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

[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.