[Gary Eickmeier]

Playing with MS more lately to solve another problem, and getting some
pretty amazing results. You may remember that I always listen in surround,
and I have always sought a very wide and spacious sound. What I have found
is that if you set the S channel just right (about +2 in my case) you can
just about achieve surround sound for free. I got a new MS module for my
Zoom H6, so I went to try it out on my jazz band that I record. The stereo
call out test went almost perfectly, the soundstage spread evenly and
perfectly across the entire width of the room, but a bonus was when someone
else talked or played something during the test I heard them placed very
accurately where they were actually sitting, front or rear, left or right.

Additionally, it seems that MS is able to encode direction more accurately
and finely than any other miking technique or scheme. I have tried. The
ability to adjust the stage width afterward is a bonus that shouldn't be
discounted.

Along with that, I am wondering what the Stereo Width Control is doing in
Audition is doing exactly - is it converting a normal stereo signal to MS
and back again? Or is it just extracting some middle and making the
difference signal greater?

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Playing with MS more lately to solve another problem, and getting some
pretty amazing results. You may remember that I always listen in surround,
and I have always sought a very wide and spacious sound. What I have found
is that if you set the S channel just right (about +2 in my case) you can
just about achieve surround sound for free.

That's because the S channel decodes almost completely to the rears.
The thing is, as something moves right to left across the soundstage, it
will also move forward and back at the same time.

Additionally, it seems that MS is able to encode direction more accurately
and finely than any other miking technique or scheme. I have tried. The
ability to adjust the stage width afterward is a bonus that shouldn't be
discounted.

Decoded MS and coincident cardioids are mathematically identical and they
are very close to interchangeable with top-grade microphones. As you get
to cheaper microphones that are less flat off-axis, the X-Y configuration
becomes more of an issue since the center of the soundstage is off-axis on
both mikes.

Along with that, I am wondering what the Stereo Width Control is doing in
Audition is doing exactly - is it converting a normal stereo signal to MS
and back again? Or is it just extracting some middle and making the
difference signal greater?

There is no difference between these two processes. They are identical.
Both basically come down to increasing the L-R component.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Decoded MS and coincident cardioids are mathematically identical and they
are very close to interchangeable with top-grade microphones. As you get
to cheaper microphones that are less flat off-axis, the X-Y configuration
becomes more of an issue since the center of the soundstage is off-axis on
both mikes.

In other words, coincident XY is the same as MS with the M and S about the
same gain, and also the XY can be converted back to an exactly equivalent MS
pair that can be manipulated just as if the original were MS (?).

Gary

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Decoded MS and coincident cardioids are mathematically identical and they
are very close to interchangeable with top-grade microphones. As you get
to cheaper microphones that are less flat off-axis, the X-Y configuration
becomes more of an issue since the center of the soundstage is off-axis
on
both mikes.

In other words, coincident XY is the same as MS with the M and S about the
same gain, and also the XY can be converted back to an exactly equivalent
MS pair that can be manipulated just as if the original were MS (?).

LR and MS (sum and difference) are different packaging of the same
information as should be obvious from the simple mathematical operation that
converts one to the other.

Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Decoded MS and coincident cardioids are mathematically identical and they
are very close to interchangeable with top-grade microphones. As you get
to cheaper microphones that are less flat off-axis, the X-Y configuration
becomes more of an issue since the center of the soundstage is off-axis on
both mikes.

In other words, coincident XY is the same as MS with the M and S about the
same gain, and also the XY can be converted back to an exactly equivalent MS
pair that can be manipulated just as if the original were MS (?).

Precisely. Assuming perfect microphones, of course.

Now, the downside of this is that with MS and XY and Blumlein you get no
phase imaging, only intensity stereo. This affects low-frequency imaging.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tom McCreadie]

"Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Decoded MS and coincident cardioids are mathematically identical and they
are very close to interchangeable with top-grade microphones. As you get
to cheaper microphones that are less flat off-axis, the X-Y configuration
becomes more of an issue since the center of the soundstage is off-axis on
both mikes.

In other words, coincident XY is the same as MS with the M and S about the
same gain, and also the XY can be converted back to an exactly equivalent MS
pair that can be manipulated just as if the original were MS (?).

No, the gain doesn't come into it. You are reversibly and losslessly
"translating" all the stereo information data from its listenable X/Y format
into a not-directly-listenable M/S format (All the information in the MS format
is available to re-create the XY.)

The ratio of M to S that happens to result from the XY - MS operation will
depend on (a) the polar pattern of the XY mics and (b) their angular splay. And
as a corollary, the pattern and splay of a (virtual) XY pair is driven by the
(a) the chosen M mic polar pattern and (b) the M to S ratio. This "about the
same gain" is irrelevant.

Think of XY - MS as a sort of translation process. Take a word "tree";
translate that into French using your an En-Fr dictionary; that may be
unrecognizable for your kids, but once they consult a Fr-En dictionary it all
becomes perfectly clear again.

Many folks have a persistent notion that only MS allows width adjustment (via
gain ratio changes.) Any coincident XY array can do that...just that it's a mite
less convenient, entailing an extra step:
MS - XY
MS - ratio change - M'S' - X'Y'
XY - M/S - ratio change - M'S' - X'Y'

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 1/31/2015 8:41 PM, Tom McCreadie wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Decoded MS and coincident cardioids are mathematically identical and they
are very close to interchangeable with top-grade microphones. As you get
to cheaper microphones that are less flat off-axis, the X-Y configuration
becomes more of an issue since the center of the soundstage is off-axis on
both mikes.

In other words, coincident XY is the same as MS with the M and S about the
same gain, and also the XY can be converted back to an exactly equivalent MS
pair that can be manipulated just as if the original were MS (?).

No, the gain doesn't come into it. You are reversibly and losslessly
"translating" all the stereo information data from its listenable X/Y format
into a not-directly-listenable M/S format (All the information in the MS format
is available to re-create the XY.)
...big snip...

Hmm, (on M/S not being directly listenable) I've often wondered
about an M/S speaker setup. Sounds like something that might be
right up Mr. Eickmeier's ally.

Actually, it seems like an ideal technology for TV surround's
left/center/right sound bar in a box type thing.

Hard to imagine this hasn't been experimented with.

==
Later....
Ron Capik
--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/1/2015 3:24 AM, Ron C wrote:
Hmm, (on M/S not being directly listenable) I've often wondered
about an M/S speaker setup. Sounds like something that might be
right up Mr. Eickmeier's ally.

It's been done, and by our old friend Aspen Pittman, formerly of Groove
Tube. He and Drew Daniels developed the concept in the late 1970s.
Fender made a portable PA system half a dozen years ago using an M-S
speaker setup.

http://www.centerpointstereo.com/



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Ron C" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Hmm, (on M/S not being directly listenable) I've often wondered
about an M/S speaker setup. Sounds like something that might be
right up Mr. Eickmeier's ally.

DR (danish state radio) or one of their enginesearchers built one in the
1950'ties or 1960'ties. Works great. One unit towards to and one behind it
radiating to both sides. Has the interesting property that the closer you
get the wider the image.

Actually, it seems like an ideal technology for TV surround's
left/center/right sound bar in a box type thing.

Hard to imagine this hasn't been experimented with.

And it has. Easy to emulate with a surround center box and behind it a
surround fig8 box. Adding digitat processing to get them coincident comes to
mind ...

Ron Capik

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Tom McCreadie" wrote in message
...
"Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Decoded MS and coincident cardioids are mathematically identical and
they
are very close to interchangeable with top-grade microphones. As you
get
to cheaper microphones that are less flat off-axis, the X-Y
configuration
becomes more of an issue since the center of the soundstage is off-axis
on
both mikes.

In other words, coincident XY is the same as MS with the M and S about the
same gain, and also the XY can be converted back to an exactly equivalent
MS
pair that can be manipulated just as if the original were MS (?).

No, the gain doesn't come into it. You are reversibly and losslessly
"translating" all the stereo information data from its listenable X/Y
format
into a not-directly-listenable M/S format (All the information in the MS
format
is available to re-create the XY.)

The ratio of M to S that happens to result from the XY - MS operation
will
depend on (a) the polar pattern of the XY mics and (b) their angular
splay. And
as a corollary, the pattern and splay of a (virtual) XY pair is driven by
the
(a) the chosen M mic polar pattern and (b) the M to S ratio. This "about
the
same gain" is irrelevant.

Think of XY - MS as a sort of translation process. Take a word "tree";
translate that into French using your an En-Fr dictionary; that may be
unrecognizable for your kids, but once they consult a Fr-En dictionary it
all
becomes perfectly clear again.

Many folks have a persistent notion that only MS allows width adjustment
(via
gain ratio changes.) Any coincident XY array can do that...just that it's
a mite
less convenient, entailing an extra step:
MS - XY
MS - ratio change - M'S' - X'Y'
XY - M/S - ratio change - M'S' - X'Y'

Well, I am not sure how to word my question, but when you buy an MS recorder
like the Zoom H6 with built-in MS module, you get an adjustment that goes
from Zero dif between M and S in the plus direction all the way to RAW and
in the minus direction (less and less S mike) to zero, or mono. This
suggests that (if there are sounds all around you, not just a solo
instrument up front) that the S = 0 would have both M and S gains equal,
right? Then at that time the MS pair would be exactly equivalent to the XY
Blumlein pair. But with other polar patterns for the M mike than Fig 8, this
equivalency might not hold. Also interesting that coincident stereo is pure
intensity stereo and is subject to this mathematical translation, but does
that hold true for any of the spaced microphone techniques? I mean,
obviously the signal doesn't know how it was obtained, so you could do the
stereo width control on any stereo signal, right?

I guess I should just record my MS in RAW and do as I please with it later,
but I have always wondered how I should ideally be setting my gains while
recording. Should I set both M and S knobs the same and let the signal rise
and fall where it may, or should I set them so that both tracks are equally
loud most of the time? Would that be equivalent to setting the Zoom S signal
to zero difference from M?

Fascinating stuff. And yes, I have and still am reading all about it. I
would normally think that a little spacing between mikes would add something
to the stereo mix (over the coincident techniques), but in practice so far
MS has it hands down in both accuracy and spaciousness.

Gary

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/1/2015 11:23 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I guess I should just record my MS in RAW and do as I please with it later,
but I have always wondered how I should ideally be setting my gains while
recording. Should I set both M and S knobs the same and let the signal rise
and fall where it may, or should I set them so that both tracks are equally
loud most of the time?

I don't know the Zoom jargon, but see if there's an option that lets you
record the mid and side signals separately, but monitor the decoded
stereo. That way you can at least hear what you're recording in stereo.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

I guess I should just record my MS in RAW

That would be the easiest.

and do as I please with it later,but I have always wondered
how I should ideally be setting my gains while recording.

So that you do not clip the recording.

Should I set both M and S knobs the same and let the signal
rise and fall where it may, or should I set them so that both
tracks are equally loud most of the time?

You omit a variable: microphone sensitivity. However with matched
microphones you should set the knobs the same and the signal in channels 1
and 2 should be the same or channel 2 (S) a few dB lower. If it is not like
that then your mic stand is likely to be incorrectly positioned or mic
directional patterns incorrectly chosen.

Would that be equivalent to setting the Zoom S signal to zero difference
from M?

Doing it.

Fascinating stuff. And yes, I have and still am reading
all about it. I would normally think that a little spacing
between mikes would add something to the stereo mix (over
the coincident techniques), but in practice so far MS has it hands down in
both accuracy and spaciousness.

It is always a compromise to record, especially to record live events where
positioning is often "where possible". But nice to hear that a compromise
within solid theory fares better than one well outside it, as your spaced
array most certainly is in the way you use it.

Just never stop learning ... because there is always more to learn

Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

"Gary Eickmeier" writes:

-snip-

Additionally, it seems that MS is able to encode direction more accurately
and finely than any other miking technique or scheme. I have tried. The

You haven't tried 50 cm A/B with diffraction spheres, then (or perhaps the Jeklin
disk, which I have not tried).

MS has okay L-to-R imaging. But sometimes the LR soundstage "dimension" can be
non-linear the further left or right you go. That is, you can have a somewhat
clustered "centerish" soundstage that then suddenly zips out to far left and far
right. Farther center left and farther center right can kinda be skipped over to
jump directly to that far left and or right. Doesn't happen all the time, but it
can.

Aside from not having a reliably accurate left-to-right, my main complaint with MS
and XY is the lack of true, pin-point, *front-to-back* imaging. That's why I largely
abandoned MS when I heard 50cm A/B. That, and the ability to use omnis which,
because of their much better low end response and more even response in general,
brought on a whole new world of realism, particularly with orchestral work.


ability to adjust the stage width afterward is a bonus that shouldn't be
discounted.

Typically, you don't want to do that with A/B because that's where the "room width"
lives, and rarely is your "subject" as wide as the left and right walls. But if you
want you can trim in the pan pots a touch to narrow the image and you'll do no harm.

Along with that, I am wondering what the Stereo Width Control is doing in
Audition is doing exactly - is it converting a normal stereo signal to MS
and back again? Or is it just extracting some middle and making the
difference signal greater?

Several plug-ins have a width enhancer. Generally that's done by crossfeeding delay
components or similar time-based trickery. Indeed it's handy -- if not overused.

Now, there are some mastering processors that convert to and from a pseudo MS so
that you can then raise or lower the center of the image, but I'm not sure it's
truly MS. For one thing, as I understand these (have not used one), you do not
change the width as you adjust the "center" volume. YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Frank Stearns" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Gary Eickmeier" writes:

-snip-

Additionally, it seems that MS is able to encode direction more accurately
and finely than any other miking technique or scheme. I have tried. The

You haven't tried 50 cm A/B with diffraction spheres, then (or perhaps the
Jeklin
disk, which I have not tried).

I actually think my best spatial rendering is an AB recording made like that
with the microphones parallel. It was also the last time I changed a setup
in the intermission, an old tape amateur friend, how had asked me to help
him with the recording, suggested I should angle the CK22's outwards and it
caused a collapse of perspective that was so annoying that I only ever
burned the first part to CD.

I also made a number of AB recordings in August 2014 because it allowed a
less visually obtrusive setup, something that was specifically requested by
the event photographer, a couple of them with CK22's but most of them with
Sennheiser MKH106 and all of them with the mics positioned vertically. That
setup of course required a treble boost in post ... O;-) ... but worked like
a treat with mics only 2 meters above the floor.

For deep ensembles, such as those with a concert grand I added an other omni
on the piano, often but not always only one. Stereo miking of a concert
grand for spot miking is grossly overevaluated and often causes more stereo
problems than it solves, I trust the main pair to deliver the stereo image
and just use the spot mic(s) - suiably delayed - to add focus.

MS has okay L-to-R imaging. But sometimes the LR soundstage "dimension"
can be
non-linear the further left or right you go. That is, you can have a
somewhat
clustered "centerish" soundstage that then suddenly zips out to far left
and far
right. Farther center left and farther center right can kinda be skipped
over to
jump directly to that far left and or right. Doesn't happen all the time,
but it
can.

Aside from not having a reliably accurate left-to-right, my main complaint
with MS
and XY is the lack of true, pin-point, *front-to-back* imaging. That's why
I largely

Enter what I also call xy - it is more misleading to call it ortf - namely
some 12 to 22 centimeters capsule spacing and an angle between the
microphone in the 45 to 100 degrees range, smaller angle if you are close or
it is a wide ensemble, larger angle if you are further away. Adjust inter
microphone angle for stable center and - my preference - a bit of room on
the outside of the ensemble, just like the real world is. Under some
circumstances a pair of omnis tend to blur far away sound sources in a very
reverberant room, and then the image compensation abilities of a spaced xy
pair can be most helpful.

abandoned MS when I heard 50cm A/B. That, and the ability to use omnis
which,
because of their much better low end response and more even response in
general,
brought on a whole new world of realism, particularly with orchestral
work.

Omnis are kinder to any kind of transient than cardioids, it did not take
long to learn than when using a MD211 together with a pair of MD4241's. And
oh what imaging problems one can have when the helpful electronics guy who
soldered mic cables for you can not read a Sennheiser cable spec properly
and miswires the HL ... thinking back I still think that was way too uphill
a way to start recording ...

ability to adjust the stage width afterward is a bonus that shouldn't be
discounted.

Typically, you don't want to do that with A/B because that's where
the "room width" lives, and rarely is your "subject" as wide as the
left and right walls. But if you want you can trim in the pan pots
a touch to narrow the image and you'll do no harm.

Don't worry, forget theory and take it to ms and fix it and back, adjusting
the S level is a good way to strengthen the center and if you have too much
reverb then it also is likely to be helpful to eq the S signal. However
using diffraction spheres does just about "all of that", something that
needs to be understood. And it works in three dimensions, eq works globally.

Along with that, I am wondering what the Stereo Width Control is doing in
Audition is doing exactly - is it converting a normal stereo signal to MS
and back again? Or is it just extracting some middle and making the
difference signal greater?

Several plug-ins have a width enhancer. Generally that's done by
crossfeeding delay
components or similar time-based trickery. Indeed it's handy -- if not
overused.

It is an MS tweak, but I've always preferred to make those manually.

Now, there are some mastering processors that convert to and from a pseudo
MS so
that you can then raise or lower the center of the image, but I'm not sure
it's
truly MS. For one thing, as I understand these (have not used one), you do
not
change the width as you adjust the "center" volume. YMMV.

The simplest ploy to fix a troublesome recording is usually the best. But we
are seeing a lot of plug ins coming on to the market that a) do what most
daw software can do out of the shrink wrap and b) capitalizes on user
ignorance by offering to make the "difficult bits" as if MS was something
exotic. It is akin to when Symantec sold Norton Tools for windows that
basically just did what the OS could do anyway. That said, some of the time
a plug in can offer a very neat short cut.

As example no daw should be without Nugens "Mono", it is really a uniquely
helpful image stabilizer if properly used, whatever that is. In principle I
am against making the bass monophonic because some of the ambience
information is in the VLF out of phase stuff, but in the real world so many
people are playing back on mono subwoofer systems that one has to think
compatibility.

Frank
Mobile Audio

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Luxey]

�убота, 31. јануар 2015. 14.07.17 UTC+1, Peter Larsen је напи�ао/ла:
For deep ensembles, such as those with a concert grand I added an other omni
on the piano, often but not always only one. Stereo miking of a concert
grand for spot miking is grossly overevaluated and often causes more stereo
problems than it solves, I trust the main pair to deliver the stereo image
and just use the spot mic(s) - suiably delayed - to add focus.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Sorry if I already mentioned this. Some time ago, I've recorded a series of
solo (prepared) piano concerts. However, the deal and the scheduelle was such
taht I'd show there just before the very begining, plug my multitrack into
their PA console and take the signal from inserts. People working there always
did the same set up,
- two cardioid mics (I forgot the model) close to strings and the lid
- Kind of ORTF pair of C1000s' with omni capsules

My job was to record 4 tracks and later mix them for CD (low number run,
self published by artist). Which I did and ok...

Story being, each time I got there, I asked those guys to reverse the setup
for the next concert, put the omnies inside and have cardioids for ORTF,
they'd alwasys say, mmm, cool, we'll do it for the next one and they never
did.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
...
"Gary Eickmeier" writes:

-snip-

Additionally, it seems that MS is able to encode direction more accurately
and finely than any other miking technique or scheme. I have tried. The

You haven't tried 50 cm A/B with diffraction spheres, then (or perhaps the
Jeklin
disk, which I have not tried).

MS has okay L-to-R imaging. But sometimes the LR soundstage "dimension"
can be
non-linear the further left or right you go. That is, you can have a
somewhat
clustered "centerish" soundstage that then suddenly zips out to far left
and far
right. Farther center left and farther center right can kinda be skipped
over to
jump directly to that far left and or right. Doesn't happen all the time,
but it
can.

Aside from not having a reliably accurate left-to-right, my main complaint
with MS
and XY is the lack of true, pin-point, *front-to-back* imaging. That's why
I largely
abandoned MS when I heard 50cm A/B. That, and the ability to use omnis
which,
because of their much better low end response and more even response in
general,
brought on a whole new world of realism, particularly with orchestral
work.

Frank
Mobile Audio

My audio engineer friend who does most of the archival gigs in town uses the
50 cm omnis (DAP) and gets fantastic results. What is interesting is that
this would be a purely time of arrival kind of stereo and my MS would be
strictly intensity stereo, and both work well! I had thought that some
combination of the two approaches with some shorter spaced cardioids aimed
right and left would give the best compromise - the best of both - but I was
wrong.

On my MS experiment, I have arrived at a tentative conclusion that the S of
3 dB below M works best for my setup in surround sound. It gives a pretty
much perfect spread of the frontal sound along with strong enough a surround
signal to give the surround feel - actually hearing audience behind me.
Crank it up to realistic levels and whammo, you are THERE.

Gary

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

My audio engineer friend who does most of the archival gigs in town uses the
50 cm omnis (DAP) and gets fantastic results. What is interesting is that
this would be a purely time of arrival kind of stereo and my MS would be
strictly intensity stereo, and both work well! I had thought that some
combination of the two approaches with some shorter spaced cardioids aimed
right and left would give the best compromise - the best of both - but I was
wrong.

If he's using the DPA 4006 omnis, you'll find that they aren't really very
omni. Add the balls onto them and they become even less omni, and that is
what gives you actual intensity stereo.

The M50, as traditionally used in the Decca tree, are even less omni.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

My audio engineer friend who does most of the archival gigs in town uses the
50 cm omnis (DAP) and gets fantastic results. What is interesting is that
this would be a purely time of arrival kind of stereo and my MS would be
strictly intensity stereo, and both work well! I had thought that some
combination of the two approaches with some shorter spaced cardioids aimed
right and left would give the best compromise - the best of both - but I was
wrong.

If he's using the DPA 4006 omnis, you'll find that they aren't really very
omni. Add the balls onto them and they become even less omni, and that is
what gives you actual intensity stereo.

The M50, as traditionally used in the Decca tree, are even less omni.

Indeed. The higher frequency directionality adds an intensity component.

And the M50 response is rather peculiar; my understanding is that in part the
Decca tree technique was birthed to work around that odd response.

Once again, KM183s (or 183Ds) using 50 cm spacing, 120 degree splay, 20 degree
up-tilt, with the balls, is the most accurate imaging I've ever heard.

But, I'll still put a 17 cm ORTF pair on the same stick. This is handy to deal with
any room oddities, or to "reach in" if a little presence is needed. Because the
stick location is optimized for the omnis, the ORTF is actually "too close" and
would not be pleasant all by itself. But mixed in underneath it can lend a helping
hand when the 50 cm omnis reveal all too well problems with the room or the
players.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:

The M50, as traditionally used in the Decca tree, are even less omni.

Indeed. The higher frequency directionality adds an intensity component.

And the M50 response is rather peculiar; my understanding is that in part the
Decca tree technique was birthed to work around that odd response.

Yes, I have tried, and seen others try, to make the Decca tree work with
other microphones and never been satisfied with the results. It does seem
very dependent on the weird beaming of the M50.

Once again, KM183s (or 183Ds) using 50 cm spacing, 120 degree splay, 20 degree
up-tilt, with the balls, is the most accurate imaging I've ever heard.

Try the Jecklin!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

amar

[geoff]

On 20/04/2020 5:02 pm, wrote:
amar


I find the thought of MS rather unpleasant. A sister-in-law of mine has it.

If you got it wrong and meant SM, well that doesn't do much for me
either- don't like receiving or inflicting pain.

geoff

[polymod]

"geoff" wrote in message
...

On 20/04/2020 5:02 pm, wrote:
amar


I find the thought of MS rather unpleasant. A sister-in-law of mine has it.

If you got it wrong and meant SM, well that doesn't do much for me
either- don't like receiving or inflicting pain.


ROTFLMAO!

Poly