Topic: M-S recording with Sennheiser MKH series

[cashandkerouac]

i just picked up a used MS rig at a good price consisting of an MKH30 and an MKH20.  i already have a stereo pair of MKH8040 mics so i can substitute for the MKH20 if desired.  recording in MS is a new endeavor for me and i'm looking forward to it.  the MKH30 and MKH20 will also have good uses beyong the MS application; so even if MS proves not to be a common application for me, these mics are good additions to my toolbox.  i hope to see more good comments and feedback on this thread and am eager to learn more about MS recording.       

[leddy]

i just picked up a used MS rig at a good price consisting of an MKH30 and an MKH20.  i already have a stereo pair of MKH8040 mics so i can substitute for the MKH20 if desired.  recording in MS is a new endeavor for me and i'm looking forward to it.  the MKH30 and MKH20 will also have good uses beyong the MS application; so even if MS proves not to be a common application for me, these mics are good additions to my toolbox.  i hope to see more good comments and feedback on this thread and am eager to learn more about MS recording.     

MS with an omni mid like the MKH20 can save your butt when you have to record on stage or in the middle of the performers, but it's usually not as spacious sounding when compared to directional mid mics.  A figure 8 mid is my favorite when situation allows.

[cashandkerouac]

i just picked up a used MS rig at a good price consisting of an MKH30 and an MKH20.  i already have a stereo pair of MKH8040 mics so i can substitute for the MKH20 if desired.  recording in MS is a new endeavor for me and i'm looking forward to it.  the MKH30 and MKH20 will also have good uses beyong the MS application; so even if MS proves not to be a common application for me, these mics are good additions to my toolbox.  i hope to see more good comments and feedback on this thread and am eager to learn more about MS recording.     

MS with an omni mid like the MKH20 can save your butt when you have to record on stage or in the middle of the performers, but it's usually not as spacious sounding when compared to directional mid mics.  A figure 8 mid is my favorite when situation allows.

thanks for the feedback.  i figured that using the omni as the mid would be much better suited for situations close to the stage.  further back from the stage i assume that an MKH50 would be a good choice.  however, i as you move more to the back of a room i assume there is a point at which a mid-side mic configuration becomes the wrong strategy because of diminishing returns from the side mic.     

[Gutbucket]

.. i hope to see more good comments and feedback on this thread and am eager to learn more about MS recording.

..however, i as you move more to the back of a room i assume there is a point at which a mid-side mic configuration becomes the wrong strategy because of diminishing returns from the side mic.   

That depends on what you mean by diminishing returns.  The side mic will still 'produce stereo' at a distance.  It is true that the side component of the direct sound pickup becomes more and more diminished as you move farther away, but there is no reduction in the side component of the reverberant sound.  In that way the sense of ambient 'stereo-ness' is not diminished, but the imaging of the direct sound is.

If you mean diminishing returns in the sense of how best to capture that sense of spacious reverberant ambience in your stereo recordings made from a significant distance, then yes, there are mic setups other than a coicident M/S array which many poeple feel are better suited to doing that.

For me its helpful to think of M/S as a good tool for optimizing the direct mono pickup of a sound source and 'stereo-izing' it.  That is to say,  the primary advantage I see in using M/S is in the ability to clearly choose the most appropriate directivity for the mid microphone and using that optimally, on-axis to the source.  The mid microphone then collects side information to 'stereoize' that optimized mono pickup.  In that light, I see M/S as placing primary emphasis on clear central mono pickup, then expanding on that to make stereo.

In constrast I see other non-coincident stereo mic'ing techniques as approaching stereo recording from the opposite perspective- starting from optimizing the stereo nature of the recording, then making sure there is a strong and clear mono image (which is not to say that it's unimportant or done less well, just addressed secondarily and less directly.  Sort of working from the other direction.

Horses for courses.

[cashandkerouac]

.. i hope to see more good comments and feedback on this thread and am eager to learn more about MS recording.

..however, i as you move more to the back of a room i assume there is a point at which a mid-side mic configuration becomes the wrong strategy because of diminishing returns from the side mic.   

That depends on what you mean by diminishing returns.  The side mic will still 'produce stereo' at a distance.  It is true that the side component of the direct sound pickup becomes more and more diminished as you move farther away, but there is no reduction in the side component of the reverberant sound.  In that way the sense of ambient 'stereo-ness' is not diminished, but the imaging of the direct sound is.

If you mean diminishing returns in the sense of how best to capture that sense of spacious reverberant ambience in your stereo recordings made from a significant distance, then yes, there are mic setups other than a coicident M/S array which many poeple feel are better suited to doing that.

For me its helpful to think of M/S as a good tool for optimizing the direct mono pickup of a sound source and 'stereo-izing' it.  That is to say,  the primary advantage I see in using M/S is in the ability to clearly choose the most appropriate directivity for the mid microphone and using that optimally, on-axis to the source.  The mid microphone then collects side information to 'stereoize' that optimized mono pickup.  In that light, I see M/S as placing primary emphasis on clear central mono pickup, then expanding on that to make stereo.

In constrast I see other non-coincident stereo mic'ing techniques as approaching stereo recording from the opposite perspective- starting from optimizing the stereo nature of the recording, then making sure there is a strong and clear mono image (which is not to say that it's unimportant or done less well, just addressed secondarily and less directly.  Sort of working from the other direction.

Horses for courses.

Gutbucket:  thanks the added info and clarification.  yes, by diminishing returns i was referring to the best method for capturing that sense of spacious reverberant ambience in your stereo recordings made from a significant distance.  i totally agree that you'd still have the equivalent amount of stereo-ness regardless of your front-back position within the room. 

[John Willett]

Also note that the 418s (Senn's stereo MS shotgun) does not use a condenser figure eight but an electret figure eight and does not sound nearly as good as an MKH30/416 pair.

Whatever kind of capsule the 418 uses, and I definitely defer to John Willett on that one, may I point out that even if the capsule were an electret, it is still a condenser capsule. And also mention that there's no technical reason why an electret condenser can't be made to perform as well as an AF/RF biased condenser. e.g.  DPA seem to struggle by quite nicely with electret capsules.

I totally agree.

Electret capsules do tend to get a bad press, though.  Which is why DPA tend to call them "pre-polarised condensers".

And, yes, a DPA electret is every bit as good as a good AF condenser mic.