| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
M/S Mic Question
If the mid mic were a Schoeps CMC64 and you had a choice between a U87
and a C414B-ULS, for the side mic, which would you prefer, and why, on any or all of the following sources: Choir, piano, harpsichord, guitar, drum OH Thank you. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
locosoundman wrote:
If the mid mic were a Schoeps CMC64 and you had a choice between a U87 and a C414B-ULS, for the side mic, which would you prefer, and why, on any or all of the following sources: Choir, piano, harpsichord, guitar, drum OH I would go mono and skip the side mike entirely if those were my options. Neither the U87 or the C414 are going to be anything approaching the same response as the C414, so that objects on the edge of the sound field will sound different than those in the center. In both cases, those mikes are a lot brighter than the Schoeps, so stuff on the edge of the field will become brighter. My feeling is that if you have to use an unmatched side mike, you'd want something duller sounding than the mid mike, like a Beyer M130, because having the edges of the soundfield duller than the center seems less annoying. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Dorsey wrote: My feeling is that if you have to use an unmatched side mike, you'd want something duller sounding than the mid mike, like a Beyer M130, because having the edges of the soundfield duller than the center seems less annoying. OTOH, a good linear phase equalizer applied to the side mic's recording could tame whatever you use. Linear phase so as not to screw up the recorded phase relationships. I don't generally like linear phase equalization but it has its applications and this would be one of them. A gotcha for MS is always the response symmetry of the side mic. In general this is not a terribly important requirement because one side receives a considerably different kind of signal than the other but in an MS that's not true. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Dorsey wrote: My feeling is that if you have to use an unmatched side mike, you'd want something duller sounding than the mid mike, like a Beyer M130, because having the edges of the soundfield duller than the center seems less annoying. OTOH, a good linear phase equalizer applied to the side mic's recording could tame whatever you use. Linear phase so as not to screw up the recorded phase relationships. I don't generally like linear phase equalization but it has its applications and this would be one of them. A gotcha for MS is always the response symmetry of the side mic. In general this is not a terribly important requirement because one side receives a considerably different kind of signal than the other but in an MS that's not true. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neither the U87 or the C414 are going to be anything approaching the same response as the C414, so that objects on the edge of the sound field will sound different than those in the center. In both cases, those mikes are a lot brighter than the Schoeps, so stuff on the edge of the field will become brighter. My feeling is that if you have to use an unmatched side mike, you'd want something duller sounding than the mid mike, like a Beyer M130, because having the edges of the soundfield duller than the center seems less annoying. (Assuming that in the second line you meant to write "the CMC 64" ...) A figure-8 with rising high frequency response--especially if that response is not evenly maintained at all angles of sound incidence-- will definitely skew the stereo imaging. But the issue which I would encourage folks to think about isn't the match or mismatch between the M and S microphones of a pair. Rather, I see the accuracy of the figure-8 microphone's directional pattern, and the consistency of that pattern throughout its bandwidth, as the main things which determine its suitability for M/S use at all--of course assuming that its noise and distortion are low enough, too. The S microphone in an M/S pair has a very specific function: to produce the difference information between the eventual left and right stereo channels. The better it can perform that one function--the more accurate its figure-8 polar pattern is, and the flatter its frequency response is--the more freedom one then has to choose an M microphone with whatever coloring (or lack thereof) and pattern one prefers. Ideally, an S microphone should be chosen such that its sonic character is not a significant factor in the eventual stereo result. The U 87's figure-8 setting is a little bright on axis and rolls off at the sides. It's a nice sound for a number of other uses--but of the two microphones proposed, I'd sooner use a C 414B-ULS as the S microphone for M/S pickup, I think. --best regards |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neither the U87 or the C414 are going to be anything approaching the same response as the C414, so that objects on the edge of the sound field will sound different than those in the center. In both cases, those mikes are a lot brighter than the Schoeps, so stuff on the edge of the field will become brighter. My feeling is that if you have to use an unmatched side mike, you'd want something duller sounding than the mid mike, like a Beyer M130, because having the edges of the soundfield duller than the center seems less annoying. (Assuming that in the second line you meant to write "the CMC 64" ...) A figure-8 with rising high frequency response--especially if that response is not evenly maintained at all angles of sound incidence-- will definitely skew the stereo imaging. But the issue which I would encourage folks to think about isn't the match or mismatch between the M and S microphones of a pair. Rather, I see the accuracy of the figure-8 microphone's directional pattern, and the consistency of that pattern throughout its bandwidth, as the main things which determine its suitability for M/S use at all--of course assuming that its noise and distortion are low enough, too. The S microphone in an M/S pair has a very specific function: to produce the difference information between the eventual left and right stereo channels. The better it can perform that one function--the more accurate its figure-8 polar pattern is, and the flatter its frequency response is--the more freedom one then has to choose an M microphone with whatever coloring (or lack thereof) and pattern one prefers. Ideally, an S microphone should be chosen such that its sonic character is not a significant factor in the eventual stereo result. The U 87's figure-8 setting is a little bright on axis and rolls off at the sides. It's a nice sound for a number of other uses--but of the two microphones proposed, I'd sooner use a C 414B-ULS as the S microphone for M/S pickup, I think. --best regards |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
locosoundman wrote:
If the mid mic were a Schoeps CMC64 and you had a choice between a U87 and a C414B-ULS, for the side mic, which would you prefer, and why, on any or all of the following sources: Choir, piano, harpsichord, guitar, drum OH I would go mono and skip the side mike entirely if those were my options. Neither the U87 or the C414 are going to be anything approaching the same response as the C414, so that objects on the edge of the sound field will sound different than those in the center. In both cases, those mikes are a lot brighter than the Schoeps, so stuff on the edge of the field will become brighter. My feeling is that if you have to use an unmatched side mike, you'd want something duller sounding than the mid mike, like a Beyer M130, because having the edges of the soundfield duller than the center seems less annoying. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
If the mid mic were a Schoeps CMC64 and you had a choice between a U87
and a C414B-ULS, for the side mic, which would you prefer, and why, on any or all of the following sources: Choir, piano, harpsichord, guitar, drum OH I assume you're talking about distant micing, since MS is inappropriate up close. I have never liked any MS rig I've tried. Geometricly it makes sense, but there's just no mic pair for the job. Large diaphrams have poor/inconsistent off-axis response, plus are inconsistent front-to-back too. A small diaphram fig-8 would make much more sense, but they don't exist, except by using two opposing cardioid capsules, which introduces phase issues from the slight displacement between the two, in addition to the problems from the displacement between the mono and side mics... Frankly I've been much happier with coincident XY wherever MS might be used. People complain that XY isn't always "wide" enough, but it's so easy with a few custom cables to isolate the side channel using the inserts and a stereo auxiliary, and it's even simpler with Waves Stereo Imager in the box, and the result is far less comprimised than a MS array IMO. But unless there's sound reinforcement involved, I always prefer an ORTF-ish spaced pair, again small diaphram. Whatever you do, don't do any "widening" to a spaced pair or it's a world of phase nastiness. Get it right with mic positioning and room tuning. Drum overheads shouldn't need anything on them in the mix. If a $300 pair of Rode NT5's can pull that off nicely, you'll have no trouble in your price range. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sugarite wrote: A small diaphram fig-8 would make much more sense, but they don't exist, except by using two opposing cardioid capsules, which introduces phase issues from the slight displacement between the two, in addition to the problems from the displacement between the mono and side mics... This is an excellent solution to the problem, actually. If you mount the two back to back cardiods one atop the other you will largely avoid the non-coincidence problem. It's a DIY proposition, though, because you pretty much have to use raw capsules. Using three identical capsules, one for the front and two for the side and reasonably matched is pretty near optimal for M/S IMO. Frankly I've been much happier with coincident XY wherever MS might be used. People complain that XY isn't always "wide" enough, but it's so easy with a few custom cables to isolate the side channel using the inserts and a stereo auxiliary, and it's even simpler with Waves Stereo Imager in the box, and the result is far less comprimised than a MS array IMO. Since the coincident XY can be easily matrixed back to MS in a DAW for width manipulation, there really isn't a hell of a lot of difference except that it is simpler. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why is this so difficult....
Sugarite wrote: A small diaphram fig-8 would make much more sense, but they don't exist, The following small diaphram solutions do exist.... Sennheiser MKH30 fig-8 MKH40 card or MKH50 hypercard http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/02872 http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/02645 http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/03109 Schoeps also has small diaphragm figure 8.. http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/figure-8.html http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/ms-stereo.html#msoutdoor Rgds: Eric |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Eric K. Weber wrote: Why is this so difficult.... Sugarite wrote: A small diaphram fig-8 would make much more sense, but they don't exist, The following small diaphram solutions do exist.... Sennheiser MKH30 fig-8 MKH40 card or MKH50 hypercard http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/02872 http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/02645 http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/03109 I would consider these much too large for the back to back solution. The mic bodies would create signifigant near reflections into the array that would booger up the frequency response. Schoeps also has small diaphragm figure 8.. http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/figure-8.html http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/ms-stereo.html#msoutdoor Yes, top tier solution and you'll pay accordingly. I tend to forget things that are way outside my ability to consider. :-) Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Eric K. Weber wrote: Why is this so difficult.... Sugarite wrote: A small diaphram fig-8 would make much more sense, but they don't exist, The following small diaphram solutions do exist.... Sennheiser MKH30 fig-8 MKH40 card or MKH50 hypercard http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/02872 http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/02645 http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/03109 I would consider these much too large for the back to back solution. The mic bodies would create signifigant near reflections into the array that would booger up the frequency response. Schoeps also has small diaphragm figure 8.. http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/figure-8.html http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/ms-stereo.html#msoutdoor Yes, top tier solution and you'll pay accordingly. I tend to forget things that are way outside my ability to consider. :-) Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Eric K. Weber wrote:
The following small diaphram solutions do exist.... Sennheiser MKH30 fig-8 MKH40 card or MKH50 hypercard http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/02872 http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/02645 http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/03109 Schoeps also has small diaphragm figure 8.. http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/figure-8.html http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/ms-stereo.html#msoutdoor It's significant that these are not only small-diapragm designs but also _single-diaphragm_ designs. And let's not forget the Neumann KM 120: http://www.neumann.com/infopool/mics...p?ProdID=km100 Oddly I've never heard from anyone who has ever used it--and I've asked around repeatedly. Here goes again: If anyone here has used this microphone, could you please comment on its sound? I sometimes use spaced (!) figure-8s for stereo vocal recording, and can imagine that a response characteristic as shown in Neumann's diagrams might be useful for that application, or at least worth trying. _Dual-diaphragm_ small-diaphragm mikes with a selectable figure-8 pattern would include the Neumann KM 56, KM 88 and KM 86. I've used KM 86s and KM 88s as figure-8 microphones and preferred the KM 88; the KM 86 is very bright, even harsh off axis when used as a figure-8. But I chickened out and sold my KM 88s this past year. One accident with their fragile nickel membranes and poof, it's all over--no original replacement capsules are available any more, and I'm not interested in "reskinned" capsules. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
David Satz wrote:
It's significant that these are not only small-diapragm designs but also _single-diaphragm_ designs. And let's not forget the Neumann KM 120: http://www.neumann.com/infopool/mics...p?ProdID=km100 Oddly I've never heard from anyone who has ever used it--and I've asked around repeatedly. Here goes again: If anyone here has used this microphone, could you please comment on its sound? I sometimes use spaced (!) figure-8s for stereo vocal recording, and can imagine that a response characteristic as shown in Neumann's diagrams might be useful for that application, or at least worth trying. Since you asked: I use a Neumann KM120 with a KM140. It sounds good to me. But then I haven't had occasion to critically compare it with anything else in its class. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
David Satz wrote:
It's significant that these are not only small-diapragm designs but also _single-diaphragm_ designs. And let's not forget the Neumann KM 120: http://www.neumann.com/infopool/mics...p?ProdID=km100 Oddly I've never heard from anyone who has ever used it--and I've asked around repeatedly. Here goes again: If anyone here has used this microphone, could you please comment on its sound? I sometimes use spaced (!) figure-8s for stereo vocal recording, and can imagine that a response characteristic as shown in Neumann's diagrams might be useful for that application, or at least worth trying. Since you asked: I use a Neumann KM120 with a KM140. It sounds good to me. But then I haven't had occasion to critically compare it with anything else in its class. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Eric K. Weber wrote:
The following small diaphram solutions do exist.... Sennheiser MKH30 fig-8 MKH40 card or MKH50 hypercard http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/02872 http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/02645 http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/03109 Schoeps also has small diaphragm figure 8.. http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/figure-8.html http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/ms-stereo.html#msoutdoor It's significant that these are not only small-diapragm designs but also _single-diaphragm_ designs. And let's not forget the Neumann KM 120: http://www.neumann.com/infopool/mics...p?ProdID=km100 Oddly I've never heard from anyone who has ever used it--and I've asked around repeatedly. Here goes again: If anyone here has used this microphone, could you please comment on its sound? I sometimes use spaced (!) figure-8s for stereo vocal recording, and can imagine that a response characteristic as shown in Neumann's diagrams might be useful for that application, or at least worth trying. _Dual-diaphragm_ small-diaphragm mikes with a selectable figure-8 pattern would include the Neumann KM 56, KM 88 and KM 86. I've used KM 86s and KM 88s as figure-8 microphones and preferred the KM 88; the KM 86 is very bright, even harsh off axis when used as a figure-8. But I chickened out and sold my KM 88s this past year. One accident with their fragile nickel membranes and poof, it's all over--no original replacement capsules are available any more, and I'm not interested in "reskinned" capsules. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why is this so difficult....
Sugarite wrote: A small diaphram fig-8 would make much more sense, but they don't exist, The following small diaphram solutions do exist.... Sennheiser MKH30 fig-8 MKH40 card or MKH50 hypercard http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/02872 http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/02645 http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm.nsf/root/03109 Schoeps also has small diaphragm figure 8.. http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/figure-8.html http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/ms-stereo.html#msoutdoor Rgds: Eric |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Cain wrote:
Using three identical capsules, one for the front and two for the side and reasonably matched is pretty near optimal for M/S IMO. Bob, as you know I've posted some messages here saying that matching the sonic character of the M and S mikes is not a particular virtue, and that a flat/smooth/accurate characteristic for S matters far more. Then you sent me your more detailed thoughts off-list, which gave me a chance to rethink this issue. I have to admit that there's more to it than I thought before (i.e. there may be something to it at all). Here's how I would express it non-mathematically. The issue is how the stereo image will be affected by the response characteristics of the two microphones after the M/S signals have been matrixed to L/R. If the M microphone emphasizes certain sound components (e.g. the high frequencies) while the S microphone doesn't, then in the eventual L/R stereo output of the matrix, those components will tend to gather at the image's center more than the midrange sound does. The apparent left-right position of any given instrument or voice would thus be blurred. Conversely, if the S microphone boosts the highs while the M microphone doesn't, high frequency energy would tend to be shifted more toward the left and right than the midrange sound--increasingly so with individual voices or instruments that are already off-center. Both effects are undesirable, but they do work in generally opposing directions--either one would tend to compensate for the other to some degree. So I think I see the intended point of "matching" the general sonic characteristics of the M and S microphones now. I don't endorse it completely, but I see a possible rational hope behind it at least. It will take me another little while to say where I don't agree; the main issue is the fact that most microphones (except for the best small-diaphragm figure-8s and certain rather noisy omnis) don't have the same frequency response at all angles of incidence. So all our "virtual microphones" have rather complex, irregular response--that's another reason I tend to favor a super- or hypercardioid for "M". However, I'll also point out that the analog of using a non-flat S mike is processing the S channel independently of the M channel--and there is a long tradition of doing exactly that. One of the attractions of M/S (whether the recording is made originally that way, or whether another type of X/Y recording is matrixed to M/S) is that the M and S channels can be equalized independently or processed in other ways independently, then rematrixed to L/R stereo. For example, LP disc cutters would often matrix a stereo signal to sum and difference channels (equivalent to M and S), and limit the difference channel and/or roll off its low-frequency energy, since the difference energy corresponds essentially to the vertical component of the groove to be cut, while the M channel corresponds to its horizontal component. Excessive vertical modulation could cause skipping, and would tend to limit the playing time of the side and the maximum modulation of the groove--which in turn would limit the playback volume and the signal- to-noise ratio. Cutting the loudest possible record was an obsession with LP mastering engineers, too--not something that snuck into the business with the diabolical introduction of digital recording. This also addresses a point made by "Sugarite"--he's right that X/Y (coincident) recordings often lack a sense of spaciousness, and that spaced microphone recordings are sometimes preferred for that reason. But one other way to increase the sense of spaciousness, or at least to help compensate for some of the relative lack of it, is to boost the low-frequency response of the "S" channel. If anyone remembers Bob Carver's "Digital Time Lens" processor--a surprisingly useful general-purpose "feel-good box" that doesn't add distortion--that's one of the tricks he was using in that circuit. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
David Satz wrote: If the M microphone emphasizes certain sound components (e.g. the high frequencies) while the S microphone doesn't, then in the eventual L/R stereo output of the matrix, those components will tend to gather at the image's center more than the midrange sound does. The apparent left-right position of any given instrument or voice would thus be blurred. Conversely, if the S microphone boosts the highs while the M microphone doesn't, high frequency energy would tend to be shifted more toward the left and right than the midrange sound--increasingly so with individual voices or instruments that are already off-center. Yes. But even if they are matched blurring will occur because frequency response is angle dependant or inversely, the polar plot is frequency dependant. The consequence is that the virtual mics given by the vector sum of the real mics have axes that move about with frequency. It will take me another little while to say where I don't agree; the main issue is the fact that most microphones (except for the best small-diaphragm figure-8s and certain rather noisy omnis) don't have the same frequency response at all angles of incidence. So all our "virtual microphones" have rather complex, irregular response--that's another reason I tend to favor a super- or hypercardioid for "M". I hadn't read ahead. You clearly understand the point I made above. However, I'll also point out that the analog of using a non-flat S mike is processing the S channel independently of the M channel--and there is a long tradition of doing exactly that. One of the attractions of M/S (whether the recording is made originally that way, or whether another type of X/Y recording is matrixed to M/S) is that the M and S channels can be equalized independently or processed in other ways independently, then rematrixed to L/R stereo. You want to make sure that any such manipulation that is frequency dependant be done with linear phase filters and that the channel not processed always be delayed by the group delay of the filter to keep the two channels time coherent. Changing the relative phase of M and S outputs also has a large effect on source placement within the image. All of this having to do with frequency dependant polar responses and the consequence on imaging applies as well to the XY configuration. At one extreme, look at the frequencies where the polar plot gets close to round and all those frequencies will be moved to the center of the image. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
David Satz wrote: If the M microphone emphasizes certain sound components (e.g. the high frequencies) while the S microphone doesn't, then in the eventual L/R stereo output of the matrix, those components will tend to gather at the image's center more than the midrange sound does. The apparent left-right position of any given instrument or voice would thus be blurred. Conversely, if the S microphone boosts the highs while the M microphone doesn't, high frequency energy would tend to be shifted more toward the left and right than the midrange sound--increasingly so with individual voices or instruments that are already off-center. Yes. But even if they are matched blurring will occur because frequency response is angle dependant or inversely, the polar plot is frequency dependant. The consequence is that the virtual mics given by the vector sum of the real mics have axes that move about with frequency. It will take me another little while to say where I don't agree; the main issue is the fact that most microphones (except for the best small-diaphragm figure-8s and certain rather noisy omnis) don't have the same frequency response at all angles of incidence. So all our "virtual microphones" have rather complex, irregular response--that's another reason I tend to favor a super- or hypercardioid for "M". I hadn't read ahead. You clearly understand the point I made above. However, I'll also point out that the analog of using a non-flat S mike is processing the S channel independently of the M channel--and there is a long tradition of doing exactly that. One of the attractions of M/S (whether the recording is made originally that way, or whether another type of X/Y recording is matrixed to M/S) is that the M and S channels can be equalized independently or processed in other ways independently, then rematrixed to L/R stereo. You want to make sure that any such manipulation that is frequency dependant be done with linear phase filters and that the channel not processed always be delayed by the group delay of the filter to keep the two channels time coherent. Changing the relative phase of M and S outputs also has a large effect on source placement within the image. All of this having to do with frequency dependant polar responses and the consequence on imaging applies as well to the XY configuration. At one extreme, look at the frequencies where the polar plot gets close to round and all those frequencies will be moved to the center of the image. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Cain wrote:
Using three identical capsules, one for the front and two for the side and reasonably matched is pretty near optimal for M/S IMO. Bob, as you know I've posted some messages here saying that matching the sonic character of the M and S mikes is not a particular virtue, and that a flat/smooth/accurate characteristic for S matters far more. Then you sent me your more detailed thoughts off-list, which gave me a chance to rethink this issue. I have to admit that there's more to it than I thought before (i.e. there may be something to it at all). Here's how I would express it non-mathematically. The issue is how the stereo image will be affected by the response characteristics of the two microphones after the M/S signals have been matrixed to L/R. If the M microphone emphasizes certain sound components (e.g. the high frequencies) while the S microphone doesn't, then in the eventual L/R stereo output of the matrix, those components will tend to gather at the image's center more than the midrange sound does. The apparent left-right position of any given instrument or voice would thus be blurred. Conversely, if the S microphone boosts the highs while the M microphone doesn't, high frequency energy would tend to be shifted more toward the left and right than the midrange sound--increasingly so with individual voices or instruments that are already off-center. Both effects are undesirable, but they do work in generally opposing directions--either one would tend to compensate for the other to some degree. So I think I see the intended point of "matching" the general sonic characteristics of the M and S microphones now. I don't endorse it completely, but I see a possible rational hope behind it at least. It will take me another little while to say where I don't agree; the main issue is the fact that most microphones (except for the best small-diaphragm figure-8s and certain rather noisy omnis) don't have the same frequency response at all angles of incidence. So all our "virtual microphones" have rather complex, irregular response--that's another reason I tend to favor a super- or hypercardioid for "M". However, I'll also point out that the analog of using a non-flat S mike is processing the S channel independently of the M channel--and there is a long tradition of doing exactly that. One of the attractions of M/S (whether the recording is made originally that way, or whether another type of X/Y recording is matrixed to M/S) is that the M and S channels can be equalized independently or processed in other ways independently, then rematrixed to L/R stereo. For example, LP disc cutters would often matrix a stereo signal to sum and difference channels (equivalent to M and S), and limit the difference channel and/or roll off its low-frequency energy, since the difference energy corresponds essentially to the vertical component of the groove to be cut, while the M channel corresponds to its horizontal component. Excessive vertical modulation could cause skipping, and would tend to limit the playing time of the side and the maximum modulation of the groove--which in turn would limit the playback volume and the signal- to-noise ratio. Cutting the loudest possible record was an obsession with LP mastering engineers, too--not something that snuck into the business with the diabolical introduction of digital recording. This also addresses a point made by "Sugarite"--he's right that X/Y (coincident) recordings often lack a sense of spaciousness, and that spaced microphone recordings are sometimes preferred for that reason. But one other way to increase the sense of spaciousness, or at least to help compensate for some of the relative lack of it, is to boost the low-frequency response of the "S" channel. If anyone remembers Bob Carver's "Digital Time Lens" processor--a surprisingly useful general-purpose "feel-good box" that doesn't add distortion--that's one of the tricks he was using in that circuit. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sugarite wrote: A small diaphram fig-8 would make much more sense, but they don't exist, except by using two opposing cardioid capsules, which introduces phase issues from the slight displacement between the two, in addition to the problems from the displacement between the mono and side mics... This is an excellent solution to the problem, actually. If you mount the two back to back cardiods one atop the other you will largely avoid the non-coincidence problem. It's a DIY proposition, though, because you pretty much have to use raw capsules. Using three identical capsules, one for the front and two for the side and reasonably matched is pretty near optimal for M/S IMO. Frankly I've been much happier with coincident XY wherever MS might be used. People complain that XY isn't always "wide" enough, but it's so easy with a few custom cables to isolate the side channel using the inserts and a stereo auxiliary, and it's even simpler with Waves Stereo Imager in the box, and the result is far less comprimised than a MS array IMO. Since the coincident XY can be easily matrixed back to MS in a DAW for width manipulation, there really isn't a hell of a lot of difference except that it is simpler. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Sugarite" wrote in message ... A small diaphram fig-8 would make much more sense, but they don't exist, except by using two opposing cardioid capsules Schoeps makes a single-diaphragm figure-8 capsule (the MK8). Hal Laurent Baltimore |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hal Laurent wrote:
"Sugarite" wrote in message ... A small diaphram fig-8 would make much more sense, but they don't exist, except by using two opposing cardioid capsules Schoeps makes a single-diaphragm figure-8 capsule (the MK8). This is a nontrivial thing to do. Sennheiser also does one in the MKH line, but the RF electronics on those microphones already requires some internal capsule equalization. Schoeps manages it without doing so, and damned if I know how they manage it, but as far as I know nobody else has done it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which pairing would make the best M/S rig using Schoeps mics: MK41 & MK8 or MK4 & MK8? dave A small diaphram fig-8 would make much more sense, but they don't exist, except by using two opposing cardioid capsules Schoeps makes a single-diaphragm figure-8 capsule (the MK8). This is a nontrivial thing to do. Sennheiser also does one in the MKH line, but the RF electronics on those microphones already requires some internal capsule equalization. Schoeps manages it without doing so, and damned if I know how they manage it, but as far as I know nobody else has done it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave" wrote:
Which pairing would make the best M/S rig using Schoeps mics: MK41 & MK8 or MK4 & MK8? Many people use either of those combinations for M/S. In principle any pattern of microphone that you like can be the "M" microphone in an M/S pair, but the results will differ in at least two ways: [1] The stereo imaging--a supercardioid "M" microphone will give more precise localization and a more even "spread" (perceived left-right distribution) of the discrete sound sources across the stereo stage width than a cardioid can offer. With cardioids, the discrete sound sources tend to clump more toward the middle in playback. However, if you are recording a very wide group of sound sources, there will be more of a limit as to how close you can bring a supercardioid- based pair in toward the performers. The angle between the -3 dB points of a supercardioid pattern is narrower than that angle is for a cardioid; that's what determines the maximum stereo pickup angle in this case. [2] With the MK 41 (supercardioid), for any given miking distance, you will get somewhat less reverberant sound than with the MK 4 (cardioid). But that also depends on your miking distance and the amount of "S" signal which you feed into the matrix when you go from M/S to L/R. If you want to get a certain amount of reverberance overall, you can get it with either setup--but there will be more of a stereo aspect to the reflected sound energy in the MK 41 setup, since more of it will be coming from the "S" microphone than it would with the MK 4. Also, the reverberant energy picked up by a supercardioid will generally be more diffuse, longer delayed and better blended than with a cardioid, since a greater proportion of the indirect sound which it does pick up will arrive through the rear lobe of the supercardioid. Since that lobe is aimed away from the direct sound source, it will receive sound that has traveled farther on average than the reflected sound which is picked up at the sides of a cardioid. Thus the reverberant sound will have undergone more high-frequency absorption and will be more delayed, which are both things that help mellow out the reverberant sound and keep it from messing up the front stereo image. So in general, I favor using a supercardioid "M" microphone. If I have to cover so wide an area that I can't use that narrow a pattern, then a centered, coincident stereo pickup probably isn't the best idea anyway (unless mono compatibility is an absolute requirement). --best regards |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave" wrote:
Which pairing would make the best M/S rig using Schoeps mics: MK41 & MK8 or MK4 & MK8? Many people use either of those combinations for M/S. In principle any pattern of microphone that you like can be the "M" microphone in an M/S pair, but the results will differ in at least two ways: [1] The stereo imaging--a supercardioid "M" microphone will give more precise localization and a more even "spread" (perceived left-right distribution) of the discrete sound sources across the stereo stage width than a cardioid can offer. With cardioids, the discrete sound sources tend to clump more toward the middle in playback. However, if you are recording a very wide group of sound sources, there will be more of a limit as to how close you can bring a supercardioid- based pair in toward the performers. The angle between the -3 dB points of a supercardioid pattern is narrower than that angle is for a cardioid; that's what determines the maximum stereo pickup angle in this case. [2] With the MK 41 (supercardioid), for any given miking distance, you will get somewhat less reverberant sound than with the MK 4 (cardioid). But that also depends on your miking distance and the amount of "S" signal which you feed into the matrix when you go from M/S to L/R. If you want to get a certain amount of reverberance overall, you can get it with either setup--but there will be more of a stereo aspect to the reflected sound energy in the MK 41 setup, since more of it will be coming from the "S" microphone than it would with the MK 4. Also, the reverberant energy picked up by a supercardioid will generally be more diffuse, longer delayed and better blended than with a cardioid, since a greater proportion of the indirect sound which it does pick up will arrive through the rear lobe of the supercardioid. Since that lobe is aimed away from the direct sound source, it will receive sound that has traveled farther on average than the reflected sound which is picked up at the sides of a cardioid. Thus the reverberant sound will have undergone more high-frequency absorption and will be more delayed, which are both things that help mellow out the reverberant sound and keep it from messing up the front stereo image. So in general, I favor using a supercardioid "M" microphone. If I have to cover so wide an area that I can't use that narrow a pattern, then a centered, coincident stereo pickup probably isn't the best idea anyway (unless mono compatibility is an absolute requirement). --best regards |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which pairing would make the best M/S rig using Schoeps mics: MK41 & MK8 or MK4 & MK8? dave A small diaphram fig-8 would make much more sense, but they don't exist, except by using two opposing cardioid capsules Schoeps makes a single-diaphragm figure-8 capsule (the MK8). This is a nontrivial thing to do. Sennheiser also does one in the MKH line, but the RF electronics on those microphones already requires some internal capsule equalization. Schoeps manages it without doing so, and damned if I know how they manage it, but as far as I know nobody else has done it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hal Laurent wrote:
"Sugarite" wrote in message ... A small diaphram fig-8 would make much more sense, but they don't exist, except by using two opposing cardioid capsules Schoeps makes a single-diaphragm figure-8 capsule (the MK8). This is a nontrivial thing to do. Sennheiser also does one in the MKH line, but the RF electronics on those microphones already requires some internal capsule equalization. Schoeps manages it without doing so, and damned if I know how they manage it, but as far as I know nobody else has done it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Sugarite" wrote in message ... A small diaphram fig-8 would make much more sense, but they don't exist, except by using two opposing cardioid capsules Schoeps makes a single-diaphragm figure-8 capsule (the MK8). Hal Laurent Baltimore |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
If the mid mic were a Schoeps CMC64 and you had a choice between a U87
and a C414B-ULS, for the side mic, which would you prefer, and why, on any or all of the following sources: Choir, piano, harpsichord, guitar, drum OH I assume you're talking about distant micing, since MS is inappropriate up close. I have never liked any MS rig I've tried. Geometricly it makes sense, but there's just no mic pair for the job. Large diaphrams have poor/inconsistent off-axis response, plus are inconsistent front-to-back too. A small diaphram fig-8 would make much more sense, but they don't exist, except by using two opposing cardioid capsules, which introduces phase issues from the slight displacement between the two, in addition to the problems from the displacement between the mono and side mics... Frankly I've been much happier with coincident XY wherever MS might be used. People complain that XY isn't always "wide" enough, but it's so easy with a few custom cables to isolate the side channel using the inserts and a stereo auxiliary, and it's even simpler with Waves Stereo Imager in the box, and the result is far less comprimised than a MS array IMO. But unless there's sound reinforcement involved, I always prefer an ORTF-ish spaced pair, again small diaphram. Whatever you do, don't do any "widening" to a spaced pair or it's a world of phase nastiness. Get it right with mic positioning and room tuning. Drum overheads shouldn't need anything on them in the mix. If a $300 pair of Rode NT5's can pull that off nicely, you'll have no trouble in your price range. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
However, as the Schoeps website says about the MK8, "directional pattern
almost completely identical at all frequencies." Every fig-8 mic can share the exact same description, because they're all unequal front-to-rear, which translates to unequal left-to-right in MS. Why would that be? If using a single diaphragm figute 8 (Schoeps, Sennheiser and Neumann) wouldn't the response be the same front to back. I can see that slightly off axis that the response might not be perfect at all frequencies due to diaphragm size. Also, most ribbon figure 8's have the same front and back frequency response with the exception of the Royer R-121 which was designed to handle high SPL's and this changed the response. Richard H. Kuschel "I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Richard Kuschel wrote:
most ribbon figure 8's have the same front and back frequency response with the exception of the Royer R-121 which was designed to handle high SPL's and this changed the response. And the AEA R84 (for the same reasons.) |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Kurt Albershardt wrote: Richard Kuschel wrote: most ribbon figure 8's have the same front and back frequency response with the exception of the Royer R-121 which was designed to handle high SPL's and this changed the response. And the AEA R84 (for the same reasons.) Note that the 77DX has very different front and back response as well, when in figure-8 mode. In every case, the differing response affects the quality and location of the null. This is a bad thing in my opinion. The null on a 74B is much better than on a 77DX. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
| Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
| Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
| newbie question - aardvark q10 + external mixer? | Pro Audio | |||
| RCA out and Speaker Question in 2004 Ranger Edge Question | Car Audio | |||
Hybrid Mode
