| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
why stereo Microphone?
I've come upon a stereo Sony ECM-999PR( part of a deal) Microphone
Question: what is the point of a Stereo mic? What is the best way for them to be used? I have matching Microphones (cad 100's) so is a Stereo Microphone's main purpose for the person who doesn't have a pair of Matching Mic's? A choir just asked me to record their concert tonight (for fun) and with this portable dat I have, I don't know if I should use the Sony or cad's . I won't have time to test it. The church is large and my Mic's will be 10 away from choir. Thank you Peace, Ed Bridge Brooklyn N.Y. www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Edward Bridge wrote:
I've come upon a stereo Sony ECM-999PR( part of a deal) Microphone Question: what is the point of a Stereo mic? What is the best way for them to be used? It's a coincident pair in one package. I have matching Microphones (cad 100's) so is a Stereo Microphone's main purpose for the person who doesn't have a pair of Matching Mic's? Or for applications where you need to boom a microphone or otherwise set it up in a configuration where using two mikes on a stereo bar would be inconvenient. If you're hanging off the back of a motorcycle with a film crew, you do not want to be dealing with a stereo bar. A choir just asked me to record their concert tonight (for fun) and with this portable dat I have, I don't know if I should use the Sony or cad's . I won't have time to test it. The church is large and my Mic's will be 10 away from choir. 10 what? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
:I've come upon a stereo Sony ECM-999PR( part of a deal) Microphone
Question: what is the point of a Stereo mic? What is the best way for them to be used? I have matching Microphones (cad 100's) so is a Stereo Microphone's main purpose for the person who doesn't have a pair of Matching Mic's? A choir just asked me to record their concert tonight (for fun) and with this portable dat I have, I don't know if I should use the Sony or cad's . I won't have time to test it. The church is large and my Mic's will be 10 away from choir. There are many good ways to record in stereo. Two (or more) mics, spaced in different ways. Some of the ways involve having the two mics as near as possible in the same place, pointing different directions. So why not mount two mic capsules in the same housing? That's your stereo mic. How to use it? Put it in front of the performance, pointing at it. See if it sounds better or worse than your other options. Which mic to use tomorrow is a no-brainer. You know your CAD units work. The Sony is untested. CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Edward Bridge wrote: I've come upon a stereo Sony ECM-999PR( part of a deal) Microphone Question: what is the point of a Stereo mic? What is the best way for them to be used? It's a coincident pair in one package. I have matching Microphones (cad 100's) so is a Stereo Microphone's main purpose for the person who doesn't have a pair of Matching Mic's? Or for applications where you need to boom a microphone or otherwise set it up in a configuration where using two mikes on a stereo bar would be inconvenient. If you're hanging off the back of a motorcycle with a film crew, you do not want to be dealing with a stereo bar. A choir just asked me to record their concert tonight (for fun) and with this portable dat I have, I don't know if I should use the Sony or cad's .. I won't have time to test it. The church is large and my Mic's will be 10 away from choir. 10 what? 10 feet. . ( red in the face) Ed |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
The advantage of a stereo mic (which can also be an MS omni/cardioid pair) is
that you have only one mic to mount. Such a mic is likely to give an "acceptable" recording without a lot of fuss. If you want a highly spacious sound, you might consider setting up your discrete mics 10 or 12 apart. Such a decision should be based on the type of music and what you think the listeners will like. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Edward Bridge wrote:
I've come upon a stereo Sony ECM-999PR( part of a deal) Microphone Question: what is the point of a Stereo mic? Recording in stereo What is the best way for them to be used? Point it at the music source. I have matching Microphones (cad 100's) so is a Stereo Microphone's main purpose for the person who doesn't have a pair of Matching Mic's? Or somebody who would prefer to carry one mic ( of known fixed characteristics) around, rather than 2 separate mics plus associated mouting hardware. A choir just asked me to record their concert tonight (for fun) and with this portable dat I have, I don't know if I should use the Sony or cad's . I won't have time to test it. The church is large and my Mic's will be 10 away from choir. If you know and are familiar witht he CADs, use them if you prefer. Or try the ECm and see how it compares . Have fun ! geoff |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Edward Bridge wrote:
. I won't have time to test it. The church is large and my Mic's will be 10 away from choir. 10 what? 10 feet. . ( red in the face) Umm... is there any way you can get farther back? If you are stuck up that close you might consider a pair of baffled omnis, but you're still going to hear individual voices rather than a choir unless it's a very bright and wet room. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The advantage of a stereo mic (which can also be an MS omni/cardioid pair) is that you have only one mic to mount. Such a mic is likely to give an "acceptable" recording without a lot of fuss. If you want a highly spacious sound, you might consider setting up your discrete mics 10 or 12 apart. Such a decision should be based on the type of music and what you think the listeners will like. While I agree completely with these statements, it should perhaps be added that one major advantage of a single-point stereo microphone is the mono compatibility of the stereo recordings that can be made with it. Stereo recordings made with spaced microphones often sound odd (e.g. pinched and thin) when played back in mono. (Not meaning to start a long-winded debate; both of us know both roles full well. It's just a bit of info that the original poster may want to know, is all.) |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Edward Bridge wrote: . I won't have time to test it. The church is large and my Mic's will be 10 away from choir. 10 what? 10 feet. . ( red in the face) Umm... is there any way you can get farther back? If you are stuck up that close you might consider a pair of baffled omnis, but you're still going to hear individual voices rather than a choir unless it's a very bright and wet room. Your right. I was more like 40 feet back , the organ was_ huge _ even for old Brooklyn and the pipes were spead out in the front. I ask the conductor were did he think the best placement was and he smile and said "thank you for asking, use middle of the sanctuary. I learn conductors like to be ask and I learn. Listening to the play back I still think to much organ but the conductor was happy, which is good. This is all new to me but I did'nt have top pay to hear choral music Kodaly and Durufle and the wife and I had a nice date. I used the cad's Thank you Ed |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"David Satz" wrote in message
m... While I agree completely with these statements, it should perhaps be added that one major advantage of a single-point stereo microphone is the mono compatibility of the stereo recordings that can be made with it. Stereo recordings made with spaced microphones often sound odd (e.g. pinched and thin) when played back in mono. I just happened to be reading about the latest inclusions in the National Recording Registry and found this great statement: http://www.loc.gov/rr/record/nrpb/nrpb-2003reg.html #29 Rafael Kubelik conducting the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Modest Mussorgsky Pictures at an Exhibition. (1951) 1.. Prior to this LP, the first of Mercury's noted Living Presence series, orchestras were recorded by a variety of multiple microphone methods, all with artificial balances and few with concert hall ambience. The Kubelik/Mussorgsky, recorded with a single Neumann U47 suspended above and behind the conductor, was revolutionary in that for the first time, the recorded balance was that of the orchestra, not a technician. This recording is of such merit that many believe that the technical methodology has not been improved upon to this day. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
"David Satz" wrote in message m... While I agree completely with these statements, it should perhaps be added that one major advantage of a single-point stereo microphone is the mono compatibility of the stereo recordings that can be made with it. Stereo recordings made with spaced microphones often sound odd (e.g. pinched and thin) when played back in mono. (. It's just a bit of info that the original poster may want to know, is all.) Hey thanks, (original poster) you said "single-point stereo microphone is the mono compatibility of the stereo recordings that can be made with it" Well I'm really "green " and I don't understand 100 percent what you're saying. .. But I want to understand your point, does this have to do with what David said about "Kubelik/Mussorgsky, recorded with a single Neumann U47 suspended above and behind the conductor in that for the first time, the recorded balance was that of the orchestra, not a technician ?" Thanks Ed |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey thanks, (original poster) you said "single-point stereo microphone is
the mono compatibility of the stereo recordings that can be made with it" Well I'm really "green " and I don't understand 100 percent what you're saying. .. But I want to understand your point, does this have to do with what David said about "Kubelik/Mussorgsky, recorded with a single Neumann U47 suspended above and behind the conductor in that for the first time, the recorded balance was that of the orchestra, not a technician ?" It has nothing whatever to do with it. The mono compatibility is wholly acoustic -- because recording at a single point does not introduce arrival-time differences that cause combing effects in mono -- and has nothing at all to do with the orchestra's ability to set its own balances. I've heard some of these early recordings, and they are very good -- for mono recordings. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Edward Bridge wrote:
Hey thanks, (original poster) you said "single-point stereo microphone is the mono compatibility of the stereo recordings that can be made with it" Well I'm really "green " and I don't understand 100 percent what you're saying. .. Read the tutorial on stereophony on www.josephson.com. Stereo mikes are normally coincident configurations in a package. This gives you good mono compatibility, though no better than any other coincident pair. But I want to understand your point, does this have to do with what David said about "Kubelik/Mussorgsky, recorded with a single Neumann U47 suspended above and behind the conductor in that for the first time, the recorded balance was that of the orchestra, not a technician ?" Not really. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Edward Bridge" wrote in message
news  But I want to understand your point, does this have to do with what David said about "Kubelik/Mussorgsky, recorded with a single Neumann U47 suspended above and behind the conductor in that for the first time, the recorded balance was that of the orchestra, not a technician ?" No. I stated that to show that we sometimes get hung up more on "science" than sound. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Edward Bridge (the original poster in this thread) wrote:
Hey thanks, (original poster) you said "single-point stereo microphone is the mono compatibility of the stereo recordings that can be made with it" Well I'm really "green " and I don't understand 100 percent what you're saying. .. Sorry--A "mono-compatible" stereo recording can be played back in either mono or stereo and still sound good. In fact it should sound essentially the same either way, though of course the stereo playback should give you a more nearly complete sense of spatiality, and some ability to localize individual sound sources along the left-to-right axis. This type of compatibility is _extremely_ hard to achieve with microphones that are spaced apart from one another. The problem is basically that the pickup from the separate microphones will conflict (subtract) about as much as it adds. The result sounds pinched and thin, though people apparently get used to it. (I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or not ...) Nowadays mono compatibility is mainly considered important in radio, but back when vinyl LPs ruled the marketplace, it was very important there, too--not everyone had stereo record players, and the same records had to be sold for both types of player. But even today more listening situations than you might expect are mono, or at least not optimally set up for stereo, so I think this is an issue that should be considered more widely (no pun unintended) than it often is. But I want to understand your point, does this have to do with what David said about "Kubelik/Mussorgsky, recorded with a single Neumann U47 suspended above and behind the conductor in that for the first time, the recorded balance was that of the orchestra, not a technician?" I'm going to disagree with the other responders and say that on one level it does. The root issue is that when you mix the signals together from multiple microphones that are placed apart, those signals will partially reinforce one another and partially cancel each other whenever they are picking up the same sound sources from different angles and distances. A single-microphone approach to recording (whether in mono or stereo) minimizes that type of cancellation, for direct sound at least. The U 47 wasn't a stereo microphone, so a recording made with just one of those would be a mono recording. However, substitute an AKG C 24 or a Neumann SM 69 or a Schoeps CMTS 501 and choose suitable directional patterns and you'd get a mono-compatible stereo recording (or perhaps an M/S stereo recording) using the same basic approach. And that's what the little Sony mike is offering, in a miniature form. Of course it's important to consider how good or not good the microphone actually sounds, in addition to its other properties--and there I'm afraid that most Sony stereo mikes that I've ever used or heard are on the harsh side. That could be because they are sold for mixed purposes--to record both speech and music in reverberant settings. For most speech recording it helps intelligibility of the result if the pickup is bright, present and lacking in what musicians would call warmth or fullness. So it isn't possible for one microphone to be well liked for both purposes. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Edward Bridge" wrote ...
Hey thanks, (original poster) you said "single-point stereo microphone is the mono compatibility of the stereo recordings that can be made with it" Well I'm really "green " and I don't understand 100 percent what you're saying. .. Mono compatibility is the ability of your recording to continue to sound decent when played back on a monaural system (i.e. where the Left and Right channels are mixed together). this is frequently the case with television, and virtually always with AM radio, elevator music, etc. etc. Some methods of recording stereo sound horrid in mono, and others sound fine. But I want to understand your point, does this have to do with what David said about "Kubelik/Mussorgsky, recorded with a single Neumann U47 suspended above and behind the conductor in that for the first time, the recorded balance was that of the orchestra, not a technician ?" No. Microphone placement is an art that takes many factors into account including the nature of the microphone, of the sound source, the acoustics, the intent of the recording, etc etc. In that quote, it would appear that they are claiming that placing the microphone near the conductors ears would yield a recording from the conductor's POV. Maybe a good thing, and maybe not, (depending on the venue acoustics). Many venues sound good only out in the audience and not so good at the POV of the conductor (and, alas, some sound good only to the conductor!) But good conductors have to take this into account and "tune" their direction/performance for the house they are playing. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 10 May 2004 07:50:57 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote: In that quote, it would appear that they are claiming that placing the microphone near the conductors ears would yield a recording from the conductor's POV. Maybe a good thing, and maybe not, (depending on the venue acoustics). "Above and behind" it said. The conductor's position is far from optimum, particularly if there's a soloist. His ears and brain can compensate very efficiently. A microphone deserves more careful positioning :-) CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Laurence Payne wrote:
A friend did lots of commercial recording in the late 50s/60s. He tells me it was standard practice to record twice, one for mono, one for stereo. So for stereo, the first take was the left channel, and the second take the right ?!!! ;-) geoff |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Laurence Payne wrote:
A friend did lots of commercial recording in the late 50s/60s. He tells me it was standard practice to record twice, one for mono, one for stereo. As he works in the jazz end of music, the two takes could often be quite different (though not as different as some jazz purists would have liked them to have been:-). I can hardly think of any technical justification for this procedure unless there was only one tape recorder available. It sounds as if the players ought to have raised their fees so that the studio would get both the mono and stereo versions recorded during the same take[s]. For the type of single-point pickup that the original poster was asking about, the equivalent technique would be "mid-side" (M/S) recording. You choose one microphone and place it wherever it would pick up the ideal mono recording, and its output simply becomes the mono recording. But at the same time you also place a sideways-facing figure-8 microphone directly above or beneath the first microphone, and you record its signal onto a second track. Then in playback you can matrix the two signals together to get an authentic stereophonic recording which is compatible with the mono recording--if, for example, a stereo LP made from this M/S recording is played back on an FM radio station and received on a mono radio, the signal should be identical (apart from any artifacts of the broadcast and reception processes) with the original mono track. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
A friend did lots of commercial recording in the late 50s/60s. He
tells me it was standard practice to record twice, one for mono, one for stereo. As he works in the jazz end of music, the two takes could often be quite different (though not as different as some jazz purists would have liked them to have been:-). I can hardly think of any technical justification for this procedure unless there was only one tape recorder available. It sounds as if the players ought to have raised their fees so that the studio would get both the mono and stereo versions recorded during the same take[s]. There is a justification, and it's not technical. If you're multi-miking, you can produce a "mono" or "stereo" mix from the same multi-track recording. But suppose you were obliged to record directly to mono (with one mic) or to stereo (with two mics). Clearly, the layout of performers that would produce good stereo spread and positioning would NOT be appropriate for a single-mic mono recording. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
(David Satz) wrote:
I can hardly think of any technical justification for this procedure unless there was only one tape recorder available. It sounds as if the players ought to have raised their fees so that the studio would get both the mono and stereo versions recorded during the same take[s]. "Chris Hornbeck" wrote ... Why is this ringing a bell in my cortical stem? Were there ever higher or even different rates for stereo recordings or am I just as suggestible as usual? I remember reading (in a column in the old "Audio" magazine?) about how the NYC musician's local were demanding double- rate for stereophonic recording because two mics and two tracks were being used. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote:
A friend did lots of commercial recording in the late 50s/60s. He tells me it was standard practice to record twice, one for mono, one for stereo. As he works in the jazz end of music, the two takes could often be quite different (though not as different as some jazz purists would have liked them to have been:-). I can hardly think of any technical justification for this procedure unless there was only one tape recorder available. It sounds as if the players ought to have raised their fees so that the studio would get both the mono and stereo versions recorded during the same take[s]. There is a justification, and it's not technical. If you're multi-miking, you can produce a "mono" or "stereo" mix from the same multi-track recording. But suppose you were obliged to record directly to mono (with one mic) or to stereo (with two mics). Clearly, the layout of performers that would produce good stereo spread and positioning would NOT be appropriate for a single-mic mono recording. Remember also that this was the era of wild and exaggerated stereo effects, some of which did not have good mono compatibility at all. It was also an era when AM radio broadcast in mono was extremely critical, even for jazz and classical recordings. This is why you see all those 45s with a mono mix on one side and a stereo mix on the other. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
If you can use an M-S stereo microphone setup and place it correctly,
the output of the mid mic will give a proper and well balanced mono recording. Of course not every space is appropriate for M-S recording, but back in "those" days, a good recording space was the most valuable piece of gear any studio could have. But would you simultaneously obtain a "good" stereo recording? As I suggested originally -- probably not. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Rivers wrote:
Of course not every space is appropriate for M-S recording, but back in "those" days, a good recording space was the most valuable piece of gear any studio could have. Some of us still think this way. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Kurt Albershardt wrote: Mike Rivers wrote: Of course not every space is appropriate for M-S recording, but back in "those" days, a good recording space was the most valuable piece of gear any studio could have. Some of us still think this way. Sadly, too few of the customers do. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
If you can get a good stereo recording with an M-S setup, the mid mic
will give you a good mono recording. It works that way. If you don't have a good balance from the mid mic without the side mic added in, you won't have good stereo. But that means that the mic is in the wrong place. If you have the mic placed correctly (good mono) and can't get good stereo, the room or the source isn't appropriate for using M-S and you should use another technique. Not necessarily. Spreading out the instruments for stereo won't necessarily produce the appropriate balance for mono. I don't see where what is right for mono is right for stereo, and vice-versa. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't see where what is right for mono is right for stereo, and vice-versa.
Look up, how MS miking works and you will. Phil Brown |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't see where what is right for mono is right for stereo, and vice-versa.
Look [it] up, how MS miking works, and you will. Why do I have to explain things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again? How can someone who supposedly knows something about recording not understand this intuitively? You're talking acoustics, not aesthetics. They're not the same thing. We're talking about single-point mono and stereo recordings -- not multitracking. Right? Right. When recording in mono with a single mic, the performers are going to stand _around_ the (omni?) mic, possibly at varying distances, according to level. With a stereo recording, they will take positions corresponding to their desired position from left to right. In such a case, the output of the M mic might or might not be ideal for a mono recording, because it doesn't necessarily produce the same balance. To turn the argument around the other way... If I replaced Mercury's Living Presence mono mic with an M-S pickup, the resulting stereo recording would not necessarily be optimum or ideal, even if the mono recording were. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Rivers wrote: In article writes: Not necessarily. Spreading out the instruments for stereo won't necessarily produce the appropriate balance for mono. If you listen to an M-S recording in mono (by summing the channels), the S cancels out and you're left with only the M. That's perfect mono. Let's do the math. William is not talking about MS math. He is talking about how one places the performers relative to the mic when doing stereo recording vs when doing mono recording. His point is well taken. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Spreading out the instruments for stereo won't necessarily produce the appropriate balance for mono. I don't see where what is right for mono is right for stereo, and vice-versa. This is a matter of one's taste and judgment, and its "truth value" is a matter of degree. The only claim that I think is really solid is that _if_ there exists a miking position from which a good-sounding mono pickup can be made (with whatever type of microphone one prefers there, as long as its pickup pattern is laterally symmetrical), then a plausible and usable stereo recording can be made with the M/S technique. That is _not_ to say that: [a] there always is such a miking position; [b] the resulting stereo recording will be the best one possible; or [c] an M/S stereo recording will necessarily give you a wide range of plausible choices for the reverberation ratio and the stereo basis width. On the contrary: [a] Some types of ensemble can't be miked effectively from a single position, particularly in some of the acoustic settings in which performances (for better or worse) actually occur; [b] An M/S stereo recording is a coincident stereo recording--and not everyone prefers that approach, for reasons which we've discussed here many a time already; [c] Generally there is only a narrow range of plausible choices for the amount of "S" signal that is sent to the matrix for stereo playback. Stereo playback feels unsatisfying when it is so nearly mono that the space between the speakers isn't filled. But when you set the amount of "S" which just fills that space, then for better or worse, you've just nailed down the reverberation ratio of the recording, too. That parameter can't be varied independently in classic M/S recording. Does that seem like a fair analysis to you? --best regards |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just to be argumentative:
Here's a diagram of a string quartet: Violin Violin O Viola Cello The O represents an omni microphone. All performers are facing it. This would be an arrangement where you'd probably get a good mono recording if the room was decent, but there's no way to get a good stereo recording with the instruments in the same positions. Well, it's fairly academic in the case of symphonic music, because normally that's recorded in a more-or-less standard orchestral seating arrangement, and typically the microphone positions that work well for that in stereo work well in mono too. But for chamber music, or bluegrass, or some other types of music, there could indeed be setups with real incompatibility, which is what Mr. Sommerwerck is saying. Peace, Paul |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
William is not talking about MS math. He is talking about
how one places the performers relative to the mic when doing stereo recording vs when doing mono recording. His point is well-taken. Thanks to Bob and David for showing that they understood the point. The original posting involved the question as to why a group, in the late '50s/early '60s, would make two separate recordings, one in mono, the other stereo. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Paul Stamler wrote:
Just to be argumentative: Here's a diagram of a string quartet: Violin Violin O Viola Cello The O represents an omni microphone. All performers are facing it. This would be an arrangement where you'd probably get a good mono recording if the room was decent, but there's no way to get a good stereo recording with the instruments in the same positions. That's a challenging example. But if the omni ("M") and figure-8 ("S") have equal sensitivity, then the result of matrixing their signals would be equivalent to a pair of back-to-back cardioids. The four instruments would thus receive approximately equal coverage, and there wouldn't be the type of phase conflict which occurs when direct sound sources are located behind the microphones in, say, a Blumlein setup. So this could be considered at least as a somewhat plausible M/S stereo miking arrangement, though certainly not the one I'd normally choose. Some chamber music (particularly contemporary music) actually is recorded in more or less this way sometimes--I once lent my Schoeps stereo mike to Ralph Dopmeyer of Titanic Records so that he could record a quartet by Harley Gaber with it. Ralph ended up setting it to crossed figure-8s and plunking it down right in the middle of the quartet. The record sounds very interesting when played through a Dynaco Quadapter system ... [F]or chamber music, or bluegrass, or some other types of music, there could indeed be setups with real incompatibility, which is what Mr. Sommerwerck is saying. That's not necessarily a technical incompatibility between stereo and mono; it's more like a clash with our accustomed idiom of a side-to-side, frontal stereo image for instrumental music. We use other idioms for recording operas, organ, etc. in stereo, but when instrumental music is involved, we don't want to think in any other way--and I do include myself. (Hmm, wasn't there a thread in this newsgroup not long ago about using surround techniques to record an orchestra from the center outward? I didn't join the thread since I'm an old orchestra player myself; I can't take that type of recording seriously, except perhaps as a way to show how absurdly ill-balanced one's "listening experience" is when one is seated in the middle of an orchestra.) Again, to make it very clear: I'm not proposing M/S as the cure for all evils. I'm saying that if/when/where a single-mike setup is a plausible solution for mono (which is not always), M/S can also be counted on to deliver at least a serviceable result in stereo. In practice, I think that this principle can also be inverted: If the miking position doesn't allow for any good M/S solution, then it probably isn't such a good miking position for mono, either. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Stereo Microphone, Record live sound with amazing depth! | Marketplace | |||
| Stereo Microphone, Record live sound with amazing depth! | General | |||
| Stereo Microphone, Record live sound with amazing depth! | Marketplace | |||
| Stereo Microphone, Record live sound with amazing depth! | General | |||
| Story of the poor car stereo | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
