Recordings done in M-S?

[Jim vanBergen]

Hey Slutz-

I have suggested using M-S to a fellow slut, and he has requested a suggestion of a good M-S recording he can buy and listen to. Any suggestions? (All mine use M-S as an element that has been mixed down with other mics....)

Thanks in advance!!

JvB

[7rojo7]

I would only use the m-s method for non critical broadcsts, sound effects, ambience etc... for uses which need guaranteed mono compatability. In m-s, the s disappears in mono so your mono element had better be good, I find x-y or OCT to sound far superior to m-s and they are both highly mono compatable if you're not moving the mics around all the time (like on a boom or a hand held camera). x-y takes up one less channel and OCT is awesome with 3 Schoeps CCM21s.
What will he be recording?

[Jbassist]

sorry to be asking this but whats OCT? link?

[Jim vanBergen]

he plans on using a pair of mics to record
"live concerts in a variety of acoustics... concert halls, churches, and jazz club enviornments"

I do a lot of multi-mic Decca recordings, but we're talking ONE PAIR of mics for this Slut. So in my mind, his options are as follows: Spaced pair, X/Y, ORTF, Blumlein, or M-S. What am I missing... still, I'm searching for a good M-S recording of music that does not use other mics, to feature just the M-S....which I don't have.

Your thoughts are greatly appreciated!!

[Coolstuff]

Originally Posted by 7rojo7

I would only use the m-s method for non critical broadcsts, sound effects, ambience etc... for uses which need guaranteed mono compatability. In m-s, the s disappears in mono so your mono element had better be good, I find x-y or OCT to sound far superior to m-s and they are both highly mono compatable if you're not moving the mics around all the time (like on a boom or a hand held camera). x-y takes up one less channel and OCT is awesome with 3 Schoeps CCM21s.
What will he be recording?

Hmmm, I'd be interested in why you think XY and OCT are superior to MS, and why you would not recommend MS for a critical recording?

I will stipulate that stereo and surround mic arrays other than MS have their own unique characteristics that are appropriate for certain recordings in certain environments, but why do you dismiss the importance of mono compatability for non-broadcast work? Isn't LF/RF mono compatablility important for proper 5.1 matrix functioning?

What do you mean that "XY takes up one less channel"? Both XY & MS take 2 record channels.

I would have to disagree that XY & OCT are "highly" mono compatable (though XY is very close). When a sound can reach multiple mics at different times, there are bound to be comb filter effects when they are combined. I do agree that the center mic in an MS array has got to be good, but isn't that a given regardless of what array you are using?

While an MS array is not always appropriate, it does eliminate mono compatability problems, elimates any uncertainty about the width of the performance stage, and offers more flexibility of image width when mixing or mastering than other mic arrays.

Note: Soundfield microphones are built around MS array theory. Is that critical enough?

[ghellquist]

I have no problem in using M/S recording for serious work. Generally I preferr a pair of omnis in AB, but M/S is perfectly acceptable.

In a diffeferent forum, a quite nice example of an M/S recording.
http://www.recording.org/modules.php...wtopic&t=33923

From a "theoretical view" M/S and XY behave the same. That is, you can translate an M/S recording into an XY.

In the real world, of course, it is not quite the same. One very important aspect is that in an XY recording the center of the sound stage is covered off-axis by the two mics. In contrast, in M/S the center is covered by the very center of the M mic.

In my experience, admittedly very limited, M/S is much to be preferred for recording large size sources over XY. In very close recordings, say of a guitar, XY might have the edge but to my mind it is not because XY is in any way intrincically better, it is only different. And different techniques give different results so it is a good idea to have a broad palette of things to choose from.

Anyway, my two cents.

Gunnar

[Don S]

Marty,

I agree - MS, if recorded unmatrixed, has the fantastic ability to be manipulated when you can get to a critical listening environment. Plus, the M can be anything from card to omni pattern depending on the location. I prefer subcardioid for the M to get a decent low end. I have a budddy who puts up a spaced omni pair and an M-S in the center, all on one bar!
I really don't like the sound of X-Y. It might as well be mono!

[7rojo7]

I get better lo end from an omni than super card, unless the Super/hyper card is close to the source. in mono the s disappears from the recording (no "ambience") and the imaging/soundstage blows. The soundfield has 4 independent elements not 2 and while it's "matrixed" as are most multipattern mics, and does M-S as well, it's a much different beast and would be a good suggestion as a main pickup.
I like an omni plus an xy personally as I don't have a soundfield available.
The decca tree works ok, if you like that sound.
When I place mics for xy or oct there is the same distance between the capsules as an m-s setup, an oct is basically an m-s with seperate elements for the sides, xy can work fine for small ensembles where you can be close, the angles aren't locked at 90°. In these the side information is not tossed away though.
The Josephson stereo mic uses an xy and an omni, it has 3 outputs that you can control at a mixer, I'll use a cmc5 in omni and 2 others in cardiod, or cmc21s for this. You need 3 channels at the mixer for m-s, deccatree oct or xy over omni. I like to record them separately to have control over the different elements when I can really hear them.
m-s as an idea can be useful in mastering for controlling/processing center vs side content.
I'll use blumlein as an effect for backing vox, group on one side diffusor or gobo on the other, but you must have a nice space. but otherwise it has imaging problems
m-s is a cool idea but I don't like the sound, specially the difference in character between the stereo and mono representations, whereas another technique may have a slightly flawed mono representation but not something completely different.
Any one can use all the calculations and theories they want to explain anything, in the end it's the ears ("brain") that decide the practical application.
for links google decca tree, oct, hamasaki square (which I don't like either).
Tell your friend to get a soundfield with the stereo decoder, he can always get the surround decoder another time, it's the most flexible.
Damned if I'd put up my pair of VM-1s in m-s.

[sonare]

This seems to be headed towards the "what stereo pair to take to a desert island (with AC)" scenario. And budget has not been mentioned.

Even so I would not choose the Soundfield, which is too bad considering the post flexibility of the B+ format.

IF I could only have one pair it would be Schoeps with MK21 caps in a wide NOS and 110 degrees. And for things that are best with omnis (piano, organ, chorus, etc) then buy another pair of caps such as MK2H for spaced A-B. This is assuming that 100% mono compatibility is not required.

The M-S and X-Y are useful for spots when you might want to fold the image in when mixing without phase problems, although the soundstage with either array is not too dramatic.

For flexibility and EXCELLENT sound look at the True Systems P2 analog which has an M-S matrix built-in. For a bit more $$ the Millennia MED-2 looks terrific.

Rich

[7rojo7]

I use mono spots to save brain cells that I'll probably need for later.
I like the 21s. I have 3 of them and 3 5s.
If I don't have visual constrictions I'll use my 3 Brauner PhantomVs for main pickup and the VM1s and valvets for soloists and flanking mics.
If I have consrictions I throw up the Schoeps for main and flanking using the Brauners as spots (less vivible close to the musicians.
I hang the configuration on a normal ORTF bar where even the center has a mount.
I still think the sounfield is a very convenient 1 piece solution that one doesn't make one think too much about what to do. Just put the mic where it sounds good, record, thank you very much.

[Westmalle]

Originally Posted by sonare

This seems to be headed towards the "what stereo pair to take to a desert island (with AC)" scenario. And budget has not been mentioned.

Even so I would not choose the Soundfield, which is too bad considering the post flexibility of the B+ format.

IF I could only have one pair it would be Schoeps with MK21 caps in a wide NOS and 110 degrees. And for things that are best with omnis (piano, organ, chorus, etc) then buy another pair of caps such as MK2H for spaced A-B. This is assuming that 100% mono compatibility is not required.

The M-S and X-Y are useful for spots when you might want to fold the image in when mixing without phase problems, although the soundstage with either array is not too dramatic.

For flexibility and EXCELLENT sound look at the True Systems P2 analog which has an M-S matrix built-in. For a bit more $$ the Millennia MED-2 looks terrific.

Rich

I don't use anything else then Soundfield. Post-production involves some Waves rbass, MTB, shuffler, and sometimes reverb.

I need 10 minutes to put up this mike and make a balance in 5 minutes.
I record the stereo outputs L-R.

M-S processing: can be the Shuffler, or different EQ and compression on the M and
S signal.

[JEGG]

MS also works particularly well on simple sources-say a classical singer and piano, solo instrument, classical guitar, etc.

It's advantage is that the image doesn't wander. And, occasionally in other coincident or near coincident arrangements, "parts" of the image become spatially separated. For example, sometimes with 184s you might have consonants/sibilants coming from a slightly different point than where the source is in the image. As in a classical duo referenced above.

With very large forces, such as an orchestra, the image is very precise and clear, very useful in badly reverberant halls; and likewise, the side mic can be cranked up to help with a lifeless room. When directional mics with little roll off are used as the center mic, the possibilities really grow. EQ can be separate for center and sides, producing quite different effects. HF boost on the mid can help with distance and clarity, HF boost on the side can contribute space, and also "low mids" (mudrange) can be bosted on the side too, with a very different sort space increase. That disappears in mono, of course, and LF stereo can be quite exciting. Distantly related to "shuffling."

The side mic doesn't contribute nearly as much tonal character as does the mid. You can mix mic families, but they should roughly match tonally. One example: 414B/ULS works nicely as a side for the KM183, but a 414 does not work so well with MKH.

Beyond the scope of the thread:
Some SD 8's are not symetrical, Schoeps for example. Some ribbons are not symmetrical. A mic like the 414 uses two diaphragms, but at least they are symmetrical and have wide audio bandwidth. SD 8's are usually pretty limited response wise, with the exception of Sennheiser MKH30.

Remember any existing recording can be converted to MS if that helps. For example, undesired room reflections frequently end up in the side component where they can be EQ'd out. If the source (not the room) is a bit thick, than EQ only to the center can help.

MS is an imaginative technique for both recording and processing audio. Especially useful for remotes that allow little time for setup and sound checks.

[tenor39]

Here's an excerpt of Gerschwin's Rhapsody in Blue that I recorded 2 weeks ago, where the piano was mic'd with a highly modified Cadence L2 in M-S. Not the whole recording, Jim, but something to give you an idea.

[Westmalle]

Nice recording. It sounds natural, and has a good spatial sound.

[d_fu]

Jim,

I can't name specific CDs, but look e.g. for some Naxos CDs (or anything else) that was recorded by Mike Skeet (England), who is a great M/S enthusiast.

I think Roland knows (of) him, maybe he can recommend some discs.


Daniel

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Jim vanBergen

I have suggested using M-S to a fellow slut, and he has requested a suggestion of a good M-S recording he can buy and listen to. Any suggestions? (All mine use M-S as an element that has been mixed down with other mics....)

Send me a PM with an address.

I have a copy of a Sennheiser demo CD that contains a couple of MS recordings that I did.

This is pure MS matrixed to stereo with no messing about and no other mics used. The Mics were MKH 30/40 - one recording is a 12-piece unaccompanied choir and the other is a clarinet quartet.

So let me have an address and I'll stick it in the post.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by d_fu

I can't name specific CDs, but look e.g. for some Naxos CDs (or anything else) that was recorded by Mike Skeet (England), who is a great M/S enthusiast.

I think Roland knows (of) him, maybe he can recommend some discs.

I know Mike Skeet very well, so if I get the PM that I mentioned above, I will include Mike's contact details.

[phil.]

Originally Posted by John Willett

The Mics were MKH 30/40 - one recording is a 12-piece unaccompanied choir and the other is a clarinet quartet.

That clarinet quartet recording I like a lot! Well worth checking out!!

Best,

Phil.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by phil.

That clarinet quartet recording I like a lot! Well worth checking out!!

Thanks Phil.

I did two CDs for the Thurston Clarinet Quartet, Clarinet Masquerade and Clarinet Carnival

Both are still available on Amazon.com. I have noticed that there is a button to listen to samples - click the links above.



Masquerade was the first and recorded in the studio of the University of Surrey in Guildford.

Carnival was the second and was recorded in a church in Kent.

Personally, I think Carnival is my favourite of the two - but I like them both and still listen to them for pleasure.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by John Willett

The latter is still available on Amazon.com for $11.98. I have noticed that there is a button to listen to samples - click the link above.

For some reason, the samples are all mono. Only M, no S...
Nice music, though.

[CrankyRayHanky]

Originally Posted by sonare

For flexibility and EXCELLENT sound look at the True Systems P2 analog which has an M-S matrix built-in. For a bit more $$ the Millennia MED-2 looks terrific.
Rich

I've done M/S by recording the mid & side, then copying the side to another track (#3)....how does a 2 channel preamp handle this? Does channel 2 give 2 seperate outputs ( one phase flipped internally) yielding 3 overall? Does then each channel give 2 seperate outs (4total: each normal with a flip) for blumelin?

I think I'm on the right track- but it is unknown territory for me

[Westmalle]

Originally Posted by CrankyRayHanky

I've done M/S by recording the mid & side, then copying the side to another track (#3)....how does a 2 channel preamp handle this? Does channel 2 give 2 seperate outputs ( one phase flipped internally) yielding 3 overall? Does then each channel give 2 seperate outs (4total: each normal with a flip) for blumelin?

I think I'm on the right track- but it is unknown territory for me

YES!! the L and R channels are used as M and S channels.
At the master bus in the DAW you put a M/S matrix (a simple plug-in of Waves).
In the DAW you can adjust the width by adjusting the relative levels between the two.
Different EQ, compression between the M and S can be nice too.
After you made these adjustments, you print this new stereo balance to a new track.

the M channel contains mono information, i.e. what you hear when you sum L and R of a normal recording.

the S channel contains the "reverberant" part, i.e. what you hear when you sum L and R, but with one of them fase-switched.

So try to experiment a bit with the augmenting the bass in the S channel, or whatever you like. It is a powerful tool.

[Westmalle]

Originally Posted by 7rojo7

I would only use the m-s method for non critical broadcsts, sound effects, ambience etc... for uses which need guaranteed mono compatability. In m-s, the s disappears in mono so your mono element had better be good, I find x-y or OCT to sound far superior to m-s and they are both highly mono compatable if you're not moving the mics around all the time (like on a boom or a hand held camera). x-y takes up one less channel and OCT is awesome with 3 Schoeps CCM21s.
What will he be recording?

I believe M/S is really perfect for mono-compatibility.
In mono you hear only the Mid-mike's signal. Guaranteed it sounds good in stereo.
Although a little shuffling can help.

[springer]

Here's an example I did with Royer and Gefell mixed into PMD660 - how's that for breakin some rules...

I reccomend MS for any number of sound sources... very nice in many ways - one of which - taking FULL advantage of a microphone's polar strength. Instead of putting the source in the weakness of the microphones polar strength of a stereo pair like ORTF.

Enjoy

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by d_fu

For some reason, the samples are all mono. Only M, no S...
Nice music, though.

You could always buy the CD

For those that sent me a PM - the CDs went in the post today.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by John Willett

For those that sent me a PM - the CDs went in the post today.

Got any more of these..?

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by d_fu

Got any more of these..?

No problem - I burn the CD and print the labels on request.

Send me a PM with your details and I'll stick one in the post.