Author Topic: Schoeps Mid-Side (Read 25207 times)

BayTaynt3d · « **on:** November 14, 2007, 01:16:35 AM »

I've been listening to some of these sources on the LMA, and I'm honestly blown away by the ones from environments like I often record: acoustic or mostly acoustic recorded from on stage or stage lip. The more I think about mid-side, the more I think it might suite my typical scenario. And then those Schoeps sound so clean, no noise, and are so low-profile, I'm starting to drool over the whole idea.

Anyone have any first-hand experience with this type of rig? Are there any situations where mid-side is bad? My instinct is that I'd rather run DIN or NOS from far away, and XY and MS come into their own up close, but what do I know? And, gulp, what would an active MS Schoeps setup set me back new/used? A lot I imagine...

Teen Wolf Blitzer · « **Reply #1 on:** November 14, 2007, 01:35:48 AM »

Gulp. Are you ready? $3800.00.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Schoeps-CCM-8L-CCM-8-CCM8-Figure-8-Microphone_W0QQitemZ120183502560
http://cgi.ebay.com/Schoeps-CCM-41L-CCM-41-CCM41-Hypercardioid-Microphone_W0QQitemZ120183498957

Tim · « **Reply #2 on:** November 14, 2007, 01:44:02 AM »

Quote from: BayTaynt3d on November 14, 2007, 01:16:35 AM

My instinct is that I'd rather run DIN or NOS from far away, and XY and MS come into their own up close, but what do I know?

I'd be inclined to run M/S from farther back (as well as upclose) as you can dial in just exactly the amount of reverberant sound. My gut would tell me to stay away from NOS if in TS as the wide spacing would introduce too much reverberant sound

M/S does sound sweet

bobbygeeWOW · « **Reply #3 on:** November 14, 2007, 10:47:00 AM »

With ya 100% - MS on stage(lip) to gain phase-free coincidence + 180 degree recordable stereo angle that you can dial down later to widen the image if it works out that way, and near coincident goodness when back a bit.

BayTaynt3d · « **Reply #4 on:** November 14, 2007, 10:51:29 AM »

Quote from: tapermark on November 14, 2007, 01:35:48 AM

Gulp. Are you ready? $3800.00.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Schoeps-CCM-8L-CCM-8-CCM8-Figure-8-Microphone_W0QQitemZ120183502560
http://cgi.ebay.com/Schoeps-CCM-41L-CCM-41-CCM41-Hypercardioid-Microphone_W0QQitemZ120183498957

I'm a little confused about the different options I have with Schoeps. The F8 is obvious for the S, but I'm thinking I might want a card and a hyper for M b/c I might also use this rig for ambient sound effects and whatnot too, not to mention that hyper might be nice depending on the room. So do Schoeps have interchangable caps too, but that are still actives? Also, the ebay links you provided, do you typically have to buy the cables as an additional expense? Those mics don't need bodies right? But the ones that are interchangeable do have bodies, correct?

bobbygeeWOW · « **Reply #5 on:** November 14, 2007, 10:56:31 AM »

Yer basically looking at modular vs. compact

http://schoeps.de/E-2004/overview-mod-mics.html

http://schoeps.de/E-2004/overview-compact-mics.html

Where the modular (colette series) have an active cable system and interchangable caps.

CQBert · « **Reply #6 on:** November 14, 2007, 11:34:54 AM »

I have borrowed a M/S rig numerous times... The owner had a 21H doing the mid and it was really nice. The slight emphasis on the high's was welcome and helped keep things centered very well.

I always ran it as Left and Right and did the mixing in post rather than use the M/S Decoder in the VMS box.

CQBert

Kevin Straker · « **Reply #7 on:** November 14, 2007, 11:40:53 AM »

You would need cmc6 bodies(720.00 each), kc5 active cables(486.00 each), mk8 (1015.00), and mk4(648.00) or mk41(845.00). These are the new prices and will be the same at every retailer.

Tim · « **Reply #8 on:** November 14, 2007, 12:04:37 PM »

Quote from: CQBert on November 14, 2007, 11:34:54 AM

I have borrowed a M/S rig numerous times... The owner had a 21H doing the mid and it was really nice. The slight emphasis on the high's was welcome and helped keep things centered very well.

that's a really interesting idea

CQBert · « **Reply #9 on:** November 14, 2007, 12:25:39 PM »

You can forgo the bodies if you go to lemo connections where you plug directly into a VMS or a LemoSax but neither of those options save you any money and may cost more if you buy new..

I would suggest trying to find a M/S Rig for sale and purchased used... you can buy a cap or two down the road...

They sound great but do not fall into the trap of trying to mix and re-mix and re-mix in post... get it once and call it a day...

CQBert

BayTaynt3d · « **Reply #10 on:** November 14, 2007, 08:55:58 PM »

New idea...

I'm wondering how an MK8 for the side and one of my 480s used for the mid would sound together? This seems financially more viable cause $1K gets me the MK8, and then I already have omni, card, and hyper caps for my AKG. It'd still end up being fairly low profile still too if I had a good way to mount it. What do you guys think about that?

CQBert · « **Reply #11 on:** November 14, 2007, 10:16:05 PM »

I would suggest borrowing a Schoeps fig8 and trying it out to see if you like it...

You can always start small and work up to adding in the Schoeps on down the road.

I am not real familiar with the AKG's and what pre-amps they tend to sound best with - you may want to consider how both mics will sound good through whatever you are running.

If you plan to mix mic brands I would ask around and see if there are any concerns with phantom power or other issues that might creep up - I have never done this but I know people on the board have... always better safe than sorry with your gear and your money.

I ran u89's for a while and loved the M/S recordings I made so I encourage you to expand your horizons.

CQBert

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #12 on:** November 14, 2007, 10:23:06 PM »

Quote from: BayTaynt3d on November 14, 2007, 08:55:58 PM

New idea...

I'm wondering how an MK8 for the side and one of my 480s used for the mid would sound together? This seems financially more viable cause $1K gets me the MK8, and then I already have omni, card, and hyper caps for my AKG. It'd still end up being fairly low profile still too if I had a good way to mount it. What do you guys think about that?

