Technically, it's all wrong, yet it has the imprimatur of a famous name.
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c..._descript ion

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

The prevailing opinion is that:
1. Large diaphrams have really lousy off axis response. It's a physics "has
to be."
2. The X-Y technique implemented by this mike has the fewest virtues of any
of the coincident techniques. It conveys stereo strictly by intensity
encoding.

All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better: ORTF, NOS,
Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they convey phase and time differences as well.

One can understand why a neophyte might be attracted to a single stereo
mike. I was. But the more I read, the more it appeared to be a gimmick.
Surely anyone who can afford $4,799.99 for a Neumann USM69i would realize
this ?

It's a rhetorical question. Please explain.

"soundhaspriority"

Technically, it's all wrong,

** Bull****.


yet it has the imprimatur of a famous name.
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c..._descript ion

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?


** Because it is a recognised, industry standard recording method.


The prevailing opinion is that:


** There is no such thing - ****WIT .


1. Large diaphrams have really lousy off axis response. It's a physics
"has to be."


** A very naive misinternpetetation of data.


2. The X-Y technique implemented by this mike has the fewest virtues of
any of the coincident techniques. It conveys stereo strictly by intensity
encoding.


** The best way.


All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better:


** Yawn.

Another dumb asshole posting worthless fake quotes of anonymous non-experts.


ORTF, NOS, Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they convey phase and time
differences as well.


** Phase and time differences that reveal what ?

How far apart the mics are ??




One can understand why a neophyte might be attracted to a single stereo
mike. I was. But the more I read, the more it appeared to be a gimmick.
Surely anyone who can afford $4,799.99 for a Neumann USM69i would realize
this ?

It's a rhetorical question. Please explain.



** Hey ****WIT.

If it is a "rhetorical question" -

WHY DO YOU ASK IT ???




......... Phil

soundhaspriority wrote:

Technically, it's all wrong, yet it has the imprimatur of a famous name.
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c..._descript ion

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

Ever tracked anything in stereo using good LDC's? Sometimes the result
is amazing - yes, even using X/Y.

The prevailing opinion is that:
1. Large diaphrams have really lousy off axis response. It's a physics "has
to be."
2. The X-Y technique implemented by this mike has the fewest virtues of any
of the coincident techniques. It conveys stereo strictly by intensity
encoding.

All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better: ORTF, NOS,
Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they convey phase and time differences as well.

And few are as fully mono compatible as coincident X/Y.

One can understand why a neophyte might be attracted to a single stereo
mike. I was. But the more I read, the more it appeared to be a gimmick.
Surely anyone who can afford $4,799.99 for a Neumann USM69i would realize
this ?

It's a rhetorical question. Please explain.

--
ha

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:

Technically, it's all wrong, yet it has the imprimatur of a famous name.
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c..._descript ion

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

Ever tracked anything in stereo using good LDC's? Sometimes the result
is amazing - yes, even using X/Y.

Hank, I appreciate your answer. I'm just trying to understand why there is
such a difference between textbook and practice.

The prevailing opinion is that:
1. Large diaphrams have really lousy off axis response. It's a physics
"has
to be."
2. The X-Y technique implemented by this mike has the fewest virtues of
any
of the coincident techniques. It conveys stereo strictly by intensity
encoding.

All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better: ORTF, NOS,
Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they convey phase and time differences as
well.

And few are as fully mono compatible as coincident X/Y.

Yes, although one opinion was that it isn't very important anymore, except
for TV.

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

[snip]
** Hey ****WIT.

If it is a "rhetorical question" -

WHY DO YOU ASK IT ???




........ Phil

Phil, I really appreciate your reply. I asked the question in order to
LEARN. You are a great teacher.

Bob Morein

flatfish+++ wrote:
On Fri, 05 May 2006 23:52:38 -0400, soundhaspriority wrote:

Technically, it's all wrong, yet it has the imprimatur of a famous name.
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c..._descript ion

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

The prevailing opinion is that:
1. Large diaphrams have really lousy off axis response. It's a physics "has
to be."
2. The X-Y technique implemented by this mike has the fewest virtues of any
of the coincident techniques. It conveys stereo strictly by intensity
encoding.

All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better: ORTF, NOS,
Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they convey phase and time differences as well.

One can understand why a neophyte might be attracted to a single stereo
mike. I was. But the more I read, the more it appeared to be a gimmick.
Surely anyone who can afford $4,799.99 for a Neumann USM69i would realize
this ?

It's a rhetorical question. Please explain.


Do you lose sleep over this?

Yes. Psycho Bob really does. Being an asshole is what makes him so
"anal" and obsessive.

On Fri, 05 May 2006 23:52:38 -0400, soundhaspriority wrote:

Technically, it's all wrong, yet it has the imprimatur of a famous name.
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c..._descript ion

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

The prevailing opinion is that:
1. Large diaphrams have really lousy off axis response. It's a physics "has
to be."
2. The X-Y technique implemented by this mike has the fewest virtues of any
of the coincident techniques. It conveys stereo strictly by intensity
encoding.

All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better: ORTF, NOS,
Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they convey phase and time differences as well.

One can understand why a neophyte might be attracted to a single stereo
mike. I was. But the more I read, the more it appeared to be a gimmick.
Surely anyone who can afford $4,799.99 for a Neumann USM69i would realize
this ?

It's a rhetorical question. Please explain.


Do you lose sleep over this?

Ask yourself why Pet Rocks existed and you will have the answer to
your question.

--
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

Because it's a useful tool in a toolbox that does a lot of work.

The prevailing opinion is that:
1. Large diaphrams have really lousy off axis response. It's a physics
"has
to be."

No, there's no cutoff point at which good off axis response becomes
unacceptable off axis response as diaphragm size increases. There are a
lot more important characteristics, & a lot of acoustical situations
wherein on axis information dominates to the point of making the off
axis characteristics comparatively unimportant.

2. The X-Y technique implemented by this mike has the fewest virtues
of any
of the coincident techniques.

This may be your opinion, but it is by no means an accepted fact.

It conveys stereo strictly by intensity
encoding.

Yes.

All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better:

Again, this is opinion, not fact. They are all different, which doesn't
make them better. They are also all less mono compatible than XY.

ORTF, NOS,
Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they convey phase and time differences as
well.

All stereo techniques exist along a continuum comprising increasing
separation with decreasing mono compatibility. What sounds best is just
subjective opinion. All the primary techniques exist because they have
legitimacy & work. Beyond that, it's really a taste call.

One can understand why a neophyte might be attracted to a single
stereo
mike. I was. But the more I read, the more it appeared to be a gimmick.


It's not a gimmick. You should check Ron Streicher's extensive writing
on stereo & see if you can wrangle a copy of his simultaneous recording
of a small chamber group with a number of accepted stereo techniques.
Form your own opinion based on what you hear, not a supposedly
collective opinion of others.

Surely anyone who can afford $4,799.99 for a Neumann USM69i would
realize
this ?

It has nothing to do with perceiving a gimmick or not. XY is one of a
handful of perfectly legitimate stereo recording techniques embraced by
recording professionals with a lot of years of experience.

Scott Fraser

Phil Allison wrote:
"soundhaspriority"

Technically, it's all wrong,

** Bull****.


yet it has the imprimatur of a famous name.


The prevailing opinion is that:


** There is no such thing - ****WIT .


All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better:


** Yawn.

Another dumb asshole posting worthless fake quotes of anonymous non-experts.

Hey, if you think he's a ****wit because of THIS post, wait til you see
"Mad Dog Morein" here talk about "quantum mechanics" as it relates to
audio.....

