Topic: Poll: Mix monitoring and mic configuration

[notlance]

I'm trying to see if there is a correlation between how tapers listen when doing post-production editing/mixing/mastering their recordings and the stereo mic technique they prefer.

Now I realize many of you may use both headphones and speakers at some point during post-production, but which do you use to determine the "correctness" or the quality of the stereo image?  For example, I use headphones when making edits, but I use loudspeakers to judge the imaging of my recordings, so I would answer "loudspeakers".

[Todd R]

I don't monitor in the field, but mix and edit with both headphones (ATH-M50) and loudspeakers.  I'm most comfortable with loudspeakers and use headphones for practicality (keep quiet for the family) or as a double-check -- so I voted loudspeakers.

Likewise, I do sometime record A-B, or mix in an A-B omni pair with near coincident cardioids, but choose the near-coincident pattern as that is my primary.

I don't have a fig8 mic, so blumlein and MS are out.  I found long ago I don't prefer XY having tried it with a number of mics, though I haven't tried it in years.  I also run small diaphragm exclusively.  There probably is a lot to be said for XY with large diaphragm mics, but for SD doing concert taping -- the stereo spread of the PA is already pretty limited and room reverb is always a challenge, so getting the right stereo image when only using included angle (in XY) vs using mic spacing + angle (for near coincident) never seemed to work well for me.  Also, the slight phase comb filtering that comes with near coincident seems to sweeten the brighter mics that I seem to prefer.

Sorry, not meant to be a near-coincident vs XY debate, I just thought my decisions on pattern had more to do with all that and not listening playback type.  Still, I guess the more exaggerated stereo separation with headphones might have made me happier with XY I suppose.

[page]

Sorry, not meant to be a near-coincident vs XY debate, I just thought my decisions on pattern had more to do with all that and not listening playback type.  Still, I guess the more exaggerated stereo separation with headphones might have made me happier with XY I suppose.

It might, but playback would also factor into that. Heard something you don't like? Might have been the playback, mgiht have been the setup environment, I think it all comes into play with forming an opinion.

I think it also matters what you're recording. If it's a PA, then yeah, you're stereo spread is more constrained than an orchestra or other stage work. Where as XY aint all that bad when you've got unique/desirable sound coming from 160 degrees in front of the mic.

[acidjack]

I voted "headphones and near-coincident" but for anything I really care about now I also listen on loudspeakers before I output a final mix. 

I have never really liked XY despite what I know are its theoretical benefits in certain situations (particularly in being able to mix with SBD).  Whatever the theoretical benefits, I would point to most of my XY recordings as my least favorite ones. 

Playing with M/S for the first time tomorrow, so maybe I'll become a believer in that

[DigiGal]

I use powered monitors while editing and check mix translation with a VRM headphone box that virtually simulates different playback systems and room environments.  Sometimes I'll edit with headphones so I don't disturb my husband but I always check the mix with powered monitors.

In the field I'll use headphones for mic positioning and occasionally during a performance to make sure I'm making a clean recording.  When recording mid/side I use a custom headphone extender cable that puts the mid mic in both ears.

Oh, I usually record using either mid/side or ORTF but recording environment could change that.  Don't have 2 identical fig 8 mics so I haven't tried Blumlein yet.

[Gutbucket]

Abstaining since no one option fits.  I use A-B, near-spaced and coincident techniques and post-monitor on speakers primarily, but also check on the 'phones and multichannel with the standard matrix upmixers surround turned on (Dolby PLIIx & DTS Neo6).. and also in the car, but more for frequency balance and dynamics than imaging.

As for coincident mic technique, I dig Blumlien and X/Y with super/hypercardioids and the appropriate mic angle for some things- generally patterns with rear lobes seem to work better for my tastes than cards in X/Y.  I say that in reference to the type of recording done around here and make an exception for stereo close-mic'ing individual instruments, but I don't do much of that.  I also tend to use that up closer in good sounding rooms, like at stage-lip or on-stage, but have liked it outside from farther back in an amphitheater too. 

I use powered monitors while editing and check mix translation with a VRM headphone box that virtually simulates different playback systems and room environments. 

 

Curious about the VRM box.  Does it work well for you? Things you don't like about it?

When recording mid/side I use a custom headphone extender cable that puts the mid mic in both ears.

With a few resistors you could turn that that adaptor cable a fixed-ratio M/S decoder and monitor in L/R stereo if you'd like.

Don't have 2 identical fig 8 mics so I haven't tried Blumlein yet.

Don't let that stop you.  You can do it the way Blumlien himself preferred- as M/S.  That will distribute any mic response differences symmetrically between the center and sides instead of asymmetrically between left and right.  Swap the mics and try it both ways to decide which mic you prefer in which position and you may turn the situation of mismatched mics to an advantage.

Sometimes I'll edit with headphones so I don't disturb my husband but I always check the mix with powered monitors.

I’m swooning!   

[DigiGal]

Curious about the VRM box.  Does it work well for you? Things you don't like about it?

I haven't had it long but posted my comments about it here...  http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=144941.msg1937373#msg1937373

With a few resistors you could turn that that adaptor cable a fixed-ratio M/S decoder and monitor in L/R stereo if you'd like.

I pretty much like to field monitor with just the mid mic for optimal positioning and encode the desired stereo width in post using powered monitors in controlled environment.

Don't let that stop you.  You can do it the way Blumlien himself preferred- as M/S.  That will distribute any mic response differences symmetrically between the center and sides instead of asymmetrically between left and right.  Swap the mics and try it both ways to decide which mic you prefer in which position and you may turn the situation of mismatched mics to an advantage.

Hmm, maybe I'll give it go sometime after digging a little deeper.

I’m swooning!   

 

[notlance]

"You can do it the way Blumlien himself preferred- as M/S."

Yes, I always set up a Blumlein as you would a "normal" MS.  If nothing else it makes pointing the mic a lot easier.  In the poll I thought of not listing Blumlein separately since it's just a MS variation, but I did not want people to think I had excluded it as an option.

[F.O.Bean]

Loudspeakers/Headphones and DINa/DIN/NOS/ORTF/etc

[John Willett]

All of these.

I use all of the mic. positionings listed (choice will depend on what is being recorded) and I monitor on both headphones and monitor loudspeakers and switch between the two.

So I can't vote in the poll as I would have to tick everything and only one potion is allowed.

[Fried Chicken Boy]

I voted "headphones and near-coincident" but for anything I really care about now I also listen on loudspeakers before I output a final mix. 

This, for the most part.  I'm also in agreement with Todd in that "I'm most comfortable with loudspeakers but use headphones a lot for practicality (keep quiet for the neighbors in my apartment building)."  I like to keep it loud when I mix.

[steve2424]

Has anyone used the small microphone.
http://www.martelelectronics.com/137.html

[axomxa]

Primarily headphone/near coincident for me.  Although I sometimes run x-y/ab when going 4 channel.  I use my Senn HD 280 phones for detail processing (and practicality) but never release a tape without listening to most of it on the 5.1 system (Focal towers, rear and center with Polk 1000 sub).   

[DSatz]

?? If your recording is intended to be played back over loudspeakers, then loudspeakers have to be used for monitoring the mix! Headphones can fool you a thousand different ways when it comes to how a stereo recording will sound when played back over loudspeakers.

Honestly, I thought that was common knowledge--not even a matter of opinion. At professional recording and mixing sessions you might put on a pair of headphones just to hear (briefly) how the result would sound over headphones--but I've never seen anyone readjust a mix after doing that. The job is generally to make the mix sound good over loudspeakers--then people have the option of listening through headphones if they want extra separation between channels, which gives an exaggerated stereo effect that seems to convey more sonic "information" (and the lack of listening room reverberation helps that effect).

But if you mix so that things sound natural over headphones, then when played over loudspeakers, the recording is likely to sound muddy and distant, and to have excessive correlation between the left and right channels. And if you put on headphones and try to "compensate" for the fact that they're headphones, then you're just guessing.

--best regards

[rocksuitcase]

I did not answer the poll because it doesn't apply to me as I do not mix down many recordings these days. I would like to add that kindms and i havve done a fair amount of "Blumlein" with his AKG 414 XLS'. Wee call it Bi-Directional, or Bi-Di for short. we do the crossed figure 8s at 90 degrees. We have decided that depending on the PA, or mic location, crowd chattiness, etc. this gives great results with very pleasant sounding recordings. Back in the 1980's, I was part of a crew which flew an AKG C422 and we tried the crossed figure 8s only a few times and in the end, many years later, those recordings which do not have too much crowd noise are really the best of what we did. OTH, a band I hung around with did their entire 1995 fall tour recording to 48 channel ADAT using MS as the main audience pair. those raw recordings are excellent; unfortunately, they mixed that album down such that it has some of the worst sound quality for a 1990s era live recording. And as gutbucket mentioned, if you are recording am orchestra or other "acoustic" type situation, MS, Blumlein AND XY can have very respectable results.