Topic: M/S vs Hypers/Wides/etc for Live Recording?

[stevetoney]

In researching our passion a bit more and exploring the possibility of getting into mid-side recording, a question comes up that I suppose has been asked before. 

So...mid-side recording gives one the ability to 'dial in' the width of the stereo image by effectively mixing in the side (or reverberant) component.  Isn't that effectively what we're trying to do in a live recording environment when we decide before the show if the environment would be best suited to hypercardioids or wide cardioids? 

What I'm getting at here with this question is that, my decision to run hypers (when I had them) was largely dependent upon my assessment of how boomy the room would sound.  The boomier the room, the more apt I would be to go with hypers.  While I didn't ever have them, I've read and it follows that wide cards are the opposite...the closer to the source you are the better wides would be to use.

So, wouldn't m/s recording effectively achieve the same goals as switching capsules around, but provide for a potentially better recording scenario since m/s should later enable me to vary the overall stereo and reverb effects to my liking instead of being locked in after I make a decision and commit to a specific capsule pattern?

[dbindc]

What I'm getting at here with this question is that, my decision to run hypers (when I had them) was largely dependent upon my assessment of how boomy the room would sound.  The boomier the room, the more apt I would be to go with hypers.  While I didn't ever have them, I've read and it follows that wide cards are the opposite...the closer to the source you are the better wides would be to use.

So, wouldn't m/s recording effectively achieve the same goals as switching capsules around, but provide for a potentially better recording scenario since m/s should later enable me to vary the overall stereo and reverb effects to my liking instead of being locked in after I make a decision and commit to a specific capsule pattern?

In theory maybe yes, but what you also have to consider is that you will be picking up a lot more of the sound directly around where you are set up running MS.  The  figure 8 capsule is firing directly to your right and left and it's going to pick up a lot more chatter and reverberated sound than say two hypers at 90 degrees aimed toward the stacks.  You could I suppose narrow down the soundstage in post by mixing in a lot more mid, but from my experience so far in a few boomy rooms you are far better off using the directional pattern mics unless you can setup onstage or very FOB. 

[stevetoney]

In theory maybe yes, but what you also have to consider is that you will be picking up a lot more of the sound directly around where you are set up running MS.  The  figure 8 capsule is firing directly to your right and left and it's going to pick up a lot more chatter and reverberated sound than say two hypers at 90 degrees aimed toward the stacks.  You could I suppose narrow down the soundstage in post by mixing in a lot more mid, but from my experience so far in a few boomy rooms you are far better off using the directional pattern mics unless you can setup onstage or very FOB. 

Is what you are saying based on your experience or based on theory?

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.

[Will_S]

Based on a mix of practice and theory:

I like m/s in a lot of situations.  But, you don't really control width and reverb independently.  If you want to cut out more side, you must reduce width and reverb simultaneously.  If you want a wider image, reverb goes up as well.

That said, you probably do have a better chance of getting things right in post, because even though you have to deal with a fixed set of width/reverb tradeoffs (set by your mic position, and initial choice of pattern for the mid capsule), at least you can try out a bunch of different combinations and pick the best compromise.

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° mixed 1:1, boosting the mid narrows the angle between virtual mics but also makes their patterns fatter).  But if you are somewhere that might range from acceptable to great sound, I like the flexibility of M/S, because in post you can go for a wide pattern if the location ended up sounding great and a narrower pattern if it turned out not so hot.

[Todd R]

It doesn't really matter that the fig8 is firing directly right and left, since you would be mixing it so that it picks up the same amount that the hypers or cards or whatever that you would be mimicing, so if you had those actual mics you would get that same amount of side information.

But the issue that this really gets at, the side firing fig8, is that with MS the included angle between the virtual mics is set depending on whether you are mimicing hypers vs cards, etc.  So if you want to mix down to hypers, you will have a smaller included angle, and if you want to mix down to subcards you will have a larger included angle.  This is one of the biggest limitations of MS recording, as far as I can tell.

All that said, schoeps (I think) has developed the technique of double-MS recording that uses a card forward and a card rearword, together with the fig8, that allows you to independently choose mic pattern and included angle as you mix down.  There's been a lot of discussion on ts.com on the double MS technique.

[Will_S]

So if you want to mix down to hypers, you will have a smaller included angle, and if you want to mix down to subcards you will have a larger included angle.

I think this is backwards.  With a cardioid mid, the smaller the included angle, the more cardioid-like (fatter) the virtual mics, and the larger the included angle, the more figure 8-like (directional).  You can't get anything fatter than a virtual cardioid out with a cardioid mid.

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.

[stevetoney]

It doesn't really matter that the fig8 is firing directly right and left, since you would be mixing it so that it picks up the same amount that the hypers or cards or whatever that you would be mimicing, so if you had those actual mics you would get that same amount of side information.

But the issue that this really gets at, the side firing fig8, is that with MS the included angle between the virtual mics is set depending on whether you are mimicing hypers vs cards, etc.  So if you want to mix down to hypers, you will have a smaller included angle, and if you want to mix down to subcards you will have a larger included angle.  This is one of the biggest limitations of MS recording, as far as I can tell.
All that said, schoeps (I think) has developed the technique of double-MS recording that uses a card forward and a card rearword, together with the fig8, that allows you to independently choose mic pattern and included angle as you mix down.  There's been a lot of discussion on ts.com on the double MS technique.

Todd, thanks for the response.  It's logical and I understand everything you said, but I don't understand the conclusion that I've highlighted in bold.  Why is that considered a limitation to M/S recording.  Wouldn't having flexibility to mix to virtual hyper sound or virtual subcard sound be a desirable flexibility rather than a limitation?

[Brian Skalinder]

When I'm reasonably close, I like M/S because of the option to retain some control over the stereo width / ratio of direct to indirect sound when decoding M/S to stereo.  IME, the problem, as I move farther back from the source -- especially in crappy sounding rooms -- is that the more I dial back the Side to remove indirect sound and "room boom", the more mono the recording becomes.  I generally don't prefer mono-ish recordings.  Even if the PA is mono, a stereo environment (room, crowd, etc.) is a big part of what makes a recording "come alive" for me.  So I generally try to avoid mono-ish recordings, if possible.

In cruddy sounding rooms -- at a certain distance -- I generally prefer spaced cards (hypers would work, too) because it provides better stereo imaging while still minimizing indirect sound and "room boom".  The trade-off, of course:  do I want better stereo imaging (spaced) or better indirect sound and "room boom" rejection (M/S).  At a certain distance, in a cruddy sounding room, it becomes increasingly difficult to achieve both.  In these cases, I'll run the cards with wider spacing and smaller included angle.  The greater spacing provides difference-in-time stereo (which M/S does not offer) while the smaller included angle provides greater direct sound relative to indirect sound (though not as much as reducing or removing the Side in M/S, unless the included angle approaches 0º).  Now, running spaced cards, I've lost the flexibility of decoding in post, but in these cases I basically know that the only way I'll get a suitable recording M/S is to dial down the Side so much that the recording becomes very mono.

(FWIW, I've used Stereophonic Zoom as a rough guideline for getting started with my spacing / angles, and adjusted accordingly to my tastes and environment.  I've long seen tapers running wide spaced cards with a very small included angle, and I'd never really had anyone explain effectively why (think "dude, it just works"), until I read Stereophonic Zoom.)

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).  Some people simply prefer difference-in-time stereo, while others prefer difference-in-intensity stereo.  My personal preference:  the closer I am to the sound source, the more I prefer difference-in-intensity;  the farther I am from the sound source, the more I prefer difference-in-time.

Not sure if that addresses your questions or not, or even helps, but...$0.02.

[stevetoney]

^ Of course it helps.  Awesome response.  Thanks alot Brian.

[dbindc]

Any conclusions I've made are purely based on my rather limited experience with MS rather than any sound theory knowledge.  I only got the figure 8 cap a few months ago and have done maybe 7-8 recordings with it.  But as far as recording MS in less than stellar sounding rooms, Brian's post pretty much sums up my perceptions.

[stevetoney]

Any conclusions I've made are purely based on my rather limited experience with MS rather than any sound theory knowledge.  I only got the figure 8 cap a few months ago and have done maybe 7-8 recordings with it.  But as far as recording MS in less than stellar sounding rooms, Brian's post pretty much sums up my perceptions.

Thanks dbindc and everyone else.  Being new to this technique, I had done some studying the last two days and the answers all of you provided really helped me to understand how best to apply it.  I know at some point I'll pick up that ak20, it's just a matter of when. 

[JD]

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?

Would this be a good way of adding some ambiance to a mono recording?

I keep toying around with this idea for a festival I record, where I must stay near the board and there is too much chatter for a straight audience recording. Plugging into the board is no problem, but it's a mono feed and sounds pretty lifeless. Also, I'd rather not deal with running more than 2 tracks.

[Gutbucket]

Brian nailed it while I was typing, so I've deleted most of it..

But also keep in mind that you can manipulate the mid/side ratio of any stereo recording using any mic technique after the fact.  If the recording was not mic'd as mid & side, you only need to encode it to M/S first.  Technically, its foolproof with any coincident mic technique, but I often find it useful for spaced mics to perfect the soundstage, theory be damned, use your ears.

As for crowd pickup- IME, if the mics are on a stand above the crowd, the figure-8 will be picking up the side reverberant sound of the room strongly, but can actually pickup less nearby chatter because it has its null pointing straight down, backwards and forward and increases in sensitivity as the input angle approaches horizontal towards the sides (above eveyone's heads).  It would be somewhat similar in that aspect to a cardioid pointed at the ceiling, but a cardioid would also pick up chatter from in front and behind.

Disclaimer- I rarely use hypers, I've only used M/S up close & if forced to choose, I have a general time-difference preference.

[Gutbucket]

Has anyone ever tried to use a mono SBD feed for the Mid channel on a M/S recording?

Hmmm. Maybe. You'd have to use a figure 8 as the single mic and closely time-align the two tracks. You might be better off just running stereo mics but I'd like to hear it.  Interesting idea.

[fotoralf.be]

You'd have to use a figure 8 as the single mic and closely time-align the two tracks.

I see another prob there. This would only work as long as the fig-8 is behind or in front of the source of the M signal. Shift it, say, to the let and you'd have to delay the S signal components coming from the left and advance those coming from the right. I mean, if you have a recipe for doing this, I'd be all too glad to hear about that. Might help to solve a bunch of related probs. ;-)

Pending that solution, I guess we all would be well advised to stick to coincident MS arrangements.

Ralf

[page]

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.

[SmokinJoe]

The one thing I haven't heard mentioned yet is "where is the sound coming from?"  Pointing the capsules at the sound source reduces off axis coloration.  I think Mid/Side is great in some situations, but it's not universal.

If I'm stage lip, I love mid/side, because sound really is coming from dead ahead, and off to the sides.  So I point a capsule ahead, and another to the sides and do what I want in post.

If I'm I'm back a ways, at "the sweet spot" with stacks (.707xstackwidth) then it's a 90* shot from my mic to the stacks (45* left, and 45*right) so XY90 is pointed at stacks.  If I run Mid/Side from that same location, then the sound is hitting my caps off-axis.  Remember those polar plots where higher frequencies are more directional than the low frequencies?  That's what happens here, and you end up with a lot of "off axis coloration".  Depending on your mic, that may be OK, or maybe not. The extreme example is being at a big outside festival 200' from stage.  Mid captures sound from stacks, and side captures people talking, and since there are there are no walls to create reverberation, the side channel is pretty useless.

The above paragraph is my theory, but my experience with my LSD2 backs it up.  Stage lip M/S sounds good and is easy to mix in post.  With M/S from a distance (even balcony rail) I labor over the mixing and I'm never quite satisfied with the way it sounds...

[Todd R]

So if you want to mix down to hypers, you will have a smaller included angle, and if you want to mix down to subcards you will have a larger included angle.

I think this is backwards.  With a cardioid mid, the smaller the included angle, the more cardioid-like (fatter) the virtual mics, and the larger the included angle, the more figure 8-like (directional).  You can't get anything fatter than a virtual cardioid out with a cardioid mid.

Oops, thanks for the correction -- I knew I'd screw that up.  Going off my poor memory, bad idea.

[Todd R]

It doesn't really matter that the fig8 is firing directly right and left, since you would be mixing it so that it picks up the same amount that the hypers or cards or whatever that you would be mimicing, so if you had those actual mics you would get that same amount of side information.

But the issue that this really gets at, the side firing fig8, is that with MS the included angle between the virtual mics is set depending on whether you are mimicing hypers vs cards, etc.  So if you want to mix down to hypers, you will have a smaller included angle, and if you want to mix down to subcards you will have a larger included angle.  This is one of the biggest limitations of MS recording, as far as I can tell.
All that said, schoeps (I think) has developed the technique of double-MS recording that uses a card forward and a card rearword, together with the fig8, that allows you to independently choose mic pattern and included angle as you mix down.  There's been a lot of discussion on ts.com on the double MS technique.

Todd, thanks for the response.  It's logical and I understand everything you said, but I don't understand the conclusion that I've highlighted in bold.  Why is that considered a limitation to M/S recording.  Wouldn't having flexibility to mix to virtual hyper sound or virtual subcard sound be a desirable flexibility rather than a limitation?

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.  The ability of MS to mimic different patterns is its greatest strength I'd say.  The fact that once a mic pattern is set, the MS technique therefore defines an included angle (meaning you can't independently choose mic pattern and mic angle at the same time) is its weakness.  Not that I've tried it, but that seems to me to be the beauty of double MS -- you can decide you want to virtually decode the mics to give you hypercards at 70 degrees for instance, instead of hypercards at 135 degrees, etc, etc.

[Gutbucket]

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)

Ambisonics!
Pick your angle and pattern independently.

[page]

The one thing I haven't heard mentioned yet is "where is the sound coming from?"  Pointing the capsules at the sound source reduces off axis coloration.  I think Mid/Side is great in some situations, but it's not universal.

If I'm stage lip, I love mid/side, because sound really is coming from dead ahead, and off to the sides.  So I point a capsule ahead, and another to the sides and do what I want in post.

The above paragraph is my theory, but my experience with my LSD2 backs it up.  Stage lip M/S sounds good and is easy to mix in post.  With M/S from a distance (even balcony rail) I labor over the mixing and I'm never quite satisfied with the way it sounds...

1) I've found M/S to be a great teaching tool in sound source detection. There is a venue here (Toad's Place in Richmond) that I've found my best response comes not from the stacks, but at about 110-115deg cause the balcony funnels the sound back toward the board.

2) I agree with the note about M/S from a distance. I'm rarely completely happy with my final product, however I find I'm generally more happy then I am when I run regular cards at a set angle.

Ambisonics!
Pick your angle and pattern independently.

This is ultimately what I'm moving to... you know, once I win the lottery.   

[Gutbucket]

Your intensity difference preference would make ambisonics an appropriate lottery winner indulgence.

Why not play the Powerball and run spaced ambisonic mics for some time difference flavor too. 

[run_run_run]

I have only run M/S once DFC from a small venue at the balcony rail. The issue I had is what Joe is talking about, my mid card is picking up allot of off axis, it alone sounds harsh.

http://www.archive.org/details/alta2008-11-05.SPC3s_MidSide_UA5

Days of mixing but I am pretty happy with it. I have the ratio written down somewhere, but its more mid then side.

[Gutbucket]

Days of mixing but I am pretty happy with it.

I've found that with my stage-lip M/S recordings I've needed to fiddle with things in post more than I would have preferred to get the sound I wanted, and I'm a fiddler.  Though I haven't done that many of either, It's been easier for me to dial in my current technique of stagelip spaced omnis + center X/Y cards or four omnis in a row. [shrug]

[run_run_run]

what about an omni as your mid?

[Gutbucket]

For the stage-lip application that might work well, and would also provide the option for 3 omnis in a row (by just muting the 8 ). I decided the last time I did M/S (cardioid mid) with flanking omnis that I'd try an omni mid next.  Hasn't happened yet.

[edit for accidental smiley, the 8 ) = seems a common keystroke combo]

[page]

what about an omni as your mid?

back to back cards that can change to back to back subcards.

I've done it before, it's ok. Neat experiment, but I wouldn't record anything with it that I was the clutch taper for.

[stevetoney]

Days of mixing but I am pretty happy with it. I have the ratio written down somewhere, but its more mid then side.

The reason I started this thread is because I haven't done any M/S and have been thinking about it...mainly as a decision maker in whether my next capsule purchase will be a pair of hypers or a Figure 8.

However, as a m/s noob and since I've never mixed an m/s recording, again I'm confused by the comment that I quoted and a response someone made.  Besides getting the tracks aligned in post (taking the two tracks from the show and assigning them to three tracks in your DAW, then swapping polarity in the two mid tracks) isn't mixing just a matter of adjusting the relative level of the mid source to a level that sounds best to you? 

What else can be done with an m/s source, such that you guys are saying that you fiddled with it for days? 

[F.O.Bean]

I'm VERY INTRIGUED by this thread My next capsule purchase is DEF a fig8. I plan on using it stage-lip mainly, like most have already said

[Will_S]

Besides getting the tracks aligned in post (taking the two tracks from the show and assigning them to three tracks in your DAW, then swapping polarity in the two mid tracks) isn't mixing just a matter of adjusting the relative level of the mid source to a level that sounds best to you? 

What else can be done with an m/s source, such that you guys are saying that you fiddled with it for days? 

I think they're mainly just fussing with the stereo width interminably.  To me, it seems pretty obvious when it's "right", or at least as right as it's going to get.

However, you can try boosting the bass a bit in the side (perhaps with a corresponding cut in the mid), which can give a bit more of a spacious feel.  I guess because mics are usually less directional in the bass, thus your stereo image will be compressed in the low frequencies if you don't compensate somehow - this may be part of why a lot of folks prefer time+intensity differences rather than just intensity.

[stevetoney]

Besides getting the tracks aligned in post (taking the two tracks from the show and assigning them to three tracks in your DAW, then swapping polarity in the two mid tracks) isn't mixing just a matter of adjusting the relative level of the mid source to a level that sounds best to you? 

What else can be done with an m/s source, such that you guys are saying that you fiddled with it for days? 

I think they're mainly just fussing with the stereo width interminably.  To me, it seems pretty obvious when it's "right", or at least as right as it's going to get.

However, you can try boosting the bass a bit in the side (perhaps with a corresponding cut in the mid), which can give a bit more of a spacious feel.  I guess because mics are usually less directional in the bass, thus your stereo image will be compressed in the low frequencies if you don't compensate somehow - this may be part of why a lot of folks prefer time+intensity differences rather than just intensity.

Thanks Will.  Your answer is kinda what I figured. 

[Gutbucket]

For me it was partly an issue of fiddling with the ratio, but I could dial that part in pretty quickly.  It was more of an issue of the sound of the mic I was using- I got deep into eq'ing the Mid differently than the Side to get the sound that was in my head to come out of the speakers.  The technique opens up a lot of options which is nice, but options can be a Pandora's box.  I did get the sound I wanted, but you can always do a little better right?

General eq balance issues aside, boosting the low end of the side mic can be done to compensate for the difference in low end response between the mid and side mics.  Its more of a low frequency width issue than an eq balance. The figure-8 low end response roll off is usually more pronounced than the mid mic.  That translates as less side information than mid information at the lowest octaves, making the very low bass more mono than the rest of the spectrum for any given overall M/S ratio.

Buy eq'ing the mid and side signals separately, you are actually changing the M/S matrix ratio for those frequencies and changing the width of the stereo image.

Instead of doing the M/S decoding the old way with 3 tracks, check out the free Voxengo MEed plugin.  It's simple and can decode, encode, or both (which allows you to simply adjust the width/pattern of a non-M/S recording).

Even if you don't end up using the mic'ing technique much, playing with M/S in the DAW can be a valuable hands-on auditory learning tool to wrap you brain around.

[Will_S]

The figure-8 low end response roll off is usually more pronounced than the mid mic.  That translates as less side information than mid information at the lowest octaves, making the very low bass more mono than the rest of the spectrum for any given overall M/S ratio.

As a practical matter, I'm sure this plays into why "spatial equalization" works well with M/S recordings, but I've also seen the same approach (boosting the bass in a derived side channel) advocated for recordings made with a pair of cardioids.

[Gutbucket]

True, I bet the root of that is the same though- most cardioids get more omnish at the bottom so a stereo pair would have more mid and less difference in the stereo signal down there.  But here could be some psychoacoustics going on too.

Will, do you know if boosting the bass in a derived side signal is what a 'Blumlein Shuffler' circuit does?

[Will_S]

Will, do you know if boosting the bass in a derived side signal is what a 'Blumlein Shuffler' circuit does?

I don't think so, or at least that's not all it does.  I have a book at home that I think offers at least a basic explanation, I'll check it out tonight.

[boojum]

True, I bet the root of that is the same though- most cardioids get more omnish at the bottom so a stereo pair would have more mid and less difference in the stereo signal down there.  But here could be some psychoacoustics going on too.

Will, do you know if boosting the bass in a derived side signal is what a 'Blumlein Shuffler' circuit does?

Does this answer the question?

http://www.technicalcrew.com/modules/wordbook/entry.php?entryID=20

[Gutbucket]

Thanks Boojum, that link implies that boosting the bass in the side signal can be a side effect of the shuffler circuit which is primarily designed to convert the phase differences to amplitude differences.  It would appear it's perhaps related but not the same thing.

The Blumlein shuffler is a real mystery to me and I'd like to understand it's implications better.  Before inventing the mic technique that bears his name, he used omnis with a baffle disk and that shuffler circuit.. inventing an advanced Jecklin disk technique in 1932-33.  Amazing.  Yet I haven't found much more in depth information about it on the web than basic descriptions like the one linked above.  Could be interesting to experiment with for a jecklin disk or spaced omnis.

I'd love to know what you dig up Will.

[Will_S]

I'd love to know what you dig up Will.

My book doesn't really go into much more detail than that link, unfortunately. 

[DSatz]

Gutbucket, your statement:

> [ ... ] most cardioids get more omnish at the bottom so a stereo pair would have more mid and less difference in the stereo signal down there.

... doesn't generally apply to single-diaphragm cardioids, which can very well maintain their directional pattern down to the lowest frequencies in their range. The difference in effect is considerable, both for M/S and X/Y stereo recording, since the listener's sense of spaciousness is closely tied to the difference in low-frequency energy between channels (more specifically, to low correlation between the two channels at low frequencies). Dual-diaphragm cardioids are basically wide cardioids at low frequencies, so the low-frequency pickup of a stereo pair of them tends to be very nearly mono.

Incidentally (or not), this phenomenon is probably responsible for the mistaken impression that large microphones have better bass than small microphones. Nearly every large-diaphragm microphone ever made has had a dual-diaphragm capsule. A large dual-diaphragm "cardioid" microphone will pick up low-frequency sound energy from all directions in a room, while its pattern will become narrower than a true cardioid at high frequencies. See the attached polar diagram for a microphone based on a dual-diaphragm capsule design which has been very important in the history of recording. Along with that I've attached the polar diagram for a good single-diaphragm cardioid from the same manufacturer, which remains a cardioid all the way down. Similar examples could be shown with microphones from other manufacturers.

--best regards

P.S.: With regard to Alan Blumlein's "phase shuffler," you have to realize that Blumlein mostly didn't use what is now called the "Blumlein" stereo recording method, and didn't do so at all in the beginning. One of his patents describes the method in principle, and many years later the method of using crossed figure-8s was named in his honor. But as I recall no figure-8 microphones were available to him at the time of his early stereo recording experiments (though they certainly existed), so he devised the phase shuffler to help emulate their effect with near-coincident omni (!) microphones. I'll try to dig up some references.

[page]

True, I bet the root of that is the same though- most cardioids get more omnish at the bottom so a stereo pair would have more mid and less difference in the stereo signal down there.  But here could be some psychoacoustics going on too.

I've wondered about that, I get my spaciousness of the room/soundstage/whatever in my MS stuff from those bottom frequencies and not in anything above about 3k.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your remark (or my hearing really sucks that badly... eithers possible)

[Gutbucket]

I'll try to dig up some references.

I'd love to hear more about this.

[stevetoney]

Took the plunge and bought Pilgrims AK20.  Good deal for $700, but now I have to figure out how to pay for it.  Oh the joys of taping.  My motto when it comes to gear; leap then look.

[rowjimmy]

Late to this thread but I thought I'd chime in as a sort-of n00b in m/s in a live setting.

I use m/s at home to record acoustic guitar + vocal demos and I freakin love it. So, I went to a show recently and ran m/s. It was one where I usually see other tapers so I wasn't worried about being the only taper and making a shitty tape. Experimenting was more interesting anyway.

So, I get there and I'm the only taper. Given that I had just become a section of one, (plus my one blocker) I retreated to the sbd and took my chances. the results were pleasing but not perfect. Ideally I would have been closer with the config but the recording certainly sounds a lot like what I heard at the show.

rig was as follows: Studio Projects B1 (mid) + Cascade Fathead Ribbon (side) > SD MP-2 > nJB3
I used the voxengo MSed plugin in post (very easy plugin and FREE!) and got it tweaked to my satisfaction.

You can listen here http://www.archive.org/details/kw2008-12-26.rj  but, it's Keller Williams so I won't be surprised if you don't.