Mid-Side Recording Questions

BxD

BxD

New member
(Disclosure: I did a search, and it yielded a hodgepodge of a mess, so I thought I'd ask this basic set of questions)

I want to experiment with Mid-Side recording, as I pretty much understand it to be superior to X-Y, as one can play with the stereo image after the fact, which you can't with X-Y (without jumping through hula-hoops). So my questions are:

I have an Omni Mic for the mid, which I read is better for full frequency coverage on the low end, in particular. But...

If I only have a (shitty) Blu microphone Yeti Pro for a figure 8, can I do this with 2 equal SDCs pointed in opposite directions, being careful to align them on top of each other, where the diaphrams are aligned?

Then, if so... how will adjusting the stereo field work, as R = M+S and L = M-S (or the other way around -- I'm on my phone now and can't check), but there are 3 inputs and not 2 of them, so how will it now work?
 
yeah, somebody here recently did just that and the results were the same. When I say recently, it might have been about a year ago.

When you do mid-side with a figure-8, you have to copy the track in your DAW and flip the phase on the track. With two SDC's, you don't have to flip the phase. So, you'll have three channels and you can either mix them down to a rendered two channel track or just use the three tracks.

I have not heard of using an omni. I always used a cardioid. Don't know how much of difference that will make.
 
Yeah, it's kinda ridiculous, even when you search Google for info... I guess it's because they explain things in one way, and then say it another way if you wanna do magic, in a DAW. It makes your head spin, as it isn't such a difficult concept, if explained simply... (If this, then that, etc.)

So...

If you mix the 3 down to 2, then how do you move the stereo image around to suit? Or, choose the S configuration you like, then play? Or play with all 3 independently?
 
MS gives you better mono compatibility, since you've got that M mic capturing everything. And it makes it easier to just dial in/out the stereo field width (also doable with plugins IME), but to me it's really dependent on having a good room and a balanced source that you can mic from a distance, with proper mics.

There are lots of other techniques to use for capturing a stereo image. I personally like XY or even a spaced pair for more unbalanced sources, and even those really only work when you've got a good room. Heck just set up 3 mics (a couple different techniques for that with names I don't remember) since you do have a pair and a 3rd mic.

What are you recording that makes you want to use MS?
 
BxD said:
If you mix the 3 down to 2, then how do you move the stereo image around to suit?
Click to expand...
You don't. You set the balance between the m and s before you mixdown to 2-track. My suggestion would be to experiment with the traditional way of recording m/s using your blue mic, get the basics of it, then move on to the SDC's.

I found some great videos on m/s when I first looked at it. Haven't done much recently and I don't think I have any songs recorded where I used m/s. Fun to experiment with.
 
Adjusting X-Y's stereo image is a trivial process. Narrowing it is just a matter of panning them closer to center. Widening it requires copying the tracks, inverting polarity and swapping the panning, then adjusting the level of the copies. There are plugins that can do this for you if you're lazy.
 
My first M/S experience ce was a Sony stereo mic ion the 70s, and back then I didn't understand how it worked but it did record a very natural stereo field, which I really liked. It had a knob that said width. It just worked.

People get bogged down with the technical explanation of M/S, and it influences how they think. For me, when recording wide sources in wonderful spaces, you do get used to predicting what to do. You stand there, you listen, and then if you hear the right things, you stick up your tried and tested rig, which for me is usually an X/Y pair, simply because I like the sound and it seems to capture what my head hears in the same space. Sometimes though there are problems. Maybe the exact placement of the sources isn't known. The rehearsal of the choir reveals that quite a few people are missing, and clearly they will have to go extra in width or depth when they arrive on the day. Will the X/Y be wide enough to not have the dreaded hole in the middle, or will they all go further back, becoming to quiet and more mono-centric? If it's a small chamber orchestra with missing people, will it suddenly become a full orchestra when they arrive? These things usually make me go M/S.

Sidetracking a moment - I have tried omni and figure 8 and it's just strange sounding - it captures the entire room and that can often be too much. You end up with a HUGE sound with some left and right movement away from centre. To me, it's not real stereo, but kind of an effect?

It's rather nice back in the studio to run the mono mid channel, and then bring in the width. If you have too much of the side and not enough of the mid, you can end up with a sort of ping-pong effect as instruments furthest from centre fight with each other - very strange effect. For me - the solid one is the mid, that sets the overall feel, and then the side makes it more 'real'? I often use a stereo scope to keep an eye on what is happening in M/S, it lets you see what you are hearing and perhaps confused by. If you use the scope on X/Y, you can soon see differences. A soloist dead centre in a reverberant space is a single line with very little else, but the same space in M/S might be much less a line and much more the room. I have in the past, rescued recordings with M/S when the room really wasn't friendly - using mostly just the mid signal. M/S is not magic, just another tool really.
 
I did read that, but it was late last night. Will give it another go today. Thanks!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top