Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: Interesting articles

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Texas USA
    Posts
    1,474
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 286 Times in 265 Posts
    Rep Power
    1407191
    Sign in to disable this ad
    Quote Originally Posted by spantini View Post
    Ear opening explanation and demonstration of this technique - samples included.

    Mid-Side (MS) Mic Recording Basics | Universal Audio
    I started to scan that article but stopped when I came across this bit:

    "Another great benefit of M/S miking is that it provides true mono compatibility. Since the two Side channels cancel each other out when you switch the mix to mono, only the center Mid channel remains, giving you a perfect monaural signal. And since the Side channels also contain much of the room ambience, collapsing the mix to mono eliminates that sound, resulting in a more direct mix with increased clarity."

    I'm going to possibly say more than I know, but this doesn't seem exactly correct. They don't "cancel each other out" any more than two separate mics on the same guitar amp panned left and right would cancel each other out. Only the material that is completely identical (and now opposite polarity after the S/fig8 mic track is dup'd and one inverted) is removed by that collapse. (N.B. It will sound a lot different on speakers than headphones, where the cancellation of the opposite polarity material is not going to happen!) And, that ambience that's been recorded, i.e., anything that's recorded by the Figure 8 mic that's has a different waveform is going to remain. You can even still boost it in the mix the same way you would have widened the stereo mix.

    The mono compatibility is an important factor, because it does mean that the center mic is effectively the only mic track that will contain sound that reached all mics from a centered source, and I *think* some of the comb-filtering issues that might be present in other stereo techniques are reduced, but that's a WAG.

    [Pure editorial] I still think this technique is best where you do want to capture and control the room content separately from the main source. So, in some ways, it might work in both great and poorer locations, but in something like my little room, which toggles between fairly dead to made useless by external noise, I've not been able to get any mileage out of it.
    "... I know in the mornin' that it's gonna be good
    when I stick out my elbows and they don't bump wood." - Bill Kirchen

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to keith.rogers For This Useful Post:


  3. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Tampa, Fl.
    Posts
    1,219
    Thanks
    308
    Thanked 166 Times in 158 Posts
    Rep Power
    727895
    I can't really comment on it since, for vocals, I've only ever used a single mic, or multiple mics in "normal" positioning (some taped together).
    Failure - - the path of least persistence
    And, uh, oh - hire a decorator to come in here quick, 'cause... DAMN.

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Texas USA
    Posts
    1,474
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 286 Times in 265 Posts
    Rep Power
    1407191
    I think this is actually got some decent info.

    10 Things You Could Be Doing Wrong When Recording at | Reverb News

    I'm still trying to understand this affection for active DIs everywhere, but I do understand that some things sound better with them. I'm just not certain the reason is because it's an "active" DI, but might be something else going on, like the impedance load presented or some subtle EQ or compression thing in the circuitry.

    Digression: I have been interested enough in acoustic/electric guitar direct-recording to be convinced that the impedance load can make a big difference for some types of acoustic pickups, so do have setups that route guitars either through true-bypass tuners into [XLR powered] active DIs with 1MΩ impedance, or tuners with buffers (also 1MΩ impedance) into good quality passive DIs. But, IME, the majority of modern acoustic/electric guitars with built-in preamps can tolerate passive DIs just fine. I'm only trying to cover the unknowns that show up, and the folks with K&Ks and no belt-clip preamp...
    "... I know in the mornin' that it's gonna be good
    when I stick out my elbows and they don't bump wood." - Bill Kirchen

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to keith.rogers For This Useful Post:


  6. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    HOUSTON, TEXAS
    Posts
    606
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 106 Times in 94 Posts
    Rep Power
    563186
    IIRC the stuff i have read about DI's all says that the least colored sound is going to come from either; A) expensive transformer or B)active DI. I have one passive/ transformer coupled, and 2 active. The passive definitely has a "sound", while the actives are pretty much transparent. I mostly just use mine for bass but i do prefer the passive if i am using a guitar. The only other thing is the active will cause less signal loss if you are using it as a splitter(balanced and unbalanced outs at the same time). Pretty negligible diff but if your amp is out in the other room it might make a slight improvement.
    Win 7 Ult Dell i7 4core 6700ghz 32 GB, 1,2x2, 4 Tb Barracuda HD's running Pro tools 2018 through Allen&Heath Qu-32

  7. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    northampton uk home of Dr Who and Blackstar Amps!
    Posts
    9,043
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 558 Times in 530 Posts
    Rep Power
    8989824
    Quote Originally Posted by keith.rogers View Post
    I started to scan that article but stopped when I came across this bit:

    "Another great benefit of M/S miking is that it provides true mono compatibility. Since the two Side channels cancel each other out when you switch the mix to mono, only the center Mid channel remains, giving you a perfect monaural signal. And since the Side channels also contain much of the room ambience, collapsing the mix to mono eliminates that sound, resulting in a more direct mix with increased clarity."

    I'm going to possibly say more than I know, but this doesn't seem exactly correct. They don't "cancel each other out" any more than two separate mics on the same guitar amp panned left and right would cancel each other out. Only the material that is completely identical (and now opposite polarity after the S/fig8 mic track is dup'd and one inverted) is removed by that collapse. (N.B. It will sound a lot different on speakers than headphones, where the cancellation of the opposite polarity material is not going to happen!) And, that ambience that's been recorded, i.e., anything that's recorded by the Figure 8 mic that's has a different waveform is going to remain. You can even still boost it in the mix the same way you would have widened the stereo mix.

    The mono compatibility is an important factor, because it does mean that the center mic is effectively the only mic track that will contain sound that reached all mics from a centered source, and I *think* some of the comb-filtering issues that might be present in other stereo techniques are reduced, but that's a WAG.

    [Pure editorial] I still think this technique is best where you do want to capture and control the room content separately from the main source. So, in some ways, it might work in both great and poorer locations, but in something like my little room, which toggles between fairly dead to made useless by external noise, I've not been able to get any mileage out of it.
    I am with you Keith. Like you I do not profess any exoertise here but just "physics" dictates to me that a CO-I pair will give a better mono resultant than any other configuration? Even then, the sharpness of the mono signal will depend upon the degree of matching of the mics.

    In an MS rig you have microphones of a different polar pattern FCS! It is well known that a cardiod and an omni sound different even if it is the same capsule that is switched. MS mics are also nothing like as "close" as a CO-I pair.

    Dave.

  8. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    HOUSTON, TEXAS
    Posts
    606
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 106 Times in 94 Posts
    Rep Power
    563186
    Just found this incredible forum thread that I think has answers/info for just about any newbie or even intermediate recordist question there is. It's pretty dense, so a lot of people might not wade through it , though it's not hard to read or really technical-just a lot of info and ideas
    Why do your recordings sound like ass? - Cockos Incorporated Forums
    PS ignore the title it's not that condescending in reality
    Win 7 Ult Dell i7 4core 6700ghz 32 GB, 1,2x2, 4 Tb Barracuda HD's running Pro tools 2018 through Allen&Heath Qu-32

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Gtoboy For This Useful Post:


  10. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Age
    49
    Posts
    19,194
    Thanks
    881
    Thanked 668 Times in 602 Posts
    Rep Power
    21474863
    YEP.

    I find it ironic how much time he spends writing things down. He is good at it...

    Only read a dozen or so pages. But he does have some really good points.

    May need a book on tape tho...
    PC Win7-64-24G i7-4790k/Cubase 9 Pro 64-bit/2-Steinberg UR824's/ADAM A7x/Event TR8/SS Trigger Plat Deluxe/Melodyne 4 Studio/Other things that don't mean anything if a client shows up not knowing what it wants.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. interesting article
    By jugalo180 in forum Mixing Techniques
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-11-2003, 13:22
  2. Interesting article
    By dmcsilva in forum Recording Techniques
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-30-1999, 05:09

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •