Members brewgoodbeer Posted May 22, 2007 Members Share Posted May 22, 2007 I am looking to record some larger ensembles in stereo. I understand the difference in the techniques, but do not have enough experience with both to make an informed decision of which to use. Your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members boosh Posted May 22, 2007 Members Share Posted May 22, 2007 And the most qualified person to answer this question is : .................. Well we know who that is,.. I'd say try both of them,.. and try the Blumlein ,..and try to put another M-S mix set-up 30 to 60 ft behind the first set-up... Boosh edit : If I had the chance I'd try loads of things,.. experiment all day long until I get the result I'm aiming for,..but hey,..I'm obsessed,...sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philbo Posted May 22, 2007 Members Share Posted May 22, 2007 Maybe consider a Decca tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members boosh Posted May 22, 2007 Members Share Posted May 22, 2007 Or ROTF or NOS..... Try everything while you're at it,... I know these answers don't help much sorry but I always want to try and learn and get wiser,.... Is there a way for you to try different aproaches before you do the real job?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Danny (NS::U) Posted May 22, 2007 Members Share Posted May 22, 2007 I am looking to record some larger ensembles in stereo. I understand the difference in the techniques, but do not have enough experience with both to make an informed decision of which to use. Your thoughts? My only real quibble with MS is that it isn't truly compatible with mono. Unless you're absolutely sure that your recording will never be played in mono, I would be inclined to shy away from MS techniques. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members boosh Posted May 22, 2007 Members Share Posted May 22, 2007 My only real quibble with MS is that it isn't truly compatible with mono. Unless you're absolutely sure that your recording will never be played in mono, I would be inclined to shy away from MS techniques. Just my opinion. "The not-so-compelling reason to use M-S technique is actually the reason for which Alan Blumlein's invention of it was first commercially implemented, by Holger Lauridsen of Danish State Radio. M-S allows stereo broadcasts to be auditioned in mono with little or no degradation. When the Left and Right channels are combined, the ambient information, being phase and antiphase from a common source, cancels itself out, leaving a clear mono signal. " source : www.stereophile.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted May 22, 2007 Moderators Share Posted May 22, 2007 My only real quibble with MS is that it isn't truly compatible with mono. Unless you're absolutely sure that your recording will never be played in mono, I would be inclined to shy away from MS techniques.Just my opinion. I always considered MS to be the only one that was truly mono compatible. The "side" cancels in mono leaving only the single mid mic. That's pretty mono compatible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted May 22, 2007 Share Posted May 22, 2007 M-S actually provides "perfect mono compatability" when done correctly. For more on the subject, check out my column in this month's issue of EQ Magazine. And for more on Blumlein - the man and the stereo technique, check out next month's issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Danny (NS::U) Posted May 22, 2007 Members Share Posted May 22, 2007 While I agree with you guys about it being mono compatible in a sense, I have to respectfully disagree about it being acceptable to lose the entire signal from the side mic when collapsing to mono. (Then again, I tend to be more of a spaced pair kind of guy anyway.) Maybe it's more technically correct for me to say that the MS technique as a whole is very mono compatible, at the cost of a large chunk of the information you've recorded. Other techniques can be more or less mono compatible, but you don't lose an entire mic's worth of signal when a downmix occurs. ...or maybe it's the most technically correct for me to say that MS has never floated my boat, because I've always felt it was an overcomplicated way to achieve stereo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members brewgoodbeer Posted May 22, 2007 Author Members Share Posted May 22, 2007 or maybe it's the most technically correct for me to say that MS has never floated my boat, because I've always felt it was an overcomplicated way to achieve stereo. That was kind of my thought. I do know that I will never use the recordings in momo. They will choirs, orchestras, symphonic bands, and chamber groups etc. Most of these will be live recordings. I would love to experiment, but unfortunately I don't have the right type of mics to really play around. For more on the subject, check out my column in this month's issue of EQ Magazine. And for more on Blumlein - the man and the stereo technique, check out next month's issue. I will definitely do so. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted May 22, 2007 Moderators Share Posted May 22, 2007 Right... I agree, MS would not be my choice to record a large ensemble. I like ORTF for this. It's easy to move and find the right placement. It's decent with regards to mono compatibilty but wide enough to beat XY in the excitement department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author MikeRivers Posted May 23, 2007 CMS Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 My only real quibble with MS is that it isn't truly compatible with mono. Unless you're absolutely sure that your recording will never be played in mono, I would be inclined to shy away from MS techniques.Just my opinion.It may be just your opinion but it's totally wrong. MS is the most mono-compatible stereo mic setup there is. Do the arithmetic. When you sum the left and right channels, the bi-directional mic drops out of the equation leaving only a single cardioid or omni mic. You can't get any more mono than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author MikeRivers Posted May 23, 2007 CMS Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 While I agree with you guys about it being mono compatible in a sense, I have to respectfully disagree about it being acceptable to lose the entire signal from the side mic when collapsing to mono. (Then again, I tend to be more of a spaced pair kind of guy anyway.)You can't have it both ways. Either you have mono or you have stereo. If you want mono, you have to lose the side signal. If you have the side signal, you have stereo, and that's not mono. I can accept that you haven't had good results with M-S. You generally need to get in closer to the source than you would with a spaced or coincident pair, but in an overly reverberant room, it's often the best choice BECAUSE you can get in close and still have stereo without a hole in the middle. I happen to be a fan of M-S, but I use other techniques when they're applicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.