|
Post by EmRR on Jan 2, 2020 8:34:07 GMT -6
Some of the arguments made here boil down to speakers and placement versus headphones.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 2, 2020 8:45:32 GMT -6
I'm going to say that no, a figure 8 mic like a ribbon cannot capture an accurate stereo image when used as the Side mic for M/S. But...but.....I’ve been getting stereo with well defined localization out of MS ribbon OH’s for years..... Funny, what never sounds like stereo to me is spaced OH’s. That usually sounds like random mono panning to me. A recording of a duck's quack is not a real duck's quack.. something that sounds like stereo doesn't make it truly stereo is all I'm arguing. And I didn't say spaced OH's either.. I just said two uncoupled membranes. The closest would be ORTF or binaural head mics.. The closest pickup pattern being a wide cardioid.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 2, 2020 8:50:00 GMT -6
Two identical figure 8 mics or an omni with the same characteristics as the fig 8 make more sense to me for M/S than a cardioid for the center mic. Potential issues with using a cardioid for the center is poor off axis performance at the extremes and/or unpredictable blending of the mid and side channels due to inconsistant phase/frequency characteristics between different mics. This is where you want argue with Bob’s theory, once the real world rears it’s ugly face and you realize you either have to step away from the theoretical cardiod to get a phase response of the figure 8 to achieve a true stereo response. Of course this is where the art in what we do comes in, if it was simply all about putting up a pair of mics in one of the many theoretical configurations anybody could make great recordings. KM100-whatever and KM120. Who here has a KM120? MK-whatever and MK 8. Who here has an MK 8? MKH-whatever and MKH 30. Who here has an MKH 30? MKH has become my MS benchmark lately, though M130/M160 does it very well, as do the Samar MF-65's if appropriate. I can take any MKH pattern as mid, and with the MKH 800 Twin I can roll through all patterns from omni to 8 in post, pick the best mid pattern for the space....or the mix. That mic does all of them well. MKH 30 equals or beats the best ribbons for pattern control in my view, and it has extended lows that virtually no other figure 8 has. The less linear the off axis response is, the more it becomes an 'effect' technique.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 2, 2020 8:59:54 GMT -6
But...but.....I’ve been getting stereo with well defined localization out of MS ribbon OH’s for years..... A recording of a duck's quack is not a real duck's quack.. something that sounds like stereo doesn't make it truly stereo is all I'm arguing. Sigh....theoretical points about impossible perfection though, right? Like my following speaker/headphones comment. We have no perfectly defined target. Photographic images only exist on 'paper', make the 'paper' look the best it can, not knowing what kind of light the viewer will see it under. The closest would be ORTF or binaural head mics.. The closest pickup pattern being a wide cardioid. Not sure there is a 'closest' other than for a particular defined circumstance. You can upend the perception of 'closest to true stereo' very easily with the usage within a space. Al these different stereo techniques exist to cope with varying space and source realities, any technique can fail horribly in the wrong context.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jan 2, 2020 9:18:13 GMT -6
Just a point to consider: Our ears are not omnidirectional receivers. We require both to hear about 270° of the total sound field.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 2, 2020 9:28:47 GMT -6
Just a point to consider: Our ears are not omnidirectional receivers. We require both to hear about 270° of the total sound field. Not only that, but each ear can have a very different pickup pattern from the other one!
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 2, 2020 9:28:51 GMT -6
Consider the following, which points out a major source of arguments around 'stereo' recording.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 2, 2020 9:36:50 GMT -6
The discussion about which stereo technique we like best, or which is easier to execute technically is very interesting. However, let me quote the original post: Is the M/S recording Technique truly stereo.... or, more of a psycho pseudo affect? The reply is not subject to discussion. MS is a stereo technique, invented by the inventor of stereo techniques himself, that yields stereo recordings that are also totally mono compatible. It’s not a trick or a psycho acoustic phenomenon that simulates stereo. It IS stereo. Personally, it sounds better to me with an Omni M, as originally developed.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 2, 2020 9:37:45 GMT -6
Consider the following, which points out a major source of arguments around 'stereo' recording. They must mean 1.25' half-circumference, because I've never seen someone's head be 15" wide before.. Also, note how they talk about all this in relation to two eardrums.. Which means that having a third membrane would render this mostly moot.. Another point deducted from M/S as a stereo technique..
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 2, 2020 9:41:15 GMT -6
The discussion about which stereo technique we like best, or which is easier to execute technically is very interesting. However, let me quote the original post: Is the M/S recording Technique truly stereo.... or, more of a psycho pseudo affect? The reply is not subject to discussion. MS is a stereo technique, invented by the inventor of stereo techniques himself, that yields stereo recordings that are also totally mono compatible. It’s not a trick or a psycho acoustic phenomenon that simulates stereo. It IS stereo. Personally, it sounds better to me with an Omni M, as originally developed. Science is always up for debate. When something is no longer debatable, that makes it dogma, not science.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 2, 2020 9:43:56 GMT -6
Stereo recording is by itself dogma: it’s a technical definition, not subject to interpretation. Stereo recording is whatever has been defined as stereo recording.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 2, 2020 9:50:28 GMT -6
Stereo recording is by itself dogma: it’s a technical definition, not subject to interpretation. Stereo recording is whatever has been defined as stereo recording. And it's defined as two signals. Using 3 membranes to capture a signal, such as in M/S makes it not stereo, as I argued in my prior post.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 2, 2020 9:55:02 GMT -6
Stereo recording is by itself dogma: it’s a technical definition, not subject to interpretation. Stereo recording is whatever has been defined as stereo recording. And it's defined as two signals. Using 3 membranes to capture a signal, such as in M/S makes it not stereo, as I argued in my prior post. I know you are just having fun yanking our collective chain However I think this paragraph taken from the AES website is interesting: 1931 Alan Blumlein, working for Electrical and Musical Industries (EMI) in London, in effect patents stereo. His seminal patent discusses the theory of stereo, both describing and picturing in the course of its 70-odd individual claims a coincident crossed-eights miking arrangement and a "45-45" cutting system for stereo disks.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jan 2, 2020 10:28:57 GMT -6
It also goes without saying, or at least should, that not all fig 8 microphones are the same. As in their front and back response are not always well matched.
It is likely the back side does not sound like the front side on the fig 8 microphone most would try, a lot in fact are not well match front to back. Or in this case side to side.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jan 2, 2020 10:30:50 GMT -6
This is where you want argue with Bob’s theory, once the real world rears it’s ugly face and you realize you either have to step away from the theoretical cardiod to get a phase response of the figure 8 to achieve a true stereo response. Of course this is where the art in what we do comes in, if it was simply all about putting up a pair of mics in one of the many theoretical configurations anybody could make great recordings. KM100-whatever and KM120. Who here has a KM120? MK-whatever and MK 8. Who here has an MK 8? MKH-whatever and MKH 30. Who here has an MKH 30? MKH has become my MS benchmark lately, though M130/M160 does it very well, as do the Samar MF-65's if appropriate. I can take any MKH pattern as mid, and with the MKH 800 Twin I can roll through all patterns from omni to 8 in post, pick the best mid pattern for the space....or the mix. That mic does all of them well. MKH 30 equals or beats the best ribbons for pattern control in my view, and it has extended lows that virtually no other figure 8 has. The less linear the off axis response is, the more it becomes an 'effect' technique. I use an MK8 and either and MK4 or a shotgun Scheops. Usually an MK4 though.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 2, 2020 10:41:35 GMT -6
Decca tree?
svart basically argues one can only listen to stereo on headphones, no? It seems the logical extension of insisting only two membranes can create stereo, and that MS with ribbons doesn't count somehow. I've been in exactly one mastering room that felt like wearing headphones from the singular listening position, haven't experienced that anywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 2, 2020 10:42:55 GMT -6
It also goes without saying, or at least should, that not all fig 8 microphones are the same. As in their front and back response are not always well matched. It is likely the back side does not sound like the front side on the fig 8 microphone most would try, a lot in fact are not well match front to back. Or in this case side to side. and then there's spacing between if it's dual membrane.....
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 2, 2020 10:57:21 GMT -6
Decca tree? svart basically argues one can only listen to stereo on headphones, no? It seems the logical extension of insisting only two membranes can create stereo, and that MS with ribbons doesn't count somehow. I've been in exactly one mastering room that felt like wearing headphones from the singular listening position, haven't experienced that anywhere else. I'm arguing that we can only hear stereo.. So.. Capturing a signal with more than two membranes is not capturing a stereo image. It's something else that we then break down into pieces to recreate a stereo image.. Seems like you guys want to do a lot of extra work just to modify it back to stereo.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 2, 2020 11:45:03 GMT -6
A cardioid is half figure 8 and half omni mixed together.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 2, 2020 12:18:52 GMT -6
A cardioid is half figure 8 and half omni mixed together. Yes! And those two mics can be 2/3 of native array horizontal B format.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2020 12:25:02 GMT -6
The term "True Stereo" isn't really a definable term. It's like "World's Best Pizza", "Best Movie of All Time", or "The One True God". People define it to be whatever they like. "True Stereo" might mean "Mono Compatible". It might mean "Absolutely NOT Mono Compatible". It might require speakers. It might require headphones. It might require a personalized HRTF or not. It might require a sweet spot. It might require a broad listening area. It might require the microscopic head movements we humans make to help localize. It might not. No single mic technique delivers on all of those things. Yet there are millions of good recordings using techniques that are diametrically opposed.
There have been great stereo recordings made with M/S, with Blumlein, with ORTF, with Decca Tree, with panned spot mics. With combinations. Does the recording convey the artistic intent of the musicians? Does it work in the preferred listening environment? Is it reasonably clean within the constraints of the current technology? If the answer is yes, then it's true stereo. The rest is arguing about angels dancing on a pinhead.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jan 2, 2020 13:07:42 GMT -6
Decca tree? svart basically argues one can only listen to stereo on headphones, no? It seems the logical extension of insisting only two membranes can create stereo, and that MS with ribbons doesn't count somehow. I've been in exactly one mastering room that felt like wearing headphones from the singular listening position, haven't experienced that anywhere else. nah i use a real tree setup for recordings....well okay a 9 mic array for surround with dedicated mics per channel. I use M/S for production audio for film stuff as it is portable and easy to wind protect to get a stereo image or the scene and ambient sound. I'd like to pick up an M/S boom pole as well.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 2, 2020 13:22:29 GMT -6
Completely ignoring whether it is or isn't true stereo, is it OK to not like M/S?
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 2, 2020 14:01:58 GMT -6
Completely ignoring whether it is or isn't true stereo, is it OK to not like M/S? How do you know if something is MS, or any other technique? Easily argued one can't tell MS from any other coincident technique if done properly.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 2, 2020 14:05:12 GMT -6
Decca tree? svart basically argues one can only listen to stereo on headphones, no? It seems the logical extension of insisting only two membranes can create stereo, and that MS with ribbons doesn't count somehow. I've been in exactly one mastering room that felt like wearing headphones from the singular listening position, haven't experienced that anywhere else. nah i use a real tree setup for recordings....well okay a 9 mic array for surround with dedicated mics per channel. I use M/S for production audio for film stuff as it is portable and easy to wind protect to get a stereo image or the scene and ambient sound. I'd like to pick up an M/S boom pole as well. nah what? Not following the 'nah'. I just recently picked up a stereo Rycote blimp for outside work.
|
|