Cool, hope that stuff was fun and not too much of a drag.
Okay, so it was subcard Mid 2nd set, rather than supercard. Lots of options with 5 switchable polar-pattern choices on the 414's! I downloaded the files and the txt file confirms subcard 2nd set.
Here's a better general take on the M/S virtual microphone patterns using different Mid patterns than the simplified version I posted above. A 50/50 M/S decode ratio of a recording made using the following Mid patterns with will produce the following approximate virtual X/Y pairs and –
the following approximate overall combined sensitivity patterns: Bare with me here, I know most members here understand the virtual pattern and angle relationship with Mid/Side, we’ve had extensive threads on it before. It’s consideration of the
overall combined sensitivity patterns of the pair that I’m really trying to get at here. Here's the clincher- notice that a subcardioid Mid and a supercardioid Mid will produce aproximately the same overall combined pattern sensitivity! Even though they obviously produce very different virtual left and right pickup pattern and angles.
> With an omni Mid, the M/S decode = a virtual X/Y cardioid pair with a 180 degree angle between them -
combined sensitivity of the pair is omnidirectional.> With a subcardioid Mid, the M/S decode = a virtual X/Y supercardioid-ish pair at a ~150 degree angle - combined sensitivity of the pair is forward biased and sort of wide-cardioid like in shape.
> With a cardioid Mid, the M/S decode = a virtual X/Y pair of mics with patterns between super and hypercardioid at a ~130 degree angle - combined sensitivity of the pair is forward facing cardioid like.> With a supercardioid Mid, the M/S decode = a virtual X/Y hypercardioid-ish pair with a ~110 degree angle between them -
combined sensitivity of the pair is again forward biased somewhat and sort of wide-cardioid like in shape.> With a fig-8 Mid the M/S decode = a virtual X/Y pair of figure 8s with a 90 degree angle between them (Blumlein) -
combined sensitivity of the pair is back to omnidirectional again.
Your examples are highlighted in bold. Now this all assumes equal gain settings for both the Mid and Side channels when the recording is made, and a 50/50 matrix ratio when decoding. If you adjust the recording gains for each channel separately (perhaps recording the Side channel with additional gain so that both M and S channels peak similarly) that will change the ratio just like adjusting the matrix ratio when decoding. In that case the angles between the virtual X/Y microphones vary and the shapes of the virtual polar patterns do too. Standard M/S stuff. Since we usually end up adjusting the M/S ratio while listening, we may end up with somewhat different patterns and angles making the shapes and angles I list above somewhat academic. Still it helps me in trying to relate the differences in virtual patterns with the differences in sound of the samples.
Unlike M/S, Ambisonic decoding and Schoeps double M/S decoding (which is basically horizontal-only first order ambisonics) unlinks the independency of virtual pattern and virtual angle, allowing either pattern or angle to be changed without affecting the other. When I play around with different ambisonic decodes and can adjust microphone pattern and angle independently, I often find myself homing in on two prefered general settings: Either a crossed supercardioid-like pattern with about a 110 inclusive angle, or a subcardioid pair with an approximate 150 degree inclusive angle. The imaging between those is very different and the tonality is different, but a certain shared similarlity of a different kind between those two otherwise very different configurations has struck me more than once. In those situations I could be happy with of those two settings, and not with others.
I think that relates to a critical importance in considering the overall combined sensitivity of pair. It's partly why I similary consider not just the level balance between the direct/reverberant sound but the tonality balance and the corellation relationship between the direct and reverberant components the most important aspect of a recording. I now realize it's also a basic foundational element behind working up the PAS table and revisiting it again earlier this year.