The reason I am asking this is that I thought that anything that hits the figure 8 capsule but does not hit the mid channel can be eliminated from the final mix because when you reverse the polarity on the plus and minus, the side stuff drops out and you won't hear it. I was thinking that means that any chatter coming only from the sides can be largely filtered out of the final stereo mix because it will be phase cancelled. Same for room reverb.
I recomend you listen over headphones and see if thats true. In my experience, it's not. You end up with a small tail ala the hypercard that is out-of-phase.
So if you know you are in a horribly boomy or chatty location, I think you're better served running hypers at a narrower angle (m/s mixes down to hypers at ~110° 135 mixed 1:1, boosting the mid narrows the angle between virtual mics but also makes their patterns fatter).
Much closer to 135 in practice. midside.com has the the masters research paper on this. neat stuff if you have the time and energy to read it.
With an omni mid, again the widest angle (all side) will be virtual cardioids, and as you add more mid you get more of a subcardioid, with a narrower included angle.
Omni MS and fig8 MS yeild special results, the Omni yeilds a signal that you can adjust pattern but not angle (always 180deg), while 2 figure 8s in an MS config yeilds a signal that you can adjust the angle but not the pattern (blumlein).
Now, to get around the problem of the pattern is linked to angle, you have to run the DMS, but not as schoeps describes.
fig8 (side address)
omni
fig8 (front address)
mix your front fig8 to your omni, that gets you a card, then mix to the side fig8 to get a standard MS. Mix the 2 fig8s together to get your adjustable angle blumlein, and then bring up the omni to enhance to front and reduce the back. If you mix the omni properly, you should be able to get hypers at your described angle. Now, hypers at 70 will still be hypers at 70, but you at least have the option of hypers at something other then 135/130... So really, if you can do 3 tracks, you can derive any coincident pattern at any angle so desired (in post) with enough effort.
Rather than start a new thread I'll throw this M/S question out here. Sorry for the thread-jacking
Has anyone ever tried to use a mono SBD feed for the Mid channel on a M/S recording?
It doesn't work as well as you might expect. I've found that when I do the M/S mix down, then bring in the mono board feed it works much better. YMMV.
Another key question to consider: does one prefer difference-in-intensity stereo (coincident configs, like M/S, XY) or difference-in-time stereo (near-coincident or spaced configs).
Ultimately, I've figured out that I prefer difference-in-intensity to difference-in-time for the vast majority of recordings, even if they are far away.