4006 and VM-1 in M/S for classical?!

[gimboid]

OK this may sound a bit weird, but I own a single 4006 and am shortly acquiring a VM-1 Lite.

Is it a strange idea to upgrade the VM-1 lite to VM-1 to use the figure of 8 mode and use them as an M/S pair? Or is that money better put towards another 4006? I know exactly how a 4006 pair sound, but I've yet to use a VM-1 on classical recordings but as it seems highly rated for this purpose, it would seem to be a logical move.

I'd love to hear from anyone whose a) actually done this, b) knows both mics well enough to hazard a guess as to whether or not it'd work well. Ultimately, I'll have to hire out a VM-1 PSU to see if it works before investing, but some pointers as to whether this is worthwhile would be useful...

BTW to anyone wondering why on earth I'd own just a single 4006 - I picked it up recently on ebay for next to nothing.

[gimboid]

No-one have any comments? Bugger!

[Remoteness]

Posting in the correct forum may help you get more replies.

I moved this thread here...

I trust the folks here will chime in soon.


Good luck.

[Martin Kantola]

Remember trying M/S with a 4006 paired with a KM56 in fig-8. The obvious mismatch in sound between these two microphones (one tube, one omni etc.) made the combination useless to me. This is the exact problem I later tried to address with my experimental panphonic mic.

Martin

[fifthcircle]

Generally not a huge fan of M-S with an omni in the center. For specific sounds, it can be useful, but as a single pickup, the image is basically mono.

--Ben

[BLP]

I'm with Ben on this one. I've never found an omni as the M in an M/S pair to be all that effective; the VM1 might be better employed elsewhere. A sub-card as the M work in certain situations, but even that leans towards mono...

[David Rick]

I've sometimes found it useful for close-miking solo instruments. I did a project some years ago in which the main guitar sound consisted of a M/S 4003/414 combo, set very wide in decoding. People thought it sounded very spacious, but I think that was mostly the Lexicon!

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

Generally not a huge fan of M-S with an omni in the center. For specific sounds, it can be useful, but as a single pickup, the image is basically mono.

--Ben

Gosh, that's not been my experience at all! But then that's the strength of the forum.

My experience is that it's been a huge wide open sound, with the fullness and openness of an omni, but spatial cues are very precise. I've used it for organ recordings, large choir recordings, large orchestra recordings, etc.

Doing omni mid side can result in a recording with more depth, if desired, because the array can be closer-therefore the relative distances from the source to the microphone are larger than if the array is further away. The side mic, placed closer, will yield very different left to right relationships re: image v. room.

A synthetic omni will also yield other unique results.

A very useful technique. Highly recommended.

If the result is mono, then something is very wrong somewhere.

[fifthcircle]

The specific places I'll consider using M-S with an omni in the center are few. When doing a 3 mic omni array across an ensemble, a M-S with and omni can help clean up the image a bit. Also, on solos with orchestra and similar spot micing situations, it can also work. You're dealing with a point-source sound, but with a touch of width.

The problem with it is best explained when you're looking at how M-S work. you're looking at a sum and difference of two patterns where the more the difference in nulls, the better the image. An omni has no nulls, though... For that reason, your image is greatly reduced, especially compared to a cardiod, hypercardiod, etc...

On top of that, the OP mentioned a 4006 which is one of the most "omnidirectional" mics on the market (especially with some of the end choices- trapezoidal and cones come to mind).

Hey- if it works for you, great, but be careful with an omni in the center because you can find yourself in a world of hurt.

--Ben

[aracu]

Another problem with omni and ms is that it can exaggerate all the noise of a venue such as air vent sounds and hums from lights. A fig 8 mid can minimize that stuff.

[Corran]

I have to disagree as well about omnis and M-S.

I used an Earthworks QTC-1 and a vintage B&O BM-3 ribbon in M-S for a couple orchestral recordings and it turned out superb! The imaging was great and reverb just right.

[Don S]

Not to repeat everything said, but I agree that your image will be very wide. However, you might be able to help the situation by using one of APE balls that make the 4006 a little more directional. But I'm not sure how big of a difference it will make, or if it will make the end result any more desirable.

[leddy]

I've recorded my jazz group many times with an Earthworks omni mid and a Beyer M130 side. They are decent recordings and I would prefer omni-m/s to any coincident method.

Though I've found that I prefer near-coincident methods for my application so I don't use it anymore.

[Oli_W]

Whack the whole M/S thing in a SE reflexion filter and bob's your uncle: there you have your cardioid!

Or have i missed something?