Topic: Hypers vs. MS

[airbladder]

Considering downsize my rig to one pair of microphones, Neumann km140.  I have been running u89s, and their 5 polar pattens, for years and have enjoyed the versatility.  Rite now I am buying a new house, just had a second kid, and anticipate being broke/busy for the next few years. 

Anyway, I frequently tape in small clubs off center, with people talking, and questionable sound.   Normally I run hypers alone or mixed with a soundboard feed.  I have never run MS before and was wondering how it could compare to hypers.  I hear mixed reviews on the ak50s and thought it may be better/cheaper to get a single ak20 instead.  I also wonder if having a pair of cards/ms set up would give me more versatility than a pair of cards and a pair of hypers.  Did I mention trying to downsize to free up money for the new house? 

Next time I go out I will try running the U89s MS into a PSP-3 and see what I think.  Things are crazy now and I don't know when my next show will be. Until then, any  info would be great. 

[SmokinJoe]

I like Mid/Side as an option to have.  I definitely don't think I would want it to be my only option.  I've had good luck with it stage lip, or fairly close to stage, where the direct energy is greater than the reflected energy.  Whenever I've tried something like from the balcony rail of a echoey opera house (direct/reflected energy ratio is much lower), I found it extremely frustrating to dial in the right mid/side ratio.

Here are my opinions on a few things.  It's just opinion, not fact.

• Doing the Mid/Side decoding > XY/LR in post at home has a bigger learning curve than most people think.  The first project will drive you crazy for hours.  Your 2nd project will go better, and about the 6th project you will have found a decent workflow and you can whip it out pretty quickly.  Many people get frustrated and give up on the first attempt, it's just too frustrating for them.
• I prefer to copy/split/invert the tracks and end up with 4 tracks on my screen where I can play the sliders.  Other people find that completely baffling, they use plug-ins.
• Mid/side decoding needs to be done in post at home, not combined on-the-fly because your preamp has the option.  Just as most people will tell you AUD/SBD mixes are better done at home than on the fly, same here.
• Mid side recording should be done with the gain dials set the same on the preamp, i.e. both sides have 30db gain.  Frequently this means your Mid levels are -6 and your Side levels are -15.  That's OK.  And whatever you do, DON'T touch the gain knobs through the show.  You will absolutely hate yourself later if you do, because then you have to chase the mid/side ratio throughout the show.
• Any mathematical formulas which say 50/50 mid/side = cards XY at 90*, such and such = hypers at 70* etc are just mathematical simulations.  I won't argue that the math...  it's mathematically sound, but that doesn't mean it is an accurate reflection of the real world.  If you "frequently tape in small clubs off center, with people talking, and questionable sound" that's a tough environment, and I think hypers will give you a better result than what you will get from a mid/side mathematical approximation
• I think for most people Mid/Side is best used in ideal circumstances... stage lip, DFC, quiet crowd, in other words the taping equivalent to "shooting fish in a barrel".  What it does do is give you the ability when you home to "dial in your width" like XY90, or XY110, or XY135, whatever is best.  But your buddy who ran XY or ORTF from the same spot also got an awesome tape.  Better?  Hard to say.
• If you are one of those people who only likes near-coincident/spaced mics, mid/side doesn't add the timing effect you expect.
• The one time where Mid/Side really did save my butt was in a really reverberant room, like an old wooden church.  It was much more reflective than I anticipated.  I ran a mid/side pair of TL's, and an 414 DIN subcards.  I ended up going with the mid/side about 90%mid and 10% side.  It was pretty narrow sounding, but much more listenable than the other combos.
• If you are mid/side taping, you shouldn't let people patch out of your deck.  They won't be happy with what they get.
• Listening to mid/side raw tape on the way home in the car works just fine.  No, it's not decoded, but it's satisfactory for listening over car speakers.

[page]

I like Mid/Side as an option to have.  I definitely don't think I would want it to be my only option.  I've had good luck with it stage lip, or fairly close to stage, where the direct energy is greater than the reflected energy.  Whenever I've tried something like from the balcony rail of a echoey opera house (direct/reflected energy ratio is much lower), I found it extremely frustrating to dial in the right mid/side ratio.

yeah, if I was stage-lip in small jazz clubs for stuff I'd be content with it being my only option, or if I knew it was only for a year or less, but I wouldn't want to spend a real period of time with just that in the environment you describe.

The problem with midside in a bum environment is that the tighter the pattern (to minimize chatter or reflections), the wider your angle off axis. Conversely, if you're far back and try and get "on axis sound"  and reject whats beside or behind you, you're down to a subcard pattern at about 50 degrees...

I'll echo lots of what Joe said and add; I think Midside recording is a double edged sword; in the best environment/location, I think it can edge out just about any other pattern. In any environment other then that, someone who's experienced with an arsenal of pattern options and knowledge of room reflection can probably pull a better recording. Not by much, but I think it's still doable.

[stevetoney]

I third the sentiments, except I like the ak40's quite a bit better than the ak50's.

To me MS is like a good middle relief pitcher.  He's almost never the starter, but he might start in emergencies or in the right situation.  Otherwise, you'll usually want to start your ace, which to me is the AK40's.  That said, the middle reliever in the right situation sometimes might be the perfect selection...in this case stage lip for an instrumental band.  I find the MS is great right there at the front because it gives you fantastic reproduction of the stereo image at that location.  However, you don't have to move too far back before there's just too much side (room reverb) for my tastes.  Sure, you can mix the side down to 30 percent or less in post to minimize the room reverb, but to me that kinda defeats the purpose of going MS.  I've gotten some great stage lip recordings MS though, but only when there's no vocals because the vocals usually go around your recording since they're routed through the PA speakers.  Bottom line is, if I only had one pair of Neumanns I had to settle on, I'd go with the cards/AK40's for versatility. 

[page]

Bottom line is, if I only had one pair of Neumanns I had to settle on, I'd go with the cards/AK40's for versatility.

That's the general rule of thumb I've seen; if you're only getting one set of caps, get cardioids, but if you get two sets of caps, get subs and hypers. The reason being is cards are the best compromise of off axis rejection and open-ness, but if I get two choices, the vast majority of venues you'll encounter will either be indoors (w/ reflections I'd like to minimize) or outdoors (without).

So under normal circumstances, I'd agree with steve, get the 40s since they are a nice general workhorse, but if you're not doing any taping in nice acoustic environments (or willing to make a sacrifice on the times you do), then I'd look at the 50s but be aware; that's a gamble based on the environment you're taping in.

[DSatz]

Both the Neumann KM 150 and KM 120 are noticeably lighter-sounding than the U 89 in the corresponding settings. I suggest that you look at the frequency response curves on www.neumann.com for the two models and compare.

The low-frequency response of any figure-8 that you use for M/S is very important to the sense of spaciousness in the recording, as well as affecting the sheer amount of low-frequency energy that you pick up overall.

--best regards

[noahbickart]

A few additional advantages of m-s:

1. Ease of adjusting the ratio of direct to reflected sound in post.
2. An increase in s/n ratio: (assuming that one has roughly equal levels of M and S to begin with)
3. Unlike x/y, ortf, din, etc. (but not A-B) The M is by definition on axis to the sound source.
4. Use of two crossed figure-8 microphones along with a coincident omni allows for total adjustment of Polar pattern as well.
5. The ability to apply EQ to **only** M **or** S (Dsatz mentions this frequently, and he is right) before decoding.

[page]

3. Unlike x/y, ortf, din, etc. (but not A-B) The M is by definition on axis to the sound source.

only if you are far back, if you're further up front where you're in that impact zone/triangulation, then it's off axis as well.

[notlance]

• I prefer to copy/split/invert the tracks and end up with 4 tracks on my screen where I can play the sliders.  Other people find that completely baffling, they use plug-ins.

I also prefer to have separate tracks rather than using a plug-in when mixing a MS source, but I don't understand how you get 4 tracks.  Here is what I have on my screen:

Track 1: Mid
Track 2: Side panned hard Left
Track 3: -(Side) panned hard Right

So what is Track 4?

[notlance]

If you have the ability to record 3 channels, you could use a DMS configuration using a U89 as the figure-8 side and two km40s as the front and back mics.   With a DMS you can have virtual pattern pair at any angle you want.  Such a DMS configuration is extremely flexible and allows you to sell one of your u89s and buy baby a new pair of shoes.

[DSatz]

page, I suspect that noahbickart's point #3 refers to the fact that the M microphone is forward-facing, and while some part of the direct sound (and nearly all the reflected sound) will arrive from off-axis angles, its angles of arrival will generally be centered around the mike's main axis. No direct sound will normally reach the M mike from very far off-axis at all.

Compare that to a more typical X/Y arrangement, where the direct sound sources on the far right are very far off-axis for the left-facing microphone, while the direct sound sources on the far left are similarly very far off-axis for the right-facing microphone.

The underlying concern is that very few microphones (especially cardioids) have the same frequency response at all angles of sound incidence. The farther you go off-axis, the more divergence there is from the manufacturers' nice-looking frequency response curves.

On the other hand, the M/S approach relies on the S microphone to have a clear, sharply defined "null" at exactly 90 degrees all across the frequency range. Some microphones are better than others in this regard, and if your S microphone has irregular frequency response in the region around its (front-facing) null, then any advantage to having a front-facing M microphone will no longer be very significant, since the two signals are matrixed together.

--best regards

[page]

Track 1: Mid
Track 2: Side panned hard Left
Track 3: -(Side) panned hard Right

So what is Track 4?

a dupe of the mid. I do the same thing, I create duplicates of both M and S tracks, hard pan them, and then adjust. Not required, just a preference.

page, I suspect that noahbickart's point #3 refers to the fact that the M microphone is forward-facing, and while some part of the direct sound (and nearly all the reflected sound) will arrive from off-axis angles, its angles of arrival will generally be centered around the mike's main axis.

true, I was thinking of a couple of jazz shows I had recorded where my mid signal was much lower than the sides because only the drummer was in front of me, while most of the brass were at least 45 degrees off off that mid 0 degree axis. Those such environments where you can dial in the mix later are where I really think MS is a great technique and I made the mistake of using that as my reference point when I posted.

[Gutbucket]

A few additional advantages of m-s:

1. Ease of adjusting the ratio of direct to reflected sound in post.
2. An increase in s/n ratio: (assuming that one has roughly equal levels of M and S to begin with)
[snip]...

Nick, I'm confused on these points.  Can you clairfy?

[noahbickart]

page, I suspect that noahbickart's point #3 refers to the fact that the M microphone is forward-facing, and while some part of the direct sound (and nearly all the reflected sound) will arrive from off-axis angles, its angles of arrival will generally be centered around the mike's main axis. No direct sound will normally reach the M mike from very far off-axis at all.

That is precisely what I was trying to say. +T.

-N

[airbladder]

Thanks for the great info.  I have 140s now.  Sounds like ms is not what I am looking for.  I am trying to figure out how to get some money out of my rig without making too many sacrifices.  There are so many options.  I was also considering selling the u89s and getting a pair of 414s.

 

 

[acidjack]

Thanks for the great info.  I have 140s now.  Sounds like ms is not what I am looking for.  I am trying to figure out how to get some money out of my rig without making too many sacrifices.  There are so many options.  I was also considering selling the u89s and getting a pair of 414s.

 

It sounds like you often tape in the same situations I do (less than ideal).  I know the U89s are amazing and worth a good bit of $$ and I'm sure they'd be hard to part with.

But if you are thinking about unloading the 140s, I would think you owe it to yourself given that you already have the 140s, to at least see how you like the 150s.  Their frequency response chart pretty much tells you what they will sound like, but as one of my buddies uses them very frequently, I can tell you sometimes that response is exactly what you are looking for.  But, their sound is not for everybody and definitely not for every situation, at least not without being paired with another set of mics.

If you're used to handling the U89s the 414s won't be much of a PITA to haul around, but really, how much are you using all those options? If you don't do much onstage, etc. I'd bet you could get away with running 140s and 150s almost exclusively and having a very versatile, good rig that would still let you have less money invested than your U89s. 

[airbladder]

My goal was to keep my original question focused, now that I got my MS question answered I will break it down.  I have U89s, 140s, v2, psp-3, mytek, OCM R-44, and a M10.  I tape on stage, small clubs, good sounding rooms, bad sounding rooms, theaters, arenas, sheds, and just about any situation you can think of.  I wanted to keep a small 2 channel rig, 4 channel rig, 4 microphones, cards, hypers, and subcards.  So I was thinking about selling the u89's, V2, and mytek then get 414s.  Figure I could pocket at least 3k, have less gear, and the same options I have now.   

MS sounds like too much work for me rite now.  If I had half a brain I would be trying to sell all the photography gear I have collecting dust and keep hording my recording gear; anyone looking for large format film cameras?

[newplanet7]

Keep your 140's psp-3 or V2 & r-44. Sell the v2 or psp-3, mytek, u89's.
Personally, I am not a fan of the 150's. THIN comes to mind even for a hyper.
If you are looking for a lower profile set-up for hypers check out the Beyer ck950's.
I dig the sound of those and they are remote ta boot.
Plus you could get a pair for less $ than the noymann or schoeps

[F.O.Bean]

Hypers