How does diaphragm size/polar pattern relate to mic applications?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm gonna break this into sections and then post the basics first, then talk about how and when to use them.

Coincident stereo mic techniques.

coincident.gif


In the late 1920's and early 1930's, Alan Blumlein (in Britain) and RCA were both working on recording techniques, using only a small number of recording channels for reproduction over a pair of loudspeakers.

The technique developed by Alan Blumlein consisted of a pair of microphones with figure 8 patterns, mounted close together,with the front lobe of one mic pointing 45 degrees to the left, and the front lobe of the other pointing 45 degrees to the right (Figure 2.). Although it provided excellent stereo imagining, sounds coming from the rear are also picked up and when reproduced over a pair of loudspeakers, these sounds were also mixed into the speakers. This results in a sound which is too reveberant for many people.

"Purists" who liked the simplicity and accuracy of the Blumlein technique modified it in order to remove this problem. By replacing the figure 8 microphones with cardioids and changing the angle between them to include the desired soundstage, it is possible to use the cardioid mic's lack of rear response to reduce the rear reveberant sounds. This results in a much more acceptable, if less accurate sound image. Typically, the angle between the mics should not be more than about 135 degrees, or less than 90. This technique is the popular "X/Y" stereo recording system. (Figure 1.)

Mid-Side (M-S) techniques use a figure 8 mic, sideways to the sound source, and a cardioid mic facing the source (Figure 3.). By inverting the signal from the real lobe of the figure 8 mic and using a matrix network, it is possible to adjust the width of the sound stage to almost any size.
 
Newbie question alert....

Q1: In the X/Y pair I'm assuming that the mics have to be identical. Correct?

Q2: In the X/Y pair where and how far away would the sound source be?

Q3: You lost me on the Matrix network. What is that?

Thanks.
 
Re: Newbie question alert....

Originally posted by JerryD

Q1: In the X/Y pair I'm assuming that the mics have to be identical. Correct?

Yes, it helps keep the stereo image from wandering. (That means if one mic has a peak at a certain frequency, everytime that note comes along, the mic will hear it louder and play back as if the sound is coming from one side.)

Q2: In the X/Y pair where and how far away would the sound source be?

Depends on the X/Y angle you use, but in general, no further back than the mics pointed at the outside edges of whatever you're recording. At 90°, the mics would form the apex of an triangle, with one mic pointed toward the left edge of the group you're recording and the other mic etc., etc.. As you move the mics in closer to the source, you would widen the angle accordingly. it's not a hard and fast rule. For example, I usually aim the mics about 1/4 of the way in from the outside of the source, and then move in and out till I get the sound I want.

Q3: You lost me on the Matrix network. What is that?

Ok, this M-S stuff works by additive/subtractive matrixing. True figure 8 mics have the best off axis response of any pressure gradient design and a perfect null in the middle (at exactly right angles to the front of the mic. When you turn a figure 8 mic sideways to the sound, none of the sound from dead center is heard. Only from the left side, or the right side (but one side is out of phase, cuz it's coming off the back of the mic).

You add a cardioid pointed at the center of the music. and not only does it fill in the hole, but it is combined with the figure 8 to create sum and difference combinations (usually thru a matrixing box) to let you control the absolute width of the stereo image. You can dial in anything from a perfect mono signal to wide stereo, all with perfect phase coherency.

A more complete source for how it does this is available from my friend Wes Dooley at http://www.wesdooley.com. He makes M-S matrix boxes and he has a complete article on how M-S stereo works on his web site. Wes is one of the leading authorities on M-S Stereo miking. (I can't afford any of his damn matrix boxes, but it's good reading to understand the principles.
 
I'm no rocket scientist.

Q4: On the X/Y pair it looks like if you go over 90 degrees on your angle you would start missing the center of your stereo image due to the limitation of the mic pickup pattern.
Why would you ever want to go over 90 degrees?

I hope this is not too stupid of a question.
 
Re: I'm no rocket scientist.

Originally posted by JerryD
Q4: On the X/Y pair it looks like if you go over 90 degrees on your angle you would start missing the center of your stereo image due to the limitation of the mic pickup pattern.
Why would you ever want to go over 90 degrees?

To increase the apparent width of the sound stage. But, as you widen the angle between the mics, you move in closer to the source, and you move in closer to the center, more than you do to the ends of the source, so the center level inreases to offset the loss from the wider angle. In simpler terms, it all works out.

I hope this is not too stupid of a question.

Hell, don't ask me - I'm busy enough worrying whether this is not too stupid of an answer.
 
Heya, Harvey! Great thread...

I was wondering... we generally record live and on-the-fly, but we don't have the luxury of a lot of space. We've got a PA speaker right behind the drummer's head and congos next to the drums... and, anyways, I was thinking of building one of those "medical dog collar" funnel things to make the mics we're using (mostly 57's, but some various vocal dynamics in there, too) more cardioid (even if they're already hyper-cardioid).

I want them picking up what I'm pointing them at, not the other stuff. Is this possible? Is there a way to get around the frequency shift that will come with such a "get-up"?

One other question: Is the gold "sputtered" on there to alliviate corrosion that would alter the audio qualities? Or are the mics just "too cheap"? :D I'm interested because the humidity level in our room is often 80%, and in addition to various channels on our Mackie going out, pickups rusting, and the overall smell of freshly reincarnated mildew, the mics might be "rusting" as well.

Whaddaya think? Thanks!
 
M-S Question

Ummmm Mr Gerst? (Raising Hand)
I have a question :) I've been recording some acoustic guitar (fingerstyle) and I tried what I think might be sort of M/S micing. I have a Soundelux U97 (Figure-8) and a KM184 into a Great River MP2. I point the U97 sideways a bit to the left of the soundhole (~8" out), and the KM184 pointed towards to 10th fret about the same distance out...I've been pretty happy with the sound but I want to make sure I'm not missing something. Am I supposed to have the mics on top of eachother and pointing at about the same spot on the guitar?
Also, I don't have any matrixing stuff (I don't even own the DVD :) ), but I record to my PC and use N-Track, I believe there are plug-ins that can reverse the phase of a channel, but could you refresh my memory as to how to do this, and also let me know what I'm missing by not doing any matrixing of the two channels. Thanks alot!
-Evan
 
As I've said before, great thread! Thanks again Harvey for the time and effort. This definitely has to be one of the most useful!

- Wil

PS: Whenever I've used MS, it's always been with the room in mind rather than trying to use it as a close-micing technique, which is what you (gordone) seem to be describing...
 
M - S

maybe I can help you out on that too but prior to it please some mor infos:

what's your main goal using M - S ?
since M - S is a sterephonic technique its advantage is not just the natural image of a sound source in a sereophonic field but also the - if done right - nearly absolute mono compatibility it is quite unusual to close mic an instrument with it.

The second thing would be:
you said you had one mic placed at the 10th fret the other one at the soundhole - this is not M - S. Ideally the mics have to be exactly at the same position (in theory). What kind of stereophonic image you get depends on the polar patterns you use. cardioid, hyper, 8 ...
Specially in close miking in that technique is essential to have both mics at 'the same place' since otherwise you R suffering combfilter efffects...
The way you place the mics seems to me that you want to derive the stereo effect by miking the instrument on two different positions with the result of different freq response in the two channels which is perfectly right for what it is, just that it's not M - S
 
Re: M - S

Thanks for the info! I'm not too concerned with mono-compatability, I just want a nice, natural acoustic guitar sound for my folky originals (singer/songwriter, some instrumental stuff). I think I'll try the mics in the "same" position tonight. Regarding close-vs.-room micing, my tracking space sounds like cr*p right now, very reverby and boxy (It's a finished room in my basement) I plan on buying some bookshelves and filling them with books to help tame the acoustics a bit. It's in a rented townhouse, so I can't start ripping apart the walls or anything like that!
-Evan


electricbeats said:
maybe I can help you out on that too but prior to it please some mor infos:

what's your main goal using M - S ?
since M - S is a sterephonic technique its advantage is not just the natural image of a sound source in a sereophonic field but also the - if done right - nearly absolute mono compatibility it is quite unusual to close mic an instrument with it.

The second thing would be:
you said you had one mic placed at the 10th fret the other one at the soundhole - this is not M - S. Ideally the mics have to be exactly at the same position (in theory). What kind of stereophonic image you get depends on the polar patterns you use. cardioid, hyper, 8 ...
Specially in close miking in that technique is essential to have both mics at 'the same place' since otherwise you R suffering combfilter efffects...
The way you place the mics seems to me that you want to derive the stereo effect by miking the instrument on two different positions with the result of different freq response in the two channels which is perfectly right for what it is, just that it's not M - S
 
Nope Jerry,

We still have a ways ta go yet. I've just been too busy these last couple of weeks and it looks like it'll be another week before I can concentrate on this stuff again.

I'm in the middle of moving into a new house, getting a master out on a project I've put a year of work into, expanding the studio by adding a second larger room, buying a new (well, used but still expensive) new board, trying to finish up the Studio Projects mic tests, all the while recording bands on our normal schedule. It's been a little crazy here, and it'll probably stay that way at least untill next week or so.

And electricbeats is right; what Gordone is doing may sound nice, but it's not M-S stereo recording.
 
OK

Harvey,

I realize you are a pretty busy guy. I was just enjoying this thread and didn't want it to get forgotten. I'll try to have a little more patience.

Cool. I hope everything goes well for you. What kind of board?

Later.
 
Ok Nearfield amd farfield. So why does say an instrument sound in front of the mix if it's miked up close as opposed to distant. It 's just that the closer the instrument is to the sound source the more in front of the mix it sounds? Vocals close up stand out guitars and toms sound in your face. Is this just a mental thing or is there an acoustic reason close miking cuts through a mix.
 
I think that's because there's less room sound, and the brain can subconsciously pick up (from presence/lack of room) how close each instrument is. Even in a mix.
 
near/farfield

the room/source relationship to position an instrument in the mix is essential to the position in a mix. therefore instruments/vocals that have to hit ( right between the listeners eyes) are recorded in a almost dead booth ( no earyreflections/reverb ) , acoustical instruments like drums, strings etc are recorded usually in a 'live' room (earlyreflections depending on size/ reverb depending on surface and the relationship width/depth/higth)
the room component defines just the depth but not in the stereo field.
To verify this just listen to a classical recording - the component of the (acoustically designed) room is high there - then listen to a typical nineties production. You will find out that a vocal track sitll hits you right in your face sometimes includes quite long reverb tail. Normal reverb would bring the voice far to much back in the mix.
The answer to that is pitch shift to double up your vocals. I know that this is not topic here, all I'm trying to say is that you should not try to compare nowadays vocal tracks' position in the mix just by the room component (artificial or natural) - listen a lot to classical music (operas!) --- OR try to record your voice in your living room ( once close/once far) - in your bathroom and in a church (w. MDwalkman?)- and then in a booth or any small room that 'kills' the trflections- maybe then record with your lex or yamaha.
Thats the only way to find out whats going on. its interesting and worth spending some time on it...
 
<----------just patiently sittin' here, hopin' Harvey can find time to finish this thread and that his sciatica isn't giving too many problems. (I suffer from the same thing).

Peace............ChrisO

:cool:
 
I'm bringing this back to the top of the forum because it's so valuable for new people and it contains a lot of good info and great questions. I will be adding more to it over the next few weeks (which means "sometime this month). Hang in there, gang. We still have two different stereo mic techniques left to cover, drum miking, miking pianos, and the section on "reading and understanding mic specifications, and how that relates to what you're actually hearing.".
 
ausrock said:
<----------just patiently sittin' here, hopin' Harvey can find time to finish this thread and that his sciatica isn't giving too many problems.

Peace............Chris

:cool:


Ditto. This thread has been fantastic, and I've learned more from it than I ever could have imagined possible. Thanks in large part to your advice, my recordings now all sound 10 times better than before. Thanks. I'll be waiting with enthusiasm for the conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top