Topic: Schoeps Mid-Side

[bobbygeeWOW]

Hey Dave,

I have only a passing understanding of the math involved, but here's where I'm at. While I generally prefer a bit of near-coincident phasing, I think the usefulness of MS is varying the stereo image after the fact depending on how wide an angle you want to reproduce.

Here's an example of what I mean, from the wildly theoretical realm: according to the AES paper by Dooley and Streicher on MS, a 50/50 ratio using a cardiod for Mid, you end up with virtual XY Hypers at 126.9 degrees. If that's right, Williams charts show this to be about +-44 degrees stereo angle. However with M at 70%, they show virtual cards at 81.2 degrees for a +-93 degree SRA. With S at 70%, the included angle of the virtual XY pair broadens to 155.8 degrees, and the patterns become more bi-directional (larger rear lobes).

So the wild part about MS is that as you vary the ratio of M to S (in post production after the fact), for any given M capsule pattern the resulting virtual microphone's XY angle and capsule pattern changes!

Looking through their billion charts, depending on the M capsule and the M-S ratio, you get virtual XY cards, hypers, subs at various angles, and even a virtual Blumlein pattern when you go 50/50 with a centre Figure 8

So if you're right up close like BayTaynt3d's situation with sound sources coming in from a wide (180 degree) angle, you can represent that in the stereo image with XY cards or by dialing in the appropriate M-S ratio (which depends on what you choose for M). But with MS if its a live event, yer on stage lip, and the musicians move closer together than you expected, you can virtually shrink the stereo recording angle after the fact to represent that new reality. This also protects against the situation I had recently where the opening band's guitar player set up way outside my DIN SRA, resulting in great imaging of the band - but with this otherworldy, ungrounded acoustic guitar floating around it..

There's another guy who did rediculous rafts of tests with real physical Neumann mics whose ultimate conclusion is that generally speaking the frequency response of an MS matrix is better than the actual XY config (I guess due to the on-axis Mid), but that's a whole other topic 

[Shawn]

There's another guy who did rediculous rafts of tests with real physical Neumann mics whose ultimate conclusion is that generally speaking the frequency response of an MS matrix is better than the actual XY config (I guess due to the on-axis Mid), but that's a whole other topic 

do you have link for that? I remember someone here theorizing that M/S was superior to various other techniques because of the better on-axis response from the mid. it would be interesting if there were some study to back that up. thanks.

[bobbygeeWOW]

do you have link for that? I remember someone here theorizing that M/S was superior to various other techniques because of the better on-axis response from the mid. it would be interesting if there were some study to back that up. thanks.

You need proof that Neumann's have crappy off-axis response?   

 

Just kidding.. that paper is here:

http://www.midside.com/pdf/nyu/masters_thesis.pdf

Its charts also show the polar patterns changing as the M-S ratios change, but for the full story on angles, patterns and ratios the Dooley/Streicher AES paper is downloadable here:

http://www.wesdooley.com/pdf/technique.pdf

-Cheers!

[DSatz]

Bean, I wasn't saying that you should necessarily stick with the same brand or sensitivity in your M/S pair; I was only saying that my calculation was based on having the same 0-degree sensitivity in the two microphones. In reality that's not an entirely reliable assumption, so I felt obliged to mention it.

I feel that a good microphone is good regardless of its brand or type, and I have nothing against someone using (say) a Beyer M 130 ribbon mike for the S channel and a C 414 wide cardioid or an Audio-Technica electret shotgun for M if the recording conditions warrant it. But the overall timbre of the M and S mikes should be similar; it's not good if one mike is harsh while the other is mellow, for example, or if one mike is boomy while the other is thin. That would create some degree of an odd localization effect in playback: the apparent origin of a given sound in the stereo sound stage would depend on the frequency content of that sound at that moment. As an instrument or voice varied its pitch or timbre, its position would also seem to shift.

I always recommend that people record M and S directly, and dematrix later, with some arrangement that lets them vary the gain of the signals from the M and S channels of the recording as they enter the matrix. Two big advantages are gained that way: The recorded channels can both have their recording levels set so as to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio (in most cases, the S channel microphone will pick up distinctly lower peak levels than the M channel microphone--I've seen 5 or 6 dB differences, and it would be a shame to add that much unnecessary noise) and the reverberation and stereo basis width can be adjusted to taste in playback, in the comfort of one's home or studio.

--best regards

[Shawn]

thanks bobbygeeWOW +T.

[bluevolvo]

sorta a hi-jack, but i totally agree on mid-side in the right environment...but, i do also think throwing in some additional channels is a plus too - like some omni's in a puesdo-decca...

(sorry it's only the mp3, but i can't figure out my ISPs handling of FLACs...or maybe it just me...)

http://www.righteousdog.com/downloads/karisawilson20071019d1t02.mp3

Karisa Wilson
Friday, October 19th, 2007
Community Center
Grand Haven, MI, USA

TITLE: Community Center 10-19
SOURCE1: AKG C414B-XLS/ST > MOTU Traveler (1,2) > Gateway MX6650 > AA2 24/44
LOCATION1: Stage Lip, stand at 6', MID-SIDE
SOURCE2: Oktava MK-012's > MOTU Traveler (3,4) > Gateway MX6650 > AA2 24/44
LOCATION2: 30' back, 30' apart, stands at 6', SPLIT OMNI (Stacks)
SOURCE3: Neumann KM184's > ADA8000 (1,2) > ADAT > MOTU Traveler > SPDIF > PMD671 16/44
LOCATION3: DFC 30' back, stand at 6', DINa
TAPER: maddog AT righteousdog DOT com
TRANSFER: AA2(POST) > CDwave > Hard Disk WAVs(M) > DAO/CDR(1) or FLAC (level 5)
TRANSFERED BY: maddog AT righteousdog DOT com

INFO:
Karisa Wilson: Vocals, Guitar, Violin
Mike Sullivan: Guitar

POST:
Trim > Fades > 7 Track Mix (+1 for INVERT R-SIDE) > Master > Level to -0.3dB > Dither 16/44 > Track > FLACs Tagged

This one's about 70-15-15% on the sources, hope you dig the jam

~peace out, happy safe holidays all...

[Stagger]

Sorry I'm late to the party on this one but I should probably chime in. My sig will show ya what I have in my bag these days. In the past I have run pretty much every mic around at least once and I ran the c34 for a while before I eventually sold it off to Carl. The c34 is a great mic and if I could find someone that wanted to trade me a c34 in excellent shape and a EAA PSP-2 for my Schoeps and V2 I'd do it in a heart beat....but... I don't think the c34 is best run in MS. It tends to be very bright in figure 8 (yes figure 8's are always brighter than most but this is somewhat extreme). The EAA helps but it ain't perfect. I typically ran the c34 from card to hyper XY.

That said, the main point I want to make is that, having mk4's, mk41's and a mk8 in my bag, I have to say I run m/s 90% of the time. The main thing is that, unless there is a pressing reason why you can't (running C-Linked 6ch tapes comes to mind), ALWAYS post process. I have found that a Schoeps m/s recording post processed is probably the most flexible and forgiving setup you could possibly have. Freeware programs like Voxengo's MSED for Wavelab makes post production so easy it is scary. Record Mid on the left channel and side on the right then, in post production you just turn one knob and mid goes up or down and the same for side.... all while you monitor on whatever playback system you like. If you leave the levels even you basically get Cards run XY. I haven't found that you have to be on stage to have m/s be the preferred method of recording at all. I have had great results 40' from stage in arenas.

Schoeps are not cheep, there is no denying that. However, given that the dollar keeps loosing ground to the Euro and Schoeps' prices are not dropping any time soon, they are actually good investments if you pick up a set on the used market. It has also been stated that it is a good idea to use the same brand mid as well as the 8 due to preamp issues. I completely agree with this. I have found that even when comparing a card to a fig8 Schoeps seem to respond better with different preamps and AD's than, say, AKG or Neumanns. YMMV but that is what have found.

I realize this is a big and expensive step. I will say that if you are ever in the Chicago area, I'd be more than happy to let you run my rig at any time. I also have plenty of Schoeps m/s recordings, both mixed down and in raw form. If you would like any of it (I would suggest grabbing a pre-mixed recording and playing around with it to see if it is something you are up for) feel free to send me a PM and I'll get you some FLAC's on DVD's or something to that effect. Best of luck and let me know if I can be of any help.

[beanstalk]

I found these on another forum. I thought it was a very cool looking M/S shock.

Also, check out this guys LD M/S setup..
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-reports/MS_Mount_Rodes/WebSite_MS_Mount_Rodes.html

[Tim]

that looks cool but are the mics shockmounted in anyway? I'd worry about that hard wood transferring all kinds of nastiness to my mics

[beanstalk]

i believe that's what the rubber insets are 4..

[Tim]

i believe that's what the rubber insets are 4..

Could be, though it doesn't look like that's the case to my eyes...

[beanstalk]

http://recording.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=40208

[F.O.Bean]

thats def creative, buit if you want to run full bodies like that instead of actives, Id go the same route KLowe went with the (2) Superlux mounts nylon-tied together!

[beanstalk]

thats def creative, buit if you want to run full bodies like that instead of actives, Id go the same route KLowe went with the (2) Superlux mounts nylon-tied together!

oh, with out a doubt. I was trying to think of something to do with a set a joe meek mounts.
Farting around at work and trying to find some other DIY ideas. I'm surprised there's not to many other professionally done shockmounts out there. But then again, not a whole lot of companys producing fig 8 caps.

[F.O.Bean]

thats def creative, buit if you want to run full bodies like that instead of actives, Id go the same route KLowe went with the (2) Superlux mounts nylon-tied together!

oh, with out a doubt. I was trying to think of something to do with a set a joe meek mounts.
Farting around at work and trying to find some other DIY ideas. I'm surprised there's not to many other professionally done shockmounts out there. But then again, not a whole lot of companys producing fig 8 caps.

not to mention the freakin PRICE of the pro ones ala Schoeps/Neumann. Each one is EASILY $3-400 NEW........Screw that, I'll make my own

Now I just wish that Robert Kwon made an ORTF/MS KwonBar for the Schoeps/Neumann's/MBHO's, now THAT would be ideal. I JUST got my DIN and NOS KwonBars today in the mail(my ONLY XMAS gift) and I dont mind paying the amount those cost because theyre unbreakable and couldnt be easier tyo use and even easier to shockmount. I spent a total of $240.00 on all 3 KwonBars(DINa/DIN/NOS) and I think that rpice is a steal. The DIY ones are alright, but alright at best. These are a SNUG fit and are easy as pie to run, so theyre def worth the cost IMO! Like I said, too bad Mr. Kwon didnt make an ORTF or M/S bar for the actives. I'm SURE he'd sell out of them in no time!