Greetings to all...I have a question to all of you 'Tapers' and 'Recordist' out there. What is you 'GOTO' microphone technique you use for 'live' recording of musical groups. I know in a perfect world 'M-S' or a 'Blumlein' would be the choice of most, but what's your favorite alternative? 'X/Y, DIN, ORTF, Faulkner Phased-Array' or you own favorite? Images of your favorite set-up is a plus.

Best regards,

J.

My Sony ECM-MS5 (or Rode NT4) are the quick-n-easy one-stand solutions.
As the name implies, the ECM-MS5 is a single-piece M/S configuration (although implemented with three cardioid capsules not a figure-8). And, of course, the NT4 is a co-incident cardioid pair.

Up to now ORTF was easiest for me using my pair of Rode NT1A mics. I have a stereo bar I made up for it and it's easier than doing X-Y with these mics which I find involves hanging one upside down over the other.
I have found consistent results with ORTF on a range of live performing situations, but have occasionally gone for A-B spaced instead.

Having said that, I recently invested in a Rode NT2A so that I could use the figure 8 setting for the Side mic in M/S using one of my NT1As for the Mid. I am trying hard to resist getting an NT4 so that I can do a quick X/Y. I have used the built in mics in my Zoom H4n for X/Y but the mics aren't up to the quality of the Rodes.

Quick-n-easy: A Sony MS957 for M/S with built-in decode to stereo. Made a 5-pin XLR-F to 2 3-pin XLR-M cable for it, as it comes with a 5-pin to mini. I've run the XLRs out to 100' with good results. I believe it was Gary Natrass on this forum that introduced me to the 957, there should be some old threads.

Preferred: ORTF!

I'm using Oktava MC012 mics with cardoid caps in my ORTF, which are actually a sub-cardoid pattern, a little wider than most cards. But I've gotten some outstanding recordings. My use is not classic "tapers", but rather for unamplified acoustic music performances, so, I've never used this approach in front of a P.A. system.

Rode NT4.... easy, simple, great results. NEVER had a failure or a problem using it in live to air broadcasting.
MS on the otherhand can be a pain in live to air broadcasting if the spread is made to wide, it can cause phase problems in the TX chain depending on the type of processing used.

Rode NT4, a top seller for Rode around the world. Don't forget to register for its free 10yr warranty.

Too many problems using M/S ... indoors it's prone to too much out of phase component.

Cheers.

To all...this is great! I enjoy hearing from others, especially those of you in the 'trenches'. It's one thing to discuss 'advantages' of a particular stereo microphone technique in a 'controlled' environment, e.g., Recording Studio, it's an entirely different discussion with folks who are 'running & gunning'. I know this is primarily an 'ENG/EFP' website, but I think there is a bit of 'over-flow' from our 'Recordist' brethren.

Thank you and keep those cards and letters coming.

Regards,

J.

Yup sony ECM MS957 for me a great budget general purpose M/S mic at a bargain price: Amazon.com: Sony ECM-MS957 Stereo Microphone with Rotating Mid Capsule: Sony Accessory: Electronics

Its the only stereo mic I own now and I have used it on all sorts of projects over the past 15 years, I also have the smaller 907 that is easy to carry around with a mini disc when out and about.

Note these mic's are M/S capsule design but output an A/B signal, it is really important to matrix M/S correctly and I tend to find that using M/S designed mic's are far better than putting a rig together and trying to record or matrix M/S with a console or recorder.

I also used to have an AMS Neve ST250 soundfield M/S mic but found it too heavy and cumbersome for most recording jobs.

X/Y for audio work with music groups that have a proper musical balance and are not amplified. Although for orchestras, choirs and work in churches, I always use this single point stereo mic. Modelled along the lines of the old Neumann SM69, this Chinese mic does it for me. Two capsules, each one omni/cardioid/fig-8 on top of each other with the top capsule rotatable through 90 degrees. So you can place it, select a system that will work in the space, and then adjust the spread manually (or use M/S and do it later). Really handy - one mic, one stand, one cable back to the splitter/PSU.

