Topic: Which is Better: Mid-Side mics or X-Y mics? Zoom Q2HD or Q3HD?

[Alan_Schezar]

Which is Better: Mid-Side mics or X-Y mics? Zoom Q2HD or Q3HD?


Hello, which would be better for recording loud concerts in the front row? The Q2HD's Mid-Side mics or the Q3HD's X-Y mics?

I ask because I can't find out the answer on the Samson Zoom homepages or in the reviews. It seems as if the Mid-Side is better for recording a one-person band, and X-Y is better for recording a multi-person band?

However, reading through the forum, people say that when set to a 120 degree orientation, the Mid-Side mics will give you the same stereo as the X-Ys. Therefore, since the Q2HD is also ~2 years newer, would it therefore be a better choice than the Q3HD? I already own the Q3HD and am wondering if the Q2HD is worth buying if I mainly record multi-person bands from the front row and do not do any post-production such as WaveLab. I posted some of the mic specs below. 

Thanks for any help! 



Q2HD
Mid-Side stereo (MONO / 30°/60°/90°/120°/150°)
Maximum Sound Pressure Level: 120dB SPL
Input Gain： +1 to +39dB
www.zoom.co.jp/products/q2hd/spec/


Q3HD
Unidirectional, 120-degree X/Y stereo
Maximum Sound Pressure Level: 130dB SPL
www.zoom.co.jp/products/q3hd/spec/

[acidjack]

Assuming these "loud concerts" include vocals, the front row is a poor choice for recording with any microphone, as you will likely not have a good angle to the PAs that are carrying the vocals, and will mostly just get the instruments from the stage. A better position would be one that resulted in you being at the tip of an equilateral triangle between you and the stacks.  Every venue setup is different, but that is generally a good rule of thumb.

If this is for something where you already have tickets and assigned seats, I'd leave the gear at home and enjoy the show, or trade seats. But it's hard to pass up front row, from a viewing perspective.

Finally, I'd note that *none* of those Zoom recorders, placed in a shirt pocket (I'm just taking a wild guess that's your plan) is a very optimal way to record anything, but certainly not a loud rock concert.  There is quite a lot of inexpensive, easy to use equipment that is good for that purpose that you'll see discussed on this board.

[Gutbucket]

X/Y and mid/side are different implementations of of basically the same configuration.  On the face of it, the ability to adjust the the recording angle on the mid/side recorder is an advantage if you learn which setting to choose for a particular recording situations.   It's not clear if Zoom is refering to the angle between the virtual X/Y microphones which the mid/side mics are decoded to at those settings, or if they are refering to the stereo recording angle achieved by those settings (basically the recording angle which fills the playback stage between speakers when played back).  Those two things are inversely related, meaning that in once instance a bigger number means wider and in the other narrower!

I suspect the mid-side angle in their specs refers to the angle between the decoded virtual X/Y mic pattern, and you probably would find only a few of those settings useful for this type of recording (90/120/150). For which and why, we have entire threads here dedicated to that.

Beyond that the different mic capsules used may sound different and the input circuitry may have changed, which may well also change the recorded sound between the two machines.  I'm not very familiar with them.

Front row can be a good choice sometimes for instrumental bands or in some other situations, but usually for loud concerts you'll want a more clear and direct line of sight from the PA speakers to the mics to get clear, clean vocals especially, as well as clarity of other instruments which have less stage volume.

[Alan_Schezar]

Thanks to both of your comments. But if it makes a difference, I would be holding it in my hand taking video and audio. Not just keeping it in my pocket.

The X-Y Q3HD has proven to be good so far. I was wondering if the Mid-Side Q2HD was better. The company's press release seems to be touting this model as "the only Mid-Side mic with video". From the specs, it also seems as if the camera lens is slightly better, but the difference seems slight.

However, the Samson/Zoom company also describes the Q2HD as "the Q3HD's little brother", so maybe the X-Y at 120 degrees is actually better than Mid-Side at 120 degrees.

I've been reading many threads here about the difference between X-Y and M-S, but none specifically to the Q3HD/Q2HD, and all seem to use an acoustic guitar as reference, and an acoustic guitar doesn't push the limits of the mic enough to compare.

Another good thing about being in the front row is that your mics pick up less crowd noise, such as talking. Here's an example of some of the Q3HD's audio/video:


http://www.tubechop.com/watch/461074

[newplanet7]

The vocals will most likely be buried but you could get lucky. They will be audible just not in front.
I say xy 120 and roll it. Can you please post some screen shots after?? No audio needed though.

[MelodyMatters]

I'm awaiting delivery on an Q2HD. Supposedly it has the same audio characteristics as a Zoom H2n, which I like a lot for loud live shows. It has lots of options but turning the Mic Gain all the way down and the "Concert" limiter has worked out really well (I also use a wide Mid-Side pattern.) For a little while now I've been using the H2n in combination with a Sony HX9V compact camera for live shows. The Sony has exceptional low light performance, so using that with the H2n (along with some editing) produces stuff like this: http://youtu.be/s2Ne1tcObA0

The reason I ordered the Q2HD was that I really wanted to go back to a more compact and simpler way to record club concerts. I had used a Kodak Zi8 with a Sony ECM-DS70P mic for a couple of years with great success, and was looking forward to an update to that, but that never happened. Similar Flip-type cameras from Sony and Samsung and such were all crippled with design shortcomings, most especially to do with not having an external mic input like the Kodak. Compact cameras likewise didn't have an external mic input, with the Nikon Coolpix P7000 being the sole exception. I got one of those only to find it didn't have a mic level control like the Kodak, which made recording loud concerts very problematic. I reluctantly made video and audio two separate functions, which is how I ended up with the Sony HX9V/Zoom H2n combo. But in addition to having to deal with two devices, the Sony recorded videos in a Blu-ray MTS format that created overly huge video files that were a pain to edit (or even play smoothly.). So while the combo worked, it was a pain in the butt overall. Hence my interest with the Q2HD: the specs indicates it combines a H2n with a high def video circuit that made it sound like it may be a finally a suitable replacement for my little Kodak/Sony combo.  So here's hoping....

[jtori]

Hi, Newbie here.  Hoping to learn from this forum.

I asked Zoom a similar question.  Here is an excerpt from my inquiry and the reply I received from Greg at Zoom:

Q:  "I wish to purchase either a Q3HD or the upcoming Q2HD to record my daughter's rock performances. Her band, Smudge Candy, performs in midsize venues (1,000-1,500 seats), outdoors (parks, amphitheaters) or pubs/clubs (100-200 seats). Can you advise which unit will yield the best results under these conditions? Obviously, audio quality matters."

A:  "I recommend the Q2HD, as it utilizes newer microphones, preamps, and lenses.  The Mid-Side mic pattern will help you adjust the stereo sound for each venue as well, which makes a much more versatile recorder in that regard."

Hope this helps.

Joe.

[eman]

Consider recruiting someone else to do the audio from a reasonable location, where they will not be moving the mics all around. Then add the audio in post.

[Alan_Schezar]

Quick update:

I recently bought the Q2HD and it performed terrible. The audio was worse than the Q3HD, and the ability to get video under dim light conditions was worse. I'll post some video samples later.

[MelodyMatters]

?? I was quite pleased with this video I took last night at a punk show under high volume and funky lighting: http://youtu.be/XGKlQO8v4no

[Alan_Schezar]

?? I was quite pleased with this video I took last night at a punk show under high volume and funky lighting: http://youtu.be/XGKlQO8v4no

Thanks for that link.

But for the most part, that video demonstrates 2 of the 3 main problems I had with the Q2HD compared to the Q3HD when I tested it. One is that the Q2 performed worse than the Q3 under low light conditions. The second is that although the vocals from the Q2 were clearer than Q3, the vocals have a more mono, hollow sound to them. The third problem was that the Q2 did not handle heavy, loud bass as well as the Q3.

Here are some examples of these 3 problems in action. Below is the video I took with the Q2HD which highlights all 3. The others are from the Q3HD for reference comparisons.


#1 - Q2HD: http://youtu.be/57srL8pIb6U?t=39s

1) As you can see, the lighting is dark to the point where you can barely see the singer. I elected to keep the setting on 'Concert', because when I tested using 'Night', a bright pink spot was just overlayed on the screen, resulting in a blown out center image.
2) The vocals are clear, but they sound almost mono.
3) As you can hear, the mics are struggling to keep up with the heavy bass, and you can often hear a buzzing or fluttering with the notes. (The Mid-Side mics were set to 120 degrees, with all other settings to the same as the Q3)


#2 - Q3HD: http://youtu.be/e3wiD_awN-I

1) The dim lighting conditions in this one are similar, yet the Q3HD does much better in capturing the image.
2) The vocals are quite soft compared to the rest of the music, but they do not have a mono-sound to them.
3) There is heavy bass in the song, but the mics capture it well and without buzzing.


#3 - Q3HD: http://youtu.be/PA1SCR8BrOo?t=58s

1) There is better lighting at this venue, but this is also the Q3's 'Concert' video setting.
2) Again, the vocals are quite soft and sometimes hard to hear over the rest of the music, which is why I thought the Q2's Mid mic would help solve this problem. However, I would rather have soft, good-sounding vocals than clearer, mono-sounding vocals.
3) Again, there is heavy bass in the song, but the mics capture it well and without buzzing.


#4 - Q3HD: http://youtu.be/ko56AHd_jg0?t=28s

1) This has even more dim lighting than the 1st and 2nd videos, which is why I elected for the Q3's 'Night' setting. As you can see, the action is quite clear, although there is a pinkish hue cast, and there are sometimes over-exposed images. However, it's much better than the Q2's 'Night' setting in which the images were completely blown out.



In conclusion, at worse, I expected the Q2HD's Mid-Side mics to have just as good audio as the Q3HD's X-Y's, but with a newer and slightly better camera lens. What I found was that the Q2 had worse overall audio, and a worse lens for dim lighting.

P.S. I hope people find this post useful.. I learned a lot reading through the threads, so I wanted to make sure I contributed back to it.

[SmokinJoe]

I'm not familiar with either of those particular devices.  I have the older model, Q3 I think? Pre HD.  I've been surprised how good the audio is... a lot better than R09 internals, anyway and miles above the average cell phone.

In general, not talking about these Q3 devices, I'm a huge fan of Mid/Side.  I listen with headphones/earbuds a lot, and generally XY is hard for me to listen to.  It sounds distant to me, no sense of space.  Mid/Side isn't that way at all.  I know there are people who will argue they are mathematically the same, but all I can say is my ears and the listening part of my brain is much happier with mid/side.  I've used an LSD2, 414's and ADK's for mid/side, and those same mics + SD mics for XY.  Now we have the AT4050ST, which is permanent mid/side, but it outputs a L/R signal as you describe you video recorder doing.  I'm constantly amazed how "listenable" those recordings are to me.  Generally I'm very happy with that fixed 127 degree setting, but it's easy in post to change width in post if I want to.  I do that probably 20% of the time.

Keep in mind if you are recording a mono mix, meaning the same sound is coming out of the Left and Right PA stacks, it can sound pretty mono.  I'm not sure tweaking the included angle is going to help that a lot.

[Gutbucket]

I'm a huge fan of Mid/Side.  I listen with headphones/earbuds a lot, and generally XY is hard for me to listen to.  It sounds distant to me, no sense of space.  Mid/Side isn't that way at all.  I know there are people who will argue they are mathematically the same, but all I can say is my ears and the listening part of my brain is much happier with mid/side.  I've used an LSD2, 414's and ADK's for mid/side, and those same mics + SD mics for XY.  Now we have the AT4050ST, which is permanent mid/side, but it outputs a L/R signal as you describe you video recorder doing.  I'm constantly amazed how "listenable" those recordings are to me.  Generally I'm very happy with that fixed 127 degree setting, but it's easy in post to change width in post if I want to.  I do that probably 20% of the time.

I was just listening to SmokinDaughtor Liz's AT4050ST recordings on the LMA last night which you linked to in another thread, Joe- they sound great!  I really dig it onstage in the 127 degree setting.

I suspect the difference in sound you ascribe to X/Y verses M/S is due to significant differences in polar patterns and their interaction, which aren’t especially obvious at first glance.  Yet after examining things more closely, those differences should be no more surprising than the expectation that cardioids often sound different than a hypercardioids used in an otherwise identical mic arrangement.

When most people think of X/Y, they think of using mics which have a cardioid pickup pattern, yet the virtual microphone patterns we get with practical M/S are never cardioid!

OK, I should never say never.. you can arrange things to form cardioid patterns but not in any practical mid/side arrangement anyone around here would use.*  Most people record Mid/Side using a cardioid pattern mid microphone, and I assume the AT4050ST is no different.  Mid/Side with a cardioid mid always decodes to a crossed pair of mics with some variation of hyper/supercardioid pattern.  The shape of that pattern changes depending on the mixing ratio, but it’s never a cardioid.*  An equal 50:50 mix ratio of cardioid mid and a fig-8 side produces the equivalent of 127 degree crossed hypercardioids.  So the more appropriate comparison would be with  X/Y hypercardioids arranged with a 127 angle between them, rather than X/Y cardioids crossed at any angle.

IME, the presence of reverse polarity rear lobes is essential for achieving a good sense of openness and space in a coincident mic arrangement, something  which almost always seems lacking with X/Y cardioids to my ear.  Fortunately standard Mid/Side using a cardioid mid provides exactly that, but X/Y hypercards would do the same.  A supercardioid mid mic can work especially well too IME, producing stereo patterns which are essentially one step closer to Blumlein crossed 8s, but not quite.. and the not quite often works in our favor.


*There are three ways I can think of to get a true cardioid pattern from M/S:

1) Use a cardioid mid and mix in no side at all.  The result is two forward facing cardioids with identical information in each channel- dual channel mono.  So this one doesn’t really count.

2) Use an omni mid and set the M/S decoding ratio to 50:50, which is the only ratio using an omni which will create cardioid virtual patterns.  Note that 50:50 is the only mix ratio that will do so, all other mix ratios will produce various subcardioid or supercardioid patterns from omni to figure 8.  The resulting virtual cardioid patterns will face in opposite directions with an angle of 180 degrees between them.  Anyone around here do that often?

3) Use a subcardioid mid and set the M/S decoding ratio to the one position which will create virtual cardioid patterns.  Again, there is only one mix ratio which produces virtual cardioid patterns, which will be a ratio with more mid than side.  The resulting cardioids will have a more reasonable mic angle of less than 180 degrees between them and this arrangement would probably be more useable than an omni mid for our type of recording, but that’s speculation as I’ve never done it or had any motivation to try it (as mentioned, I strongly prefer the sound of some opposite polarity lobe in my coincident setups, and I suspect that's the basis for Joe's preference as well). Anyone around here use a subcardioid mid often?  It could be an appropriate choice onstage I suppose, but I’d be more tempted to go in the opposite direction.

[Alan_Schezar]

I've been wondering... is there a reason why you can't do a Mid-Side/X-Y hybrid? Basically, replace the Side mics, which are in a figure-8 pickup pattern, with the X-Ys. That way you can have all the benefits of an X-Y and be able to increase the audio coming from the lead singer with the Mid mic. 

[Gutbucket]

Mid/Side and X/Y are already interchangable hybrids of each other. You can take any X/Y recording and re-adjust it's mid/side balance like you would a Mid/Side recording within the same limits.

In fact what you suggest is exactly how inexpensive mid/side mics and recorders incorporating them are typically built.  True figure 8 capsules are difficult and expensive to make compared to inexpensive and widely available cardioids, so most inexpensive gear creates a 'virtual' figure 8 side mic signal by substituting two cardioids pointing in opposite directions.  Both are summed together with the one pointing to the right wired with reverse polarity.  The result is a single virtual figure 8 'side' mic.  So these inexpensive M/S machines are actually built with three cardioid pattern capsules, and that's what you'd find if you took one apart.

To understand how that can work, and also the basis for how Mid/Side works, read up on Mid/Side around this site and elsewhere.