Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: X/Y choir miking oddness  (Read 7036 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rjp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Gender: Male
  • You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
X/Y choir miking oddness
« on: April 23, 2011, 12:36:31 AM »
Yesterday, at my church's Maundy Thursday service, I set up my 170s in 90° X/Y configuration, about 15' behind the director, or 21' from the choir front row. We had the choir, a string quartet, oboe, bassoon, and harpsichord (actually a Clavinova) performing a cantata based on Handel's Messiah; I couldn't monitor since I was singing in the choir. My X/Y setup ends up with about a 1½" vertical spacing between the mics; I might try redoing it to lower the spacing.

When I got home, and loaded the file into Audacity, I noticed that the instruments were quite clear, while the choir had a strange, distorted sound. Meanwhile, the stereo image left a lot to be desired. However, my purpose in going with X/Y was so that I could convert it to Mid/Side to tinker with the stereo image.

I converted the L/R channels to M/S, and was stunned when I boosted the Side track - the stereo image became vastly better, and the distortion went away. I wound up boosting the Side track by +7 dB, which gave me what I felt was the most realistic imaging. The final result was nothing short of fantastic.

My takeaway on this is that if you're doing X/Y and it doesn't sound right, convert it to Mid/Side and fiddle with it - you might get a big improvement! I'm wondering, though, if the vertical spacing might be introducing a phasing problem, or if the real issue was recording angle. The choir was in three rows, with six in the front row, and seven in the back two rows; sections were split for balance. The instrumentalists were between the choir risers and the director.
Mics: AKG Perception 170, Naiant X-X, Sound Professionals SP-TFB-2
Preamps: Naiant Littlebox
Recorders: Olympus LS-10
Interfaces: Focusrite Saffire Pro 14, Focusrite Scarlett 2i2

Offline DigiGal

  • AES Associate Member
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Gender: Female
  • Stay healthy and safe!
    • DigiGal Internet Archive Recordings
Re: X/Y choir miking oddness
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2011, 01:17:50 PM »
With a true M/S technique the (side) pattern is always a bidirectional (aka) fig-8 facing sideways.  The pattern of the (mid) is usually a cardioid pointed at the center of the sound source though the (mid) pattern can be varied.

But hey, glad your X/Y recording sounded better for you though in tinkering around.
Mics: AKG CK91/CK94/CK98/SE300 D-330BT | DPA 4060 4061 4266 | Neumann TLM 103 | Senn ME66/K6/K6RD MKE2 MD421 MD431 | Shure VP88 SM7B SM63L SM58 Anniversary Cables: Gotham GAC-4/1 Quad w/Neutrik EMC | Gotham GAC-2pair w/AKG MK90/3 connectors | DigiGal AES>S/PDIF cable Preamp: SD MixPre-D Recorders: SD MixPre 6 | Marantz PMD 661 Edit: 2011 27" 3.4GHz Quad i7 iMac High Sierra | 2020 13" MBA Quad i7 Catalina | Wave Editor | xACT | Transmission | FCP X 

Offline rjp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Gender: Male
  • You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Re: X/Y choir miking oddness
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2011, 04:57:59 PM »
True, but since X/Y is coincident, it lends itself well to faking it. Since I don't yet have any figure-8 mics in my arsenal, I'll have to make do with X/Y for now if I want to play with the stereo image in post. I still want to figure out a way to lower my riser to bring the X and Y mics as close to each other as possible, though.
Mics: AKG Perception 170, Naiant X-X, Sound Professionals SP-TFB-2
Preamps: Naiant Littlebox
Recorders: Olympus LS-10
Interfaces: Focusrite Saffire Pro 14, Focusrite Scarlett 2i2

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15702
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: X/Y choir miking oddness
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2011, 10:28:24 PM »
Any coincident X/Y array (be it M/S or not) can be adjusted the way you mention.. within a limited range.  I think it's a great thing to try doing, as often the best ratio of mid to side turns out to be different than what results from the polar patterns and mic angles you chose to use at the session.  In this case, a wider angle between mics would probably have been called for, and you are effectively increasing the angle between mics (and changing the polar pattern too somewhat) by boosting the Side component.

90 degree X/Y cards produce a predominant Mid signal because the patterns overlap to a great extent and the signals they produce are very similar.  That can be useful for some things like mic'ing soloists up close, but I personally find it too mono for main mic'ing from any considerable distance.  You might try a wider mic angle next time and see if you need to boost the Side signal as much to get the result you want.  Taking that to an extreme would be X/Y cards 180 degrees apart, which is equivalent to using an omni as the Mid mic in a M/S setup.  You probably don't want to go that far. I'd shoot for something between those extremes like 110-130 degrees.

Best to get the mic diaphrams as closely aligned vertically as possible, the vertical spacing is less critical, but closer is better.  I wouldn't worry about 1-1/2" at all.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline rjp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Gender: Male
  • You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Re: X/Y choir miking oddness
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2011, 08:43:15 PM »
90 degree X/Y cards produce a predominant Mid signal because the patterns overlap to a great extent and the signals they produce are very similar.  That can be useful for some things like mic'ing soloists up close, but I personally find it too mono for main mic'ing from any considerable distance.  You might try a wider mic angle next time and see if you need to boost the Side signal as much to get the result you want.  Taking that to an extreme would be X/Y cards 180 degrees apart, which is equivalent to using an omni as the Mid mic in a M/S setup.  You probably don't want to go that far. I'd shoot for something between those extremes like 110-130 degrees.

Best to get the mic diaphrams as closely aligned vertically as possible, the vertical spacing is less critical, but closer is better.  I wouldn't worry about 1-1/2" at all.

That sounds logical... and it's good to know about the spacing and alignment. FWIW, I had the mics aligned about as close to exact as possible. Thanks for the tip about increasing the mic angle - that might be the ticket (although spreading the image worked for me this time around).
Mics: AKG Perception 170, Naiant X-X, Sound Professionals SP-TFB-2
Preamps: Naiant Littlebox
Recorders: Olympus LS-10
Interfaces: Focusrite Saffire Pro 14, Focusrite Scarlett 2i2

Offline notlance

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 695
  • Gender: Male
Re: X/Y choir miking oddness
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2011, 09:51:48 PM »
In regard to spacing XY mics, Michael Gerzon wrote about a different XY spacing in this article:

http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Resources/Stereo_shuffling_A4.pdf

See Figure 5 and the associated text.  In brief, he advocates overlapping the mics by about 5 cm for reasons he explains in the article.

This article is a worthwhile read for those tapers interested in the MS technique.  In the article he describes using a analog mixer to perform what he calls "Stereo Shuffling", but this can now be done easily in a DAW.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2011, 09:56:27 PM by notlance »

Offline ghellquist

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 477
  • Gender: Male
Re: X/Y choir miking oddness
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2011, 04:08:18 AM »
My take on this. XY is never my choice in recording "true stereo" of ensembles. I use it only in micing small things like a single guitar.

For micing ensembles a near-coincident setup is what I choose, most often ORTF. The spacing of the mics adds a timing component to the stereo information, in addition to the pure volume component and this makes the stereo picture much better.

All in my opinion of course.

// Gunnar

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15702
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: X/Y choir miking oddness
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2011, 10:02:52 AM »
I'll second Gunnar's preference as I prefer some space between mics, but then I'm a spaced omni proponent.  My earlier suggestion to try a wider X/Y angle is to best optimize that particular configuration for the situation. However given the option, I'd choose a near-coincident setup or spaced omnis over X/Y for a big, broad source like a choir.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline NorseHorse

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
    • Seeing Sound
Re: X/Y choir miking oddness
« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2011, 03:56:41 PM »
XY is not the same as MS.  Gutbucket's description is right on.  XY will present you with a very narrow image when recording at a distance, and you can't change that effectively with m/s processing.  If you would like to hear a comparison, check this out: http://recordingthewrenorgan.blogs.wm.edu/2010/02/06/techdeck-xy-and-ms/   Yes, raising the "side" level can help some, but there is a limit.  It's best to get your image correct right off the bat, but it's a good trick to konw.

Someone mentioned "spacing XY mics", but it should be noted that if your mics are not coincident, you are not recording in XY.  Also, "MS" typically refers to a cardioid mid and a figure-8 side (not two figure-8s as described earlier), but you can substitute other pattern for the mid, including by not limited to figure-8 and omni.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 04:02:28 PM by NorseHorse »

Offline Chuck

  • Trade Count: (42)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
  • Gender: Male
  • time between the notes...
    • My recordings on the LMA
Re: X/Y choir miking oddness
« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2011, 04:04:02 PM »
Excellent work. Thank you for sharing this.
I learned a long while ago that small diameter mics positioned XY deep in the reverberant field don't sound very good.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Microphones: AKG C 480 B comb-ULS/ CK 61/ CK 63, Sennheiser MKE 2 elements,  Audix M1290-o, Micro capsule active cables w/ Naiant PFA's, Naiant MSH-1O, Naiant AKG Active cables, Church CA-11 (cardioid), (1) Nady SCM-1000 (mod)
Pre-amps: Naiant littlebox, Naiant littlekit v2.0, BM2p+ Edirol UA-5, Church STC-9000
Recorders: Sound Devices MixPre-6, iRiver iHP-120 (Rockboxed & RTC mod)

Recordings on the LMA: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/ChuckM
Recording website & blog: http://www.timebetweenthenotes.com

Offline 0vu

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Gender: Male
Re: X/Y choir miking oddness
« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2011, 03:37:38 AM »
With a true M/S technique the (side) pattern is always a bidirectional (aka) fig-8 facing sideways.  The pattern of the (mid) is usually a cardioid pointed at the center of the sound source though the (mid) pattern can be varied.

Also, "MS" typically refers to a cardioid mid and a figure-8 side (not two figure-8s as described earlier), but you can substitute other pattern for the mid, including by not limited to figure-8 and omni.


I'm probably missing it but I can't see anywhere earlier in this thread where anyone says that MS uses two fig-8s.

However, on a semantic point, MS in this thread refers to the Mid-Side mic-technique and, as several people here (including both of the above quotes) have rightly said, the Mid mic can be anything. It may 'typically' refer to a cardioid in DigiGal and NorseHorse's use of it (and perhaps >50% of the time in my use too) but there is no implication or suggestion in the term MS that cardioid is the 'typical' mid mic. The choice comes down to personal preference, circumstance, and one's 'typical' use for the setup. I know a lot of film sound people for whom a shotgun or hypercardioid is the 'typical' Mid mic, and several other people for whom anything other than an omni or fig-8 mid is atypical. Much of Blumlein's work on MS and XY 'typically' used a fig-8 mid.

I'm not 'having a go' at anyone here, it's just that a suggestion on a well read web forum that cardioid is the 'typical' or 'usual' Mid mic, all too easily is taken as implying that using something other than a cardioid is unusual/frowned upon/incorrect, when it's not in any way, and such comments do seem to have a habit of becoming 'facts'. So, just for clarity to those who don't 'typically' use MS and know little/nothing about it, in some circles/applications, cardioid is perhaps the 'typical' choice of mid mic, in others it isn't. The term refers to a fig-8 side mic and the Mid mic may be any polar pattern from an omni to another fig-8 or any point in between.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2011, 04:58:03 AM by 0vu »

Offline 0vu

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Gender: Male
Re: X/Y choir miking oddness
« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2011, 04:56:41 AM »
Yesterday, at my church's Maundy Thursday service, I set up my 170s in 90° X/Y configuration, about 15' behind the director, or 21' from the choir front row. We had the choir, a string quartet, oboe, bassoon, and harpsichord (actually a Clavinova) performing a cantata based on Handel's Messiah; I couldn't monitor since I was singing in the choir. My X/Y setup ends up with about a 1½" vertical spacing between the mics; I might try redoing it to lower the spacing.

Don't worry too much about a vertical spacing of about 1½". Closer is better if you can do it but in reasonably ambient mic setups such as the one you describe I don't see it causing any serious problems and certainly not those you describe. 1½" isn't very different from the capsule spacing in some large diaphragm stereo mics assuming that you mean the capsule centres are 1½" apart, not that there's a 1½" air gap between the two vertically aligned mics?. If it's the latter then you should get them closer - as close as possible without them touching. On closer micing techniques and/or with smaller ensembles or single instruments/voices, then vertical spacing is more of an issue and getting the capsules as physically coincident as possible is much more important. Though the same is true of any coincident technique. Closer and smaller makes for reduced margin for error. Usually, moving one source a foot closer to a mic six feet away makes a huge difference compared to moving it a foot closer to a mic 20' away. It's a game of ratios.

Quote
When I got home, and loaded the file into Audacity, I noticed that the instruments were quite clear, while the choir had a strange, distorted sound. Meanwhile, the stereo image left a lot to be desired. However, my purpose in going with X/Y was so that I could convert it to Mid/Side to tinker with the stereo image.

I'm curious what you mean by "the choir had a strange, distorted sound". Without hearing it, it's impossible to be sure but I'm wondering whether it might be a facet of the pair positioning relative to the choir/instruments. At 21' from the front of the choir, I'd guess that unless it's either a large choir or laid out in a very wide arc (which, with rows of 6/7/7, doesn't seem likely), the majority of the singers are being picked up in a relatively narrow portion in the centre of the XY pair acceptance angle. In a 90 degree XY pair of cardioids, the centre of the image is well off axis on both mics, in a region where their frequency responses and polar patterns can be very 'untidy', and I frequently find that the centre stage image produced by such a pair is poor in terms of sounding uneven, too narrow, and 'congested', even distorted. Also I find that it exaggerates the depth and width perspectives between close and far which adds to the perception of distant sources sounding more mono and less clear, when the imaging and clarity on closer sources is proportionally much stronger. This is particularly bad in more reverberant acoustics.

Centre stage clarity, more even left right image, a smoother/more even transition from front to back, and greater control of perspectives are why I prefer MS for most larger ensemble situations requiring a co-incident pair (though I tend to favour some kind of near-coincident or spaced rig over co-incident and usually prefer omnis where possible for their wider frequency response). Even if the situation calls for a Blumlein pair of fig-8s, I often find that an MS pair of fig-8s produces a more pleasing result as I prefer the clarity produced by having a mic facing the centre of the image, with the edges getting progressively a little more 'misty' rather than a dollop of varingly thick fog bang in the centre of the image and comparatively clearer, though often artificially wide, edges.

That said, with the right ensemble playing the right programme in the right acoustic, and the right mic position, a single Blumlein pair can sound absolutely amazing. I just find it rather unforgiving of any compromises. (This after spending three years early in my career working for a small classical label run by an engineer/producer who was a retired maths teacher and adamant that "Mr Blumlein correctly determined the only correct way to record anything is using a single coincident pair of figure of eight microphones at 90 degrees"' (in this engineer's case, an AKG stereo mic). Some of his resulting recordings I'd put up there with the very best I've ever heard but many more (imo) are flawed in ways which would've benefitted from some flexibility in terms of mic technique! If only in de-stressing the musicians by saving them from having to spend sometimes hours getting increasingly wound up as ever more implausible setups were tried (some of which were prety unbelievable and today would be outlawed by health and safety legislation instead of just being counter to common sense!) in the vain persuit of an unattainable perfection limited by a dogmatic approach.)

Quote
I converted the L/R channels to M/S, and was stunned when I boosted the Side track - the stereo image became vastly better, and the distortion went away. I wound up boosting the Side track by +7 dB, which gave me what I felt was the most realistic imaging. The final result was nothing short of fantastic.

When you say "the stereo image became vastly better, and the distortion went away" how did the image get 'better'?

Quote
My takeaway on this is that if you're doing X/Y and it doesn't sound right, convert it to Mid/Side and fiddle with it - you might get a big improvement! I'm wondering, though, if the vertical spacing might be introducing a phasing problem, or if the real issue was recording angle. The choir was in three rows, with six in the front row, and seven in the back two rows; sections were split for balance. The instrumentalists were between the choir risers and the director.

Converting XY to MS is a very useful (and often overlooked) tool for fixing stereo image related problems. It can also cause some problems of it's own which may or many not be bigger than those which it's employed to fix. For example, with the Side running 7dB higher than the Mid you could improve the centre upstage stage image but end up with some rather strange things happening in the phase correlation and image stability on downstage sources. That's not to say the result may not sound better, and from your description, in this case, the possible tradeoffs have paid off and you got a worthwhile result. :)
« Last Edit: April 28, 2011, 05:01:40 AM by 0vu »

Offline NorseHorse

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
    • Seeing Sound
Re: X/Y choir miking oddness
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2011, 10:11:20 AM »
However, on a semantic point, MS in this thread refers to the Mid-Side mic-technique and, as several people here (including both of the above quotes) have rightly said, the Mid mic can be anything. It may 'typically' refer to a cardioid in DigiGal and NorseHorse's use of it (and perhaps >50% of the time in my use too) but there is no implication or suggestion in the term MS that cardioid is the 'typical' mid mic...

On the same semantic point, "MS" in common conversation implies a cardioid mid the same way that "XY" implies two cardioids and "AB" implies two omnis.  No, those aren't the only way to use those techniques, but yes, you can generally assume that is what is meant unless someone says "MS with an omni" or "XY with hypers" or "AB with wide cardioids", etc.   A quick Google search demonstrates this point.

And thanks for encouraging me to reread the posts above.  I read DigiGal's initial post way too fast the first time...
« Last Edit: April 28, 2011, 10:14:44 AM by NorseHorse »

Offline NorseHorse

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
    • Seeing Sound
Re: X/Y choir miking oddness
« Reply #13 on: April 28, 2011, 10:17:33 AM »
Some of his resulting recordings I'd put up there with the very best I've ever heard but many more (imo) are flawed in ways which would've benefitted from some flexibility in terms of mic technique! If only in de-stressing the musicians by saving them from having to spend sometimes hours getting increasingly wound up as ever more implausible setups were tried (some of which were prety unbelievable and today would be outlawed by health and safety legislation instead of just being counter to common sense!) in the vain persuit of an unattainable perfection limited by a dogmatic approach.)

Do tell!!!!

I'm imaging soloists on ladders...

Cellists on tables...

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • Gender: Male
Re: X/Y choir miking oddness
« Reply #14 on: April 28, 2011, 08:32:37 PM »
Agreed that an M/S arrangement can have any type or pattern of microphone for the "M" channel, but that microphone should still be well chosen for the situation, of course.

Back when the technique was new (and stereophonic recording was still new), any decent engineer knew how to place a single microphone for a well-balanced mono pickup. The idea with M/S was that you could then make a "compatible" stereo recording by adding a side-facing figure-8 microphone and matrixing. This would yield the original mono recording if it was cut as a stereo LP and played back over a mono system; likewise, if it was broadcast as a stereo FM radio signal, a mono FM receiver would receive the original mono recording.

"Spaced omni"-type recordings don't work that way--there is always phase conflict and uneven cancellation/reinforcement of various frequency ranges in any situation when the two channels are combined, so they are not mono compatible. -- By the way, in Europe this type of recording is called "A/B" but what I find interesting is that the classic American style of spaced-mike recording, with the microphones set 1/2 to 2/3 of the stage width apart, is considered absurdly wide by most European engineers who use A/B techniques. They might place a pair of omnis only two feet apart even when recording a full orchestra--and that's what they call "A/B" (or sometimes "small A/B" just to distinguish it from the American style).

--It's true that X/Y is most often done with cardioids, but that is simply because it has to be done with directional microphones, and cardioids are the least expensive and most common pattern of directional microphone. Also when X/Y recording is done with figure-8s it has a special name ("Blumlein"), which somewhat reduces the number of people who would choose to call their technique "X/Y".

Cardioid isn't a sharply directional pattern--only 3 dB down at the sides. It's the widest directional pattern for which X/Y stereo recording is possible at all, but to counteract that weak directivity, it's often necessary to angle the main axes apart ca. 120 degrees. Setups (or stereo microphones) that have only 90 degrees between a pair of coincident cardioid capsules have an absurdly wide pickup angle, which causes most of the direct sound in playback to seem to come from the center, or nearly so.

X/Y stereo with dual-diaphragm cardioids is even worse, because at low frequencies you are making almost a mono recording with microphones like that no matter what angle you set between them--the pattern spreads out so that nearly identical signals are picked up in the two channels, so there is little or no sense of spaciousness in the recording.

--best regards
« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 11:47:28 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline rjp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Gender: Male
  • You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Re: X/Y choir miking oddness
« Reply #15 on: April 28, 2011, 11:09:33 PM »
1½" isn't very different from the capsule spacing in some large diaphragm stereo mics assuming that you mean the capsule centres are 1½" apart, not that there's a 1½" air gap between the two vertically aligned mics?. If it's the latter then you should get them closer - as close as possible without them touching. On closer micing techniques and/or with smaller ensembles or single instruments/voices, then vertical spacing is more of an issue and getting the capsules as physically coincident as possible is much more important. Though the same is true of any coincident technique. Closer and smaller makes for reduced margin for error. Usually, moving one source a foot closer to a mic six feet away makes a huge difference compared to moving it a foot closer to a mic 20' away. It's a game of ratios.

It's the latter - the 1½" is the gap between the mics, which are vertically aligned. The Perception 170 is a small-diaphragm cardioid.

When I got home, and loaded the file into Audacity, I noticed that the instruments were quite clear, while the choir had a strange, distorted sound. Meanwhile, the stereo image left a lot to be desired. However, my purpose in going with X/Y was so that I could convert it to Mid/Side to tinker with the stereo image.

I'm curious what you mean by "the choir had a strange, distorted sound". Without hearing it, it's impossible to be sure but I'm wondering whether it might be a facet of the pair positioning relative to the choir/instruments. At 21' from the front of the choir, I'd guess that unless it's either a large choir or laid out in a very wide arc (which, with rows of 6/7/7, doesn't seem likely), the majority of the singers are being picked up in a relatively narrow portion in the centre of the XY pair acceptance angle. In a 90 degree XY pair of cardioids, the centre of the image is well off axis on both mics, in a region where their frequency responses and polar patterns can be very 'untidy', and I frequently find that the centre stage image produced by such a pair is poor in terms of sounding uneven, too narrow, and 'congested', even distorted. Also I find that it exaggerates the depth and width perspectives between close and far which adds to the perception of distant sources sounding more mono and less clear, when the imaging and clarity on closer sources is proportionally much stronger.

That sounds spot-on to explain what happened.

When I got home, and loaded the file into Audacity, I noticed that the instruments were quite I converted the L/R channels to M/S, and was stunned when I boosted the Side track - the stereo image became vastly better, and the distortion went away. I wound up boosting the Side track by +7 dB, which gave me what I felt was the most realistic imaging. The final result was nothing short of fantastic.

When you say "the stereo image became vastly better, and the distortion went away" how did the image get 'better'?

The squashed perspective opened up, as if the mics were closer to the action, and I no longer heard the distortion that I had been hearing with the unprocessed X/Y track.

At any rate, though I salvaged a bad situation, I think I'll go with ORTF next time, unless I can get a figure-8 mic into my arsenal and record true M/S.
Mics: AKG Perception 170, Naiant X-X, Sound Professionals SP-TFB-2
Preamps: Naiant Littlebox
Recorders: Olympus LS-10
Interfaces: Focusrite Saffire Pro 14, Focusrite Scarlett 2i2

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.296 seconds with 44 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF