Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Stereo Microphone Techniques...Are the Purists Wrong?  (Read 2917 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline heathen

  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3644
Stereo Microphone Techniques...Are the Purists Wrong?
« on: November 12, 2025, 12:43:13 PM »
I'm not sure if this has been previously posted but I've found it very interesting.  It's an article by Stanley Lipshitz from 1986.  He's got some interesting things to say...some of which are particularly applicable (or at least worth seriously considering) around these parts.  See attached.
Mics: AT4050ST | AT4031 | AT853 (C/SC) | Line Audio CM3 | Sennheiser e614 | Sennheiser MKE2 | DPA 4061 Pre: CA9200 Decks: Zoom F8 | Roland R-05

Offline ero3030

  • Trade Count: (60)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
  • Gender: Male
Re: Stereo Microphone Techniques...Are the Purists Wrong?
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2025, 01:09:38 PM »
For me KISS.  Keep it simple stupid ( I'm the stupid)
Xy of some type up close, ORTF in the sweet spot and AB from a distance.  Good read though
needin some fishhead music!

We r not bootleggers so stop bootlegging

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 9168
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: Stereo Microphone Techniques...Are the Purists Wrong?
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2025, 05:34:08 PM »
I remember when this was first issued. It is a good overview of what the thoughts were at the time with a bit of Lipshitz' pov thrown in.
I knew Lipshitz. He produced seminars for AES during this time frame. In 1988, he had us speak about our psuedo-stereo 4 channel device in relation to several other presenters working in the same area of expertise. He was basically an aggregator of information. highly motivate and truly into sound for sounds' sake. Thanks for posting this. took my mind back to those days.
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG460|CK61|CK1|CK3|CK8|Beyer M 201E|DPA 4060 SK
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI x2; Sony PCM-M10

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 16727
  • Gender: Male
  • We create auditory illusions, not reproductions
Re: Stereo Microphone Techniques...Are the Purists Wrong?
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2025, 01:54:05 PM »
Been a long time since I read that article. Good stuff, even 4 decades later.

However.. My take on Lipshitz is that he's undoubtably brilliant, yet is more interested in clean mathematical models and geometrical imaging accuracy than pursuing the messy, complicated, arguably higher goal of evoking an emotive response in the listener which rings true and translates the artistic intent of a great musical performance. Can't deny the math, and very much appreciate the clearly described listening experiments which illustrate the underlying phenomena, but I don't find much correlation between his ultimate conclusions and my subjective experience of recording methods capable of enhancing the chance of an excellently recorded live musical performance connecting and resonating deeply with a listener.  The primary emphasis on the engineering/mathematics side of things falls short when the deeper goal is appreciation of music and its performance as an artform.  Despite my seemingly contrary opinion on coincident-stereo microphone techniques (not) being the end-all-be-all of live concert recording, there is loads of good fundamental information in that article.  I hold the man and his contributions to the field in deep respect, have learned much from what I've read of his, and apply all of what he describes, only with a somewhat different ultimate goal - listener engagement and enjoyment of the music and its performance above all else, using methods suited to a wide range of situations from compromised to ideal, over the absolute accuracy of image for acoustic sources in halls with ideal acoustics.

We agree on the objective physics if not the subjective end result.

What should the primary goal be? Depends on the endeavor.  Is truthfulness to reproduction accuracy or truthfulness to artistic accuracy more important?  For a live musical performances, I'd argue both matter, but place artistic accuracy and listener engagement first.  In the end, the goal of a great live music recording isn't the sampling and recreation of the sound field present at the recording location during the performance, but rather evoking in the listener a profound and moving connection with the music and its performance.

Engineering science / performance art. Two sides of the coin. The first is the means, the latter the end.  Engineering facilitates the art, which in turn resonates with the listener.  In the end, one's connection with the art matters more than the engineering used to enhance one's perception of it.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to for the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: Version 4 provided in individual sections rather than a single booklet)

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 16727
  • Gender: Male
  • We create auditory illusions, not reproductions
Re: Stereo Microphone Techniques...Are the Purists Wrong?
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2025, 02:01:15 PM »
It's now 2025, 40 years later.  Even as amateur non-professional location recordists, we have the ability to quite easily and inexpensively do things that were challenging for professionals when that article was written.  Its no big deal for us to record, easily and inexpensively, up to 8 fully sync'd channels all with full bandwidth and high dynamic range if we like.  Recording four channels, even six, is common.  Still, nothing in that article is incorrect.  I concluded long ago there are essentially three basic categories of microphone technique that apply to live concert recording: 1) pseudo binaural (head-worn, mostly stealth); 2) Optimized 2-channel configurations (Improved PAS ranging from coincident through near-spaced arrays); 3) Multichannel recording arrays specifically designed to combine the best attributes of each of the recording approaches Lipshitz describes, while minimalizing their drawbacks.  Regardless of approach, we all seek to achieve a reasonable combination of accurate direct-sound imaging, good spatial impression, natural audience reaction and good room impression, in repeatable and reasonably achievable ways.

We are fortunate to stand on the shoulders of giants.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to for the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: Version 4 provided in individual sections rather than a single booklet)

Offline goodcooker

  • Trade Count: (47)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • Gender: Male
Re: Stereo Microphone Techniques...Are the Purists Wrong?
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2025, 09:57:09 AM »
Regardless of approach, we all seek to achieve a reasonable combination of accurate direct-sound imaging, good spatial impression, natural audience reaction and good room impression, in repeatable and reasonably achievable ways.


Please don't lump us all together. Everyone is not trying to achieve the same things as you.
http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/goodcooker

"Are you the Zman?" - fan at Panic 10-08-10 Kansas City
"I don't know who left this perfectly good inflatable wook doll here, but if I'm blowing her up, I'm keeping her." -  hoppedup

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 9168
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: Stereo Microphone Techniques...Are the Purists Wrong?
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2025, 02:15:03 PM »
It's now 2025, 40 years later.  Even as amateur non-professional location recordists, we have the ability to quite easily and inexpensively do things that were challenging for professionals when that article was written.  Its no big deal for us to record, easily and inexpensively, up to 8 fully sync'd channels all with full bandwidth and high dynamic range if we like.  Recording four channels, even six, is common.  Still, nothing in that article is incorrect.  I concluded long ago there are essentially three basic categories of microphone technique that apply to live concert recording: 1) pseudo binaural (head-worn, mostly stealth); 2) Optimized 2-channel configurations (Improved PAS ranging from coincident through near-spaced arrays); 3) Multichannel recording arrays specifically designed to combine the best attributes of each of the recording approaches Lipshitz describes, while minimalizing their drawbacks.  Regardless of approach, we all seek to achieve a reasonable combination of accurate direct-sound imaging, good spatial impression, natural audience reaction and good room impression, in repeatable and reasonably achievable ways.

We are fortunate to stand on the shoulders of giants.
I had been waiting to add a bit more of my perspective. With the sentence I bolded it begins. We are incredibly more flexible than our forebearers in that we have almost infinite channels at our disposal, cost and gear availability considered. The improvements in microphonics, especially the ambisonic types have given us even more flexibility.
However, the Giants referenced did most of the basic legwork for us. Blumlein is certainly a great person to start with if you wish to dig deep into his/their research. When we studied psychoacoustics, Blumlein is one of the first scientists referenced as he made the earliest attempts to incorporate the recording techniques with consideration of the playback/listening technology. In his time, alongside EMI, Amar Bose, Henry Klipsch, and The Bell labs guys were all studying, experimenting, and documenting the results. Lipshitz was a "second generation" of these earlier pioneers, and many engineers such as Bob Carver, and Bose specialized in playback designs of amplifiers and loudspeakers, of which Lipshitz was experimenting with and documenting those results. He was a math guy who liked to present his theories in less technical ways, as in the article referenced. He definitely was making a lot of field recordings at the time. 

1] Coincident techniques such as what Lipshitz is talking about in this paper are compared with the typical multi-mic arrays used in studio or live recording of symphonic orchestras or big band jazz from the 1950's and early 1960's. Those ear;y multi-mic recordings could have had three or four up to 16 rmicrophones all arranged in a line at stage lip or in the orchestra pit with "spot" mics typically placed in the orchestra, near the smaller woodwinds, the brass, and strings. We made recordings like this for the University, typically only using eight microphones, four in a line and four spots. I *think* the main point to it all was to use up the 8 or 16 (later 24) channels of tape the modern large studio machines used. The end results depended A LOT on the expertise of the engineers. Shifting to two or four channel field placed and location optimized microphones is the point to what this paper discusses and what was being done in the field at the time (Late 1970's, early 1980's).

2] Early "Stereo microphones" were constrained by the size of capsules, magnets, and circuitry. As time progressed, and smaller elements were introduced, the electret condenser and such, the types of coincident microphone matching and maufacturing became easier to do. Note that at the end of this paper he gushes about early ambisonics using a BORROWED Soundfield 1 to make his experiments. I recall doing loudspeaker measurements at the anechoic chamber at University int he early 1980's. We rarely had the latest and greatest even at a private University as the studio and radio station budgets were only so much. Our mentor, Mark Fitzgerald, who ran the studios for three years, was always borrowing and squeezing out gear from the manufacturers. So Lipshitz was also constrained by budgeting, of course. So after studying the results, to their ears, of these Soundfield recordings, he was very high on using those mics to obtain excellent coincident samples (which can be altered later with software) He was certainly chasing the best sound capture for that era. I have recorded with several stereo mics, notably the AKG c422, c426 and c34 family. IN the early 1980's we also had a Sony stereo mic (ecm 902?)

3] I found his statement that to preserve accurate imaging only three speakers, not four, should be used for optimal playback to be almost funny in 2025. One heavy area of research in the mid 1980's was multi-channel sound, surround sound and the beginnings of the immersive arrays such as the Cirque du Soleil's 16 channel system. I think the industry quickly moved to four, five and seven point surround sound within the next few years, certainly by the early 1990's. (My area of research and the US Patent we were awarded was in this multi-channel playback field) My experience does lead me to notice the three vs four speakers he mentioned and sort of laugh and note how things have truly changed since 1986. At that time, we AES scientists and members, were all being told by the bean counters no one would afford/purchase multiple amplifiers and 4 or more loudspeakers for their home. [Edit to add: I misinterpreted the paper in regard to the ambisonics section - but will let this stand for continuity of the thread] (read below posts)

It turned out that the bean counters were all BS in the hindsight of the way it turned out, which allows me the personal insight to realize that even "experts" cannot anticipate the inventions to come and the willingness of consumers to pay.
This is a good fundamentals type paper, and Lipshitz was well regarded by the AES community. Thanks for posting this heathen.

(BTW- I am aware that this post will not go far in convincing the tapers who don't frequent this site to stop calling it Audio Engineering section)  >:D
https://meyersound.com/news/cirque-du-soleil-alize/                           Interesting new system for Cirque using Meyer technology (excerpt relating to this discussion):
Quote
System optimization and spatial processing are supplied by ten Galileo GALAXY Network Platforms, with six dedicated to the P.A. and four running in Spacemap Go mode to manage approximately 64 outputs. Everything is connected via a Milan AVB network.
Only three loudspeakers, eh?      >:D
« Last Edit: November 14, 2025, 06:20:45 PM by rocksuitcase »
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG460|CK61|CK1|CK3|CK8|Beyer M 201E|DPA 4060 SK
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI x2; Sony PCM-M10

Offline heathen

  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3644
Re: Stereo Microphone Techniques...Are the Purists Wrong?
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2025, 04:02:43 PM »

3] I found his statement that to preserve accurate imaging only three speakers, not four, should be used for optimal playback to be almost funny in 2025. One heavy area of research in the mid 1980's was multi-channel sound, surround sound and the beginnings of the immersive arrays such as the Cirque du Soleil's 16 channel system. I think the industry quickly moved to four, five and seven point surround sound within the next few years, certainly by the early 1990's. (My area of research and the US Patent we were awarded was in this multi-channel playback field) My experience does lead me to notice the three vs four speakers he mentioned and sort of laugh and note how things have truly changed since 1986. At that time, we AES scientists and members, were all being told by the bean counters no one would afford/purchase multiple amplifiers and 4 or more loudspeakers for their home.

All BS in the hindsight of the way it turned out, which allows me the personal insight to realize that even "experts" cannot anticipate the inventions to come and the willingness of consumers to pay.
This is a good fundamentals type paper, and Lipshitz was well regarded by the AES community. Thanks for posting this heathen.

Are you referring to page 734?  Because if so I think you're misreading what he says.  He says that ambisonics are superior to "earlier" (his word) quadrophonics because ambisonics can capture the "spherical" sound field at the listener's head position.  Earlier in that paragraph he references "loudspeakers surrounding the listener" as the better playback system, again in the context of ambisonics.  The part I think you might be misinterpreting is when at the end of that paragraph he says: "three and not four channels of information is the optimal number for horizontal surround sound."  There he's not talking about the number of speakers for playback, but the W, X, and Y channels of information.  Also he's explicitly only referring to horizontal surround sound.  In the next sentence he adds that a fourth channel, Z, provides height information.  (And of course from those four channels one can derive feeds for surround sound speaker setups of more than just three or four speakers.)  I don't read any of this to be saying that "to preserve accurate imaging only three speakers, not four, should be used for optimal playback...."  In fact he seems to be saying the opposite.  After all he begins the paragraph by referring to "loudspeakers surrounding the listener...."

I think it's a bit unfair to say that what he wrote is "All BS."
Mics: AT4050ST | AT4031 | AT853 (C/SC) | Line Audio CM3 | Sennheiser e614 | Sennheiser MKE2 | DPA 4061 Pre: CA9200 Decks: Zoom F8 | Roland R-05

Offline heathen

  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3644
Re: Stereo Microphone Techniques...Are the Purists Wrong?
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2025, 04:12:15 PM »
It's now 2025, 40 years later.  Even as amateur non-professional location recordists, we have the ability to quite easily and inexpensively do things that were challenging for professionals when that article was written.  Its no big deal for us to record, easily and inexpensively, up to 8 fully sync'd channels all with full bandwidth and high dynamic range if we like.  Recording four channels, even six, is common. 

While you're definitely correct that it's pretty easy to record that many channels (all one needs is the money to buy the mics, cables, recorders, and mounts), the real issue is what to then do with all the data that's captured.  How many tapers that combine 4+ mics in a single recording can honestly claim to know what they're doing in any real sense?  Surely there are some, but I'd bet thousands of dollars in cash and prizes that it's much less than 50% of them.  Which is not to say people shouldn't experiment or just wing it, but let's not confuse an adventurous spirit with expertise.

To be clear, I'd definitely count myself among those who don't really know what they're doing when I've used 4+ mic setups in the past.  (I say "in the past" not because I think I know what I'm doing now, but because those setups are a bit more work than I care to do in the limited instances I record shows these days.)
« Last Edit: November 14, 2025, 04:33:55 PM by heathen »
Mics: AT4050ST | AT4031 | AT853 (C/SC) | Line Audio CM3 | Sennheiser e614 | Sennheiser MKE2 | DPA 4061 Pre: CA9200 Decks: Zoom F8 | Roland R-05

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 16727
  • Gender: Male
  • We create auditory illusions, not reproductions
Re: Stereo Microphone Techniques...Are the Purists Wrong?
« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2025, 05:57:15 PM »
Note- Just saw upon preview that heathen posted twice above and addressed some of this..

Taking that thought further.. we're so incredibly fortunate to be able to so easily find these materials these days in comparison to 40 years ago.  My own deep immersion into AES papers, university on-line materials, researcher websites, and that kind of thing 20 years ago now would not have been possible just a decade or two earlier - at least not to the extent that I took advantage of it.  Yet knowledge only being half a coin, I probably learned as much or more from trying out all those ideas and messing around with variations on them enough to develop a good hands-on, ears-open understanding of how it applies, or doesn't, to the goals I wanted to achieve. I justified picking up a Tetramic ambisonic mic early on primarily as an investment into my further hands-on education about coincident stereo in general, in addition to ambisonics specifically.  Need to do it for real to really make it real.

Sure we all have somewhat different goals and ways of doing things and that's a strength. Its good we don't all appreciate the same things equally, but that said, there are some things with which all of us will concur.

There is much interesting fundamental stuff about acoustics and recording that is universally applicable.  But there is also a lot that really only applies to other more traditional forms of music recording and doesn't apply to concert taping.. and vice-versa.  And that's a whole nother aspect, just as important, and facinating to me.

Very cool you had the chance to interact personally with Lipshitz, Rocksuitcase.  We're fortunate to have you here to share that insight and the other stuff you were doing back then.

Early on when I got serious about live music performance recording and playback and started digging deep into acoustics and audio engineering, I quickly ran across the early stereo experiments of Alan Blumlein at EMI and Harvey Fletcher at Bell Labs back in the 1930's, mentioned briefly in the Lipshitz article.  At the time I'd intended to make up T-shirts with head shot photos of both of them, one on the front, the other on the back.  Never did it, but seeing their photos in that article brought it vividly back to mind.  Maybe time to finally get around to that.


One more thing, forgive my correction-  Lipshitz was not suggesting the use of three speakers, but rather states in the article that 3 channels via ambisonics is sufficient for horizontal surround and superior to 4 channels via quadraphonics.  He's correct in describing first-order ambisonics in that way.  Yet 40 years later we an and do easily record dual-mid-side (3 channels providing full horizontal 1st order ambisonics), choose from various relatively inexpensive dedicated ambisonic mics (4-channels with full periphony/height), and even record higher 2nd order ambisonics to an 8-channel recorder.  That all works and can be used for stereo output or surround and is compact and easy to run.  But we also now know and accept that those coincident approaches are not the end-all-be-all and don't displace the superiority of near-spaced and wide-spaced configurations when goals other than compactness and convenience become more important. Take a look at the multichannel recording options on the Schoeps and DPA websites, which would not be there if coincident mic'ing was the method to rule them all.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to for the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: Version 4 provided in individual sections rather than a single booklet)

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 9168
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: Stereo Microphone Techniques...Are the Purists Wrong?
« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2025, 05:58:09 PM »

3] I found his statement that to preserve accurate imaging only three speakers, not four, should be used for optimal playback to be almost funny in 2025. One heavy area of research in the mid 1980's was multi-channel sound, surround sound and the beginnings of the immersive arrays such as the Cirque du Soleil's 16 channel system. I think the industry quickly moved to four, five and seven point surround sound within the next few years, certainly by the early 1990's. (My area of research and the US Patent we were awarded was in this multi-channel playback field) My experience does lead me to notice the three vs four speakers he mentioned and sort of laugh and note how things have truly changed since 1986. At that time, we AES scientists and members, were all being told by the bean counters no one would afford/purchase multiple amplifiers and 4 or more loudspeakers for their home.

All BS in the hindsight of the way it turned out, which allows me the personal insight to realize that even "experts" cannot anticipate the inventions to come and the willingness of consumers to pay.
This is a good fundamentals type paper, and Lipshitz was well regarded by the AES community. Thanks for posting this heathen.

Are you referring to page 734?  Because if so I think you're misreading what he says.  He says that ambisonics are superior to "earlier" (his word) quadrophonics because ambisonics can capture the "spherical" sound field at the listener's head position.  Earlier in that paragraph he references "loudspeakers surrounding the listener" as the better playback system, again in the context of ambisonics.  The part I think you might be misinterpreting is when at the end of that paragraph he says: "three and not four channels of information is the optimal number for horizontal surround sound."  There he's not talking about the number of speakers for playback, but the W, X, and Y channels of information.  Also he's explicitly only referring to horizontal surround sound.  In the next sentence he adds that a fourth channel, Z, provides height information.  (And of course from those four channels one can derive feeds for surround sound speaker setups of more than just three or four speakers.)  I don't read any of this to be saying that "to preserve accurate imaging only three speakers, not four, should be used for optimal playback...."  In fact he seems to be saying the opposite.  After all he begins the paragraph by referring to "loudspeakers surrounding the listener...."

I think it's a bit unfair to say that what he wrote is "All BS."
Whoa! While I agree that I did not process and did mis interpret the Horizontal sound aspect, he still seemed to be saying he thought ambisonics was the next best thing related to coincidental setups.

I DID NOT say what Lipshitz wrote was BS- I will have to edit that ending. What I meant was:
We AES types were being told (by the "bigwigs") that: "the bean counters [tell us] no one would afford/purchase multiple amplifiers and 4 or more loudspeakers for their home."
THAT was what I referred to as BS. The industry idiots who told us and everyone at the time (edit for clarity- we are talking 1986) "No consumers would purchase multiple amps and loudspeakers for a HOME setup"
Yes, I wrote the 3 vs 4 speakers thing had me laughing, again, about the bean counters and their lack of imagination, NOT about Lipshitz' work, which I highly regard. After all, he was part of the same, very small, community I was in at that time, and he was prolific with his writing.

I thank you again for posting, as I ended my thoughts with: This is a good fundamentals type paper, and Lipshitz was well regarded by the AES community. Thanks for posting this heathen.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2025, 06:02:01 PM by rocksuitcase »
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG460|CK61|CK1|CK3|CK8|Beyer M 201E|DPA 4060 SK
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI x2; Sony PCM-M10

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 16727
  • Gender: Male
  • We create auditory illusions, not reproductions
Re: Stereo Microphone Techniques...Are the Purists Wrong?
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2025, 06:16:00 PM »
While you're definitely correct that it's pretty easy to record that many channels (all one needs is the money to buy the mics, cables, recorders, and mounts), the real issue is what to then do with all the data that's captured.  How many tapers that combine 4+ mics in a single recording can honestly claim to know what they're doing in any real sense?  Surely there are some, but I'd bet thousands of dollars in cash and prizes that it's much less than 50% of them.  Which is not to say people shouldn't experiment or just wing it, but let's not confuse an adventurous spirit with expertise.

No question!  There is no need for any taper to do any of that unless they want to, and its a rocky row to hoe with plenty of pitfalls.   2 mics > two channels can be excellent and all anyone really needs, but the opportunity to take things farther is now easier than ever for anyone who may want to mess around with it.  We have more knowledge, tech, and accessible gear to do so than ever available before.  That path has certainly been fun and rewarding for me.  ..and for me to share what I've learned along the way here at TS.   Thanks.

Most of my complaints above are about Lipshitz's push for coincident 2-channel stereo being "correct" and near-spaced and wide-spaced 2-channel stereo not being "problematic".  I reject that.  Near-spaced configurations will typically be the best choice for most tapers.  Some will run an enjoy coincident configs, and that's cool too.  The whole multichannel thing involves additional complications that tapers are free to take or leave as they choose.  TS is a fantastic resource in regards to all these approaches.  Big umbrella.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to for the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: Version 4 provided in individual sections rather than a single booklet)

Offline grawk

  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 873
  • Gender: Male
Re: Stereo Microphone Techniques...Are the Purists Wrong?
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2025, 07:29:53 PM »
For open taping situations where I'm still limited to my seat, I may run 2 rigs.  For situations where I can be a little more indulgent, I will run 3-4, including ambisonics or DMS.  I still generally stick to the 4015s when I'm listening later, tho.
Schoeps DMS (mk41v/mk4v/mk8) - DPA 4015gs - Sennheiser Ambeo - Nohype SRM-1 - Sennheiser 416T
Sonosax AD8+/R4+/M2D2 - Lectrosonics SPDR - Tascam FR-AV2 - Deity PR2 - DPA MMA:A

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (43)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4276
Re: Stereo Microphone Techniques...Are the Purists Wrong?
« Reply #13 on: November 14, 2025, 07:44:38 PM »
If we're talking purist stereo arrays, for my most recent recordings I've gone back to Blumlein's original 1931 patent using a small-AB omni array with shuffling EQ similar to what he proposed.

https://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=203942.msg2435238#msg2435238
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

Offline heathen

  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3644
Re: Stereo Microphone Techniques...Are the Purists Wrong?
« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2025, 08:46:33 PM »
Whoa! While I agree that I did not process and did mis interpret the Horizontal sound aspect, he still seemed to be saying he thought ambisonics was the next best thing related to coincidental setups.

I DID NOT say what Lipshitz wrote was BS- I will have to edit that ending. What I meant was:
We AES types were being told (by the "bigwigs") that: "the bean counters [tell us] no one would afford/purchase multiple amplifiers and 4 or more loudspeakers for their home."
THAT was what I referred to as BS. The industry idiots who told us and everyone at the time (edit for clarity- we are talking 1986) "No consumers would purchase multiple amps and loudspeakers for a HOME setup"
Yes, I wrote the 3 vs 4 speakers thing had me laughing, again, about the bean counters and their lack of imagination, NOT about Lipshitz' work, which I highly regard. After all, he was part of the same, very small, community I was in at that time, and he was prolific with his writing.

I thank you again for posting, as I ended my thoughts with: This is a good fundamentals type paper, and Lipshitz was well regarded by the AES community. Thanks for posting this heathen.

If it didn't run the risk of creating more confusion for someone reading later on I'd edit my post too in light of your clarification...but then the clarification wouldn't have context  ;D 
Mics: AT4050ST | AT4031 | AT853 (C/SC) | Line Audio CM3 | Sennheiser e614 | Sennheiser MKE2 | DPA 4061 Pre: CA9200 Decks: Zoom F8 | Roland R-05

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.084 seconds with 36 queries.
© 2002-2025 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF