested in a nice stereo mix, and I think 99% of the times people listen to my stuff it will be in stereo anyway.

[kats]

I should point out that most restaurants, bars, and clubs run their systems in mono. In restaurants especially, they are running 6 - 12 speakers softly so as to keep an even balance across the room. In other venues, the shape and basic logistics  of the room demand a mono signal.

So I would have to say that not worrying about mono compatablity is selling your customer short. I would hazzard a guess that more than 75% of the time, the potential buyer of music heard it first on the radio, restaurant, lounge, or club. If your interested in making a good first impression I wouldn't discount 3 of the 4 locations I've mentioned above.

[davebl]

I agree that stereo may be the principle mixing format but for broadcasters mono compatibility is an essential requirement both for radio and TV. I hope that the next hits made are played on both mediums to a world wide audience but the mixer should IMHO avoid the possibility of any change in mix for listeners in mono or stereo. The main point I raise is to use the same family of capsuels in M/S arrays as best practice. For main pairs I feel this is essential for close micing as discussed then may be less so depending on how the M/S array is presented in the mix.

DAve Blackham
UK

[Barkley McKay]

Isn't Youtube mono only? More people are using that format now to promote  as well, so I'd still think it prudent.

barks

[J.J. Blair]

Here's a story as to why any mixes or any  stereo track you record should be checked in mono: The first major label record I did had a song with a solo where I re-amped an acoustic guitar through a Leslie, and mic'd the Leslie in X/Y.  I was young and didn't noticed that I have one X/Y out of phase.  I was sitting in a restaurant and that song came on over the sound system, which was comprised of mono feeds to the various speakers.  Needless to say, the solo wasn't there.  Oops!

IMO, always check for mono compatibility.  And yes, TV and AM ardio are another reason.

[Gunnar Hellquist]

I might add that I keep experimenting with mic setups all the time (still at the experiment stage in my journey to learn recording). Recently I had an SF24 in MS and added an MKH20 very close. Good thing I found out later as both the figure 8 of the SF24 and the omni of MKH20 had a bit too much washout. Adding them together makes a cardioid and this reduced the ambience to workable proportions. Now, why I bothered to record MS on the solo mic is something I am not too certain about anymore. I like a band mic on sopranos though.

The full recording (including the decca tree above the orchestra, the ms was pointed at singer soloist) can be heard here a week or so before I take it down. (A bit largish though, around 4M).
http://trombonisten.se/sao/07.mp3

Gunnar

[J.J. Blair]

I think one of the nice things about a ribbon as the side mic is that you have superior off axis rejection to condensers.  90˚ off axis is typically a true null spot.  Strange that you had that occur, Gunnar.

[Tomas Danko]

Hej Gunnar, long time no see. I hope all is well with you.

Did the vocalist turn around, or walk around?

[Barry Hufker]

I believe checking in mono is important, as I said earlier.  Making sure I have total monaural compatibility is not important to me.  I don't do film sound -- so no problem there.  I don't do sound for restaurants and if mono compatibility isn't total, no one is going to notice while they talk and chew.  I don't do music for clubs.

I do a lot of CDs and some DVDs.  I shoot for very high quality, both technically and in the use of stereo.  My thought is that if someone is listening to a video or CD in mono, they wouldn't know good sound if it fell on them.  If things aren't perfectly compatible, I'm not going to care as such people are obviously not my (or my client's) target audience.

Snobby?  Maybe... but for me, reality.

Barry

[Gunnar Hellquist]

Hi Tomas.

All well here. Yes, it was a bit of acting going on here. I put this one up to show that however much I prepare there are always surprises.

Gunnar

[Tomas Danko]

I agree completely, and practice just what you said myself. You check it, but you don't go the whole nine yards. Because you make music in stereo, for people listening in stereo.

FWIW I tried the latest CD I released at a restaurant where they had lots of mounted speakers in the ceiling, where the impedance is all wrong and the amplifier not meant to drive that load. They complain that when you raise the volume it cuts off. No wonder. Oh, and it's in mono. All tracks came out sounding OK, and I could crank a little more than they usually can before it went silent.

I think we'll be OK in restaurants, Barry. (That is, until we get totally plastered and start misbehaving)

[kats]

Quote:

My thought is that if someone is listening to a video or CD in mono, they wouldn't know good sound if it fell on them.

Unfortunately, circumstances & location dicate what the playback format will be, not nessecarily the listeners standards.

Personally, I would be embarressed if one of my mixes sounded like ass at a club or lounge.YMMV

[davebl]

May be were off the point of the thread a bit. As far as I'm concerned, replay format compatibility is essential- both in terms of Mono/Stereo/Surround and also tonally, which is important too.
That's one reason for Far and Near Field monitoring in a mix area.

This isn't really an M/S issue but is a question that affects all mic arrays, A/B, M/S, cross pair and so on.

To clarify my point in respect of M/S, the better the match of the mic capsules, the better the replay format compatibility will be.

Dave Blackham
UK

[DavidSpearritt]

Yes, I have found in practice, that with MS, the most coherent stereo image definitely comes from the smallest possible capsules aligned as close as possible together. I have tried U87's and KM86's as sides (both disastrous), cardioids and eights perpendicular to each other and all sorts of other combinations. Diffraction, and increasing capsule distance to accomodate LDC cages give terrible results for stereo image accuracy and frequency  response stability.

This is one reason why the Schoeps MS pair sounds so good and can give spine tingling stereo images. It is better than our C426. The only other capsule pair that comes close, when carefully positioned is the Royer SF24.

That said, we are also having fun using two Coles 4040's on top of each other in Blumlein and this works well as long as you stay a good distance from the source.

[J.J. Blair]

Maybe I'm looking for something different, but I'm failing to see how some of you guys are having problems with certain parameters.  I put an SM69 on a Leslie horn in M/S and have fantastic image of the horn moving left to right.  Put the SM69 OH on drum in M/S and great great stereo image of the kit.  I use this bizarre technique with the R84 and the Gefell and get terrific left to right along the piano strings.  Are you guys speaking specifically of more distant miking techniques or something?  I don't get it, because when I have used the previously mentioned techniques, or back when I would use a pair of UM57s or 414s, I have been happy with my L/R imaging.  It never once occurred to me that the stereo image wasn't "coherent," as it has been put.  Are we doing different application here or something?

[Barry Hufker]

I can't speak for other obviously but based on the statements I think there is a discussion of close miking (J.J.) versus more distant miking, such as for classical.  Definitely at a distance large diaphragm mics are going to be more problematic than small diaphragm.  Typical problems will be poor off-axis frequency response and non-uniform polar patterns.  Close miking eliminates much of that.

Barry

[J.J. Blair]

I would assume that perhaps you would have less proximity effect with appropriate SDCs too, no?

[DavidSpearritt]

Yes, Barry is onto the reason. I am talking critical distance miking where the MS pair is forming a big part of the stereo image, its either the main pair or a very important stereo spot, ie like on a lieder singer.

When these "hybrid" pairs are used for close miking, there is not as much need for an accurate stereo image and coherence, all you really need is "spread".

I am sure a close miked stereo pair uses more M than S, whereas in classical its sometimes equal proportions or even slightly more S. When the S is a large caged LDC with lumpy off axis response and a long way from the M you can hear it clearly and its not pretty.

[davebl]

Quote <When these "hybrid" pairs are used for close miking, there is not as much need for an accurate stereo image and coherence, all you really need is "spread". >

I'd agree with this as there is a difference between M/S main pairs and close miced hybrid pairs. If there is a close miced 'spread effect' needed or a 'sound' based on the mix of two different mics then a hybrid pair may be good, but Id suggest not panned hard left and right and to check that the S somponent doesnt disapear or has some other unwanted effect in Mono.

However, Id still say SDC M/S pairs (from the same family of capsuels) are strongly prefered over other types of mics for M/S main pairs.

Dave Blackham
UK

[J.J. Blair]

BTW, for those of you interested in how the article read before editing:

http://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&am p;Number=1742913&page=0#Post1742913

[Barry Hufker]

J.J.

I don't believe there's any reason to suspect less proximity effect with a SDC.  I believe that to be an often repeated myth, although I could be wrong.  I can think of lots of SDC mics with great proximity effect.

Barry

[aracu]

Although MS and Blumlien sound quite similar
to me, I find MS to be the great problem solver
for getting a good stereo image, wheras Blumlien
seems so dependent on a room suited to it.