Mono or stereo mic for field recording??

[jimmyz]

Hi there,

I am keen to start compiling my own sound effects library and at the minute will be tracking to a sony midi disc recorder. I have been toying between a mono or stereo mic for these purposes. If I was to get a stereo mic, then I could split to mono in pro tools (which I will be using to mix projects) but then, well, defeating the purpose of capturing the source in stereo I suppose… initially, I will be tracking many of life’s most obvious sounds (traffic noise, doors shutting etc etc!) before getting into the more bizarre, thus giving a potential library something unique to offer.

Anyone any thoughts?

Thanks.

[rufus13]

Your samples/foley-effects/ambience will be used for several purposes? If sold/licensed, they will be.

Dry mono allows the post-production mixer to place and use easier, and takes less space on the disk. Everyone has some kind of reverberator. Is the room around the sample important? if not: mono. If it is important, FM-radio mono-friendly coincident microphones.

Exception: headphone-only binaural playback. Fritz or HATS would rule.

cheers.

kk.

[MichaelPatrick]

I think listener interest and practical usability are both dramatically better with stereo recordings (vs monaural).

If I were designing a sound effects library today, I'd capture with some sort of soundfield technique so my tracks would be easy to mix in multichannel formats.

[sleepwalker]

Mono!! I had a stereo Rode NT4 that captured a great XY space. Unfortunately, when I wanted to use the samples, I often ended up using only one of the mics. Additionally, because I was capturing with stereo in mind, each mono mic wasn't capturing what I eventually wanted to use.

Mono all the way. Give the mixer room to mix.

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

I think listener interest and practical usability are both dramatically better with stereo recordings (vs monaural).

If I were designing a sound effects library today, I'd capture with some sort of soundfield technique so my tracks would be easy to mix in multichannel formats.

[thisisntglen]

Originally Posted by rufus13

Your samples/foley-effects/ambience will be used for several purposes? If sold/licensed, they will be.

Dry mono allows the post-production mixer to place and use easier, and takes less space on the disk. Everyone has some kind of reverberator. Is the room around the sample important? if not: mono. If it is important, FM-radio mono-friendly coincident microphones.

Exception: headphone-only binaural playback. Fritz or HATS would rule.

A little addition to this:

Reverb will, in most cases, provide a compelling and believable recreation of the soundspace, however it will not capture the specific ambience of the room, as you stated. It also will not accurately duplicate the reaction of the sound against it's natural environment, though this problem has been solved mostly by convolution.

Being in production/composition myself, I can agree that mono is much more useable, however I have found that, in general, stereo samples sound better, more realistic with less work and, using the proper coincident micing as you suggested, will collapse to mono jsut fine.

So my suggestion is...mic coincidently, and make a mono and a stereo version of each of your samples. Those are my favorite kind of libraries, but they are few and far between...

[MichaelPatrick]

I agree that coincident is the way to go for stereo (MS, XY, ...) or something like B-Format.

The mixer should be able to easily manipulate motion and placement without phase distortions resulting from the recording method. The most useful techniques will capture coincident multiple channels of one "sound" so that it's easy to mix in mono, stereo and multi-channel formats. They can then add phase and delay distortions as desired, for effect.

[pkautzsch]

Most people go for MS in field recording. This allows you to have the source precisely on-axis and still have stereo possibilities. In addition, MS setup is the easiest way to set up a stereo pair on a boom. I mean, you can even f*ing TAPE the mics together if there is no clamp available.

[jimmyz]

i am liking the idea of the MS pair. it would give a good combo of mono/stereo for mixdown, with the option for striaght mono still being there.

My only concern would be that i would not be able to monitor whilst recording with an MS decoder so would be relying on a software version (anyone know of a good VST or RTAS one?), this meaning that i would be reliant on the mono mic for gauging the success of the MS.

Michael, you mentioned that using a stereo method (such as X-Y) means easy summing to mono. How might this be done to avoid phase cancelation?

Thanks for the replies so far.

James.

[ghellquist]

Originally Posted by jimmyz

... MS decoder so would be relying on a software version (anyone know of a good VST or RTAS one?)

voxengo MSED - good and free (VST).

Gunnar

[pkautzsch]

The important thing when MS recording field sounds is the M signal. As long ys you're not recording way too much surrounding noises with the S, everything's fine.
Most dedicated field mixers and recorders have a built-in MS matrix. You'll need to invest some money though.

As to phase cancellation: as long as both mics are in the same place (ie. in XY and MS setups) there is no phase difference between L and R. Thus when summed to mono, no phase cancellation can occurr.
When using spaced or near-coincident setups (AB, ORTF, and similar), the spacing between the mics results in phase differences on all signals that don't come exactly from the center. Summing spaced setups to mono will thus result in phase cancellation depending on where a sound comes from.

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

.... I mean, you can even f*ing TAPE the mics together if there is no clamp available.

You diehard tape people, you never give up.