If you want to get into M/S on the cheap, look into the MBHO series. They sell Cards/Hypers/Subcards/Omnis and a KA800 N Fig-8 capsule. I am buying that fig-8 capsule AS SOON as I can afford it. I wouldnt mix mic companies if I were you. The Schoeps fig-8 would have more lowend and the AKG would be more neutral, that would be a NIGHTMARE IMO to mix down in post, because instead of mixing the M/S down, youd also prolly have to EQ as well.......

The MBHO's are HIGHLY overlooked mics IMO. They have a capsule arsenal onlys econd to Schoeps and sound just as good as most higher priced mics IMO. I do think they benefit from a wamer preamp tho ala the Aerco MP-2 I am purchasing in a few months to run in front of my 722 for my 480's/MBHO's....Youc an get an MBHO KA800 N fig-8 capsule for around 600/shipped and a pair of Cards or hypers around that same price new for the pair.....Only thing I havent figured out yet is mounting them in M/S. I will prolly jus6t end up using my AT 8415+K-Tek K-SUS HD mounts with my shure vert bar like I use with my 480's since theyre both the same diameter and I will just haev to run the MBHO's with the full bodies on the stand. not as low-pro as Id like with M/S, but I already have everything I need to run them that way, minus the Fig-8 capsule

BTW, here is an MBHO Hypers>722 rig so you can judge the sound of them as a start: I think you'll agree that the MBHO's are HIGHLY overlooked for some odd reason

Perpetual Groove 10/24/2007 MBHO KA500 HN Hypers>722(DINa KwonBar/3'ROC/FOB)

16-Bit
http://www.archive.org/details/pgroove2007-10-24.ka500.722.flac16

24-Bit
http://www.archive.org/details/pgroove2007-10-24.ka500.722.flac24

bobbygeeWOW · « **Reply #13 on:** November 14, 2007, 11:35:13 PM »

For general interest, according to Don Pearson (Healy's right hand man), Howard Danchik was using an AKG C34 in MS with card+figure8 to feed their UltraMatrix machine for quite a while.

BayTaynt3d · « **Reply #14 on:** November 15, 2007, 12:17:41 AM »

Quote from: Bean on November 14, 2007, 10:23:06 PM

Youc an get an MBHO KA800 N fig-8 capsule for around 600/shipped

Yeah, but then I need the body too. The Schoeps would be cheaper and more low profile if I just needed a fig-8 only wouldn't it?

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #15 on:** November 15, 2007, 12:32:37 AM »

Quote from: BayTaynt3d on November 15, 2007, 12:17:41 AM

Quote from: Bean on November 14, 2007, 10:23:06 PM
Youc an get an MBHO KA800 N fig-8 capsule for around 600/shipped

Yeah, but then I need the body too. The Schoeps would be cheaper and more low profile if I just needed a fig-8 only wouldn't it?

I DOUBT the Schoeps would be ANY cheaper bud

And the MBHO's ahve an active optiopn as well. Thats what I run, the MBHO 603 A bodies are the active bodies. If you ONLY wanted the F-8+body, and are intent on using your Akg's as the mid mic, you can prolly score a 603 or 603a body + fig-8 capsule for around 1k-1100 or so. the schoeps capsule is that much alone. youd still need a body with the schoeps unless you spent teh BOOKOO bucks on the CCM8, which is the CCM series that doesnt have a full body, and I bet those are about 2k a piece, give or take

The MBHO's would def be cheaper and thats with the capsule+body. since youre akg's are ful-bodied anyway, it wouldnt be a huge ordeal getting the 603 A non-active MBHO body+ KA800N fig8 capsule....You could *probably* score the MBHO 603 A(pair)+KA800N fig8 capsule+a pair of either the KA200 N(Cards) or the KA500 HN(Hypers) pairs for around 2k if you got everything used but the KA800N fig8 capsule, since thyre VERY RARE used....

I would stray away from mixing mic companies if I were you. Your cheapest and easiest route would be to get an LSD2(with those KILLER modded Peluso caps that Busman does) or just that Peluso P Stereo mic ouright......I would bet that the stock LSD2 sound sgood enough anyway tho......For $750 or so new, you could get that LSD2 and it does M/S, XY, and Bluemein all in one stereo mic

Thats what I would do if I were you. Since I already own the MBHO 603 A's+their Cards and Hypers, my cheapest and stealthiest/easiest route would be to just get the MBHO KA800N fig8 capsule, althou a new LSD2 wouldnt be much more than that, with more options taboot.....

The Schoeps are def wonderful mics, but are you willing to spend around 3-4k just for M/S from them

Thats the question you have to ask yourself

And then youd need an extra mk4 or mk41 to run those in stereo pairs when you dontw ant to use the M/S setup! I would think a Busman Peluso modded LSD2 would sound damn near as good as ANY stereo mic on the market, even those ultra sweet/rare AKG stereo mics that everyone loves......I heave heard his Peluso Modded ADK TL mics and they sound ASTONISHING with the Peluso Capsule upgrade

His Peluso capsule upgrades are pricey as hell, but IMO theyre worth every penny.....

BayTaynt3d · « **Reply #16 on:** November 15, 2007, 12:54:12 AM »

Bean, I'm keeping my 480s no matter what, so no probs if I want to run other configs...

You of all people should know that, hell, you're probably half the reason I own 480s in the first place, lol...

On the LSD2 front, agreed, but that sure ain't low profile, lol... Still something I'm considering though. Thing about that is I record a lot of acoustic jazz, and an LD setup is nice cause it helps smooth down brass like trumpets, which can be harsh/bright up front with pencils.

And yup, I was looking at the price of the cap only, my bad, I didn't realize it. I thought that was the price of the CCM8. Now I know...

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #17 on:** November 15, 2007, 01:47:24 AM »

Quote from: BayTaynt3d on November 15, 2007, 12:54:12 AM

Bean, I'm keeping my 480s no matter what, so no probs if I want to run other configs...

You of all people should know that, hell, you're probably half the reason I own 480s in the first place, lol...

On the LSD2 front, agreed, but that sure ain't low profile, lol... Still something I'm considering though. Thing about that is I record a lot of acoustic jazz, and an LD setup is nice cause it helps smooth down brass like trumpets, which can be harsh/bright up front with pencils.

And yup, I was looking at the price of the cap only, my bad, I didn't realize it. I thought that was the price of the CCM8. Now I know...

No problem bud

And how am I half the reason you own the 480's

Because of my incessant fluffing or because you actually listened to a bunch of my recordings

I guess if you want a lo-pro setup to do this, the MBHO's would be the way to go. I just havent figured out how I am going to mount the actives with the M/S MBHO setup yet

I would LOVE a Neumann-like M/S mount. If I could find one that would fit the 20mm diameter of the MBHO's, Id be in business. And one thats cheaper than the Neumann M/S mount as well. Because I believe the Neumann MS mount is somewhere like 300+ JUST for the MS mount

Im sure the Schoeps MS mount is about the same. I swear I saw a Neumann/Schoeps-like MS mount on B+H or somewhere like that......Im almost positive that MBHO DOESNT make an MS mount, so thats leaves us to find one on our own

Does ANYONE know where an MS mount can be found for 20mm mics

Thanks in advance,
Bean

CQBert · « **Reply #18 on:** November 15, 2007, 02:12:02 AM »

not sure if they are compatible with all 20mm or not.. schoeps basic shock mount, maybe with strong elastics and the m/s mount (hsmsg or something like that).. check and see if kwon would make one if that will not fit you application..

CQBert

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #19 on:** November 15, 2007, 03:18:42 AM »

Quote from: CQBert on November 15, 2007, 02:12:02 AM

not sure if they are compatible with all 20mm or not.. schoeps basic shock mount, maybe with strong elastics and the m/s mount (hsmsg or something like that).. check and see if kwon would make one if that will not fit you application..

CQBert

Opps, I meant 21mm diameter....

I may have def found a solution that would be both cheap and lightweight and lo-profile.....Check this thread out

The Audix Micro stand adapter that B+H sells might just work out PERFECT if it would SNUGLY hold the mini-xlr clip on the MBHO Actives

I would imagine that if it holds the Audix Micros SNUGLY, then it could also hold the mini-xlr snugly, since if the mini-xlr isnt exactly flush with the audix micros bodies, then it couldnt be THAT MUCH smaller in diameter. I am sure I could rig something up with those micros stand adapters that would hold an MBHO M/S actives setup snugly

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,94306.msg1256402.html#msg1256402

EDIT: Sorry about the slight thread highjack, but it could DEFINITELY benefit you and I both if you go the MBHO M/S actives route

Tim · « **Reply #20 on:** November 15, 2007, 11:16:31 AM »

Quote from: bobbygeeWOW on November 14, 2007, 11:35:13 PM

For general interest, according to Don Pearson (Healy's right hand man), Howard Danchik was using an AKG C34 in MS with card+figure8 to feed their UltraMatrix machine for quite a while.

+T good info

Don doesn't get enough credit either

Jamos · « **Reply #21 on:** November 15, 2007, 06:59:28 PM »

Sad that AKG doesn't make a figure 8 ULS capsule...then you'd be set.

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #22 on:** November 15, 2007, 08:19:12 PM »

Quote from: Jmos on November 15, 2007, 06:59:28 PM

Sad that AKG doesn't make a figure 8 ULS capsule...then you'd be set.

no doubt

JiB97 · « **Reply #23 on:** November 15, 2007, 08:55:47 PM »

Bean, check this thread out for ideas on an M/S mount when you get that Figure 8 capsule: http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,75104.msg1003276.html#msg1003276

BayTaynt3d · « **Reply #24 on:** November 15, 2007, 10:48:51 PM »

Quote from: Bean on November 15, 2007, 08:19:12 PM

Quote from: Jmos on November 15, 2007, 06:59:28 PM
Sad that AKG doesn't make a figure 8 ULS capsule...then you'd be set.

no doubt

No doubt, I've thought about pairing the 480 for m with a 390 for s, wonder how that'd sound. Certainly one of my cheaper options...

DSatz · « **Reply #25 on:** November 15, 2007, 11:04:37 PM »

bobbygeeWOW, you wrote somewhere back up above:

> With ya 100% - MS on stage(lip) to gain phase-free coincidence + 180 degree recordable stereo angle that you can dial down later to widen the image if it works out that way

With a forward-facing cardioid, M and S microphones of equal sensitivity on axis and a unity-gain matrix, the stereophonic recording angle would be only about 106 degrees total (+/- 53 degrees) if I'm doing my math correctly.

And if so, I think that's fortunate. A 180-degree SRA is so wide that it generally scrunches all the direct sound sources together, almost to the center of the reproduced stereo image in playback. It's what you'd get with a puny 90 degrees between a pair of X/Y cardioids--not from M/S with a cardioid M microphone.

--best regards

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #26 on:** November 15, 2007, 11:44:53 PM »

Quote from: BayTaynt3d on November 15, 2007, 10:48:51 PM

Quote from: Bean on November 15, 2007, 08:19:12 PM
Quote from: Jmos on November 15, 2007, 06:59:28 PM
Sad that AKG doesn't make a figure 8 ULS capsule...then you'd be set.

no doubt

No doubt, I've thought about pairing the 480 for m with a 390 for s, wonder how that'd sound. Certainly one of my cheaper options...

Ive thought about that for a LONG time and at the end, figured it wasnt a good idea FOR ME. Not to mention the HUGE detail diff between the 480 and 390 lines......Like DSatz said above this post, you want to mix the SAME series of mics, ala 480+480(not realistic) or Schoeps+Schoeps, or MBHO+MBHO, etc so you have the same sensitivity with both the mid and side capsule. Just so were on the same page here, I HAVE NEVER RAN M/S, but I have been recording with a quality rig(481>DMIC-20) for the last 10 years and have done my research...I too wanted to get into M/S BADLY a few years back and was going to mix a 480(mid)+390(side) but I opted to wait until I could get the same series of mics, and then I stumbled onto a KILLER deal for my MBHO Actives+Cards+hypers.....This way I can use a card OR hyper for the mid depending on the situation, and Im still matching mic series.....I would wait until you can afford a solution you want, but also it might not be a bad idea to get a 390 body+fig-8 capsule for the 390's just so you have some MS experience under your belt when you can finally afford to get the side capsule your heart desires(and a matching mid)......thats also money youd be spending that you could have been saving towards the fig-8 capsule you really want tho........

In reality, you have a few diff options, and its up to you how quickly you want to get into MS......Noone else can make that judgement for you!

BayTaynt3d · « **Reply #27 on:** November 15, 2007, 11:45:30 PM »

From my perspective, I'm often sticking my pair nearly in the middle of a u-shaped set of musicians, where the musicians on the left and right might almost be dead on the fig-8 caps, and in those situations, having a card hitting straight ahead and the eight almost straight on the side musicians, it almost is a literal 180 degree situation, in which case I was thinking that MS might be the ultimate setup, especially with the options I'd have in post?

CQBert · « **Reply #28 on:** November 15, 2007, 11:54:42 PM »

I would suggest trying to borrow whatever rig you settle on and running it a time or two to see what you think... play with the mixes, record from different locations etc and see what you like.

If you are taping heavily in an odd environment M/S may not be the best route - however if you have the luxury of being in familiar surroundings, with taper friendly musicians that do not mind on-stage set ups, or you have access to a constant sweet spot - jump in head first...

I am trying to make the jump to 4ch but with another child on the way it will have to wait... My next major purchase will be a 744 or a Sonosax R4 (Assuming they ever release it) and then a Neumann USM69. I would run the USM69 in blumlein or M/S and then the DPA's ORTF and mix in post.... Keep in mind that is nearly $10k in new gear, it will take a year or two minimum and I will have to justify it within the confines of life...

Every leap is difficult and takes a lot of research and thought... you have begun a great process - keep pluggin' away, you do not need to do it all at once - for what it is worth, Bean has a nice compromise with the MBHO's, nice sound, good price, readily available used and in good condition....

CQBert

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #29 on:** November 16, 2007, 12:09:06 AM »

Quote from: jbanyai97 on November 15, 2007, 08:55:47 PM

Bean, check this thread out for ideas on an M/S mount when you get that Figure 8 capsule: http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,75104.msg1003276.html#msg1003276

+T, that might actually work too, if I could get JUSt the front rubber bands to snugly hold my mid+side actives, since I dont want to run the full bodies like KLowe is doing.....I already have the full-bodied MS covered with my AT 8415 shocks+vert bar......Since its such a cheap option, i will DEF be trying both this method you pointed out and also my Audix Micros clips idea with my extra Shure a53m

Thanks fellas! +T's all around!

bobbygeeWOW · « **Reply #30 on:** November 16, 2007, 02:00:19 AM »

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 · « **Reply #31 on:** November 16, 2007, 06:20:43 AM »

Quote from: bobbygeeWOW on November 16, 2007, 02:00:19 AM

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 · « **Reply #32 on:** November 16, 2007, 10:25:29 AM »

Quote from: Shawn on November 16, 2007, 06:20:43 AM

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 · « **Reply #33 on:** November 16, 2007, 10:18:49 PM »

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 · « **Reply #34 on:** November 19, 2007, 08:26:46 AM »

thanks bobbygeeWOW +T.

bluevolvo · « **Reply #35 on:** November 21, 2007, 05:44:29 PM »

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 · « **Reply #36 on:** November 30, 2007, 12:39:27 AM »

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 · « **Reply #37 on:** December 03, 2007, 04:15:22 PM »

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 · « **Reply #38 on:** December 03, 2007, 04:24:30 PM »

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 · « **Reply #39 on:** December 03, 2007, 04:43:43 PM »

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

Tim · « **Reply #40 on:** December 03, 2007, 04:48:07 PM »

Quote from: beanstalk on December 03, 2007, 04:43:43 PM

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 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 03, 2007, 05:08:08 PM »

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

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #42 on:** December 03, 2007, 05:14:26 PM »

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 · « **Reply #43 on:** December 03, 2007, 05:22:00 PM »

Quote from: Bean on December 03, 2007, 05:14:26 PM

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 · « **Reply #44 on:** December 03, 2007, 05:52:02 PM »

Quote from: beanstalk on December 03, 2007, 05:22:00 PM

Quote from: Bean on December 03, 2007, 05:14:26 PM
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!

pilgrims622 · « **Reply #45 on:** December 03, 2007, 08:39:37 PM »

Quote from: Bean on December 03, 2007, 05:52:02 PM

Now I just wish that Robert Kwon made an MS KwonBar for the Schoeps/Neumann's/MBHO's

I think he told me one time at a show that he has Neumann m/s bar that he made. I already have the neumann m/s mount so I dont need one, but if I remember correctly he has made them before. This was over 2 years ago so my memory is a little hazy

beanstalk · « **Reply #46 on:** December 03, 2007, 09:08:47 PM »

I trying to think of a couple more ways over a mod to schoeps/joe meek type m/s mount. Do anyone think that the 2 of the inner clips would fit into 1 outer ring and or putting both mics in 1 mount? Maybe connect 2 clips back 2 back, make more notches for the more bands?

How cool does this setup look?

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #47 on:** December 03, 2007, 09:44:48 PM »

its neat but its also not shockmounted....

shaggy · « **Reply #48 on:** December 03, 2007, 11:10:06 PM »

Quote from: beanstalk on December 03, 2007, 09:08:47 PM

How cool does this setup look?

From the same site, I'd go with a Schoeps Native-B active set up anyday over this:

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #49 on:** December 04, 2007, 12:00:18 AM »

in that Schoeps pic, I'm sure its correct since its prolly an expensive Schoeps shockmount, but shouldnt the mid capsule's very front of the capsule where the grill is, shouldnt that be in the VERY MIDDLE of the Fig-8's for a correct configuration? Or is this slightly different than M/S_(obviously, since there are 3 capsules used instead) but I always thought and saw a proper M/S setup with the side capsule extruding out towards the stage closer than the mid mic since the mid mic's electronics/whatever starts at the ver front of teh capsule where the grill is, and a Side fig8 capsule doesnt actually receive sound until it hits the very middle of the capsule, thus why Neumann and Schoeps M/S setups have the fig-8 side mic about a 1/4" inch closer to the soundsource than the mid mic

Does that make sense? Maybe I can find a picture to back up my thoughts.....

Here are a few pics to backup my thoughts

Check out the first two pics on that page...

http://www.posthorn.com/S_coletteaccess.html#table6

beanstalk · « **Reply #50 on:** December 04, 2007, 03:58:08 PM »

Quote from: shaggy on December 03, 2007, 11:10:06 PM

From the same site, I'd go with a Schoeps Native-B active set up anyday over this:

oh course.. the force is strong in you.

Quote from: Bean on December 04, 2007, 12:00:18 AM

in that Schoeps pic, I'm sure its correct since its prolly an expensive Schoeps shockmount, but shouldnt the mid capsule's very front of the capsule where the grill is, shouldnt that be in the VERY MIDDLE of the Fig-8's for a correct configuration? Or is this slightly different than M/S_(obviously, since there are 3 capsules used instead) but I always thought and saw a proper M/S setup with the side capsule extruding out towards the stage closer than the mid mic since the mid mic's electronics/whatever starts at the ver front of teh capsule where the grill is, and a Side fig8 capsule doesnt actually receive sound until it hits the very middle of the capsule, thus why Neumann and Schoeps M/S setups have the fig-8 side mic about a 1/4" inch closer to the soundsource than the mid mic

Does that make sense? Maybe I can find a picture to back up my thoughts.....

Here are a few pics to backup my thoughts Check out the first two pics on that page...

http://www.posthorn.com/S_coletteaccess.html#table6

I'm not sure there going for m/s? Is it double m/s? It's omni center or mid and is that 2 fig 8 or 2 cards? 2 cards would make sense for m/s but not sure about 2 fig 8.

KLowe · « **Reply #51 on:** December 04, 2007, 04:50:16 PM »

Looks like to me a double M/S setup.

Figure 8 in center
vertical cards on top and bottom?

Who knows....sure looks kickass though.

shaggy · « **Reply #52 on:** December 04, 2007, 06:50:15 PM »

This is certainly strange but I think it is two fig 8's on top (lobes side to side) and bottom (lobes front and rear) and a omni in the center! Native-B format is for surround sound processing (like 5.1 and THX), I believe.

H₂O · « **Reply #53 on:** December 04, 2007, 07:15:01 PM »

The above pic does not match the Schoeps site below referncing double M/S

See:
http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/double-ms.html

It looks like they have it backwards on the above pic (Fig-8 in middle and 2 card's pointing in opp directions is shown on the Schoeps page vs 2 fig 8's and one omni shown above). Maybe it's another way to use double MS?

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #54 on:** December 04, 2007, 08:12:59 PM »

Quote from: campbrs on December 04, 2007, 07:15:01 PM

The above pic does not match the Schoeps site below referncing double M/S

See:
http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/double-ms.html

It looks like they have it backwards on the above pic (Fig-8 in middle and 2 card's pointing in opp directions is shown on the Schoeps page vs 2 fig 8's and one omni shown above). Maybe it's another way to use double MS?

was the above pic showing the fig8 caps in a bluemein config with an omni in the center to balance it out maybe? Looked like the fig-8's lobes were facing the sides, and werent opposite each other by 90 degrees.....I would like to hear a sample of it tho

Nick's Picks · « **Reply #55 on:** December 04, 2007, 08:57:29 PM »

Doug Oade told me he's been playing w/this recently. really loves it.
I bet!

beanstalk · « **Reply #56 on:** December 05, 2007, 03:21:22 PM »

Quote from: Bean on December 04, 2007, 08:12:59 PM

Quote from: campbrs on December 04, 2007, 07:15:01 PM
The above pic does not match the Schoeps site below referncing double M/S

See:
http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/double-ms.html

It looks like they have it backwards on the above pic (Fig-8 in middle and 2 card's pointing in opp directions is shown on the Schoeps page vs 2 fig 8's and one omni shown above). Maybe it's another way to use double MS?

was the above pic showing the fig8 caps in a bluemein config with an omni in the center to balance it out maybe? Looked like the fig-8's lobes were facing the sides, and werent opposite each other by 90 degrees.....I would like to hear a sample of it tho

for sure..

DSatz · « **Reply #57 on:** December 05, 2007, 08:26:58 PM »

Schoeps' main "Double M/S" recording system uses a single, sideways-facing figure-8 plus two cardioids. One cardioid faces forward while the other one faces backward; each cardioid forms an M/S pair with the shared figure-8. The shock mount in the photo is designed so that the centers of the three capsules' membranes will all line up vertically. Since a figure-8 pattern is symmetrical in three-dimensional space, the top surface of the capsule can face forwards toward the center of the sound source(s) while the capsule's main axis is pointing left and right.

It is also possible to use a supercardioid (e.g. a Colette-series microphone with the MK 41 V capsule or the equivalent CCM) for the front-facing microphone--or even a shotgun mike as their Web site shows. But their VST software plug-in is based on the specific characteristics of the MK 8 and a pair of MK 4Vs.

As someone pointed out earlier, a similar thing could have been built around an omni with two figure-8s, given a slightly different approach to the signal processing. But essentially the same audio information can indeed be obtained that way.

--best regards

beanstalk · « **Reply #58 on:** December 05, 2007, 09:04:17 PM »

Quote from: DSatz on December 05, 2007, 08:26:58 PM

Schoeps' main "Double M/S" recording system uses a single, sideways-facing figure-8 plus two cardioids. One cardioid faces forward while the other one faces backward; each cardioid forms an M/S pair with the shared figure-8. The shock mount in the photo is designed so that the centers of the three capsules' membranes will all line up vertically. Since a figure-8 pattern is symmetrical in three-dimensional space, the top surface of the capsule can face forwards toward the center of the sound source(s) while the capsule's main axis is pointing left and right.

It is also possible to use a supercardioid (e.g. a Colette-series microphone with the MK 41 V capsule or the equivalent CCM) for the front-facing microphone--or even a shotgun mike as their Web site shows. But their VST software plug-in is based on the specific characteristics of the MK 8 and a pair of MK 4Vs.

As someone pointed out earlier, a similar thing could have been built around an omni with two figure-8s, given a slightly different approach to the signal processing. But essentially the same audio information can indeed be obtained that way.

--best regards

so 2 cards 1 fig 8. 1 card towards the source, 1 away and the fig 8 going side? The the fig 8 shared or is mixed with 3 channels?

WiFiJeff · « **Reply #59 on:** December 06, 2007, 11:17:37 AM »

Quote from: DSatz on December 05, 2007, 08:26:58 PM

As someone pointed out earlier, a similar thing could have been built around an omni with two figure-8s, given a slightly different approach to the signal processing. But essentially the same audio information can indeed be obtained that way.

This is the design of the Josephson C700S. I will probably go for this sometime in 2008 and step into the world of 5.1.

Jeff

KLowe · « **Reply #60 on:** December 06, 2007, 11:31:06 AM »

prolly a dumb question but....anyway.

Is there any use for double M/S in a typical PA oriented rock show? What benefit would a rear facing M/S provide?

This is probably oriented for orchestral arrangements where double M/S could be setup in the center for a surround sound signal? I've been tempted to run double M/S but don't think it could add anything to the shows that I typically tape.

any input from the more experienced?

DSatz · « **Reply #61 on:** December 06, 2007, 10:17:36 PM »

KLowe, the advantage of the double M/S approach is that it overcomes the one most frustrating thing about conventional M/S. When you're playing back or transferring the recording as L/R stereo and you want to set your preferred stereo image width and the amount of reverberant sound in the mix, with regular M/S these two factors are always linked, since you have only one independent variable to play with--the relative amount of S signal going into the matrix. The more S you send in, the wider the stereo image will be and the more reverberant sound you will be reproducing. In my experience with regular M/S recording, there usually has only been a rather narrow range of S gain settings that have sounded at all plausible in stereo.

With double M/S the two factors are independent of each other, since the amount of signal from the rearward-facing cardioid is an independent factor. So the (somewhat more complex, software-based) matrix lets you vary the stereo image width independently from the direct/reverberant sound balance. It's like being able to choose both the geometry and the directional pattern of a coincident microphone pair after the recording is in the can.

--best regards

KLowe · « **Reply #62 on:** December 07, 2007, 08:40:28 AM »

Do you have any literature with pictures? I've read your post about 10 times now and am still trying to wrap my little brain around it.

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #63 on:** December 07, 2007, 10:51:50 AM »

Quote from: KLowe on December 07, 2007, 08:40:28 AM

I've read your post about 10 times now and am still trying to wrap my little brain around it.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this, too. Simply having control of how much rear-facing Mid to add would only allow one to, well...add reverberant sound. So I assume in decoding double MS it's possible to subtract the rear-facing Mid from both the forward-facing Mid and Side. So in double MS, the ratio of the rear-facing Mid to the front-facing Mid and Side (and whether one's adding/subtracting it to/from the other signals) control the reverberant sound, while the ratio of the front-facing Mid to Side controls the stereo width.

The attached image generated with the Schoeps Double MS plug-in may help. It's a two-dimensional representation of the mics and patterns in play: orange = forward-facing cardioid Mid; yellow = figure-8 Side; green = rear-facing cardioid Mid. If my assumption above is correct, and you're able to visualize it from the image, you may see how subtracting the rear-facing cardioid would significantly reduce the reverberant sound.

Hopefully DSatz will chime in with further clarification. Neat stuff!

KLowe · « **Reply #64 on:** December 07, 2007, 12:47:46 PM »

Brian, Your description of what is happening makes complete sense to me. Let me try to explain it to myself. -- for a PA taping...forward facing event. The rear M/S is present as subtractive only to cancel out reverb sound from the intersecting side lobes and the intersection portions of the cardiod mics? ie..."cleaning up" the forward facing M/S signal?

Does this seem like the "gist" of it?

DSatz?

Kevin

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #65 on:** December 07, 2007, 01:04:07 PM »

Quote from: KLowe on December 07, 2007, 12:47:46 PM

Brian, Your description of what is happening makes complete sense to me. Let me try to explain it to myself. -- for a PA taping...forward facing event. The rear M/S is present as subtractive only to cancel out reverb sound from the intersecting side lobes and the intersection portions of the cardiod mics? ie..."cleaning up" the forward facing M/S signal?

Does this seem like the "gist" of it?

That's the gist of it, but again...it's only my guess. Hopefully DS or someone else can confirm, correct, or clarify.

Stagger · « **Reply #66 on:** December 08, 2007, 12:35:32 AM »

Save for the difference in frequency response between a Fig8 and a normal directional (card, subcard...etc.., I'm just wondering how this would be better than just turning a blumline rig on its side and running it through a ms decoder. Certainly an easier set up, no?

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #67 on:** December 08, 2007, 01:59:29 AM »

Quote from: Stagger on December 08, 2007, 12:35:32 AM

Save for the difference in frequency response between a Fig8 and a normal directional (card, subcard...etc.., I'm just wondering how this would be better than just turning a blumline rig on its side and running it through a ms decoder. Certainly an easier set up, no?

Figure-8s Mid-Side and decoded 50/50 becomes Blumlein. Changing the ratio of Mid to Side during decoding just changes the included angle of the resulting figure-8 patterns; it doesn't change the resulting stereo L/R figure-8 patterns. The attached image shows a pair of figure-8s set up Mid-Side and the resulting sum and difference (L and R channels) after decoding to stereo. You can see how the different ratios simply change the included angle, and not the resulting pattern. (Table lifted from a paper posted earlier in the thread.)

Single MS with figure-8s allows the user to adjust <a> the front and rear lobes of the Mid channel together, and <b> the left and right lobes of the Side channel together. Double MS with forward-facing cardioid Mid, rear-facing cardioid Mid, and Side figure-8 allows the user to adjust <d> the front Mid independently, <e> the rear Mid independently, and <f> the left and ride lobes of the Side together. It's this ability to independently adjust the rear Mid channel that allows one to control reverberant sound separately from stereo width.

In single MS, any reduction of the orange Mid's rear lobe signal would also reduce the orange Mid's forward lobe signal (see attached single MS image ms-single-schoeps.jpg). In the attached double MS image (ms-double-schoeps2.jpg), you can see that I've reduced the green rear-facing Mid relative to the orange front-facing Mid and yellow Side. It's this independent control of the rear-facing Mid in double MS that allows one to adjust reverberant sound independently of stereo width: adjust the rear-facing Mid to control reverberant sound, and adjust the Side to control stereo width. Again, I'm assuming a lot here, and need to dig a little bit to make sure my assumptions regarding the rear-facing mid and decoding are correct.

Nick's Picks · « **Reply #68 on:** December 08, 2007, 09:00:48 AM »

cool.
sort of Sounfield-esque

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #69 on:** December 08, 2007, 11:12:12 AM »

Quote from: DSatz on December 06, 2007, 10:17:36 PM

KLowe, the advantage of the double M/S approach is that it overcomes the one most frustrating thing about conventional M/S. When you're playing back or transferring the recording as L/R stereo and you want to set your preferred stereo image width and the amount of reverberant sound in the mix, with regular M/S these two factors are always linked, since you have only one independent variable to play with--the relative amount of S signal going into the matrix. The more S you send in, the wider the stereo image will be and the more reverberant sound you will be reproducing. In my experience with regular M/S recording, there usually has only been a rather narrow range of S gain settings that have sounded at all plausible in stereo.

With double M/S the two factors are independent of each other, since the amount of signal from the rearward-facing cardioid is an independent factor. So the (somewhat more complex, software-based) matrix lets you vary the stereo image width independently from the direct/reverberant sound balance. It's like being able to choose both the geometry and the directional pattern of a coincident microphone pair after the recording is in the can.

--best regards

with the Schoeps Double M/S Plugin tho, would this still be effective in regular MS

Or with that new plugin, you can alter the Mid in relation to the rear mid

and not have it add/subtract to the signal youre working with.....

wklitz · « **Reply #70 on:** December 08, 2007, 11:37:47 AM »

Quote from: CQBert on November 14, 2007, 11:34:54 AM

I have borrowed a M/S rig numerous times... The owner had a 21H doing the mid and it was really nice. The slight emphasis on the high's was welcome and helped keep things centered very well.

I used a 21H when I did M/S recordings in '97-00, on occaision I would work with a different Mid capsule, once at Phish @ the Flynn in '97 I used a 41 as the mid channel with good results. probably the best M/S recording I ever made was Allmans a few days prior to that at the Beacon. sold all that stuff off when I bought my TLM-170's, which are now also sold off. might have to try some M/S with my 414's one of these days.

scb · « **Reply #71 on:** December 08, 2007, 12:25:44 PM »

i just wish DPA would sell a figure 8.

Dr.FOB · « **Reply #72 on:** December 08, 2007, 12:47:17 PM »

Very cool concepts raised in this thread.
A specialized application of multi-mic recording.

The schoeps native B-format arrangement, and it's lower cost AKG complement, are used to capture surround recordings to be decoded via software in post. This is a double 8 front & side (x & y), with an omni (w). This is the same concept as the Soundfield capture, but without the Z information.

A lot of useful info, and some highly technical explainations, are here.

http://www.ambisonic.net/

Two cards and an 8 gives you the double m-s configuration, from which you can derive surround information.

You can get the double m-s decoding plug-in from Schoeps here:
http://schoeps.de/dmsplugin.html

I've enjoyed making some 5.1 mixes in the past with a combination of M-S and subcards and look forward to trying the double m-s when the app arrives and I can figure out a mounting arrangement for the nuemanns.

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #73 on:** December 08, 2007, 01:31:57 PM »

All of this info is JUST what I needed to read before I get a fig8 cap

Thanks guys!

BayTaynt3d · « **Reply #74 on:** December 11, 2007, 11:54:27 PM »

I wonder how an AKG394 would sound as my side when combined with a 481/2/3 as my mid? That might get me into the game for cheap. I knew I'd regret selling off my 390s...

Jamos · « **Reply #75 on:** March 30, 2008, 12:51:59 AM »

Hey peeps.

I just picked up an mk8 capsule and am going to be running it M/S with an mk4 and cmc6 bodies. I don't have any active cables.

I'm looking for a good, simple, solid shockmount set up for the two mics.

The idea of the superlux's zipped together is kinda what I'm after, but maybe a little less ghetto?
If I do go this way, I might get one Avantone SSM shock since it's a much more heavy duty.

Anyone have any more ideas?

Nick's Picks · « **Reply #76 on:** March 30, 2008, 07:21:13 AM »

I think a sabra system might work out

KLowe · « **Reply #77 on:** March 30, 2008, 08:24:47 AM »

I have a schoeps AMS-22 mount (full size mic M/S mount).

It needs a new clip in the middle (post-horn for 20 bucks).

I'll let her go for 90 bucks.

Nick's Picks · « **Reply #78 on:** March 30, 2008, 02:32:55 PM »

I know you can buy those double clips. find one and then after both mics are in, you stuff them both in a sabra.
thats where my thoughts were headed any way

Jamos · « **Reply #79 on:** March 30, 2008, 05:57:51 PM »

Thanks for the suggestions and offers, guys...
I've inquired with Jerry at Posthorn to see if the double clip can be purchased individually.
I already have an AT shockmount that I think the double clip can be fit into...if not, then a Sabra SSM would probably be perfect.

I also found these:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/497702-REG/Rycote_048466_48466_21RD_21RD_21RD_21RD.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/497681-REG/Rycote_048457_48457_19RD_19RD_19RD_19RD.html

But I know the cmc6 is 20mm, not 19mm or 21mm like the two rycote options above.

Will a 21mm mount work?

I'm sure this has been covered before, so sorry to rehash, but I'm unsure.

Matt Quinn · « **Reply #80 on:** April 01, 2008, 06:00:29 PM »

Quote from: Brian Skalinder on December 08, 2007, 01:59:29 AM

Quote from: Stagger on December 08, 2007, 12:35:32 AM
Save for the difference in frequency response between a Fig8 and a normal directional (card, subcard...etc.., I'm just wondering how this would be better than just turning a blumline rig on its side and running it through a ms decoder. Certainly an easier set up, no?

Figure-8s Mid-Side and decoded 50/50 becomes Blumlein. Changing the ratio of Mid to Side during decoding just changes the included angle of the resulting figure-8 patterns; it doesn't change the resulting stereo L/R figure-8 patterns. The attached image shows a pair of figure-8s set up Mid-Side and the resulting sum and difference (L and R channels) after decoding to stereo. You can see how the different ratios simply change the included angle, and not the resulting pattern. (Table lifted from a paper posted earlier in the thread.)

Single MS with figure-8s allows the user to adjust <a> the front and rear lobes of the Mid channel together, and <b> the left and right lobes of the Side channel together. Double MS with forward-facing cardioid Mid, rear-facing cardioid Mid, and Side figure-8 allows the user to adjust <d> the front Mid independently, <e> the rear Mid independently, and <f> the left and ride lobes of the Side together. It's this ability to independently adjust the rear Mid channel that allows one to control reverberant sound separately from stereo width.

In single MS, any reduction of the orange Mid's rear lobe signal would also reduce the orange Mid's forward lobe signal (see attached single MS image ms-single-schoeps.jpg). In the attached double MS image (ms-double-schoeps2.jpg), you can see that I've reduced the green rear-facing Mid relative to the orange front-facing Mid and yellow Side. It's this independent control of the rear-facing Mid in double MS that allows one to adjust reverberant sound independently of stereo width: adjust the rear-facing Mid to control reverberant sound, and adjust the Side to control stereo width. Again, I'm assuming a lot here, and need to dig a little bit to make sure my assumptions regarding the rear-facing mid and decoding are correct.

If that is correct, it is wildly cool.

beanstalk · « **Reply #81 on:** April 01, 2008, 06:34:27 PM »

Quote from: Jamos on March 30, 2008, 05:57:51 PM

Thanks for the suggestions and offers, guys...
I've inquired with Jerry at Posthorn to see if the double clip can be purchased individually.
I already have an AT shockmount that I think the double clip can be fit into...if not, then a Sabra SSM would probably be perfect.

I also found these:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/497702-REG/Rycote_048466_48466_21RD_21RD_21RD_21RD.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/497681-REG/Rycote_048457_48457_19RD_19RD_19RD_19RD.html

But I know the cmc6 is 20mm, not 19mm or 21mm like the two rycote options above.

Will a 21mm mount work?

I'm sure this has been covered before, so sorry to rehash, but I'm unsure.

This might work if it can be turned which I've been wondering if it does rotate.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/147531-REG/AKG_H300_H_300_Clip_for.html

Matt Quinn · « **Reply #82 on:** April 09, 2008, 04:45:44 PM »

I've been thinking about this double M/S stuff, and wondering how it all gets recorded. There are 3 channels to deal with, yes? So you record the output of the 3 mics, then load up the 3 tracks in a multitrack editor & mix to taste?

Has anyone here ever actually run double M/S? I am just completely intrigued by the concept.

KLowe · « **Reply #83 on:** April 09, 2008, 04:52:02 PM »

I'm pretty sure you record 3 tracks independently. Load up the plug-in to your audio editor of choice and Play away.
I think the program gives you the ability to 5.1 stereo surround or 2 channel stereo.

I am VERY tempted to run a double M/S for Bisco next weekend.

keep us informed with your results.

Kevin

fozzy · « **Reply #84 on:** April 09, 2008, 04:55:26 PM »

I've been looking into the double M/S as well. With the schoeps mount the lower/rear 4v is pointed at all the shockmount junk.
This seems less than desirable.

KLowe · « **Reply #85 on:** April 09, 2008, 05:03:40 PM »

Quote from: fozzy on April 09, 2008, 04:55:26 PM

I've been looking into the double M/S as well. With the schoeps mount the lower/rear 4v is pointed at all the shockmount junk.
This seems less than desirable.

Time for a Ghetto Rig on dat ass!!!

Matt Quinn · « **Reply #86 on:** April 09, 2008, 05:33:32 PM »

Quote from: KLowe on April 09, 2008, 04:52:02 PM

I'm pretty sure you record 3 tracks independently. Load up the plug-in to your audio editor of choice and Play away.
I think the program gives you the ability to 5.1 stereo surround or 2 channel stereo.

I am VERY tempted to run a double M/S for Bisco next weekend.

keep us informed with your results.

Kevin

Nice, I'm trying like heck to make it down for those!

Jamos · « **Reply #87 on:** April 09, 2008, 10:14:16 PM »

I started another thread with this pic too, but thought I'd throw it up here since this was where my initial question came up.

This is what I came up with.

DSatz · « **Reply #88 on:** April 10, 2008, 09:48:36 PM »

The_Tube, Schoeps has a couple of short three-track recordings on their Web site which you can download and use their VST plug-in to mix to stereo if you want. To get at them, sign up for the plug-in (it's free but you have to register), then you get access to the recordings. It's not complicated and it's very interesting.

As for the rear-facing cardioid looking into shock mount junk, I think the angle of the photograph is maybe a little deceiving because I've seen this rig in real life and it didn't look that way to me, if I recall it correctly. I'll see whether there's another photo around.

--best regards

fozzy · « **Reply #89 on:** April 10, 2008, 10:42:56 PM »

Quote from: DSatz on April 10, 2008, 09:48:36 PM

As for the rear-facing cardioid looking into shock mount junk, I think the angle of the photograph is maybe a little deceiving because I've seen this rig in real life and it didn't look that way to me, if I recall it correctly. I'll see whether there's another photo around.

--best regards

that would be awesome, the picture is deceiving. I would love to pick up a 744T and run a mk8/ccm8 into one of the pres and use the lemosax into the line inputs.

I like the idea of a rycote w/ a furry rather than engineering a custom setup.

carlbeck · « **Reply #90 on:** April 11, 2008, 09:47:48 AM »

I am trying to buy a pair of CK 1X & CK 2X's so I can run my C34 in the center with either the cards or omni's on the outside. My Aeta Mix2000 allows me to take four inputs & mix them any way I like including double MS, the only downfall is the Aeta will only output in two channels unless I make the 9 pin cable & run a four track recorder. My thought is that I could mix everything on the fly with some in ear monitors & get good results, for now I am staying with a two track recorder.

The manual for the Aeta shows a few different MS arrangements as well as some three channel arrangements. Check out the manual, obviously this was or is prominent in the film industry.

DSatz, I would really be interested in your opinion of the examples listed in the manual if you get time to read through it.

http://www.aetausa.com/Media/PDF/mix2000_manual.pdf

Nick's Picks · « **Reply #91 on:** April 11, 2008, 02:57:45 PM »

sounds fun....., but we both know that you will not yeild results superior to just the c34 or a pair of ckXXx's setup in any stereo config.

but.., nothing ventured. nothing gained. someone used to say that.

Author Topic: Schoeps Mid-Side (Read 25207 times)

wklitz