And if you think he's a dumb asshole because of this, then you
obviously haven't seen this tweako freak's brilliant tweak ideas. One
was advocating that people remove the ground in a properly grounded
audio component by using a cheater plug to improve sound:

Robert Morein's Cheater Plug Tweak:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...08fbace b3c60

But in case that didn't kill you fast enough, there's his DHM Spray
tweak:

Robert Morein's Dihydrogen Monoxide Spray Tweak:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...5b7345de13b312

Then it just gets weirder from there, where Crazy Bob pedddles "morphic
green sex cream" in a "hip hop rapping stylee":

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...0?dmode=source

Psycho Bob Morein, aka "the dumb asshole on RAP", wrote:

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

** Hey ****WIT.

If it is a "rhetorical question" -
WHY DO YOU ASK IT ???

........ Phil

Phil, I really appreciate your reply. I asked the question in order to
LEARN.

So I'm glad to see that you have LEARNED that you are a ****WIT, Bob.
Try and retain that information for the future, will you?

Wacko Bob Morein, the fake soundhaspriority imposter-troll, wrote:

It's a rhetorical question. Please explain.

I'm just curious about something, Crazy Bob. In all your years of
intense study, did the concept of a "rhetorical question" ever come up?
Don't worry, you won't be graded on this.

"Scott Fraser" wrote in message
oups.com...
Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

Because it's a useful tool in a toolbox that does a lot of work.

The prevailing opinion is that:
1. Large diaphrams have really lousy off axis response. It's a physics
"has
to be."

No, there's no cutoff point at which good off axis response becomes
unacceptable off axis response as diaphragm size increases. There are a
lot more important characteristics, & a lot of acoustical situations
wherein on axis information dominates to the point of making the off
axis characteristics comparatively unimportant.

2. The X-Y technique implemented by this mike has the fewest virtues
of any
of the coincident techniques.

This may be your opinion, but it is by no means an accepted fact.

It conveys stereo strictly by intensity
encoding.

Yes.

All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better:

Again, this is opinion, not fact. They are all different, which doesn't
make them better. They are also all less mono compatible than XY.

ORTF, NOS,
Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they convey phase and time differences as
well.

All stereo techniques exist along a continuum comprising increasing
separation with decreasing mono compatibility. What sounds best is just
subjective opinion. All the primary techniques exist because they have
legitimacy & work. Beyond that, it's really a taste call.

One can understand why a neophyte might be attracted to a single
stereo
mike. I was. But the more I read, the more it appeared to be a gimmick.


It's not a gimmick. You should check Ron Streicher's extensive writing
on stereo & see if you can wrangle a copy of his simultaneous recording
of a small chamber group with a number of accepted stereo techniques.
Form your own opinion based on what you hear, not a supposedly
collective opinion of others.

Surely anyone who can afford $4,799.99 for a Neumann USM69i would
realize
this ?

It has nothing to do with perceiving a gimmick or not. XY is one of a
handful of perfectly legitimate stereo recording techniques embraced by
recording professionals with a lot of years of experience.

Scott Fraser

Scott, thanks for your informative answer. The opinions I presented are not
my own. I used them as reference.

"gunnar" wrote in message
oups.com...
Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

Thank you, Gunnar. Very informative.

Scott, if a stereo recording is made which has poor mono
compatibility, and that recording is played in mono, what
problems is one likely to hear? I mean, what will the
problems *sound like*? Drop-outs? Garbled? Harsh?

soundhaspriority wrote:
Technically, it's all wrong, yet it has the imprimatur of a famous name.
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c..._descript ion

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

The prevailing opinion is that:
1. Large diaphrams have really lousy off axis response. It's a physics "has
to be."
2. The X-Y technique implemented by this mike has the fewest virtues of any
of the coincident techniques. It conveys stereo strictly by intensity
encoding.

All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better: ORTF, NOS,
Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they convey phase and time differences as well.

One can understand why a neophyte might be attracted to a single stereo
mike. I was. But the more I read, the more it appeared to be a gimmick.
Surely anyone who can afford $4,799.99 for a Neumann USM69i would realize
this ?

It's a rhetorical question. Please explain.

Turns out that coincident works pretty good. You can relate it
mathematically to Blumlein and to Ambisonics which also turn out to work
pretty good.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Technically, it's all wrong,

To coin a phrase, that's all wrong.

yet it has the imprimatur of a famous name.

http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c..._descript ion

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

It suits a need.

The prevailing opinion is that:
1. Large diaphrams have really lousy off axis response.
It's a physics "has to be."

It is true that a LD mic has poorer off-axis response at high frequencies,
but that can either be the good news or no news, or the bad news. You're
only mentioning the bad news.

Here is the good news part: What you want to record is usually on-axis. This
comes from the time-honored practice of *not* pointing mics away from the
sound source of interest. ;-)

Here is the no-news part: What you really want to record does not
necessarily have a lot of high frequency content. You may even not want to
record all of the high frequencies that are there. For example at 8 KHz, the
USM69 is less than 3 dB down at any angle, and is +/1 dB at 0, 90, 180, and
270 degrees.

2. The X-Y technique implemented by this mike has the
fewest virtues of any of the coincident techniques. It
conveys stereo strictly by intensity encoding.

There's nothing all that wrong with intensity stereo. From several important
practical standpoints its even ideal. For example, if mono compatibility is
important, intensity stereo rules because mono derived from intensity stereo
loses the least. Coherency is a desireable property for a recording to
have, and intensity stereo maximizes coherency.

What intensity stereo provides less of is phasiness. The degree of phasiness
in a recording is a somewhat matter of taste. No matter how you feel about
mono compatibility, there is definately such a thing as too much phasiness.

I personally like a little phasiness, but this does nothing to diminish my
enthusiasm for X-Y microphone techniques. I just pick up some phasiness with
a few spaced mics following the 3:1 rule, and mix the phasy and the coherent
mics together to suit. Most of my micing is done with one or more X-Y pairs,
some cardioid pairs and some hypercardioid pairs.


All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be
better: ORTF, NOS, Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they
convey phase and time differences as well.

Trouble is, it is arguable that the time and phase differences that these
methodologies "convey" is by some means of thinking, artificial and
manufactured.

One can understand why a neophyte might be attracted to a
single stereo mike.

Coincident pair mics in a fixed array are very convenient. I do a lot of
work with a Rode NT-4. It sounds a heck of a lot better than it looks. IME
it is almost hard to make a really bad recording with one. If I have to do a
setup equipment, no rehearsal, one-shot record type gig of anything but a
soloist, a coincident pair would probably centerpiece my micing setup. And
even then...

Scott, if a stereo recording is made which has poor mono
compatibility, and that recording is played in mono, what
problems is one likely to hear? I mean, what will the
problems *sound like*? Drop-outs? Garbled? Harsh?

Well, if there are phase and arrival-time differences between the channels,
what sorts of audible effects would occur when the channels are summed?
(Fill in the blanks.)

Even intensity-only recordings have mono-compatibility problems. A centered
signal will rise in level 6dB, while those to the extreme left or right will
show no rise. The result is imbalance -- the closer a sound is to the
center, the louder it is in mono than it is in stereo playback. Some
engineers introduce broadband phase shift for centered and near-centered
signals to reduce this effect.

"William Sommerwerck"

Even intensity-only recordings have mono-compatibility problems. A
centered
signal will rise in level 6dB, while those to the extreme left or right
will
show no rise.


** Totally false.

The cardioid directional pattern of the mics prevents this error.


The result is imbalance --


** Crapology.



.......... Phil

The X-Y technique implemented by this mike has the fewest
virtues of any of the coincident techniques. It conveys stereo
strictly by intensity encoding.

So does Blumlein (crossed figure-8s). But it was my preferred miking style
(when I made live recordings) because it offered a number of advantages that
overrode the "loss" of phase/arrival-time cues.


All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better:
ORTF, NOS, Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they convey phase
and time differences as well.

SAID to be better. Have you tried any of them, to see which you prefer?

One of the disadvantages of recordings with phase and arrival-time
differences is that they don't sum to mono as well as intensity recordings.
(This was more of a consideration 25+ years ago, before the arrival of the
Walkman, et al.)


One can understand why a neophyte might be attracted to a single
stereo mike. I was. But the more I read, the more it appeared to be
a gimmick. Surely anyone who can afford $4,799.99 for a Neumann
USM69i would realize this ?

A stereo mic has many advantages -- especially when there's no time or space
to set up spaced mics.


It's a rhetorical question. Please explain.

You mean it's not a rhetorical question.

On Fri, 5 May 2006 23:52:38 -0400, soundhaspriority wrote
(in article ):

Technically, it's all wrong, yet it has the imprimatur of a famous name.
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c..._descript ion

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

The prevailing opinion is that:
1. Large diaphrams have really lousy off axis response. It's a physics "has
to be."
2. The X-Y technique implemented by this mike has the fewest virtues of any
of the coincident techniques. It conveys stereo strictly by intensity
encoding.

All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better: ORTF, NOS,
Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they convey phase and time differences as well.

One can understand why a neophyte might be attracted to a single stereo
mike. I was. But the more I read, the more it appeared to be a gimmick.
Surely anyone who can afford $4,799.99 for a Neumann USM69i would realize
this ?

It's a rhetorical question. Please explain.

Rhetorical questions, by definition, require no answer. If you haven't heard
what it does in the application for which it was intended, listen and report
back to us before making summary judgments.

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

soundhaspriority wrote:
Technically, it's all wrong, yet it has the imprimatur of a famous name.
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c..._descript ion

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

Because at the time, it was the only way to get good noise performance
in a single-point stereo mike. That time is over now.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

wrote:
Scott, if a stereo recording is made which has poor mono
compatibility, and that recording is played in mono, what
problems is one likely to hear? I mean, what will the
problems *sound like*? Drop-outs? Garbled? Harsh?

It sounds "phasey" That is, it sounds like a comb filter has been applied
to the audio.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
Scott, if a stereo recording is made which has poor mono
compatibility, and that recording is played in mono, what
problems is one likely to hear? I mean, what will the
problems *sound like*? Drop-outs? Garbled? Harsh?

Well, if there are phase and arrival-time differences
between the channels, what sorts of audible effects would
occur when the channels are summed? (Fill in the blanks.)

Even intensity-only recordings have mono-compatibility
problems. A centered signal will rise in level 6dB, while
those to the extreme left or right will show no rise.

The cardioid mics in an X-Y array have an included angle of about 90
degrees. This is often varied in actual use, up to about 120 degrees. Sounds
that are on-axis for the array are thus 45-60 degrees off-axis for either
mic. While cardioid mic coverage patterns vary, they are typically something
like 3-8 dB down when the sound source is 45-60 degrees off-axis. Therefore
sounds that are on the array's axis, are reduced by 3-8 dB in either mic and
the sum varies between +2 and -2, more or less.

Furthermore, the output of X-Y mics can be matrixed in various ways to
accentuate or attenuate the array's on-axis response.

There is very little that is done with microphones that is technically exact
or theoretically ideal. This provides considerable latitude for profitable
experimentation.

I often make up X-Y arrays from normal single-element microphones. The basic
assembly tool is called something like a "Press Converence Microphone
Holder". Here is an example:

http://www.markertek.com/Product.asp...SR&prodC lass

I often remove any removable screen or coverings for the mic cartridge, so
that the two mic elements can be made more intimate. Sometimes putting some
rubber O-rings beween the center and folding arms of the mic holder, and
also under the mic clips makes it easier to adjust the arms and mics and yet
have the adjustments hold steady enough in actual use.

X-Y arrays are often mounted in elevated positions pointing somewhat down on
the sound source, which is facilitated by using extra-tall stands (such as
the Shure or Bogen/Manfrotto) or adding extension tubes to standard or
heavy-duty stands like the Atlas MS-25.

soundhaspriority wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:

Technically, it's all wrong, yet it has the imprimatur of a famous name.
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c..._descript ion

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

Ever tracked anything in stereo using good LDC's? Sometimes the result
is amazing - yes, even using X/Y.


Hank, I appreciate your answer. I'm just trying to understand why there is
such a difference between textbook and practice.


It's very simple really. In theory, theory and practice are the same.
But in practice, theory and practice are often quite different.


All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better: ORTF, NOS,
Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they convey phase and time differences as
well.

And few are as fully mono compatible as coincident X/Y.


Yes, although one opinion was that it isn't very important anymore, except
for TV.

And radio. There are still a grillion mono table radios - nearly
everyone has one it their bedroom or their kitchen.


// Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

Scott, if a stereo recording is made which has poor mono
compatibility, and that recording is played in mono,

Let's pause right there & mention that, with the exception of headphone
listening, you are always playing a stereo recording in some degree of
mono. Stereo sums acoustically in the room between your speakers & your
ears, so there is always some amount of mono combining going on. It
doesn't have to be getting played on a table radio to come out mono.

what
problems is one likely to hear? I mean, what will the
problems *sound like*? Drop-outs? Garbled? Harsh?

What happens is certain frequencies cancel, generally in the upper high
end (or upper midrange if the problem is extreme) & add at other
frequencies (in the upper bass often). This can cause an unnatural
frequency response at best, or general muddiness at worst. It can cause
not just the spectral balance to shift, but can also affect the direct
to diffuse balance & even the perceived instrumental balance. Mono
compatibility is your friend. Ignoring it will cause you to appear
unskilled at controlling the recording process.

Scott Fraser

Phil Allison wrote:

"William Sommerwerck"

Even intensity-only recordings have mono-compatibility problems. A
centered
signal will rise in level 6dB, while those to the extreme left or right
will
show no rise.

** Totally false.


William is right, although the center channel buildup is 3 db not 6db.


The cardioid directional pattern of the mics prevents this error.

It has nothing to do with cardioid mics, it has to do with taking a
voltage sum vs. taking a power sum. It's very real, and it's why back
in the day of AM top 40 radio the 45s supplied to radio stations had a
mono version and a stereo version - they were different mixes.


The result is imbalance --

** Crapology.

What trunip truck did you fall off of, Phil?


// Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

All kinds of mic's work for all kinds of different things. Many times
not as originally intended. Making music should be about experimenting
and having fun. It used to be .

"Walt" = A short arsed Wank ?


Even intensity-only recordings have mono-compatibility problems. A
centeredsignal will rise in level 6dB, while those to the extreme left or
right will show no rise.

** Totally false.


William is right, although the center channel buildup is 3 db not 6db.


** Peeeukeeee.


The cardioid directional pattern of the mics prevents this error.

It has nothing to do with cardioid mics, it has to do with taking a
voltage sum vs. taking a power sum.


** Absolute, asinine CRAPOLOGY !!!

The only "sum" this asinine, POS ****wit is familiar with is a ****ing

Chinese DIM SUM !!





........ Phil

And few are as fully mono compatible as coincident X/Y.

Yes, although one opinion was that it isn't very important anymore,
except
for TV.

As far as can be discerned, the laws of physics are still in effect, &
mono compatibility is as important as ever it was, even though we now
have the technology to play out of phase amateur recordings without the
needle popping out of the groove.

Scott Fraser

Walt wrote:
It has nothing to do with cardioid mics, it has to do with taking a
voltage sum vs. taking a power sum. It's very real, and it's why back
in the day of AM top 40 radio the 45s supplied to radio stations had a
mono version and a stereo version - they were different mixes.

Hmmm...not too many stereo AM stations in the Top 40 days.

The reason for having both mono and stereo versions of 45s was to
accomodate both AM radio station and consumer/FM station use. Almost
without exception, AM stations used mono cartridges, which would have
destroyed stereo records in short order. I have no recollection of
summed stereo recordings sounding any different from the mono ones, but
of course that should hardly be considered as any sort of evidence.

--
St. John, '60s MOR DJ

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 May 2006 23:52:38 -0400, soundhaspriority wrote
(in article ):

Technically, it's all wrong, yet it has the imprimatur of a famous name.
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c..._descript ion

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

The prevailing opinion is that:
1. Large diaphrams have really lousy off axis response. It's a physics
"has
to be."
2. The X-Y technique implemented by this mike has the fewest virtues of
any
of the coincident techniques. It conveys stereo strictly by intensity
encoding.

All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better: ORTF, NOS,
Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they convey phase and time differences as
well.

One can understand why a neophyte might be attracted to a single stereo
mike. I was. But the more I read, the more it appeared to be a gimmick.
Surely anyone who can afford $4,799.99 for a Neumann USM69i would realize
this ?

It's a rhetorical question. Please explain.

Rhetorical questions, by definition, require no answer. If you haven't
heard
what it does in the application for which it was intended, listen and
report
back to us before making summary judgments.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Ty, the 3rd party opinions represent a sampling of "textbook" knowledge.
They do not represent my own beliefs. I mentioned them for reference. I put
the question out for my own education, something which you are good at. Have
a go?

Even intensity-only recordings have mono-compatibility
problems. A centered signal will rise in level 6dB, while
those to the extreme left or right will show no rise.

The cardioid mics in an X-Y array have an included angle of about 90
degrees. This is often varied in actual use, up to about 120 degrees.
Sounds
that are on-axis for the array are thus 45-60 degrees off-axis for either
mic. While cardioid mic coverage patterns vary, they are typically
something
like 3-8 dB down when the sound source is 45-60 degrees off-axis.
Therefore
sounds that are on the array's axis, are reduced by 3-8 dB in either mic
and
the sum varies between +2 and -2, more or less.

My partial goof. I was thinking of panned recordings. Obviously, most mics
in coincident arrays are turned so that "front center" sources fall off
their main axes.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

[snip]

Coincident pair mics in a fixed array are very convenient. I do a lot of
work with a Rode NT-4. It sounds a heck of a lot better than it looks. IME
it is almost hard to make a really bad recording with one. If I have to do
a setup equipment, no rehearsal, one-shot record type gig of anything but
a soloist, a coincident pair would probably centerpiece my micing setup.
And even then...

The NT-4 is down 8 dB at 20 kHz.
???

On Sat, 06 May 2006 15:37:15 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:


Walt wrote:
It has nothing to do with cardioid mics, it has to do with taking a
voltage sum vs. taking a power sum. It's very real, and it's why back
in the day of AM top 40 radio the 45s supplied to radio stations had a
mono version and a stereo version - they were different mixes.

Hmmm...not too many stereo AM stations in the Top 40 days.

The reason for having both mono and stereo versions of 45s was to
accomodate both AM radio station and consumer/FM station use.

I think that's what he was saying, only he "implied" the FM part.

soundhaspriority wrote:
Technically, it's all wrong, yet it has the imprimatur of a famous
name.
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c..._descript ion

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

Quite good for small ensembles in non-highly-ambient rooms. FWIE AKG have
the same , C34 (?) essentially two C414s in the same format.

But yes, not the most ideal diaphram size or pattern, But considering people
do seem to persist in using LDs as drum overheads (often U87, KSM32, C414,
etc) the concept is not totally flawed.

geoff

All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better: ORTF, NOS,
Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they convey phase and time differences as
well.

And few are as fully mono compatible as coincident X/Y.


Yes, although one opinion was that it isn't very important anymore, except
for TV.

And radio. There are still a grillion mono table radios - nearly
everyone has one it their bedroom or their kitchen.

And most FM radios fold stereo down to mono at that point when reception
craps out and they can no longer receive the stereo pilot signal.

There's LOT more mono out there than most people know.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Sat, 6 May 2006 11:55:31 -0400, soundhaspriority wrote
(in article ) :


"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 May 2006 23:52:38 -0400, soundhaspriority wrote
(in article ):

Technically, it's all wrong, yet it has the imprimatur of a famous name.
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c...9_descript io
n

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

The prevailing opinion is that:
1. Large diaphrams have really lousy off axis response. It's a physics
"has
to be."
2. The X-Y technique implemented by this mike has the fewest virtues of
any
of the coincident techniques. It conveys stereo strictly by intensity
encoding.

All of the closely spaced techniques are said to be better: ORTF, NOS,
Jecklin, Decca Tree, because they convey phase and time differences as
well.

One can understand why a neophyte might be attracted to a single stereo
mike. I was. But the more I read, the more it appeared to be a gimmick.
Surely anyone who can afford $4,799.99 for a Neumann USM69i would realize
this ?

It's a rhetorical question. Please explain.

Rhetorical questions, by definition, require no answer. If you haven't
heard
what it does in the application for which it was intended, listen and
report
back to us before making summary judgments.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Ty, the 3rd party opinions represent a sampling of "textbook" knowledge.
They do not represent my own beliefs. I mentioned them for reference. I put
the question out for my own education, something which you are good at. Have
a go?


You can bait us all day long, but nothing works better than than strangling
the weasel yourself to know what the fur feels like when the last drops of
life leave the beast.

Don't believe what you read (so much) and hope to God that when you DO try to
do the experiments yourself that you don't **** up and mislead yourself.

Regards,

Ty Ford

HINT: NOT ALL LD MICS ARE THE SAME AS REGARDS OFF-AXIS RESPONSE. A LOT HAS TO
DO WITH THE MICRO ENVIRONMENT INSIDE THE HEADGRILLE.



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

soundhaspriority wrote:
Technically, it's all wrong, yet it has the imprimatur of a famous name.
http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=c..._descript ion

Why does a Neumann coincident large diaphram mike exist?

Because they have functiuonality that sme people wantin certain
situations. Why do people still use bullet microphones?

RS

Chel van Gennip wrote:
On Sun, 07 May 2006 14:31:50 +0200, Ty Ford wrote:

And radio. There are still a grillion mono table radios - nearly
everyone has one it their bedroom or their kitchen.

And most FM radios fold stereo down to mono at that point when reception
craps out and they can no longer receive the stereo pilot signal.

Should we compromise on sound quality for these situations?

Depends on the intended audience. If you're making a recording for,
say, Voice of America you know that 99% of the audience is listening
in mono and mono compatibility is the name of the game. If you are
doing field recording for NPR, at least 30% sf the audience is
listening in mono. In this case you need to at least be aware of mono
compatibility issues and make sure it sounds OK in mono. If you are
making a recording that may ever be played on the radio anywhere check
mono compatibility.

It only takes a second to hit the mono sum button and check the mix.
If there are really serious mono compatibility issues it will hit you
in the face. And if it does, it usually implies that there is
something wrong with you stereo recording. Not always, but usually.

As far as whether or when to compromise, and how much, well that's
your call as a recording engineer. Just be aware that the Executive
Producer who's funding your project may happen to listen to your work
in mono and make his decisions accordingly. Want to keep your gig?

I think you
can't even hear the specific problems on a bedroom/kitchen radio or on a
FM radio with unsufficient signal.

If it's bad enough, you will definitely hear it. Or more precisely,
you *won't hear* it because phase cancellation has canceled the main
program material. I've "heard" recordings that nearly disappear
when played in mono.

That said, most of the time mono dries up the mix and places the
centered sounds more prominently - which is actually what you want
for table radios: more intelligibility, less "space".

// Walt

So, what's the bottom-line advice to follow as to which stereo
techniques
to have as options, and which to avoid, if you as the recordist are
concerned
about mono compatibility?