Print

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

[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