MS Proximity Problem

[Gary Eickmeier]

I haven't read about this before, but I have experienced it. Wonder what
anyone knows about it.

I recorded a high school jazz band in MS, with the mikes quite close - like
2 rows of seats back and low in height, maybe ear height. Some strange
effects when I got home and started processing the MS into stereo. Some
directionality was wrong. The drum kit should be well to the right, but it
appeared in the center. An electric piano was even further right, and it
appeared just to the right of the drums. All of this happened on the first 3
tracks, then it all straightened out and the directionality was fantastic.
The drums and piano appeared well outside the speaker locaitions -
accurately! Listening in surround.

On another occasion, I was just trying to do a sound check for
directionality, so I walked around my MS pair and announced left channel,
right channel, center, but on playback it just didn't work. My theory is
that when you are so close to a microphone pair, both mikes hear it
omnidirectionally, the sound not having established a strong direction yet.
Improvement in this situation in the second half is probably because I was
tweeking the gains between jazz sets.

Gary Eickmeier

[Tom McCreadie]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:

>I recorded a high school jazz band in MS, with the mikes quite close - like
>2 rows of seats back and low in height, maybe ear height. Some strange
>effects when I got home and started processing the MS into stereo. Some
>directionality was wrong. The drum kit should be well to the right, but it
>appeared in the center. An electric piano was even further right, and it
>appeared just to the right of the drums. All of this happened on the first 3
>tracks, then it all straightened out and the directionality was fantastic.
>The drums and piano appeared well outside the speaker locaitions -
>accurately! Listening in surround.
Sound sources from the extreme edges of the podium will often fall in the
so-called ambiphonic sectors of the mic array, from which they generate - after
MS to XY decoding, of course - opposite polarity signals at the L- and R-
speakers.

These "phasey" signals give confusing psychoacoustic signals to the human brain:
at first it may sound wide, pleasant and ethereal; sometimes it is felt as woozy
and unfocused and indeed it often can collapse into a centered image or even
shift to the other speaker side.

In short, all bets are off with imaging of sound sources located in the
ambiphonic regions, and people may even experience/interpret the signals in
diffeent ways.

>On another occasion, I was just trying to do a sound check for
>directionality, so I walked around my MS pair and announced left channel,
>right channel, center, but on playback it just didn't work. My theory is
>that when you are so close to a microphone pair, both mikes hear it
>omnidirectionally, the sound not having established a strong direction yet.
>Improvement in this situation in the second half is probably because I was
>tweeking the gains between jazz sets.
>
If you increase the M gain of the MS pair, or narrow the included angle of a
coincident XY pair, you can often tighten up the imaging as such actions
decrease the angular width of the two left and right ambiphonic sectors. When
setting up, you could perhaps give more thought to the angle that the podium
edges are subtending to your mic array.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/12/2015 1:31 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> I recorded a high school jazz band in MS, with the mikes quite close - like
> 2 rows of seats back and low in height, maybe ear height. Some strange
> effects when I got home and started processing the MS into stereo. Some
> directionality was wrong. The drum kit should be well to the right, but it
> appeared in the center. An electric piano was even further right, and it
> appeared just to the right of the drums. All of this happened on the first 3
> tracks, then it all straightened out and the directionality was fantastic.

When you get too close with an M-S array, you can get some odd imaging
effects. However, since the problem "fixed itself" after three songs, I
suspect that there may have been a problem with the side channel - the
mic, the cable, the preamp. Listen to the two channels (mid and side,
not left and right) and see if one of them changed significantly at the
point when the problem "fixed."

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>I recorded a high school jazz band in MS, with the mikes quite close - like
>2 rows of seats back and low in height, maybe ear height. Some strange
>effects when I got home and started processing the MS into stereo. Some
>directionality was wrong. The drum kit should be well to the right, but it
>appeared in the center. An electric piano was even further right, and it
>appeared just to the right of the drums. All of this happened on the first 3
>tracks, then it all straightened out and the directionality was fantastic.
>The drums and piano appeared well outside the speaker locaitions -
>accurately! Listening in surround.

And did it change substantially as you adjusted the M/S ratio? If so, it
is likely due to the microphones being too widely spaced apart. If not,
it is likely due to standing wave problems in the room. Move the mikes
a few inches and it will change.

This is why having good monitoring in the field is so important.

>On another occasion, I was just trying to do a sound check for
>directionality, so I walked around my MS pair and announced left channel,
>right channel, center, but on playback it just didn't work. My theory is
>that when you are so close to a microphone pair, both mikes hear it
>omnidirectionally, the sound not having established a strong direction yet.

No. That is almost certainly due to the microphones not occupying the same
place in space.

>Improvement in this situation in the second half is probably because I was
>tweeking the gains between jazz sets.

Did you move anything? What gains did you change?

Have you tried listening to this on standard speakers?
--scott


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

[Gary Eickmeier]

Hi Scott -

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...

> And did it change substantially as you adjusted the M/S ratio? If so, it
> is likely due to the microphones being too widely spaced apart. If not,
> it is likely due to standing wave problems in the room. Move the mikes
> a few inches and it will change.

I think all MS pairs are coincident. I suspend mine one above the other. And
no, I couldn't seem to fix it by adjusting the ratio. And yes, as I can best
recall, I did move the mikes a few inches back after the rest of the
audience came in and sat right in front of me.
>
> This is why having good monitoring in the field is so important.

Here are some of the problems of amateur field recording (!). The band is
positioned tight up against the first row of seats, near the right side of
the auditorium. Don't ask why. The audience, mostly parents, will actually
sit there in the first row available to be close to their kids and of course
to annoy me. I place my mike stand in between my knees and hold the base
down with my foot so it doesn't fall forward with the slanted floor and
gravity. The mikes are right in the middle of the audience, with
pop-clappers all around me, each one trying to out clap the others whenever
a kid finishes a solo. I keep the mikes at ear height so that they don't get
in the eye line of the people behind me. I am there just for the experiment
of it, and I like the jazz band's music. They were terrific, and that is
about my only opportunity to record them. Now, if I give the director a copy
of the recording, I might be able to get them to let me do a more
professional recording during rehearsals. I would love that.

>
>>On another occasion, I was just trying to do a sound check for
>>directionality, so I walked around my MS pair and announced left channel,
>>right channel, center, but on playback it just didn't work. My theory is
>>that when you are so close to a microphone pair, both mikes hear it
>>omnidirectionally, the sound not having established a strong direction
>>yet.
>
> No. That is almost certainly due to the microphones not occupying the
> same
> place in space.

Again, MS pairs are coincident.

>
>>Improvement in this situation in the second half is probably because I was
>>tweeking the gains between jazz sets.
>
> Did you move anything? What gains did you change?

I try to record with equal gains in MS, because I can adjust the ratios
later. Therefore, I am getting a little more of the S channel than normal,
which would give MORE separation, rather than less. But of course I adjust
as required in post.

>
> Have you tried listening to this on standard speakers?
> --scott
>
Yes, on the editing bench. Three small computer speakers. Same problem. Out
in the theater room I can listen in surround or standard stereo, but the
surround shows the directional problems faster than the stereo. It was a
most delightful effect to hear the drum kit and piano further around to the
side on my right, and the applause all around me, rather than collapsing
everything to the front speakers or the front wall.

I have been doing MS for a while now, recording the signals raw in the field
and then manually mixing down to stereo in post. I think I will do it again
tomorrow with the concert band and the closer small group pre show, which
will be a semicircle of clarinets. Will let you know if all problems go away
with sensible distances!

Thanks,
Gary Eickmeier

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/12/2015 1:31 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Some strange
> effects when I got home and started processing the MS into stereo. Some
> directionality was wrong. The drum kit should be well to the right, but it
> appeared in the center. An electric piano was even further right, and it
> appeared just to the right of the drums. All of this happened on the first 3
> tracks, then it all straightened out and the directionality was fantastic.

Did I misunderstand this? Was the problem in the recording, and
something changed after the first three songs without you doing anything?


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

[John Williamson]

On 12/12/2015 22:13, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 12/12/2015 1:31 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> Some strange
>> effects when I got home and started processing the MS into stereo. Some
>> directionality was wrong. The drum kit should be well to the right,
>> but it
>> appeared in the center. An electric piano was even further right, and it
>> appeared just to the right of the drums. All of this happened on the
>> first 3
>> tracks, then it all straightened out and the directionality was
>> fantastic.
>
> Did I misunderstand this? Was the problem in the recording, and
> something changed after the first three songs without you doing anything?
>
>
If the S mic is one with switchable patterns, maybe it wasn't in full
figure 8 mode until it dried out in the heat of the hall, or a switch
suddenly made contact at a critical temperature or moisture level ?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>Hi Scott -
>
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>
>> And did it change substantially as you adjusted the M/S ratio? If so, it
>> is likely due to the microphones being too widely spaced apart. If not,
>> it is likely due to standing wave problems in the room. Move the mikes
>> a few inches and it will change.
>
>I think all MS pairs are coincident. I suspend mine one above the other. And
>no, I couldn't seem to fix it by adjusting the ratio. And yes, as I can best
>recall, I did move the mikes a few inches back after the rest of the
>audience came in and sat right in front of me.

How coincident is concident? A quarter inch? A sixteenth of an inch?
Two inches?

>> This is why having good monitoring in the field is so important.
>
>Here are some of the problems of amateur field recording (!). The band is
>positioned tight up against the first row of seats, near the right side of
>the auditorium. Don't ask why. The audience, mostly parents, will actually
>sit there in the first row available to be close to their kids and of course
>to annoy me. I place my mike stand in between my knees and hold the base
>down with my foot so it doesn't fall forward with the slanted floor and
>gravity.

Take over a dressing room or a bathroom backstage, your life will be a
thousand times easier. Get a proper mike stand and rope off the area
around the stand. Sandbag it.

If you have reflection problems in the room like you describe, sometimes
getting the microphone up higher can help that a lot. Not always, though..
and you have to listen and see.

>> No. That is almost certainly due to the microphones not occupying the
>> same
>> place in space.
>
>Again, MS pairs are coincident.

Unfortunately this is not physically possible. There is only "mostly
coincident" which can be pretty good with some designs but not really
very good with others.
--scott

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

[PStamler]

>
> Have you tried listening to this on standard speakers?
> --scott
>
Yes, on the editing bench. Three small computer speakers. Same problem.


*Three* speakers? How were they placed?

Peace,
Paul

[Gary Eickmeier]

"PStamler" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> Have you tried listening to this on standard speakers?
>> --scott
>>
> Yes, on the editing bench. Three small computer speakers. Same problem.
>
>
> *Three* speakers? How were they placed?

Left, center, and right. Sitting on the tabletop of the editing bench. Why,
what did you expect? The result, anyway, was the same in editing and in the
theater room.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

As far as I can determine, no switch changes or electrical problems. As
Scott has suggested, it was probably acoustical, which would be a lot harder
to trace down. I will just shrug my shoulders on this until next time. My S
mike is on figure 8 with the positive direction left, and my M mike is on
cardioid, pointing forward. At home, the signals all looked good and strong,
no cutouts or weak gains. But the damn imaging changed after the first 3
numbers.

What I do at home is put the M on the multitrack timeline twice, then put
the S signal on once, and the inverted S signal on once. I now have four
tracks to mix down to stereo. The Left channel is composed of the M and the
S signals, both panned left. The Right channel is made from the M and the
inverted S signal, both panned Right.

One of the beauties of MS is that you usually get perfect channel balance
because each channel is made by splitting M and S evenly. Changing the ratio
between M and S just changes the stereo spread, not the channel balance. If,
during recording, I feel a need to change the gain on one of the mikes to
even things up, all that changes in the result is the ratio of M and S,
relatively innocuous.

Gary


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Williamson" >
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: MS Proximity Problem


> On 12/12/2015 22:13, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 12/12/2015 1:31 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>> Some strange
>>> effects when I got home and started processing the MS into stereo. Some
>>> directionality was wrong. The drum kit should be well to the right,
>>> but it
>>> appeared in the center. An electric piano was even further right, and it
>>> appeared just to the right of the drums. All of this happened on the
>>> first 3
>>> tracks, then it all straightened out and the directionality was
>>> fantastic.
>>
>> Did I misunderstand this? Was the problem in the recording, and
>> something changed after the first three songs without you doing anything?
>>
>>
> If the S mic is one with switchable patterns, maybe it wasn't in full
> figure 8 mode until it dried out in the heat of the hall, or a switch
> suddenly made contact at a critical temperature or moisture level ?
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[[email protected]]

Did you change the gain during recording?

[geoff]

On 13/12/2015 6:22 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "PStamler" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> Have you tried listening to this on standard speakers?
>>> --scott
>>>
>> Yes, on the editing bench. Three small computer speakers. Same problem.
>>
>>
>> *Three* speakers? How were they placed?
>
> Left, center, and right. Sitting on the tabletop of the editing bench. Why,
> what did you expect? The result, anyway, was the same in editing and in the
> theater room.
>
> Gary
>
>


Three speaker though ???

M&S stereo needs only two. What is the third doing ?

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/13/2015 12:24 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> As far as I can determine, no switch changes or electrical problems. As
> Scott has suggested, it was probably acoustical, which would be a lot harder
> to trace down.

Can you think of anything that might have happened? You'd probably
notice if the drummer or piano moved, and surely the walls didn't move,
but how about audience? From your description, you were sitting pretty
much in the thick of it. Did someone sitting near your mic that might
have blocked some sound get up and move?

> What I do at home is put the M on the multitrack timeline twice, then put
> the S signal on once, and the inverted S signal on once. I now have four
> tracks to mix down to stereo. The Left channel is composed of the M and the
> S signals, both panned left. The Right channel is made from the M and the
> inverted S signal, both panned Right.

That can certainly work, and it's what I did with a real mixer and on a
computer before I had a program that lets me treat a two-channel file as
an M-S pair and translates it to stereo. In fact, my TASCAM DR-44WL will
do that with its internal mixer, giving me a control to adjust the
stereo width.




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

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>"PStamler" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>>> Have you tried listening to this on standard speakers?
>>> --scott
>>>
>> Yes, on the editing bench. Three small computer speakers. Same problem.
>>
>>
>> *Three* speakers? How were they placed?
>
>Left, center, and right. Sitting on the tabletop of the editing bench. Why,
>what did you expect? The result, anyway, was the same in editing and in the
>theater room.

Wait, wait... now you're processing something again to create a false
center channel. What if you just play it back on standard two channel
systems?
--scott

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

Well I...... I don't think the center channel is doing anything fancy to the
signal such as center steering in DPL - but I have a center speaker in the
theater too, so I think it is harmless, or gives a better idea of the mix
than only two speakers, which would shift imaging as I move my head. There
is no gain control for the center as opposed to the L and R.

I don't worry too much about the mixing speakers - they just give me a clue
that everything is working, then I look at the meters for channel balance
and loudness, and take the result out to the theater to evaluate everything
else. Then back into the mix to correct as required.

Gary



"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>>"PStamler" > wrote in message
...
>>> >
>>>> Have you tried listening to this on standard speakers?
>>>> --scott
>>>>
>>> Yes, on the editing bench. Three small computer speakers. Same problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Three* speakers? How were they placed?
>>
>>Left, center, and right. Sitting on the tabletop of the editing bench.
>>Why,
>>what did you expect? The result, anyway, was the same in editing and in
>>the
>>theater room.
>
> Wait, wait... now you're processing something again to create a false
> center channel. What if you just play it back on standard two channel
> systems?
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>

[Gary Eickmeier]

I don't think my Zoom H6 can do the MS mixing with external mikes, but of
course it has the MS microphone accessory with variable ratio if you like
the internal mike; Makober, yes I did change the gains a little during and
between recordings, but I don't think that would account for moving the drum
set from extreme right to center.

I am wondering if, by using the MS technique, I am riding right on the edges
of the patterns of the fig 8 mike and the cardioid center mike for a source
like where that drum kit was? In that case, maybe just a slight change in
the direction the bracket was pointing would shift the image from the fig 8
more to the center.

In any case, here I go again to the concert hall for today's session with
the big concert band. Big fun!

Gary


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Rivers" >
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: MS Proximity Problem


> On 12/13/2015 12:24 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>> As far as I can determine, no switch changes or electrical problems. As
>> Scott has suggested, it was probably acoustical, which would be a lot
>> harder
>> to trace down.
>
> Can you think of anything that might have happened? You'd probably notice
> if the drummer or piano moved, and surely the walls didn't move, but how
> about audience? From your description, you were sitting pretty much in the
> thick of it. Did someone sitting near your mic that might have blocked
> some sound get up and move?
>
>> What I do at home is put the M on the multitrack timeline twice, then put
>> the S signal on once, and the inverted S signal on once. I now have four
>> tracks to mix down to stereo. The Left channel is composed of the M and
>> the
>> S signals, both panned left. The Right channel is made from the M and the
>> inverted S signal, both panned Right.
>
> That can certainly work, and it's what I did with a real mixer and on a
> computer before I had a program that lets me treat a two-channel file as
> an M-S pair and translates it to stereo. In fact, my TASCAM DR-44WL will
> do that with its internal mixer, giving me a control to adjust the stereo
> width.
>
>
>
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
>

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/13/2015 11:41 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> I am wondering if, by using the MS technique, I am riding right on the
> edges of the patterns of the fig 8 mike and the cardioid center mike for
> a source like where that drum kit was? In that case, maybe just a slight
> change in the direction the bracket was pointing would shift the image
> from the fig 8 more to the center.

You should be able to cover about 150 degrees, though your mic should be
centered on the band. Also, understand that M-S doesn't have as accurate
imaging as X-Y and it doesn't take but a small shift side to side or
front to back to through things out of whack. That's why Scott keeps
telling you that you need good monitoring.

Since you're splitting the side mic to two tracks in your DAW program,
you might try changing the level of one of those tracks to see if you
can get your recording to sound more like it looked on stage.


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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/13/2015 11:47 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> I don't worry too much about the mixing speakers - they just give me a clue
> that everything is working, then I look at the meters for channel balance
> and loudness, and take the result out to the theater to evaluate everything
> else. Then back into the mix to correct as required.

If you depend on the meters for channel balance using an M-S setup with
one channel being the mid mic and the other being the side mic, you
aren't really able to tell anything except that it's working and that
you're not overloading.

I had a peek at the Zoom H6 manual, and it looks like stereo decoding is
pretty much restricted to using their M-S mic. It appears that you have
some fixed options for S level, but those may not appear if you don't
have the M-S mic plugged in. You might consider cobbling up an outboard
M-S decoder with a headphone amplifier so you can hear stereo when using
your own mics in M-S configuration. Wes Dooley (AEA, the ribbon mic
folks) used to make one. Wonder if he still have any on hand. Jensen
Transformers had an application note for building one out of a couple of
dual winding transformers. Neither is a cheap solution, but unless you
can monitor in real left/right stereo, you're just guessing if your mics
are in the right place - and that goes for X-Y stereo, too.


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

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers > writes:

>On 12/13/2015 11:47 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> I don't worry too much about the mixing speakers - they just give me a clue
>> that everything is working, then I look at the meters for channel balance
>> and loudness, and take the result out to the theater to evaluate everything
>> else. Then back into the mix to correct as required.

>If you depend on the meters for channel balance using an M-S setup with
>one channel being the mid mic and the other being the side mic, you
>aren't really able to tell anything except that it's working and that
>you're not overloading.

>I had a peek at the Zoom H6 manual, and it looks like stereo decoding is
>pretty much restricted to using their M-S mic. It appears that you have
>some fixed options for S level, but those may not appear if you don't
>have the M-S mic plugged in. You might consider cobbling up an outboard
>M-S decoder with a headphone amplifier so you can hear stereo when using
>your own mics in M-S configuration. Wes Dooley (AEA, the ribbon mic
>folks) used to make one. Wonder if he still have any on hand. Jensen
>Transformers had an application note for building one out of a couple of
>dual winding transformers. Neither is a cheap solution, but unless you
>can monitor in real left/right stereo, you're just guessing if your mics
>are in the right place - and that goes for X-Y stereo, too.

That is an expensive HW solution. What's the "software" solution missing? (M plus
S plus S dupliciated, polarity on the dupe flipped).

I've also found the soft solution very easy to calibrate. Mute M, pan S+ and S- to
mono; you should get complete cancellation (if not, check EQ and levels on the S+
and S- channels carefully). Then, you group the S channels to keep in them in
lock-step, pan them back out hard L and R, and you're ready to go. Adjust the M and
S relative levels to get the desired image.

To address the original question about the changing image... doesn't take more than
a dB or two of mis-cal to screw things up... I wonder if the cal had somehow been
out. Could have even been something simple like a level difference between the two
segments. Maybe if Gary re-cal'd for both segments...

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[jason]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 14:27:51 -0500 "Mike Rivers" > wrote
in article >
> If you depend on the meters for channel balance using an M-S setup with
> one channel being the mid mic and the other being the side mic, you
> aren't really able to tell anything except that it's working and that
> you're not overloading.
>

If XY can be converted to MS, is there a compelling reason to produce the
original recording in MS given the mic issues?

[Gary Eickmeier]

Jason, just the flexibility of the post processing of MS. If you record XY,
you must decide on the included angle, which maybe wouldn't always be 90
degrees - would it?

Frank, what are you meaning by calibration? The gain settings? No, my gain
knobs are not accurate, compared to each other. I set gains by the meters,
not the knob numbers. This may create a slight problem in MS recording
because all I know to do is make the gains equal during recording, which may
not be accurate as far as the stereo spread when all is said and done. My
starting point in the mix is to set the M and S gains to be equal, then to
move the ratios up or down to get center fill right.

And Jason, I like MS because it is a poor man's really good surround sound
encoder, if you listen to playback in DPL-II surround. I can definitely hear
sounds that were off to the sides or even to the rear coming back to me
accurately on playback. Startling sometimes.

This last session, of the big band Christmas concert, went through like
butter. I just set up my MS mikes, set levels to what I know will work, and
kept them there the whole concert. I use a second recorder to capture the
house mikes to mix the singers' voices in directly, and both recorders
stayed in sync with each other for over 2 1/2 hours.

Haven't gotten to play it back yet, but the disc is about 78 minutes and
should have plenty of surround sound in it.

Gary



"Jason" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 14:27:51 -0500 "Mike Rivers" > wrote
> in article >
>> If you depend on the meters for channel balance using an M-S setup with
>> one channel being the mid mic and the other being the side mic, you
>> aren't really able to tell anything except that it's working and that
>> you're not overloading.
>>
>
> If XY can be converted to MS, is there a compelling reason to produce the
> original recording in MS given the mic issues?
>

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 14-12-2015 08:44, Gary Eickmeier topposted and confused the thread,
albeit in a easily fixed manner:

> "Jason" > wrote in message

>> If XY can be converted to MS, is there a compelling reason to
>> produce the original recording in MS given the mic issues?

No. The dimension that matters is btw. not measured in inches, but in
wavelengths and his mics, as I recall them, are quite large objects when
trying to emulate points. It would not be my first choice, but then we
all do things differently.

> Jason, just the flexibility of the post processing of MS. If you record XY,
> you must decide on the included angle, which maybe wouldn't always be 90
> degrees - would it?

No. It should be whatever works and gives a stable center image. If you
want the benefit of MS processing you convert to MS in your Audition2
with the channel mixer and do whatever special magic you need to do or
just alter the levels and then use the inverse preset to convert back.
It should be transparent, but do it on a 32 bit file as you are likely
to "do things" while in MS.

I think I did post the preset values once, let me know if I didn't and
I'll look them up, the adobiots didn't think them necessary in newer
versions.

Note however that your strategy of doing in it multitrack mode generally
is a good idea because all post operations can be done in one combined
mathematical operation. One of the big mastering guys recommended aiming
for that when passing through here some years ago.

Generally I find that the S channel should be between a couple of dB
lower in level than the M channel and equal to it for a sane stereo
image. If that doesn't work, then there is something else wrong with the
recording, in which case I have occasionally lowered the S channel to
about -4 dB relative to the M channel.

MS recording is btw. easy to monitor sans conversion option, position
your mics for a good M signal with proper front to rear balance of the
ensemble and proper ensemble to room balance.

From your recording scenarios it appears that you need a potion or
charm that gives you the power to move chairs. Or to screw hooks into
the wall or ceiling and arrange for safe mic suspension.

> Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Tom McCreadie]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> Also, understand that M-S doesn't have as accurate
>imaging as X-Y
Really, Mike, how on earth can you justify that? An M-S would in general
actually give a more accurate representation of centered images. As ever, of
course, the imaging quality depends on the degree of off-axis
response-raggedness of real life mics.
>
>Since you're splitting the side mic to two tracks in your DAW program,
>you might try changing the level of one of those tracks to see if you
>can get your recording to sound more like it looked on stage.
Gary has this tendency for going for convoluted workflows :-) ...for a start,
generating X-Y from M-S would be a lot simpler in post by just running the raw
M-S signal through the free DAW plug-in: "Voxengo MSED".

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/14/2015 6:23 AM, Tom McCreadie wrote:
> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>> Also, understand that M-S doesn't have as accurate
>> imaging as X-Y
> Really, Mike, how on earth can you justify that? An M-S would in general
> actually give a more accurate representation of centered images. As ever, of
> course, the imaging quality depends on the degree of off-axis
> response-raggedness of real life mics.

And that's exactly my point. A mid mic that has a little bump in its
polar response on one side of center that isn't matched on the other
side, or a side mic that isn't perfectly symmetrical (a number of modern
ones are intentionally built that way) will throw off the image
accuracy. It takes a lot of care in placement, which means careful
listening, to get it right. On the other hand, reasonably well matched
cardioid mics aren't hard to find, and for the kind of recordings that
Gary is making, he's likely to get more consistent results.



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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/13/2015 6:06 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
> Mike Rivers > writes:

>> I had a peek at the Zoom H6 manual, and it looks like stereo decoding is
>> pretty much restricted to using their M-S mic.
.. . . . . .

>> You might consider cobbling up an outboard
>> M-S decoder with a headphone amplifier so you can hear stereo when using
>> your own mics in M-S configuration.

> That is an expensive HW solution. What's the "software" solution missing?

Something to run the software on. Gary is recording with a hardware
recorder, not a computer. He has the wrong recorder for this job, unless
there's been an update to the Zoom H6 that allows stereo monitoring of
an M-S pair connected to the external mic inputs. I can do that on my
TASCAM DR-44 (and I think DR-40 as well - I don't remember).

> To address the original question about the changing image... doesn't take more than
> a dB or two of mis-cal to screw things up... I wonder if the cal had somehow been
> out.

He could have bumped a knob, or his mic stand might have tilted a bit.
It didn't sound like he had a very secure setup. But when he's
recording, he has only two controls, gain for the mid mic and gain for
the side mic. If it was just a matter of a gain change, he could
compensate for that when mixing the tracks to stereo. There's no
"calibration" involved in capture if you're not going to monitor in stereo.



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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/14/2015 2:44 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Jason, just the flexibility of the post processing of MS. If you record XY,
> you must decide on the included angle, which maybe wouldn't always be 90
> degrees - would it?

Actually, if you're using cardioid mics, you really do always want them
to be at 90 degrees. You move closer or further away from the source so
that it all "fits" in the stereo directivity pattern. You can get too
close (hole in the middle) or too far (too much ambiance relative to the
source level). That's why you have to listen to what you're recording.

However, when it comes to processing, M-S and X-Y are completely
reversible. You can convert an X-Y recording to its equivalent mid and
side components, process those as if you started with an M-S mic setup,
and then put it back to stereo.

> Frank, what are you meaning by calibration? The gain settings? No, my gain
> knobs are not accurate, compared to each other. I set gains by the meters,
> not the knob numbers. This may create a slight problem in MS recording
> because all I know to do is make the gains equal during recording, which may
> not be accurate as far as the stereo spread when all is said and done.

How you set the mid and side levels _when recording_ has no bearing on
the stereo width. That's determined by how you mix the mid and +/- side
mics. Do you not understand this?

What Frank means by "calibration" is having the "in phase" and "out of
phase" side signals equal in amplitude. You're doing this by using the
polarity invert function in your software. The two side signals, unless
you fool with them, will be at the same level. If you want to adjust the
level of the side signal, you need to adjust both signals equally.
Otherwise, your left/right balance will be wrong.

The usual way to do this in a DAW program is to "group" the two side
signals in the software mixer. Pan one full left, the other to full
right, and control them both with a single software fader. Then start
your "mix to stereo" with just the mid channel and listen on speakers as
you bring up the level of the side signals. Stop when you get the width
you want. If you go too far, you'll hear a hole in the middle. If you
prefer, you can do this the other way - start listening to the two side
signals in the left and right speakers. It will sound like it's trying
to tear your face down the middle. Then bring up the mid mic level until
the center fills in.

If the stereo level gets too hot, then reduce the mid and side levels so
that you keep the mix from clipping.



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

[Tom McCreadie]

Peter Larsen > wrote:


>Generally I find that the S channel should be between a couple of dB
>lower in level than the M channel and equal to it for a sane stereo
>image. If that doesn't work, then there is something else wrong with the
>recording, in which case I have occasionally lowered the S channel to
>about -4 dB relative to the M channel.

Yes. and one can get a more quantitative handle on this by first mapping the MS
over to its theoretically equivalent "virtual XY pair" then using the calculator
on the Sengpiel website to estimate the approximate SRA's of such an XY pair.

As illustration, I include some scenarios below. It's clear that the SRA of the
virtual XY array increases as the S gain decreases. Gary would avoid
complications if he ensured that the Orchestra Angle (how the players are spread
across the podium) doesn't spill beyond the SRA of the mic array.
=========
S mic gain relative to cardioid M gain:
1) -6dB
=> virtual X-Y pair with:
polar pattern, V = 0.41 + 0.59.cos.theta
mic type: narrow cardioid, at XY mic included angle = 90°
=> estimated Stereophonic Recording Angle (SRA) = 154°

2) -3dB
=> virtual X-Y pair with:
polar pattern, V = 0.37 + 0.63.cos.theta
supercardioid; mic included angle = 110°
=> SRA >115° *

3) 0dB
=> virtual X-Y pair with:
polar pattern, V = 0.31 + 0.69.cos.theta
supercardioid; mic included angle 127°
=> SRA <98° **

4) +3dB
=> virtual X-Y pair with:
polar pattern, V = 0.25 + 0.75.cos.theta
hypercardioid; mic included angle 141°
=> SRA 61°

5) +6dB
=> virtual X-Y pair with:
polar pattern, V = 0.20 + 0.80.cos.theta
hypercardioid; mic included angle 152°
=> SRA 46°


N.B * 115° value based on pattnrn V = 0.344 + 0.656.cos.theta
** 98° value based on pattnrn V = 0.41 + 0.59.cos.theta
============

[Frank Stearns]

"Gary Eickmeier" > writes:

>Jason, just the flexibility of the post processing of MS. If you record XY,
>you must decide on the included angle, which maybe wouldn't always be 90
>degrees - would it?

>Frank, what are you meaning by calibration? The gain settings? No, my gain
>knobs are not accurate, compared to each other. I set gains by the meters,
>not the knob numbers. This may create a slight problem in MS recording
>because all I know to do is make the gains equal during recording, which may
>not be accurate as far as the stereo spread when all is said and done. My
>starting point in the mix is to set the M and S gains to be equal, then to
>move the ratios up or down to get center fill right.

My assumption has been that you're recording raw M and raw S, and *not* decoding to
L and R at the time of recording. Rather, the "conversion" to L & R is done in post
using:

- a mid channel, panned center (likely a cardioide but I have used omnis to good
effect, particularly those with some HF directionality)

- a side channel, initially recorded with a Fig 8 mic, panned hard left,

- an exact copy of the side channel but with the polarity flipped, panned hard
right. That copy might be a polarity flip on duplicated data, polarity flip on a
channel strip Y'd from the raw S channel, and so on -- whatever method you use to
get a second duplicate channel off the source S, just flipped.

It's important to "calibrate" the S+ and S- channels. When temporarily panned
center, you should have complete cancellation and hear nothing. If you hear
something faintly coming through, the S+ and S- channels are out of cal. Adjust
levels and EQ to get the best possible cancellation. This is much more likely a
problem when decoding with hardware (channel strips of a console) because of minute
variances in component tolerances among channels.

Also, it's nice to have field monitoring while still maintaining that raw M & S
recording, so you've perhaps set up channel strips in your field monitor console as
noted above.

As far as the relative level of M and S, it does not take much S to get a nice
stereo spread so often the S faders will be 6-15 dB lower than M.

As I've probably commented before, I at one time used M-S extensively but like X-Y
and to a lesser extent ORTF found that M-S does not offer the depth image possible
with 50 cm-spaced omnis.

I still use M-S when overdubbing group vocals in multiple passes. I can record each
pass with a nice stereo image, but then in post will often throw away the S channels
and pan the M of each pass differently to get a more striking L/R spread of those
vocals.

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[[email protected]]

To the OP,

was there ANY kind of AGC engaged while you were recording?

Mark

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 14-12-2015 13:52, Mike Rivers wrote:

> On 12/13/2015 6:06 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:

>>> I had a peek at the Zoom H6 manual, and it looks like stereo decoding is
>>> pretty much restricted to using their M-S mic.

>>> You might consider cobbling up an outboard
>>> M-S decoder with a headphone amplifier so you can hear stereo when using
>>> your own mics in M-S configuration.

>> That is an expensive HW solution. What's the "software" solution missing?

> Something to run the software on. Gary is recording with a hardware
> recorder, not a computer. He has the wrong recorder for this job, unless
> there's been an update to the Zoom H6 that allows stereo monitoring of
> an M-S pair connected to the external mic inputs. I can do that on my
> TASCAM DR-44 (and I think DR-40 as well - I don't remember).

It doesn't matter, I made some M-S experiments with a friend and we
found it easy to get the mic position right by aiming for a good M.

>> To address the original question about the changing image... doesn't
>> take more than
>> a dB or two of mis-cal to screw things up... I wonder if the cal had
>> somehow been
>> out.

> He could have bumped a knob, or his mic stand might have tilted a bit.
> It didn't sound like he had a very secure setup. But when he's
> recording, he has only two controls, gain for the mid mic and gain for
> the side mic. If it was just a matter of a gain change, he could
> compensate for that when mixing the tracks to stereo. There's no
> "calibration" involved in capture if you're not going to monitor in stereo.

Gary has some fairly large mics, they are not adept at emulating a point
but have the advantage of selectable directionality.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 14-12-2015 14:45, Frank Stearns wrote:

> As I've probably commented before, I at one time used M-S extensively but like X-Y
> and to a lesser extent ORTF found that M-S does not offer the depth image possible
> with 50 cm-spaced omnis.

I used that a lot for a chamber music festival with extremely good
results, including good tolerance of being close to the sound sources.

> YMMV.

With all setups there is a learning phase, allow for it.

> Frank
> Mobile Audio

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

Peter Larsen > writes:

>On 14-12-2015 14:45, Frank Stearns wrote:

>> As I've probably commented before, I at one time used M-S extensively but like X-Y
>> and to a lesser extent ORTF found that M-S does not offer the depth image possible
>> with 50 cm-spaced omnis.

>I used that a lot for a chamber music festival with extremely good
>results, including good tolerance of being close to the sound sources.

Ah, yes. You've hit on one of my key reasons for liking this technique besides the
imaging. One can get close -- for lots of good detail and a fair amount of direct
signal unmolested by room problems -- yet you still have a lot of room "space" in
there as well.

Given the inherent limits of Recording As We Know It (and with even the finest
gear), this is the best of both worlds.

>With all setups there is a learning phase, allow for it.

Indeed.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Gary Eickmeier]

Frank - you said something that bothers me - see below - you said that

"My assumption has been that you're recording raw M and raw S, and *not*
decoding to
L and R at the time of recording. Rather, the "conversion" to L & R is done
in post
using:

" - a mid channel, panned center (likely a cardioide but I have used omnis
to good
effect, particularly those with some HF directionality)"

No, you don't pan the M channel to center, you pan the M and the straight S
to the left for the left channel, and the M and the inverted S to the right
channel.

Is there some other way to do it that you are talking about?

Gary

"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Eickmeier" > writes:
>
>>Jason, just the flexibility of the post processing of MS. If you record
>>XY,
>>you must decide on the included angle, which maybe wouldn't always be 90
>>degrees - would it?
>
>>Frank, what are you meaning by calibration? The gain settings? No, my gain
>>knobs are not accurate, compared to each other. I set gains by the meters,
>>not the knob numbers. This may create a slight problem in MS recording
>>because all I know to do is make the gains equal during recording, which
>>may
>>not be accurate as far as the stereo spread when all is said and done. My
>>starting point in the mix is to set the M and S gains to be equal, then to
>>move the ratios up or down to get center fill right.
>
> My assumption has been that you're recording raw M and raw S, and *not*
> decoding to
> L and R at the time of recording. Rather, the "conversion" to L & R is
> done in post
> using:
>
> - a mid channel, panned center (likely a cardioide but I have used omnis
> to good
> effect, particularly those with some HF directionality)
>
> - a side channel, initially recorded with a Fig 8 mic, panned hard left,
>
> - an exact copy of the side channel but with the polarity flipped, panned
> hard
> right. That copy might be a polarity flip on duplicated data, polarity
> flip on a
> channel strip Y'd from the raw S channel, and so on -- whatever method you
> use to
> get a second duplicate channel off the source S, just flipped.
>
> It's important to "calibrate" the S+ and S- channels. When temporarily
> panned
> center, you should have complete cancellation and hear nothing. If you
> hear
> something faintly coming through, the S+ and S- channels are out of cal.
> Adjust
> levels and EQ to get the best possible cancellation. This is much more
> likely a
> problem when decoding with hardware (channel strips of a console) because
> of minute
> variances in component tolerances among channels.
>
> Also, it's nice to have field monitoring while still maintaining that raw
> M & S
> recording, so you've perhaps set up channel strips in your field monitor
> console as
> noted above.
>
> As far as the relative level of M and S, it does not take much S to get a
> nice
> stereo spread so often the S faders will be 6-15 dB lower than M.
>
> As I've probably commented before, I at one time used M-S extensively but
> like X-Y
> and to a lesser extent ORTF found that M-S does not offer the depth image
> possible
> with 50 cm-spaced omnis.
>
> I still use M-S when overdubbing group vocals in multiple passes. I can
> record each
> pass with a nice stereo image, but then in post will often throw away the
> S channels
> and pan the M of each pass differently to get a more striking L/R spread
> of those
> vocals.
>
> YMMV.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
> --
> .

[Frank Stearns]

"Gary Eickmeier" > writes:

>Frank - you said something that bothers me - see below - you said that

>"My assumption has been that you're recording raw M and raw S, and *not*
>decoding to
>L and R at the time of recording. Rather, the "conversion" to L & R is done
>in post
>using:

>" - a mid channel, panned center (likely a cardioide but I have used omnis
>to good
>effect, particularly those with some HF directionality)"

>No, you don't pan the M channel to center, you pan the M and the straight S
>to the left for the left channel, and the M and the inverted S to the right
>channel.

>Is there some other way to do it that you are talking about?

Not sure what you're asking, but electrically, a single channel panned center should
be *identical* to that same single-source channel duplicated and applied to a hard
left/hard right pan on two channels.

What do you think is happening internally at a pan pot??? When centered, it's
dumping equal signal level to the left and right summing busses (allowing for any
non-linearities in the pan pot itself. In a DAW, center is center and should be a
non-issue in terms of subtle hardware errors. But with HW, that's why you use
meters).

Panning M center does work with M-S as described; I have 100s of recordings to prove
it. :)

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Tom McCreadie]

Tom McCreadie wrote:
<snip>
>N.B * 115° value based on pattnrn V = 0.344 + 0.656.cos.theta
> ** 98° value based on pattnrn V = 0.41 + 0.59.cos.theta

Oops. typo. For the nerds who read that far, the above should have been:
* 115° value based on a supercardioid pattern V = 0.344 + 0.656.cos.theta
** 98° value also based on a supercardioid pattern V = 0.344 + 0.656.cos.theta

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/14/2015 2:07 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
> I made some M-S experiments with a friend and we found it easy to get
> the mic position right by aiming for a good M.

That might work for a symphony orchestra, a solo piano, or a group
that's well balanced within itself and symmetrical. But with Gary's
amateur bands, and not monitoring when he's setting up, it's just going
to be a guess.

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>On 14-12-2015 14:45, Frank Stearns wrote:
>
>> As I've probably commented before, I at one time used M-S extensively but like X-Y
>> and to a lesser extent ORTF found that M-S does not offer the depth image possible
>> with 50 cm-spaced omnis.
>
>I used that a lot for a chamber music festival with extremely good
>results, including good tolerance of being close to the sound sources.

My objection is that the "sense of depth" that you get in the recording
is unrealistic and not like the sound in the actual hall. Lots of people
like it, though, and it's less extreme than the Mercury triad.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 15/12/2015 2:26 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>
> The usual way to do this in a DAW program is to "group" the two side
> signals in the software mixer. Pan one full left, the other to full
> right, and control them both with a single software fader. Then start
> your "mix to stereo" with just the mid channel and listen on speakers
> as you bring up the level of the side signals. Stop when you get the
> width you want.

Slightly O the specific T, but as an aside with MS, I find the control
is so powerful, I can never actually decide when the width is how I want
it !

geoff

[geoff]

On 15/12/2015 2:45 a.m., Frank Stearns wrote:
> "Gary Eickmeier" > writes:
>
>> Jason, just the flexibility of the post processing of MS. If you record XY,
>> you must decide on the included angle, which maybe wouldn't always be 90
>> degrees - would it?
>> Frank, what are you meaning by calibration? The gain settings? No, my gain
>> knobs are not accurate, compared to each other. I set gains by the meters,
>> not the knob numbers. This may create a slight problem in MS recording
>> because all I know to do is make the gains equal during recording, which may
>> not be accurate as far as the stereo spread when all is said and done. My
>> starting point in the mix is to set the M and S gains to be equal, then to
>> move the ratios up or down to get center fill right.
> My assumption has been that you're recording raw M and raw S, and *not* decoding to
> L and R at the time of recording. Rather, the "conversion" to L & R is done in post
> using:
>
> - a mid channel, panned center (likely a cardioide but I have used omnis to good
> effect, particularly those with some HF directionality)
>
> - a side channel, initially recorded with a Fig 8 mic, panned hard left,
>
> - an exact copy of the side channel but with the polarity flipped, panned hard
> right. That copy might be a polarity flip on duplicated data, polarity flip on a
> channel strip Y'd from the raw S channel, and so on -- whatever method you use to
> get a second duplicate channel off the source S, just flipped.

Gary, are you actually getting all muddled with this Centre Speaker thing ?

Unless it is for a 5.1 mix, or something like that, ditch the Center
speaker. MS is for stereo positioning, and a 'middle and side' speakers
are not a factor !

Even if the end result will have a Centre channel, ignore it in the
context of a stereo positioning and width achieved mixing with the MS
recording.

geoff

geoff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 14-12-2015 22:23, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Peter Larsen > wrote:
>> On 14-12-2015 14:45, Frank Stearns wrote:

>>> As I've probably commented before, I at one time used M-S extensively but like X-Y
>>> and to a lesser extent ORTF found that M-S does not offer the depth image possible
>>> with 50 cm-spaced omnis.

>> I used that a lot for a chamber music festival with extremely good
>> results, including good tolerance of being close to the sound sources.

> My objection is that the "sense of depth" that you get in the recording
> is unrealistic and not like the sound in the actual hall. Lots of people
> like it, though, and it's less extreme than the Mercury triad.

It has rendered a concert band in a church very well for me before the
intermission, a friend had a suggestion for a minor change of the mic
setup - angling them outwards, thus also increasing the effective
distance between capsules - and that made it a sonic mess, but yes,
the woodwind got clearer at the cost of perspective and spatial
rendering. I should not have been polite and I have not been open to
suggestions of changes in the intermission since. The distance from
sublime to ordinary is not long.

When I choose not to bring omnis, then it is either because of recording
in an unknown space or because of known problems with audience or other
noise, cardioids give me about 6 dB less "room or other" noise and they
are hardly ever a "wrong choice", omnis can be.

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 14-12-2015 22:30, geoff wrote:

> On 15/12/2015 2:26 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:

>> The usual way to do this in a DAW program is to "group" the two side
>> signals in the software mixer. Pan one full left, the other to full
>> right, and control them both with a single software fader. Then start
>> your "mix to stereo" with just the mid channel and listen on speakers
>> as you bring up the level of the side signals. Stop when you get the
>> width you want.

> Slightly O the specific T, but as an aside with MS, I find the control
> is so powerful, I can never actually decide when the width is how I want
> it !

You want a stable center, no hole in the middle and no "pressure at the
ears", widen until center unstable and "pressure at the ears" and narrow
ye smalle bet and you're there. Just as when positioning a main pair,
except that you can't listen for how much ambience to add or subtract by
lifting or lowering the mics.

Interestingly a mic stand has most of the controls a well equipped
channel strip has, except monitor sends perhaps.

> geoff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

Frank Stearns wrote:
> "Gary Eickmeier" > writes:

>> Is there some other way to do it that you are talking about?
>
> Not sure what you're asking, but electrically, a single channel
> panned center should be *identical* to that same single-source
> channel duplicated and applied to a hard left/hard right pan on two
> channels.
>
> What do you think is happening internally at a pan pot??? When
> centered, it's dumping equal signal level to the left and right
> summing busses (allowing for any non-linearities in the pan pot
> itself. In a DAW, center is center and should be a non-issue in terms
> of subtle hardware errors. But with HW, that's why you use meters).
>
> Panning M center does work with M-S as described; I have 100s of
> recordings to prove it. :)

Er well, now that you bring it up.... so you are just putting the M at
center and the S to the left and the -S to the right? Well, I can't think of
any reason why not, I just never thought of that. All I know is that with MS
the left channel is composed of M and S, the right channel M and -S, so that
is what I have been doing.

BTW for all, I did the concert band recording and it went perfectly, and it
seems to be a near perfect surround recording. Various times in the show
there were distinct rear channel effects such as audience singalongs, Santa
coming in from the back of the auditorium, audience interruptions, and it
was all correctly channelized in my system. Very enjoyable.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

I neglected to mention that I always look at the Phase Analysis window
(lissajeous pattern) to see the stereo signal and surround information. In
the case of my current recording of the concert band, it looks like a
football that is evenly centered on the crosshairs. This means that there is
a lot of out of phase information, giving good surround sound, but also
decent center fill. I might try to add a little more center fill, but this
recording is very good for what I am after. The listening in the theater
room confirms all of this. I'm having a ball!

Gary



"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/14/2015 6:23 AM, Tom McCreadie wrote:
>> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>>
>>> Also, understand that M-S doesn't have as accurate
>>> imaging as X-Y
>> Really, Mike, how on earth can you justify that? An M-S would in general
>> actually give a more accurate representation of centered images. As ever,
>> of
>> course, the imaging quality depends on the degree of off-axis
>> response-raggedness of real life mics.
>
> And that's exactly my point. A mid mic that has a little bump in its polar
> response on one side of center that isn't matched on the other side, or a
> side mic that isn't perfectly symmetrical (a number of modern ones are
> intentionally built that way) will throw off the image accuracy. It takes
> a lot of care in placement, which means careful listening, to get it
> right. On the other hand, reasonably well matched cardioid mics aren't
> hard to find, and for the kind of recordings that Gary is making, he's
> likely to get more consistent results.
>
>
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
>

[Gary Eickmeier]

Of course not.

Gary


> wrote in message
...
> To the OP,
>
> was there ANY kind of AGC engaged while you were recording?
>
> Mark
>

[Richard Kuschel]

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 12:41:42 PM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Frank - you said something that bothers me - see below - you said that
>
> "My assumption has been that you're recording raw M and raw S, and *not*
> decoding to
> L and R at the time of recording. Rather, the "conversion" to L & R is done
> in post
> using:
>
> " - a mid channel, panned center (likely a cardioide but I have used omnis
> to good
> effect, particularly those with some HF directionality)"
>
> No, you don't pan the M channel to center, you pan the M and the straight S
> to the left for the left channel, and the M and the inverted S to the right
> channel.
>
> Is there some other way to do it that you are talking about?
>
> Gary
>
> "Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Gary Eickmeier" > writes:
> >
> >>Jason, just the flexibility of the post processing of MS. If you record
> >>XY,
> >>you must decide on the included angle, which maybe wouldn't always be 90
> >>degrees - would it?
> >
> >>Frank, what are you meaning by calibration? The gain settings? No, my gain
> >>knobs are not accurate, compared to each other. I set gains by the meters,
> >>not the knob numbers. This may create a slight problem in MS recording
> >>because all I know to do is make the gains equal during recording, which
> >>may
> >>not be accurate as far as the stereo spread when all is said and done. My
> >>starting point in the mix is to set the M and S gains to be equal, then to
> >>move the ratios up or down to get center fill right.
> >
> > My assumption has been that you're recording raw M and raw S, and *not*
> > decoding to
> > L and R at the time of recording. Rather, the "conversion" to L & R is
> > done in post
> > using:
> >
> > - a mid channel, panned center (likely a cardioide but I have used omnis
> > to good
> > effect, particularly those with some HF directionality)
> >
> > - a side channel, initially recorded with a Fig 8 mic, panned hard left,
> >
> > - an exact copy of the side channel but with the polarity flipped, panned
> > hard
> > right. That copy might be a polarity flip on duplicated data, polarity
> > flip on a
> > channel strip Y'd from the raw S channel, and so on -- whatever method you
> > use to
> > get a second duplicate channel off the source S, just flipped.
> >
> > It's important to "calibrate" the S+ and S- channels. When temporarily
> > panned
> > center, you should have complete cancellation and hear nothing. If you
> > hear
> > something faintly coming through, the S+ and S- channels are out of cal..
> > Adjust
> > levels and EQ to get the best possible cancellation. This is much more
> > likely a
> > problem when decoding with hardware (channel strips of a console) because
> > of minute
> > variances in component tolerances among channels.
> >
> > Also, it's nice to have field monitoring while still maintaining that raw
> > M & S
> > recording, so you've perhaps set up channel strips in your field monitor
> > console as
> > noted above.
> >
> > As far as the relative level of M and S, it does not take much S to get a
> > nice
> > stereo spread so often the S faders will be 6-15 dB lower than M.
> >
> > As I've probably commented before, I at one time used M-S extensively but
> > like X-Y
> > and to a lesser extent ORTF found that M-S does not offer the depth image
> > possible
> > with 50 cm-spaced omnis.
> >
> > I still use M-S when overdubbing group vocals in multiple passes. I can
> > record each
> > pass with a nice stereo image, but then in post will often throw away the
> > S channels
> > and pan the M of each pass differently to get a more striking L/R spread
> > of those
> > vocals.
> >
> > YMMV.
> >
> > Frank
> > Mobile Audio
> >
> > --
> > .

What I do is I take the "M" signal and put it in one channel (either Software or Analog board and pan that to center. I then take the "S" signal and either duplicate it to two channels in software and invert one of the channels, or on a board, I would split the the S signal to two channels and invert one of them. The + channel is Panned to Left and the - channel is panned to hard right..

To check the accuracy of the S arrangement, mute the M channel and listen to S+ and S- in mono. They should absolutely cancel.

The other thing that I can do is just run the signals through an MS decoder in software, but any of the three works just fine.


The way I like to think of MS is that the Left channel Is mid plus (+S) and right is Mid + (-S).

To get a decent sound, it is imperative that your "M" microphone is in a place that sounds good and if you are using a cardioid that your pickup is limited to about 120 degrees.

The "S" signal is the additional ambience and directionality.

I find MS to be a little sterile by itself and when I use it as a main pickup array, I usually add a pair of flanking microphones, commonly two figure 8's with the null pointed forward toward the ensemble.
about 15 feet back and within 20' of the main array.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Richard Kuschel wrote:

> What I do is I take the "M" signal and put it in one channel (either
> Software or Analog board and pan that to center. I then take the "S"
> signal and either duplicate it to two channels in software and invert
> one of the channels, or on a board, I would split the the S signal to
> two channels and invert one of them. The + channel is Panned to Left
> and the - channel is panned to hard right..
>
> To check the accuracy of the S arrangement, mute the M channel and
> listen to S+ and S- in mono. They should absolutely cancel.
>
> The other thing that I can do is just run the signals through an MS
> decoder in software, but any of the three works just fine.
>
>
> The way I like to think of MS is that the Left channel Is mid plus
> (+S) and right is Mid + (-S).
>
> To get a decent sound, it is imperative that your "M" microphone is
> in a place that sounds good and if you are using a cardioid that your
> pickup is limited to about 120 degrees.
>
> The "S" signal is the additional ambience and directionality.
>
> I find MS to be a little sterile by itself and when I use it as a
> main pickup array, I usually add a pair of flanking microphones,
> commonly two figure 8's with the null pointed forward toward the
> ensemble.
> about 15 feet back and within 20' of the main array.

MS sterile? You must not be listening to the result in surround. I have
found that MS makes an incredible surround encoder. The out of phase stuff
goes way over to the sides and rear if you listen in DPL-II on a well
balanced system.k

I think I must be mixing in too much S, and I can get some extreme L or R
instruments decoding to the rear, but by and large I am getting a great
surround that can amazingly decode to the sides, like all of the textbooks
say can't be done. Well I'm sorry, I am doing it!

My main question about MS has always been, how do you know how much gain to
put in the S channel to make it perfectly decode to XY as if it was recorded
with two cardioids at 90 degrees? Just by listening? What should the
Lissajeaous pattern look like?

I am thiniking that my surround sound success may be due to the mike
patterns between my M and S not having much overlap. I am using the AT-2050
multi-pattern large diaphragm cylindrical shaped mikes, the M set to
cardioid and the S to Figure 8. It would probably be a different story if I
set the M to omni. I think I don't want to set the M to Figure 8 because
then the rear channels would be a reversal - mathematically, the Left
channel would be composed (or comprised) of -M + (-S) and the right of -M +
S. Something like that. Anyway, it has the effect of reversing the right
and left channels, compared to the front. I have tried it.

Can't find my New Stereo Sound Book at the moment. Streicher has some good
info on MS.

Gary

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/17/2015 10:28 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> MS sterile? You must not be listening to the result in surround. I have
> found that MS makes an incredible surround encoder. The out of phase stuff
> goes way over to the sides and rear if you listen in DPL-II on a well
> balanced system.k

I don't know what "listen in DPL-II" means (Dolby Pro Logic, maybe?),
but I can tell you that the M-S mic setup was never intended to be any
sort of a surround encoder. If you're using it for that purpose, you're
on your own. Honestly, I doubt that you'll get nothing but arguments and
diversions from this newsgroup.

> I think I must be mixing in too much S, and I can get some extreme L or R
> instruments decoding to the rear, but by and large I am getting a great
> surround that can amazingly decode to the sides, like all of the textbooks
> say can't be done. Well I'm sorry, I am doing it!

Can you describe your signal path? Where are you getting the signal that
drives the rear speakers? If this is the DPL-II decoder of which you
speak, perhaps a button you press on a receiver? Surround decoders are
designed to take in conventional left/right stereo and derive side and
rear channels from it. If it's designed to take left and right and
you're feeding it mid and side, or even left and right with a hole in
the middle, then what you'll get out of it is bound to be goofy.

Are you converting your mid and side channels to left and right with
your computer, and then running those through a surround encoder to get
your rear channels? Do they sound like good stereo when you just listen
to the left and right derived from your mid and side recording?

> My main question about MS has always been, how do you know how much gain to
> put in the S channel to make it perfectly decode to XY as if it was recorded
> with two cardioids at 90 degrees? Just by listening?

That's the best way. Equal parts is always too much side. Generally the
side 3 dB lower than the mid is a good place to start. This is what's
used as "normal" when you have a hardware M-S decoder or a stereo mic
that has mid and side pickup but spits out left and right. But since the
audio content of the side channel is substantially different from the
mid channel, you can't reliably go by the numbers or meter readings. As
I suggested before, start with no side channel and then bring it up
symmetrically (+S and -S added equally to the mid channel) until it
sounds right.

> What should the
> Lissajeaous pattern look like?

Like any other stereo mic setup - scrambled eggs. However, when you have
too much side (or not enough mid), you'll see it tilt toward the left

> I am thiniking that my surround sound success may be due to the mike
> patterns between my M and S not having much overlap. I am using the AT-2050
> multi-pattern large diaphragm cylindrical shaped mikes, the M set to
> cardioid and the S to Figure 8. It would probably be a different story if I
> set the M to omni. I think I don't want to set the M to Figure 8

Those are both configurations that have been used. The arithmetic works
out for all of them, it's just that the results will be different. But
by using an omni or a bi-directional mic for the mid signal, you'll get
more sound from the back of the room - just the way looks like it would
work when you look at the polar diagrams. Sometimes that's helpful,
sometimes it isn't. If you're going into a real surround decoder, it
might be useful to feed it some real rear sound and hope it can figure
out how to use it.

I think it's a good thing that you're experimenting, but since nobody
here seems to be doing what you're doing, it's hard to be really helpful.


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

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/17/2015 10:28 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>> MS sterile? You must not be listening to the result in surround. I have
>> found that MS makes an incredible surround encoder. The out of phase
>> stuff
>> goes way over to the sides and rear if you listen in DPL-II on a well
>> balanced system.k
>
> I don't know what "listen in DPL-II" means (Dolby Pro Logic, maybe?), but
> I can tell you that the M-S mic setup was never intended to be any sort of
> a surround encoder. If you're using it for that purpose, you're on your
> own. Honestly, I doubt that you'll get nothing but arguments and
> diversions from this newsgroup.

Well, it started with my listening to everything in surround, Dolby Pro
Logic II. I think we all know that it basically takes the difference
information, or out of phase signals, and decodes it to the sides/rear
surround channel, much like the old Scheiber circuit. So when I listened to
my MS recordings (and those of friends) I was wowed by a playback that
decoded the surround sounds that I heard at the location correctly! I think
we all know about the MS reputation for spaciousness, but this was a bonus!
And it seems logical - the S signal is pure out of phase information. If you
had just that, panned left and right, it would all decode to the rear. Or
should I say rear/sides, because, for example, an instrument that was
strictly (mostly) picked up by the right lobe of the side mike, and would
therefore decode to the right channel only after dematrixing, would appear
in the right channel. A sound at the rear of the microphones would be a pure
out of phase signal, and decode straight back.

So it would be more like a rear hemisphere of sound. Then, when you mix in
some M, you get the in phase front sounds to decode to the front to fill in
the circle of the surround sound. Get the ratios just right, and everything
comes from where it should.

>
>> I think I must be mixing in too much S, and I can get some extreme L or R
>> instruments decoding to the rear, but by and large I am getting a great
>> surround that can amazingly decode to the sides, like all of the
>> textbooks
>> say can't be done. Well I'm sorry, I am doing it!
>
> Can you describe your signal path? Where are you getting the signal that
> drives the rear speakers? If this is the DPL-II decoder of which you
> speak, perhaps a button you press on a receiver? Surround decoders are
> designed to take in conventional left/right stereo and derive side and
> rear channels from it. If it's designed to take left and right and you're
> feeding it mid and side, or even left and right with a hole in the middle,
> then what you'll get out of it is bound to be goofy.

No, it is as described above. A normal MS recording, dematrixed down to
stereo, can be heard as surround sound when listened to in DPL-II with a
balanced system. By balanced, I mean an out of phase signal plays at the
same loudness as an in phase signal - like, when you play one of those
channel identification recordings at the in phase vs out of phase section,
the in phase comes from front center, the out of phase from rear center. I
have made a test recording in which I mix my voice to travel all around the
room. This is the best matrix surround I have heard.
>
> Are you converting your mid and side channels to left and right with your
> computer, and then running those through a surround encoder to get your
> rear channels? Do they sound like good stereo when you just listen to the
> left and right derived from your mid and side recording?

Yes and yes.
>
>> My main question about MS has always been, how do you know how much gain
>> to
>> put in the S channel to make it perfectly decode to XY as if it was
>> recorded
>> with two cardioids at 90 degrees? Just by listening?
>
> That's the best way. Equal parts is always too much side. Generally the
> side 3 dB lower than the mid is a good place to start. This is what's used
> as "normal" when you have a hardware M-S decoder or a stereo mic that has
> mid and side pickup but spits out left and right. But since the audio
> content of the side channel is substantially different from the mid
> channel, you can't reliably go by the numbers or meter readings. As I
> suggested before, start with no side channel and then bring it up
> symmetrically (+S and -S added equally to the mid channel) until it sounds
> right.

Pretty much my experience as well.

>
>> What should the
>> Lissajeaous pattern look like?
>
> Like any other stereo mic setup - scrambled eggs. However, when you have
> too much side (or not enough mid), you'll see it tilt toward the left

I'm thinking there must be several versions of the Lissajeous pattern out
there. Mine is the Phase Analysis window in Audition 2. It looks like a
scrambled eggs circle in a polar plot about the center of the crosshairs on
the screen. There is a bouncing green ball that indicates the center of
balance between left, right, front, and rear (out of phase) sounds. This is
a super big help in predictiing how my mix will decode in surround. I think
what I want is a pattern that is symetrical about the crosshairs.

>
>> I am thiniking that my surround sound success may be due to the mike
>> patterns between my M and S not having much overlap. I am using the
>> AT-2050
>> multi-pattern large diaphragm cylindrical shaped mikes, the M set to
>> cardioid and the S to Figure 8. It would probably be a different story if
>> I
>> set the M to omni. I think I don't want to set the M to Figure 8
>
> Those are both configurations that have been used. The arithmetic works
> out for all of them, it's just that the results will be different. But by
> using an omni or a bi-directional mic for the mid signal, you'll get more
> sound from the back of the room - just the way looks like it would work
> when you look at the polar diagrams. Sometimes that's helpful, sometimes
> it isn't. If you're going into a real surround decoder, it might be useful
> to feed it some real rear sound and hope it can figure out how to use it.
>
> I think it's a good thing that you're experimenting, but since nobody here
> seems to be doing what you're doing, it's hard to be really helpful.
I have done some experiments in an anechoic (outdoor) environment, making
noises all around the mike stand with various MS patterns, and it works
pretty much as described above.

This is not custom recording just for my playback system, because several
friends have played my recordings in both surround and straight stereo, and
they said they sound great either way. I also have a few recordings from
them, and they have the same interesting surround capabilities. Talk about a
compatible two channel system! Obviously it won't sound identical to all
customers, but it will sound decent to Joe Blow on his boombox or earbuds or
in the car as well as the audiophile listening in surround.

If anyone would like a CD, just send me your mailing address.

Gary

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/17/2015 2:50 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> we all know about the MS reputation for spaciousness, but this was a bonus!
> And it seems logical - the S signal is pure out of phase information. If you
> had just that, panned left and right, it would all decode to the rear. Or
> should I say rear/sides, because, for example, an instrument that was
> strictly (mostly) picked up by the right lobe of the side mike, and would
> therefore decode to the right channel only after dematrixing, would appear
> in the right channel. A sound at the rear of the microphones would be a pure
> out of phase signal, and decode straight back.

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they usually
aren't" - me

The problem with this thinking is that the bi-directional mic picks up
(ideally) nothing from the front or the rear, only from the sides. So
the best you can do is send the decoder two channels of side material,
out of phase. What it does with that, Dolby only knows.

> I'm thinking there must be several versions of the Lissajeous pattern out
> there. Mine is the Phase Analysis window in Audition 2. It looks like a
> scrambled eggs circle in a polar plot about the center of the crosshairs on
> the screen. There is a bouncing green ball that indicates the center of
> balance between left, right, front, and rear (out of phase) sounds.

There's only one Lissajous pattern, with the left signal sweeping
horizontally and the right signal sweeping vertically. There are a
number of "stereo" or "phase" displays, of which you're apparently
looking at one. I suppose if you learn to interpret it, it can be
helpful, but I don't have a clue as to what it means in practice. When I
had my remote truck and did a lot of live mixing to stereo, I had an
oscilloscope mounted where I could see it, and had it connected to the
left and right mix buses, pre-fader, so if something came up out of
phase, I could see it. But usually I could hear it before I looked at
the 'scope. Sound Forge, which I use for editing, has a similar phase
meter, but the default is with it rotated 45 degrees so that with the
left and right channels in phase, you get a vertical line. Or maybe it's
a horizontal line. I don't remember, but I found it confusing.


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

[Tom McCreadie]

, "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:

>My main question about MS has always been, how do you know how much gain to
>put in the S channel to make it perfectly decode to XY as if it was recorded
>with two cardioids at 90 degrees?

With theoretically perfect mic polar patterns, an XY array of cardioids at 90°
is obtainable by sum & diff. matrixing of an MS pair, provided that:

1. the M mic is a subcardioid of polar pattern "V = 0.745 + 0.255.cos.theta",
and at the same time:

2. The M channel is boosted by +11.87dB relative to that of the Fig8 S.
(assuming equal mic sensitivities)

Is your AT-2050 multi pattern mic capable of having its M mic configured with a
pattern closely approaching the above-mentioned subcardioid value?

But bear in mind that a two channel playback of an array of cardioid XY at 90°
(having a large SRA) will generally give an unsatisfying, too-narrow soundstage
in typical orchestra-recording situations.
>
>I am thiniking that my surround sound success may be due to the mike
>patterns between my M and S not having much overlap. I am using the AT-2050
>multi-pattern large diaphragm cylindrical shaped mikes, the M set to
>cardioid and the S to Figure 8. It would probably be a different story if I
>set the M to omni. I think I don't want to set the M to Figure 8 because
>then the rear channels would be a reversal - mathematically, the Left
>channel would be composed (or comprised) of -M + (-S) and the right of -M +
>S. Something like that. Anyway, it has the effect of reversing the right
>and left channels, compared to the front. I have tried it.

Your insistence on running everything through a surround system makes the entire
analysis mind-bogglingly complex. Our heads are beginning to hurt. :-)
And as for terminology, you referred somewhere in the thread to "spaciousness"
being a strength of MS. Rather, the strength of MS or Blumlein, in the expected
two speaker playback, is the pinpoint accuracy and "shear sense of rightness" of
the stereo imaging. On occasion this can make the hairs stand up on the back of
one's neck. Indeed, the detractors of MS or Blumlein will usually blame it on
their very absence of "spaciousness", since the spaciousness that they enjoy is
derived from the pleasant, enveloping, uncorrelated signals that are more
abundant in spaced mic techniques.

[geoff]

On 18/12/2015 11:42 a.m., Tom McCreadie wrote:
> ,
> Your insistence on running everything through a surround system makes the entire
> analysis mind-bogglingly complex. Our heads are beginning to hurt. :-)
> And as for terminology, you referred somewhere in the thread to "spaciousness"
> being a strength of MS.

And there is no 'surround' info inherent in the MS stereo decoding. That
is an artificial effect created by your panning and maybe some 5.1
encoder trickery. I think you are wanting one answer to two only
semi-related subjects.

Or I'm missing something...

geoff

[[email protected]]

So the OPs original problem was that "something changed" during the recording.

I'll ask this again... I didn't see an answer before but i may have missed it....

Was there __ANY___ kind of AGC turned on during the recording?

Mark

[John Williamson]

On 18/12/2015 15:27, wrote:
> So the OPs original problem was that "something changed" during the recording.
>
> I'll ask this again... I didn't see an answer before but i may have missed it....
>
> Was there __ANY___ kind of AGC turned on during the recording?
>
>
He says not upthread a bit in answer to your previous question.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>So the OPs original problem was that "something changed" during the recording.

And it was likely position of the mikes.

>I'll ask this again... I didn't see an answer before but i may have missed it....
>
>Was there __ANY___ kind of AGC turned on during the recording?

He says no.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 11:42:21 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
> >So the OPs original problem was that "something changed" during the recording.
>
> And it was likely position of the mikes.
>
> >I'll ask this again... I didn't see an answer before but i may have missed it....
> >
> >Was there __ANY___ kind of AGC turned on during the recording?
>
> He says no.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

ok,

happy holidays

[JackA]

On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 2:04:05 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 11:42:21 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > >So the OPs original problem was that "something changed" during the recording.
> >
> > And it was likely position of the mikes.
> >
> > >I'll ask this again... I didn't see an answer before but i may have missed it....
> > >
> > >Was there __ANY___ kind of AGC turned on during the recording?
> >
> > He says no.
> > --scott
> > --
> > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
> ok,
>
> happy holidays

Merry Christmas!!!

Jack

[Richard Kuschel]

On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 10:02:15 AM UTC-7, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 10:28 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> > MS sterile? You must not be listening to the result in surround. I have
> > found that MS makes an incredible surround encoder. The out of phase stuff
> > goes way over to the sides and rear if you listen in DPL-II on a well
> > balanced system.k
>
> I don't know what "listen in DPL-II" means (Dolby Pro Logic, maybe?),
> but I can tell you that the M-S mic setup was never intended to be any
> sort of a surround encoder. If you're using it for that purpose, you're
> on your own. Honestly, I doubt that you'll get nothing but arguments and
> diversions from this newsgroup.
>
> > I think I must be mixing in too much S, and I can get some extreme L or R
> > instruments decoding to the rear, but by and large I am getting a great
> > surround that can amazingly decode to the sides, like all of the textbooks
> > say can't be done. Well I'm sorry, I am doing it!
>
> Can you describe your signal path? Where are you getting the signal that
> drives the rear speakers? If this is the DPL-II decoder of which you
> speak, perhaps a button you press on a receiver? Surround decoders are
> designed to take in conventional left/right stereo and derive side and
> rear channels from it. If it's designed to take left and right and
> you're feeding it mid and side, or even left and right with a hole in
> the middle, then what you'll get out of it is bound to be goofy.
>
> Are you converting your mid and side channels to left and right with
> your computer, and then running those through a surround encoder to get
> your rear channels? Do they sound like good stereo when you just listen
> to the left and right derived from your mid and side recording?
>
> > My main question about MS has always been, how do you know how much gain to
> > put in the S channel to make it perfectly decode to XY as if it was recorded
> > with two cardioids at 90 degrees? Just by listening?
>
> That's the best way. Equal parts is always too much side. Generally the
> side 3 dB lower than the mid is a good place to start. This is what's
> used as "normal" when you have a hardware M-S decoder or a stereo mic
> that has mid and side pickup but spits out left and right. But since the
> audio content of the side channel is substantially different from the
> mid channel, you can't reliably go by the numbers or meter readings. As
> I suggested before, start with no side channel and then bring it up
> symmetrically (+S and -S added equally to the mid channel) until it
> sounds right.
>
> > What should the
> > Lissajeaous pattern look like?
>
> Like any other stereo mic setup - scrambled eggs. However, when you have
> too much side (or not enough mid), you'll see it tilt toward the left
>
> > I am thiniking that my surround sound success may be due to the mike
> > patterns between my M and S not having much overlap. I am using the AT-2050
> > multi-pattern large diaphragm cylindrical shaped mikes, the M set to
> > cardioid and the S to Figure 8. It would probably be a different story if I
> > set the M to omni. I think I don't want to set the M to Figure 8
>
> Those are both configurations that have been used. The arithmetic works
> out for all of them, it's just that the results will be different. But
> by using an omni or a bi-directional mic for the mid signal, you'll get
> more sound from the back of the room - just the way looks like it would
> work when you look at the polar diagrams. Sometimes that's helpful,
> sometimes it isn't. If you're going into a real surround decoder, it
> might be useful to feed it some real rear sound and hope it can figure
> out how to use it.
>
> I think it's a good thing that you're experimenting, but since nobody
> here seems to be doing what you're doing, it's hard to be really helpful.
>
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

I used to have a system that I experimented with "surround" sound on. I did it entirely post amplifier.

I hooked a small set of speakers in series that I used for the "rears" and took the signal from the + of the left channel of the amplifer and the + of the right channel of the amp. The result was the signal that was not common to either channel. I used an "L" pad to bring down the volume on the "rear surround" speakers.

At that time one of the microphone array patterns that I was experimenting with was Blumlein. That really lit up those rear speakers.

What I did not care for with Blumlein was that I had to keep the ensemble being recorded within a 90 degree arc and that the rear signal was reversed compared to the front. The sides got really interesting especially if a choir was walking up the side of the performance hall to the stage. On playback , they moved across the middle.

Depending on the ensemble, I may use ORTF, or a spaced pair of Super cardiods at 103 degrees. If I use MS I use a set of flanking microphones. for additional ambience and depth.

When the hall is very good, I use a Jecklin disc with omnis.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Richard Kuschel wrote:
>
> I used to have a system that I experimented with "surround" sound on.
> I did it entirely post amplifier.
>
> I hooked a small set of speakers in series that I used for the
> "rears" and took the signal from the + of the left channel of the
> amplifer and the + of the right channel of the amp. The result was
> the signal that was not common to either channel. I used an "L" pad
> to bring down the volume on the "rear surround" speakers.
>
> At that time one of the microphone array patterns that I was
> experimenting with was Blumlein. That really lit up those rear
> speakers.
>
> What I did not care for with Blumlein was that I had to keep the
> ensemble being recorded within a 90 degree arc and that the rear
> signal was reversed compared to the front. The sides got really
> interesting especially if a choir was walking up the side of the
> performance hall to the stage. On playback , they moved across the
> middle.
>
> Depending on the ensemble, I may use ORTF, or a spaced pair of Super
> cardiods at 103 degrees. If I use MS I use a set of flanking
> microphones. for additional ambience and depth.
>
> When the hall is very good, I use a Jecklin disc with omnis.

Thanks Richard, might have to try some of those!

Gary

[None]

"Richard Kuschel" > wrote in message
news:7c1b98e9-8b34-431e-9963-> I hooked a small set of speakers in
series that I used for the "rears" and took the signal from the + of
the left channel of the amplifer and the + of the right channel of the
amp. The result was the signal that was not common to either channel.
I used an "L" pad to bring down the volume on the "rear surround"
speakers.
>
> At that time one of the microphone array patterns that I was
> experimenting with was Blumlein. That really lit up those rear
> speakers.
>
> What I did not care for with Blumlein was that I had to keep the
> ensemble being recorded within a 90 degree arc and that the rear
> signal was reversed compared to the front.

If the rear speakers were in series, in what sense was the rear signal
reversed? Any difference between the rear speakers would be caused by
impedance differences between the speakers, not the signals, wouldn't
it?

[None]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know what "listen in DPL-II" means (Dolby Pro Logic,
> maybe?), but I can tell you that the M-S mic setup was never
> intended to be any sort of a surround encoder. If you're using it
> for that purpose, you're on your own. Honestly, I doubt that you'll
> get nothing but arguments and diversions from this newsgroup.

Although the engineers at Dolby Labs were always quite tight-lipped
about the intellectual property details, they did tell me more than
once that Dolby Pro Logic was designed to produce a "pleasing surround
effect" when fed a stereo signal containing no encoded surround
signal. This was apparently a fairly important design consideration.

[Scott Dorsey]

None > wrote:
>
>If the rear speakers were in series, in what sense was the rear signal
>reversed? Any difference between the rear speakers would be caused by
>impedance differences between the speakers, not the signals, wouldn't
>it?

Dynaquad.... both amplifiers have a common ground, and so if you bridge
a load _between_ the two channel outputs, what you get is the difference
signal between the two channels. The rear speakers are in series with
one another, bridged across the output with no path to ground.

You can thank David Hafler for the idea. It was... well, to be honest
I think it was kind of cheesy...
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

None > wrote:
>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
>> I don't know what "listen in DPL-II" means (Dolby Pro Logic,
>> maybe?), but I can tell you that the M-S mic setup was never
>> intended to be any sort of a surround encoder. If you're using it
>> for that purpose, you're on your own. Honestly, I doubt that you'll
>> get nothing but arguments and diversions from this newsgroup.
>
>Although the engineers at Dolby Labs were always quite tight-lipped
>about the intellectual property details, they did tell me more than
>once that Dolby Pro Logic was designed to produce a "pleasing surround
>effect" when fed a stereo signal containing no encoded surround
>signal. This was apparently a fairly important design consideration.

The original Dolby Stereo did so, but when the steering logic was added
with the Dolby Pro-Logic system, the resulting weird shifts in perspective
on the front speakers made the effect much less than pleasing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> None > wrote:
>> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I don't know what "listen in DPL-II" means (Dolby Pro Logic,
>>> maybe?), but I can tell you that the M-S mic setup was never
>>> intended to be any sort of a surround encoder. If you're using it
>>> for that purpose, you're on your own. Honestly, I doubt that you'll
>>> get nothing but arguments and diversions from this newsgroup.
>>
>> Although the engineers at Dolby Labs were always quite tight-lipped
>> about the intellectual property details, they did tell me more than
>> once that Dolby Pro Logic was designed to produce a "pleasing
>> surround effect" when fed a stereo signal containing no encoded
>> surround signal. This was apparently a fairly important design
>> consideration.
>
> The original Dolby Stereo did so, but when the steering logic was
> added with the Dolby Pro-Logic system, the resulting weird shifts in
> perspective on the front speakers made the effect much less than
> pleasing. --scott

Well, this is the reason I am reporting that a good MS recording can be a
great encoded surround signal if you balance the M and S just right. I have
demonstrated it many times to myself on my surround system, the Lissajeous
pattern corroborates it, and it seems logical if you examine the signal. One
pure example is as mentioned before the channel check and phase check of a
test record. The announcer says "in phase" and then "out of phase." On my
system, the out of phase announcement comes from the back of the room,
because the DPL decoder sends the out of phase info there. I also get some
sounds coming (correctly) from the sides, which has always been said is not
possible (summing localization between the left front and left rear). In my
last session during the encore number a woman pushing a wheelchair had to
get by me. She shouted from my left, "Can we get through here?" and that is
where it comes from on playback - the right side wall. During one number the
audience starts singing along, quietly at first, then louder. It is a
chilling thrill to hear them coming from all around me.

The DPL decoder may not do much except a "pleasing effect" when fed a
standard, in phase signal, but it certainly can decode matrix surround quite
well, and some MS recordings seem to be already surround encoded and there
are no weird shifts in perspective in the front channels. It works, is
stereo compatible, and it's free!

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>
>The DPL decoder may not do much except a "pleasing effect" when fed a
>standard, in phase signal, but it certainly can decode matrix surround quite
>well, and some MS recordings seem to be already surround encoded and there
>are no weird shifts in perspective in the front channels. It works, is
>stereo compatible, and it's free!

Yes, but it degrades the front imaging with the steering logic, and although
what comes out of the rear channels may sound cool, it does not bear very much
connection with what you're hearing behind you in the hall.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

> >
> >Although the engineers at Dolby Labs were always quite tight-lipped
> >about the intellectual property details, they did tell me more than
> >once that Dolby Pro Logic was designed to produce a "pleasing surround
> >effect" when fed a stereo signal containing no encoded surround
> >signal. This was apparently a fairly important design consideration.
>
> The original Dolby Stereo did so, but when the steering logic was added
> with the Dolby Pro-Logic system, the resulting weird shifts in perspective
> on the front speakers made the effect much less than pleasing.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I think the true genius of Dolby is that he took that simple idea of connecting rear speakers across L and R and made a muti million busine$$ from it.

Mark

[[email protected]]

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 8:58:29 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
> >
> >The DPL decoder may not do much except a "pleasing effect" when fed a
> >standard, in phase signal, but it certainly can decode matrix surround quite
> >well, and some MS recordings seem to be already surround encoded and there
> >are no weird shifts in perspective in the front channels. It works, is
> >stereo compatible, and it's free!
>
> Yes, but it degrades the front imaging with the steering logic, and although
> what comes out of the rear channels may sound cool, it does not bear very much
> connection with what you're hearing behind you in the hall.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Awww now you ruined it for everyone...

Don't tell them about Santa.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 21-12-2015 04:49, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:

>> None > wrote:

>>> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>>> ...

>>>> I don't know what "listen in DPL-II" means (Dolby Pro Logic,
>>>> maybe?), but I can tell you that the M-S mic setup was never
>>>> intended to be any sort of a surround encoder. If you're using it
>>>> for that purpose, you're on your own. Honestly, I doubt that you'll
>>>> get nothing but arguments and diversions from this newsgroup.

>>> Although the engineers at Dolby Labs were always quite tight-lipped
>>> about the intellectual property details, they did tell me more than
>>> once that Dolby Pro Logic was designed to produce a "pleasing
>>> surround effect" when fed a stereo signal containing no encoded
>>> surround signal. This was apparently a fairly important design
>>> consideration.

>> The original Dolby Stereo did so, but when the steering logic was
>> added with the Dolby Pro-Logic system, the resulting weird shifts in
>> perspective on the front speakers made the effect much less than
>> pleasing. --scott

Yes. If you have a proper stereo recording the spatial depth - in front
of the line between the loudspeakers as well as behind it - will be
less, not more, with pro-logic playback, omni-pairs fare especially ill.

> Well, this is the reason I am reporting that a good MS recording can be a
> great encoded surround signal if you balance the M and S just right.

Yes. With your interest, your mumber of microphones and recorder, I fail
to comprehend why you are not making real discrete quad recordings.
Forget about 5.1, except that you can in fact remap them to 5.1 with
your audition if I recall its capabilities right. When you get those
right, nobody notices that it is anything but really really really good
stereo, wauw!, until you turn the rear channels off.

> The DPL decoder may not do much except a "pleasing effect" when fed a
> standard, in phase signal, but it certainly can decode matrix surround quite
> well, and some MS recordings seem to be already surround encoded and there
> are no weird shifts in perspective in the front channels. It works, is
> stereo compatible, and it's free!

The dpl decoder thing is like replacing real whipped cream with the
stuff that you do not want to know now is made but sold on spray cans to
decorate cakes with.

> Gary Eickmeier

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

Peter Larsen wrote:

> Yes. With your interest, your mumber of microphones and recorder, I
> fail to comprehend why you are not making real discrete quad
> recordings. Forget about 5.1, except that you can in fact remap them
> to 5.1 with your audition if I recall its capabilities right. When
> you get those right, nobody notices that it is anything but really
> really really good stereo, wauw!, until you turn the rear channels
> off.

I have made discrete surround recordings, using a DTS encoder that I found
online. I haven't had any luck with the Dolby Digital 5.1 mixer that is in
Audition. I have a 5.1 computer speaker kit as well, and I am supposed to be
able to make the sound come out of all of these speakers, but so far haven't
had much luck. Probably something simple.

But as for the DTS discrete recordings, the surround channels seem more
"disconnected" from the front ones, or should I say the sound scene that I
am trying to convey. Anyway, in my amateur recording venues, it would be a
lot more difficult to set up 4 mikes on stands without bothering the
audience and the powers that be.

Biggest question: Should I place the rear mikes right with the front set, or
should I move them back further into the audience? Might be able to get away
with it if I use some tiny lapel type mikes and skinny posts stretched up as
high as I can get them, then run some thin wires up to the recorder and tape
them down. Agh....

Gary

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 22-12-2015 03:00, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> Peter Larsen wrote:

>> Yes. With your interest, your mumber of microphones and recorder, I
>> fail to comprehend why you are not making real discrete quad
>> recordings. Forget about 5.1, except that you can in fact remap them
>> to 5.1 with your audition if I recall its capabilities right. When
>> you get those right, nobody notices that it is anything but really
>> really really good stereo, wauw!, until you turn the rear channels
>> off.

> I have made discrete surround recordings, using a DTS encoder that I found
> online. I haven't had any luck with the Dolby Digital 5.1 mixer that is in
> Audition. I have a 5.1 computer speaker kit as well, and I am supposed to be
> able to make the sound come out of all of these speakers, but so far haven't
> had much luck. Probably something simple.

No no no and no. Record 4 tracks, play 4 tracks back. No decoder.
Discrete surround.

> But as for the DTS discrete recordings, the surround channels seem more
> "disconnected" from the front ones, or should I say the sound scene that I
> am trying to convey. Anyway, in my amateur recording venues, it would be a
> lot more difficult to set up 4 mikes on stands without bothering the
> audience and the powers that be.

Keep DTS well out of it. Try a Brucks sputnik, it appears that you
already have the hardware for it even if your mics are somewhat large.

https://www.google.dk/search?q=Try+a+Brucks+sputnik&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=kcV4VobODsPosQHpg4mQDQ#q=%22Brucks+sputnik%22

Or search for "Brucks sputnik". Jerry Bruck is/was a New York based
recording engineer. Brucks Sputnik is a setup of 4 cardioids, easy to
mimic with 3 stereo cross-bars from K&M using one as the "backbone"
between front and rear pairs. The setup I used it for was a church event
with some of if happening at or with the organ so I had to record a
valid rear stereo image as well and I did not want to put a stand in the
main audience pathway as doing that necessitates someone wielding the
Elder Wand to keep the tide of the huns away from the stand.

> Biggest question: Should I place the rear mikes right with the front set, or
> should I move them back further into the audience?

Note, I haven't actually done this, I have used a Brucks sputnik type
setup once, but mixed it to stereo. In that context I ended up delaying
the rearwards aimed pair. For real quad playback ... hmm .... I dunno
what would work ... anyway the classic advice is that ambience
microphones for stereo should be "in the haas window", generally
described as no more than 10 meters behind the main pair. Further back
they become "echo microphones".

IF you map it (!) to 5.1 space it should be a remix because the angle
asumptions are different for a setup with a center loudspeaker. Which is
why a 5.1 mic setup - you should be able to find one illustrated on
dpa's website - is done with 5 mics. I have heard real quad, and it is
magnificent in terms of rendering the recorded space. In theory Audition
can do it, and I think the ability to do so came with 2.0.

> Might be able to get away
> with it if I use some tiny lapel type mikes and skinny posts stretched up as
> high as I can get them, then run some thin wires up to the recorder and tape
> them down. Agh....

Up to the recorder ... ???

> Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "- show quoted text -
The original Dolby Stereo did so, but when the steering logic was added
with the Dolby Pro-Logic system, the resulting weird shifts in perspective
on the front speakers made the effect much less than pleasing.
- show quoted text -"

Those "weird shifts" were a result of the source, not the
Pro-Logic platform. I noticed it far more on VHS playback
than with digital sources. But care must also be taken
in the production stages to avoid as much unwanted
phase issues as possible, so as to not "trick" Pro Logic
or other matrix steering codecs with regards to
itinerant placement(!)

Of course, that advice might have been more
critical back in the pre-discrete surround era.

[[email protected]]

I read it from several sources that "Top Gun" was
specifically produced to sound best on and take
full advantage of the steering logic surround
systems already in theaters and eventually making
their way into homes.

In fact, I found Top Gun to sound equally good in
Pro Logic or x.1 surround.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/21/2015 10:57 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
> No no no and no. Record 4 tracks, play 4 tracks back. No decoder.
> Discrete surround.

For gosh sakes, folks, let him play with his toys. If he's getting
something that he likes, fine. With some experience in recording -
rather than plugging things together to get his perception of "surround"
- he'll learn to recognize when something isn't right with the setup and
will get more consistent results.

Unless, of course, the results that he's getting are random and more
work for him than don't.

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

[[email protected]]

Peter Larsen wrote: "No no no and no. Record 4 tracks, play 4 tracks back. No decoder.
Discrete surround"

Above = the ultimate goal. Dolby Digital and
DTS are just that - discrete. The former just
happens to do it in the lossy realm.

[Gary Eickmeier]

wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote: "- show quoted text -
> The original Dolby Stereo did so, but when the steering logic was
> added with the Dolby Pro-Logic system, the resulting weird shifts in
> perspective on the front speakers made the effect much less than
> pleasing. - show quoted text -"
>
> Those "weird shifts" were a result of the source, not the
> Pro-Logic platform. I noticed it far more on VHS playback
> than with digital sources. But care must also be taken
> in the production stages to avoid as much unwanted
> phase issues as possible, so as to not "trick" Pro Logic
> or other matrix steering codecs with regards to
> itinerant placement(!)
>
> Of course, that advice might have been more
> critical back in the pre-discrete surround era.

OK, here is an innocent question that I have not seen come up before, but it
could have something to do with Scott's weird shifts in front perspective.

Whether you have a discrete or a matrixed 5.1 or 7.1 recording, you probably
want a center channel mixed in in some fashion. But there are two ways I can
see of doing the center channel - you could have it with the music, as
recorded by a center mike, or, if there is a singer, you could have the
singer alone on center channel. In the first case, the instruments might be
able to cause some unintended steering of the singer if they are off center.
In the second case, the two stereo channels would have to carry all of the
instrumental background and the center would be singer only, and would not
shift. There must be a few more implications of either method, I just
wonder if all this has been written about before.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 10:57 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
>> No no no and no. Record 4 tracks, play 4 tracks back. No decoder.
>> Discrete surround.
>
> For gosh sakes, folks, let him play with his toys. If he's getting
> something that he likes, fine. With some experience in recording -
> rather than plugging things together to get his perception of
> "surround" - he'll learn to recognize when something isn't right with
> the setup and will get more consistent results.
>
> Unless, of course, the results that he's getting are random and more
> work for him than don't.

Well, my equipment is no more nor less "toys" than is Frank's, or yours, or
Ty Ford's, who goes to all the shows to see what "toys" have come out of
interest. I have my experimenting, because I am an eager learner of all
kinds of recording, and I have my serious work for the concert band or my
video work, which has to be correct for the clients. I believe I know what I
am getting and can recognize what works and what doesn't, which is the
reason for this thread. I am not flailing about at random and not
understanding what I am doing or getting. It's a learning process for me,
just like it is for you. I think it is well known how to get good frontal
stereo sound. You set that up and then you know you have got some good stuff
for the client, but then you can also "take a shot" at some more involved
techniques and use it or not afterwards.

Gary

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote: "- show quoted text -
>The original Dolby Stereo did so, but when the steering logic was added
>with the Dolby Pro-Logic system, the resulting weird shifts in perspective
>on the front speakers made the effect much less than pleasing.
>- show quoted text -"
>
>Those "weird shifts" were a result of the source, not the
>Pro-Logic platform. I noticed it far more on VHS playback
>than with digital sources. But care must also be taken
>in the production stages to avoid as much unwanted
>phase issues as possible, so as to not "trick" Pro Logic
>or other matrix steering codecs with regards to
>itinerant placement(!)

The purpose of the steering logic is to always keep the dominant midrange
source centered on the stereo image. This is fine for movies where you can
mix them so that the dialogue is in the center all the time. It's not so good
for musical recordings where they have to be mixed in a very specific way
in order to keep the steering logic from changing the gains and moving the
soundstage from side to side to center that loud sax or whatever.

Normal Dolby Stereo will not do this. Pro-Logic basically exists for consumer
videotape systems, to compensate for alignment and level mismatches.
--scott

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

Peter -

I didn't have much luck with the link to the Sputnik, but I have already
tried my version of four cardioids, which I call the Four Leaf Clover. Mine
are pointing N, E, S, and W. I am recording discrete channels but mixing to
surround by taking the three front mikes - well, one front and two side
facing - and using them for the front sound, and then the rear mike can be
incorporated for the surround. I forget exactly how I mixed that in, might
have split it into two channels and inverted one of them in a certain way.
Probably should just aim them like two pairs of XY systems. In any case, my
DTS surround is a discrete system and does use only four channels, not 5.1.
If there is a singer in the mix, she would obviously be mixed into the front
channels in the usual way but the speakers would be sent a discrete surround
and there would be no separate center channel.

Something like that....

Gary

Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 22-12-2015 03:00, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>> Peter Larsen wrote:
>
>>> Yes. With your interest, your mumber of microphones and recorder, I
>>> fail to comprehend why you are not making real discrete quad
>>> recordings. Forget about 5.1, except that you can in fact remap them
>>> to 5.1 with your audition if I recall its capabilities right. When
>>> you get those right, nobody notices that it is anything but really
>>> really really good stereo, wauw!, until you turn the rear channels
>>> off.
>
>> I have made discrete surround recordings, using a DTS encoder that I
>> found online. I haven't had any luck with the Dolby Digital 5.1
>> mixer that is in Audition. I have a 5.1 computer speaker kit as
>> well, and I am supposed to be able to make the sound come out of all
>> of these speakers, but so far haven't had much luck. Probably
>> something simple.
>
> No no no and no. Record 4 tracks, play 4 tracks back. No decoder.
> Discrete surround.
>
>> But as for the DTS discrete recordings, the surround channels seem
>> more "disconnected" from the front ones, or should I say the sound
>> scene that I am trying to convey. Anyway, in my amateur recording
>> venues, it would be a lot more difficult to set up 4 mikes on stands
>> without bothering the audience and the powers that be.
>
> Keep DTS well out of it. Try a Brucks sputnik, it appears that you
> already have the hardware for it even if your mics are somewhat large.
>
> https://www.google.dk/search?q=Try+a+Brucks+sputnik&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=kcV4VobODsPosQHpg4mQDQ#q=%22Brucks+sputnik%22
>
> Or search for "Brucks sputnik". Jerry Bruck is/was a New York based
> recording engineer. Brucks Sputnik is a setup of 4 cardioids, easy to
> mimic with 3 stereo cross-bars from K&M using one as the "backbone"
> between front and rear pairs. The setup I used it for was a church
> event with some of if happening at or with the organ so I had to
> record a valid rear stereo image as well and I did not want to put a
> stand in the main audience pathway as doing that necessitates someone
> wielding the Elder Wand to keep the tide of the huns away from the
> stand.
>> Biggest question: Should I place the rear mikes right with the front
>> set, or should I move them back further into the audience?
>
> Note, I haven't actually done this, I have used a Brucks sputnik type
> setup once, but mixed it to stereo. In that context I ended up
> delaying the rearwards aimed pair. For real quad playback ... hmm
> .... I dunno what would work ... anyway the classic advice is that
> ambience microphones for stereo should be "in the haas window",
> generally described as no more than 10 meters behind the main pair.
> Further back they become "echo microphones".
>
> IF you map it (!) to 5.1 space it should be a remix because the angle
> asumptions are different for a setup with a center loudspeaker. Which
> is why a 5.1 mic setup - you should be able to find one illustrated on
> dpa's website - is done with 5 mics. I have heard real quad, and it is
> magnificent in terms of rendering the recorded space. In theory
> Audition can do it, and I think the ability to do so came with 2.0.
>
>> Might be able to get away
>> with it if I use some tiny lapel type mikes and skinny posts
>> stretched up as high as I can get them, then run some thin wires up
>> to the recorder and tape them down. Agh....
>
> Up to the recorder ... ???
>
>> Gary
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "Normal Dolby Stereo will not do this. Pro-Logic basically exists for consumer
videotape systems, to compensate for alignment and level mismatches. "


Pro-Logic IS the home version of Dolby Stereo(cinema-
employed). Dolby Stereo(and other matrix-encode
surround formats) were DESIGNED and implemented with
a center in mind even before Jaws and A New Hope were
still in shooting. Typical large, wiiiide, cinema auditoriums
made a center array a mandatory part of any multi-channel
presentation, matrix or discrete. This was known before
WW2. The only real differences between DS and DPL are
the number of speakers employed, and more per-channel
processing(EQ, delay, etc) than exist in the home version.


So while you are correct in your assessment of consumer
tape-based video playback systems, I can never accept
that the domestic adaptation of Dolby Stereo(Pro Logic)was
implemented solely to account for such inconsistencies.


My main movie listening system is still Pro Logic. Why?
Because most newer home theater receivers have gone
HDMI on their rear panels. I still have a suite of perfectly
functional analog, RCA-out components that would not
have a home on the back of anything manufactured in
the last ten years. Do I appreciate the sonic advantages
of Dolby Digital and DTS? Certainly. But quality of
source material matters far more to me than number of
discrete surround channels I can employ with such a
newer format.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Pro-Logic IS the home version of Dolby Stereo(cinema-
>employed). Dolby Stereo(and other matrix-encode
>surround formats) were DESIGNED and implemented with
>a center in mind even before Jaws and A New Hope were
>still in shooting. Typical large, wiiiide, cinema auditoriums
>made a center array a mandatory part of any multi-channel
>presentation, matrix or discrete. This was known before
>WW2. The only real differences between DS and DPL are
>the number of speakers employed, and more per-channel
>processing(EQ, delay, etc) than exist in the home version.

Pro-Logic is the conventional Dolby Stereo with steering logic added in
front of the matrix.

>So while you are correct in your assessment of consumer
>tape-based video playback systems, I can never accept
>that the domestic adaptation of Dolby Stereo(Pro Logic)was
>implemented solely to account for such inconsistencies.

There were several home Dolby Stereo systems including the once-ubiquitous
Shure decoder. The Pro-Logic system was designed specifically to overcome
problems that people had using Dolby Stereo in a home environment. If you
do not believe me, please read the documentation.

>My main movie listening system is still Pro Logic. Why?
>Because most newer home theater receivers have gone
>HDMI on their rear panels. I still have a suite of perfectly
>functional analog, RCA-out components that would not
>have a home on the back of anything manufactured in
>the last ten years. Do I appreciate the sonic advantages
>of Dolby Digital and DTS? Certainly. But quality of
>source material matters far more to me than number of
>discrete surround channels I can employ with such a
>newer format.

That's nice but has nothing to do with the subject. Please do not attempt to
change the subject.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "That's nice but has nothing to do with the subject. Please do not attempt to
change the subject"


Well excuuuuuuuse me, OFFICER Dorsey.


And I see you are still entertaining the same
rubbish I wrote to you in private not to
converse with. That alone puts you down
at it's level.


I already read this white paper:

http://web.uvic.ca/~loneil/elec484/project/208_Dolby_Surround_Pro_Logic_Decoder.pdf

and right in the top half of the first page it states
what the purpose of Pro Logic was.

[None]

< dumbn****ozicki @ shortbusmoronsRus.org > gibberied incoherently:
> Well excuuuuuuuse me, OFFICER Dorsey.
>
> And I see you are still entertaining the same
> rubbish I wrote to you in private not to
> converse with. That alone puts you down
> at it's level.

Well excuuuuuuuse me, OFFICER Dumb**** Kozicki. You still seem to
think you're a moderator or something? You still think that people
will do as you tell them, rather than laughing at you for being such a
retard? After all, your many responses to me prove that you can't even
follow your own advice.

Should I explain AGAIN where I know you from? Hehe. I'm sure it would
go right over your head, since even your autistic cat is smarter than
you are.

It's so predictable. You post some dumb**** post on Usenet, and nobody
responds. So you get enraged, and come here to RAP for some attention.
You get called out for being a retarded moron, with a bad case of
hobby horse ****. You post something that proves that you're a moron,
and then you, the dumb**** retard, pretend that you can school the
professionals.

> I already read this white paper:

Does that mean you wiped with it after pinching off your latest Usenet
defecation? Put that hockey helmet on, the short bus will be there
soon to take you home for your regular beatings. Thanks for the laugh,
I'il buddy. You're always good for a laugh ... one of the duties of a
village idiot.

[JackA]

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-5, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Peter Larsen wrote:
>
> > Yes. With your interest, your mumber of microphones and recorder, I
> > fail to comprehend why you are not making real discrete quad
> > recordings. Forget about 5.1, except that you can in fact remap them
> > to 5.1 with your audition if I recall its capabilities right. When
> > you get those right, nobody notices that it is anything but really
> > really really good stereo, wauw!, until you turn the rear channels
> > off.
>
> I have made discrete surround recordings, using a DTS encoder that I found
> online. I haven't had any luck with the Dolby Digital 5.1 mixer that is in
> Audition. I have a 5.1 computer speaker kit as well, and I am supposed to be
> able to make the sound come out of all of these speakers, but so far haven't
> had much luck. Probably something simple.
>
> But as for the DTS discrete recordings, the surround channels seem more
> "disconnected" from the front ones, or should I say the sound scene that I
> am trying to convey. Anyway, in my amateur recording venues, it would be a
> lot more difficult to set up 4 mikes on stands without bothering the
> audience and the powers that be.
>
> Biggest question: Should I place the rear mikes right with the front set, or
> should I move them back further into the audience? Might be able to get away
> with it if I use some tiny lapel type mikes and skinny posts stretched up as
> high as I can get them, then run some thin wires up to the recorder and tape
> them down. Agh....
>
> Gary

I personally never heard any discrete 4 channel recordings, but even without hearing any, I'd probably enjoy it more than stereo!! Less masking of sounds is ideal. Never thought much a Ray Dolby's stuff.

[Trevor]

On 22/12/2015 1:37 AM, wrote:
>>> Although the engineers at Dolby Labs were always quite
>>> tight-lipped about the intellectual property details, they did
>>> tell me more than once that Dolby Pro Logic was designed to
>>> produce a "pleasing surround effect" when fed a stereo signal
>>> containing no encoded surround signal. This was apparently a
>>> fairly important design consideration.
>>
>> The original Dolby Stereo did so, but when the steering logic was
>> added with the Dolby Pro-Logic system, the resulting weird shifts
>> in perspective on the front speakers made the effect much less than
>> pleasing. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres
>> precis."
>
> I think the true genius of Dolby is that he took that simple idea of
> connecting rear speakers across L and R and made a muti million
> busine$$ from it.

His multi million dollar empire was actually built on taking an already
common companding technique and simply making it more frequency
dependent to reduce artifacts slightly. Dolby A,B,C etc. all preceded
the surround sound processing.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>I already read this white paper:
>
>http://web.uvic.ca/~loneil/elec484/project/208_Dolby_Surround_Pro_Logic_Decoder.pdf
>
>and right in the top half of the first page it states
>what the purpose of Pro Logic was.

No, that is talking about Dolby Stereo. It does not talk about the Pro Logic
system until the fourth paragraph.

The Pro Logic decoder is a conventional matrix Dolby Stereo decoder, with
additional logic in order to find the dominant source in the mix and keep
it centered in the soundfield.

This is actually a very very good description of the system and how it works,
and if you will read paragraph 2.6, it describes precisely the problem that
we encounter when running random musical mixes through the decoder: the logic
that is intended to determine the dominant feature and center it with the
adaptive matrix does exactly what it's supposed to do, and that is bad if the
dominant source is not directly centered in the mix. If it isn't, the steering
logic will move it there and in the process everything else will move.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 22-12-2015 14:25, Mike Rivers wrote:

> On 12/21/2015 10:57 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:

>> No no no and no. Record 4 tracks, play 4 tracks back. No decoder.
>> Discrete surround.

> For gosh sakes, folks, let him play with his toys. If he's getting
> something that he likes, fine. With some experience in recording -
> rather than plugging things together to get his perception of "surround"
> - he'll learn to recognize when something isn't right with the setup and
> will get more consistent results.

My suggestion is in the general direction of simplifiying the setup, and
in a specific direction that I have heard work very well.

> Unless, of course, the results that he's getting are random and more
> work for him than don't.

This thread is caused that situation Mike :) - note, I have a dolby
surround preceiver, and did try using it for stereo playback. Doing that
works well for multimono, and reasonably well for "small array" stereo
with directional mics, but the plasticity and depth of image in AB
stereo with 50 cm between the capsules seemed to collapse, ie. the
"being surrounded by sound" experience was better in stereo playback
than in "emulated surround playback".

Which all in all is to say, that while it may come across as "don't play
with your toys" then that is not my errand. One should play with things
to know how they work and interact. My errand is that I feel that I have
enough stereo and surround experience to suggest an approach with less
processing of the audio and thus better quality of the playback.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k...

> This thread is caused that situation Mike :) - note, I have a dolby
> surround preceiver, and did try using it for stereo playback. Doing that
> works well for multimono, and reasonably well for "small array" stereo
> with directional mics, but the plasticity and depth of image in AB stereo
> with 50 cm between the capsules seemed to collapse, ie. the "being
> surrounded by sound" experience was better in stereo playback than in
> "emulated surround playback".
>
> Which all in all is to say, that while it may come across as "don't play
> with your toys" then that is not my errand. One should play with things to
> know how they work and interact. My errand is that I feel that I have
> enough stereo and surround experience to suggest an approach with less
> processing of the audio and thus better quality of the playback.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

OK, so you are saying that discrete surrround is better than my MS played
back in DPL II. True, but the reason to mix it down to something else is to
put it on a disc that can be shared or sold for others to play back too.
That plus the convenience of being able to use just two mikes and get great
results is amazing.

Simple, stereo compatible, produced on CD, and works.

Gary

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Hi Gary,

On 28-12-2015 01:10, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
> k...

>> This thread is caused that situation Mike :) - note, I have a dolby
>> surround preceiver, and did try using it for stereo playback. Doing that
>> works well for multimono, and reasonably well for "small array" stereo
>> with directional mics, but the plasticity and depth of image in AB stereo
>> with 50 cm between the capsules seemed to collapse, ie. the "being
>> surrounded by sound" experience was better in stereo playback than in
>> "emulated surround playback".

>> Which all in all is to say, that while it may come across as "don't play
>> with your toys" then that is not my errand. One should play with things to
>> know how they work and interact. My errand is that I feel that I have
>> enough stereo and surround experience to suggest an approach with less
>> processing of the audio and thus better quality of the playback.

>> Peter Larsen

> OK, so you are saying that discrete surrround is better than my MS played
> back in DPL II. True, but the reason to mix it down to something else is to
> put it on a disc that can be shared or sold for others to play back too.
> That plus the convenience of being able to use just two mikes and get great
> results is amazing.

My point is more in the general direction of record in the format you
want, a distributeability concern is new to the discussion.

> Simple, stereo compatible, produced on CD, and works.

I disagree in using the term stereo compatible if it is about making a
stereo recording and tend to favour playing back in the format recorded,
a stereo compatible playback of SQ or QS (matrix) generally is not very
pleasing as one finds out when playing those formats properly. Having
one record in each format I lament the recent ailments of my Sony quad
rear-channel adding amplifier.

Anybody know whether decoding software is available?

> Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen