Re: Dumb question

[Bill Ruys]

"So what's all the fuss about matched pairs?"

Hmmm, well, do you consider it important that your ears be very close in
their acoustic characteristics? If you are stereo mic'ing, you want the
stereo field to be fairly linear right across the frequency and dynamic
spectrums. Both your ears are almost identical in regard to their
sensitivity, frequency range, etc. aren't they?. Do you have a different
make and model of speaker on the left to the one on the right of your
stereo? Why not? You know why not... They sound different enough to screw
up the stereo imaging.

I'm not saying you can't make a stereo recording with two different mics,
but for a faithful stereo recording the mics should be matched in the same
way that your ears are matched, or your stereo speakers are matched.

Of course correct placement of the mics is a whole different story...

Bill.

"aanaddha" > wrote in message
m...
> If the signal from two or more different microphones is combined
> (e.g., a stereo recording) are the resulting dynamics improved as a
> whole or are the qualities for which a good microphone was designed
> compromised by the mix? (So what's all the fuss about matched pairs?)
>
> Bill

[Liquori]

Matched pairs are not too important to me personally. If you are
trying to do an exact stereo recording of something maybe they are,
but I like to use different mics and combine them in different ways to
create a new sound. Also, if you are using a DAW, you can easily line
up the waveforms so that the dynamics are in sync, you can adjust EQ
etc. individually, so the difference in mics probably won't be that
large or important.

(aanaddha) wrote in message >...
> If the signal from two or more different microphones is combined
> (e.g., a stereo recording) are the resulting dynamics improved as a
> whole or are the qualities for which a good microphone was designed
> compromised by the mix? (So what's all the fuss about matched pairs?)
>
> Bill

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
aanaddha > wrote:
>If the signal from two or more different microphones is combined
>(e.g., a stereo recording) are the resulting dynamics improved as a
>whole or are the qualities for which a good microphone was designed
>compromised by the mix? (So what's all the fuss about matched pairs?)

I'm not sure what you're asking.

In a standard stereo recording, the microphones aren't combined at all,
but there is a left microphone and a right microphone, one for each
channel with no shuffling or combining.

When this is the case, matching is important because the two channels
should be as identical as possible.

There is a good introduction to stereophony on http://www.josephson.com.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[aanaddha]

"Bill Ruys" > wrote in message >...
> "So what's all the fuss about matched pairs?"
>
> Hmmm, well, do you consider it important that your ears be very close in
> their acoustic characteristics? If you are stereo mic'ing, you want the
> stereo field to be fairly linear right across the frequency and dynamic
> spectrums. Both your ears are almost identical in regard to their
> sensitivity, frequency range, etc. aren't they?. Do you have a different
> make and model of speaker on the left to the one on the right of your
> stereo? Why not? You know why not... They sound different enough to screw
> up the stereo imaging.
>
> I'm not saying you can't make a stereo recording with two different mics,
> but for a faithful stereo recording the mics should be matched in the same
> way that your ears are matched, or your stereo speakers are matched.
>
> Of course correct placement of the mics is a whole different story...
>
> Bill.
>
> "aanaddha" > wrote in message
> m...
> > If the signal from two or more different microphones is combined
> > (e.g., a stereo recording) are the resulting dynamics improved as a
> > whole or are the qualities for which a good microphone was designed
> > compromised by the mix? (So what's all the fuss about matched pairs?)
> >
> > Bill

OK, so what happens to the overall effect when you have more than two
microphones ( or sets of speakers)? Does the number of mics make a
better recording or does the quality of the microphones matter more?
Would the detail be significantly less in mono with a good mic than it
would be in stereo with a lesser quality pair? Can a combination of
microphones ever cancel out each others qualities in a mix. Can
professionals actually hear the separate
components of a combination mic setup in a stereo mix?
BTW, I have only 20% hearing in my left ear so I hear everything
pretty much in mono anyway. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the
finer things in life.
Thanks,

Bill

[Carey Carlan]

(aanaddha) wrote in
om:

> OK, so what happens to the overall effect when you have more than two
> microphones ( or sets of speakers)? Does the number of mics make a
> better recording or does the quality of the microphones matter more?

It depends. If two microphones can accurately capture what you want to
record, then "two is best". If the source needs spot mics or direct inputs
or any of a thousand other niceties, then "more is best".

> Would the detail be significantly less in mono with a good mic than it
> would be in stereo with a lesser quality pair?

Strictly speaking, mono is usually the most detailed (much like a blank and
white photo has better grain). A single point can have no cancellation
other than that already occuring in the room. If your definition of a good
mic vs a lesser quality means what I think it does, a good mono recording
could sound significantly better than a lesser stereo recording.

But mono also has no "soundstage". It takes at least two mics to create a
stereo image. Stereo has a huge psychoacoustic effect.

> Can a combination of
> microphones ever cancel out each others qualities in a mix?

Sure, but if handled well they won't.

> Can professionals actually hear the separate
> components of a combination mic setup in a stereo mix?

Sometimes. It depends on how they are arranged relative to the source.

> BTW, I have only 20% hearing in my left ear so I hear everything
> pretty much in mono anyway. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the
> finer things in life.

Many Americans have less hearing in their left ear from high noise levels
while driving. While yours is more extreme, your condition is not unusual.
Please continue to seek out the finer things.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Perhaps to you, but to me, it is extremely important to have matched pairs for
> stereo (not dual Mono) recording.
>
> You will not be able to get two different sounding microphones to sound the
> same through aDAW manipulation.

What? You mean you can't use an SM57 for one channel, a B-8000 for the
other, put a mic modeler plug-in on both channels and set them to both
sound like KM84's? Great googlymoogly! I've been swindled!

> Well matched microphones are worth their weight in gold (even if they didn't
> cost that much.

I try to buy mics in pairs, not necessarily because I expect to use
them in stereo, but that if I like the mic, chances are I'll find more
than one place to use it. But as far as "matching", I've never worried
about that and my stereo recordings come out OK. Two KM84's that are
working correctly are good enough - you don't have to put a batch
through measurement and pick out the two that are closest in as many
things that you can measure. It of course doesn't hurt, but it's just
not something that's usually done, and rarely was done.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[EggHd]

<< Great googlymoogly! >>

That's a new one.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Tom Jancauskas]

in article , EggHd at
wrote on 7/25/03 7:16 PM:

> << Great googlymoogly! >>
>
> That's a new one.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"
straight from Apostrophe (Frank Zappa) I don't know if Mike's reference was
from that album, but that's the first tine I heard it.


Tom Jancauskas
Imedia

[Rob Adelman]

Tom Jancauskas wrote:
> in article , EggHd at
> wrote on 7/25/03 7:16 PM:
>
>
>><< Great googlymoogly! >>
>>
>>That's a new one.
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------
>>"I know enough to know I don't know enough"
>
> straight from Apostrophe (Frank Zappa) I don't know if Mike's reference was
> from that album, but that's the first tine I heard it.

I thought it was Ned Flanders...

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> >>That's a new one.

Not to me.

> > straight from Apostrophe (Frank Zappa) I don't know if Mike's reference was
> > from that album, but that's the first tine I heard it.
>
> I thought it was Ned Flanders...

Who's Ned Flanders? Kin to Moll?

I remember the expression from Frank Zappa. I don't have the album,
but it was from the days when we had a real radio station (commercial,
even) that played that sort of music, so I heard it a lot when the
album was current.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Roger W. Norman]

Wait, I don't recall Zappa on anything but WHFS (Ty's old station), and
until it moved to Annapolis it wasn't commercial. I don't know about it
after that because it wasn't powered in this direction. But thank god for
Ty, Damian, Cerphe, Judy and the others. They made music in DC worthwhile.
What was the choice, WPGC? Then again, what's the choice now? Wish I still
had those slow RTR recordings of WHFS now. They'd be a treat to listen to,
nostalgia wise.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

301-585-4681




"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1059218824k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > >>That's a new one.
>
> Not to me.
>
> > > straight from Apostrophe (Frank Zappa) I don't know if Mike's
reference was
> > > from that album, but that's the first tine I heard it.
> >
> > I thought it was Ned Flanders...
>
> Who's Ned Flanders? Kin to Moll?
>
> I remember the expression from Frank Zappa. I don't have the album,
> but it was from the days when we had a real radio station (commercial,
> even) that played that sort of music, so I heard it a lot when the
> album was current.
>
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[transducr]

Tom Jancauskas > wrote in message >...
> in article , EggHd at
> wrote on 7/25/03 7:16 PM:
>
> > << Great googlymoogly! >>
> >
> > That's a new one.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------
> > "I know enough to know I don't know enough"
> straight from Apostrophe (Frank Zappa) I don't know if Mike's reference was
> from that album, but that's the first tine I heard it.
>
>
> Tom Jancauskas
> Imedia

the first time i heard it was in the cinematic (blaxploitation)
masterpiece: "Dolemite" starring Rudy Ray Moore (the human tornado).

[Hal Laurent]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
...
> Wait, I don't recall Zappa on anything but WHFS (Ty's old station), and
> until it moved to Annapolis it wasn't commercial. I don't know about it
> after that because it wasn't powered in this direction. But thank god for
> Ty, Damian, Cerphe, Judy and the others. They made music in DC
worthwhile.

Up in Baltimore in the 70s we had WKTK-FM and WAYE-AM (where Ty was
a DJ at the time) playing whatever the DJ's felt like playing.

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Wait, I don't recall Zappa on anything but WHFS (Ty's old station), and
> until it moved to Annapolis it wasn't commercial.

That was the station, and they were always commercial. They just got
more commercial when the Einsteins sold it (the first time). This was
one of the stations that record labels used to pay attention to. We had
some other good stations in those days - WGTB, and WDCU, and WAMU used
to play music at other times but weekends.

WHFS, before it became "The Flagship of Progressive Rock" was the
first FM stereo broadcast station in the DC area. HFS stood for "Hi Fi
Stereo." Jake Einstein was the owner back then, too, and didn't
really know what to do with the station. They started out with easy
listening music in stereo, and became a progressive rock free format
station in the late '60's. I bough an add-on FM converter for the
radio in my 1968 plymouth so I could listen to the station.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Richard Kuschel]

>
>I try to buy mics in pairs, not necessarily because I expect to use
>them in stereo, but that if I like the mic, chances are I'll find more
>than one place to use it. But as far as "matching", I've never worried
>about that and my stereo recordings come out OK. Two KM84's that are
>working correctly are good enough - you don't have to put a batch
>through measurement and pick out the two that are closest in as many
>things that you can measure. It of course doesn't hurt, but it's just
>not something that's usually done, and rarely was done.
>
>
>
>--
>I'm really Mike Rivers - )
>
>
>
Funny that you should mention KM 84's.

Last week I was doing a bunch of choir recording and that meant that I had to
use more than the Schoeps, so I pulled out the km 84's.

I know that this isn't terribly scientific, but--

I was looking for the pair that were closest to one another in sound , so i
turned on some pink noise, put the pairs together, inverted the polarity one of
the microphones through a "Y" cable and listened for the most cancellation.

I picked out the two that had the most cancellation. Surprise! They were the
two with consecutive serial numbers.

The others were all over the place. This was pretty obvious.



Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty