|
Post by drbill on Jan 2, 2020 14:20:07 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. Fair enough. But I don't like it when I'm DOING it. I guess maybe I just can't do it properly then. I've tried many, many times over the years - its not exactly rocket science - with many different types and brands of mics. Never liked it. I don't particularly like M/S style compression or EQ or other outboard processing either. Hey....maybe I just don't like stereo.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jan 2, 2020 14:33:19 GMT -6
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. I thought you were asking me if I use MS in a decca tree setup or array similar to what you're doing. And I'm not. Sorry if i was confused and responded to the wrong comment! haha Yeah looking at that one in ORTF scheops and M/S Scheops blimps.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jan 2, 2020 14:35:28 GMT -6
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. Fair enough. But I don't like it when I'm DOING it. I guess maybe I just can't do it properly then. I've tried many, many times over the years - its not exactly rocket science - with many different types and brands of mics. Never liked it. I don't particularly like M/S style compression or EQ or other outboard processing either. Hey....maybe I just don't like stereo. It's not my favorite sounding stereo technique either. However, I do love M/S processing for EQ/Compression wonderful stuff can be had when using it in mastering. Less is often more though.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 2, 2020 14:39:58 GMT -6
yeah. I use it LESS. Way less. And for me, that's definitely more.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jan 2, 2020 14:46:58 GMT -6
I use mid/side for my drum room mics. Love it.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 2, 2020 14:48:57 GMT -6
I use mid/side for my drum room mics. Love it. I favor mono drum room mics for sure. By far. (Had this argument in the past with Clearmountain.... heh heh). Making me think once again that maybe I just don't like stereo.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 2, 2020 14:49:17 GMT -6
nah what? Not following the 'nah'. I thought you were asking me if I use MS in a decca tree setup or array similar to what you're doing. And I'm not. Sorry if i was confused and responded to the wrong comment! haha Gotcha!
|
|
|
Post by klauth on Jan 2, 2020 15:13:30 GMT -6
Thanks for the great feedback eveyone.... was just pondering the general consensus. Seems to come up from time to time in post tracking get togethers....along with that damn Jecklin disc concept! haha.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 2, 2020 15:32:05 GMT -6
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. Fair enough. But I don't like it when I'm DOING it. Don't do it if ya don't like it when yer doing it! : ) I use mid/side for my drum room mics. Love it. I favor mono drum room mics for sure. By far. (Had this argument in the past with Clearmountain.... heh heh). Making me think once again that maybe I just don't like stereo. This is interesting. Do you mean a single mic, or panned mono mics? I like MS most in small studio spaces, where near-coincident and spaced stereo more easily gets weird. MS is more like mono having an unchanging center, and if you treat it primarily like mono when placing it, lets you adjust the amount of spread later at mix. Compared to the unhappiness I feel trying to make XY or Blumlein more narrow and having the treble turn to mud as it begins canceling and phasing at the top.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 2, 2020 16:57:50 GMT -6
Fair enough. But I don't like it when I'm DOING it. Don't do it if ya don't like it when yer doing it! : ) I favor mono drum room mics for sure. By far. (Had this argument in the past with Clearmountain.... heh heh). Making me think once again that maybe I just don't like stereo. This is interesting. Do you mean a single mic, or panned mono mics? I like MS most in small studio spaces, where near-coincident and spaced stereo more easily gets weird. MS is more like mono having an unchanging center, and if you treat it primarily like mono when placing it, lets you adjust the amount of spread later at mix. Compared to the unhappiness I feel trying to make XY or Blumlein more narrow and having the treble turn to mud as it begins canceling and phasing at the top. I do don't do it. I mean, I don't do it anymore. Gave up trying. I'm always game to try different techniques, but after they don't work for you a dozen times, the desire kind of moves on.... Mono as in 1 mic. Every once in awhile I'll do a mono, and then put up a couple more mics, but most times I like the mono mic, and go with that. I'm speaking of drum room mics BTW. Hope I said that earlier....
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jan 3, 2020 2:02:05 GMT -6
But we know the KM84 has excellent off axis response so that's a mic in the cardioid camp that would work in M/S. 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2020 7:59:45 GMT -6
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. That's it in a nutshell. Although the methods we use in classical are often different from other types of music, our goal is the same. Give the listener the best seat in the house. That might involve any technique or combination of techniques. We might have to cheat because of the nature of the venue. The art is not leaving fingerprints.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 3, 2020 10:29:53 GMT -6
But we know the KM84 has excellent off axis response so that's a mic in the cardioid camp that would work in M/S. 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. I love my 84's but even they didn't make me happy when the sides were added..... Hmmmm....come to think of it now, I didn't have my KM86's last time I tried. Maybe I'll try KM84 on the mid., and KM86 on the sides. But I'm pretty sure I'll still not like it.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,698
|
Post by ericn on Jan 3, 2020 11:01:46 GMT -6
But we know the KM84 has excellent off axis response so that's a mic in the cardioid camp that would work in M/S. 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. The thing about M/S is it’s not just about the center mics response, it’s about the phase response compared to the figure 8. The ideal would be a center cardiod that had the same response as the S, remember the stereo signal is derived via a matrix based on phase response, very small differences in phase can be quite annoying.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 3, 2020 21:32:20 GMT -6
But we know the KM84 has excellent off axis response so that's a mic in the cardioid camp that would work in M/S. I love my 84's but even they didn't make me happy when the sides were added..... I didn't have my KM86's last time I tried. Maybe I'll try KM84 on the mid., and KM86 on the sides. But I'm pretty sure I'll still not like it. KM86's have a big space between the capsules, not a good Side mic, not a great 8 pattern.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 4, 2020 12:19:07 GMT -6
My experience with KM-86s was that the spacing was not a problem and the pattern was really good.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 4, 2020 14:23:33 GMT -6
My experience with KM-86s was that the spacing was not a problem and the pattern was really good. I only know there are a lot of classical people who would argue with you about that. The pattern with respect to frequency varies more than most (all?) dedicated SDC figure 8's. The KM88 has better pattern control in comparison. ....and all that matters is you liking the results.....
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jan 4, 2020 14:54:46 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. Yeah.
What is "True" stereo, anyway?
Considering that stereo recording is an illusion from the get-go
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 4, 2020 15:44:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by markfouxman on Jan 6, 2020 1:24:20 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. Michael, My guess, the term "true stereo" goes back to the times when 'mono' was still popular, so people needed to distinguish the difference between emulated stereo (i.e. processed from one mono channel) and two discreet channels, recorded with some kind of stereo technique, whether spaced, or coincident. In this respect, definitely, the M/S is a 'true coincident stereo' and is very powerful tool, which depending on the 'M' channel can be whether XY (cardioid M), binaural (omni M), or Blumlein (Fig8 M). As for the 'S' my favorite is fig8 ribbon (of course, it should be symmetrical) for three reasons: 1) For left and right sides of information it uses the same diaphragm, so there is great integrity and uniformity of the pickup from both sides. 2) Due to very narrow dimension in the horizontal plane the uniformity up to very high frequencies of the pick up pattern is unmatched by ANY condenser mics, and 3) Ribbons in general have much better what they call 'reach' and can provide very truthful sound picture even with great distances (which many condensers fail to do). Because of that and also because of their perfect 90 degree null they perform extremely well in this situation, giving a very good response, especially at low frequencies. This is the place where condensers because of physics laws just cannot get even close because of weirdness of their frequency dependent polar response. The additional benefit of the M/S is its ability to change the width of the soundstage spread. Here it is important to note that any coincident stereo recording can be matrixed and then re-matrixed with adjusted spread--something many do not realize. But yes, the M/S is as 'true' as it can be, if the coincident technique suites that particular application, room acoustics, ensemble, genre of music, etc. Best, M
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2020 20:31:45 GMT -6
Michael, As for the 'S' my favorite is fig8 ribbon (of course, it should be symmetrical) for three reasons: That's exactly why I use a VL37 for the 'S' mic
|
|
|
Post by Pueblo Audio on Jan 8, 2020 15:16:56 GMT -6
Is MS technique true stereo?
The term “true stereo” always seemed more like a marketing term to me. Still, words and terminology can lead to further understanding. In this thread’s context “true” is most likely used to mean genuine or authentic. Something that is genuine is what it should be; never having been anything else.
If two mics are connected directly to a monitoring system and position as XY, Blumlien, ORTF or NOS, the direct result is a stereophonic sound stage (left, right, phantom center and localized points in between.) What each mic transduces is, in turn, transduced by each speaker. I would call this a genuine or “true” stereo technique.
If a middle pointing mic and a side pointing mic are connected directly to the monitors, the result is not a stereophonic field. Those m/s signals must first undergo processing in order to synthesize the desired stereophonic sound stage from constituent elements. Therefore M/S would be a “synthetic” stereo technique.
Before folk get defensive , I am not using synthetic in a negative light. Here I am describing the process rather than the result. The final result for both methods are, indeed, real stereo images.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 8, 2020 16:49:39 GMT -6
That’s cute but I’d defer to Mr. Blumlein as to what stereo is, given that he invented and patented it
|
|