X/Y for audio work with music groups that have a proper musical balance and are not amplified. Although for orchestras, choirs and work in churches, I always use this single point stereo mic. Modelled along the lines of the old Neumann SM69, this Chinese mic does it for me. Two capsules, each one omni/cardioid/fig-8 on top of each other with the top capsule rotatable through 90 degrees. So you can place it, select a system that will work in the space, and then adjust the spread manually (or use M/S and do it later). Really handy - one mic, one stand, one cable back to the splitter/PSU.

That looks like a copy of a vintage AKG mic I think it was the C24, I had the mono version a C12 a few years ago but sold it for megabucks!

Maybe some our UK 'cousins' can enlighten us, I read somewhere the BBC wants 'Mid-Side' on video submitted for broadcast? I don't believe this 'requirement' is a hard and fast rule, but is preferred. Is this correct?

Regards,

J.

Maybe some our UK 'cousins' can enlighten us, I read somewhere the BBC wants 'Mid-Side' on video submitted for broadcast? I don't believe this 'requirement' is a hard and fast rule, but is preferred. Is this correct?

Regards,

J.

NO that is generally not a delivery requirement for the BBC, they use A/B like everyone else.

You can read the BBC delivery specs here if you wish: BBC - Commissioning TV - HD Production & Delivery (http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/production/delivery/hd-production-delivery.shtml)

although it's already out of date as they accept 1/3" chip cameras such as the HPX371 these days.

Rode NT4...MS on the otherhand can be a pain in live to air broadcasting if the spread is made to wide, it can cause phase problems in the TX chain depending on the type of processing used.
Rode NT4...Too many problems using M/S ... indoors it's prone to too much out of phase component.
Apparently a whole continent with bad M/S experiences!

I'm not a denyer... but, I've never gone live with M/S to broadcast chain, and pushing the limits of the side capsule for audience coverage (?) could perhaps be avoided. I am warned, though. Back in my broadcast days, we had a way to monitor the TX processing right on the audio console. Of course we couldn't control the TX processing, but we could at least hear what it was doing to our signal. Tricky, though, because the send to cable system distribution was unprocessed. Had to sound good enough for two very different distributions.

Allan, as an M/S user I'd be interested to know what to watch out for when using M/S indoors, since in my situation I frequently use it for unmonitored recording whilst I'm doing something else (such as a mix of direct-sound mics).

OTOH, the Rode NT4 is an excellent X/Y mic and a very good value. My favorite ORTF method is quite exotic, by comparison, and I can't recommend ORTF for run and gun. Something like an NT4, or, for me, an M/S mic is quick, easy and reliable.

It was my understanding that BBC required M/S ambience recording when such was collected. Don't really know how good that info was, or if it still applies? One advantage of M/S for broadcasting is a seamless collapse to mono.

OT: do sound waves travel clockwise or counter-clockwise south of the equator?

Thank you Mr. Nattrass for the clarification. You 'read' all sorts of things on the 'Inter-Web', the only 'source' I believe is 100% accurate, Wikipedia. Heh, heh! Only kidding.

Regards,

J.

You can read the BBC delivery specs here if you wish: BBC - Commissioning TV - HD Production & Delivery (http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/production/delivery/hd-production-delivery.shtml)
I was interested, had a few minutes, and followed a few links to come up with this document (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/TechnicalDeliveryStandardsFileBBCv2.pdf) from Gary's link to the BBC.

As he says above, M/S isn't mentioned in the current requirements. Reviewing section 3.1, a clean collapse to mono is a requirement. M/S ambience recording is just one method for one type of source.

To clarify, M/S is not a delivery format. It is an acquisition format. It must be decoded to stereo for mixing and use.

Totally Agree with you there Seth and M/S has its uses but not for delivery as analogue level miss-tracks can collapse the stereo image or even worse cause wide phase problems.

It is easier to matrix in post in the digital format as that is more phase accurate but personally I would not record in M/S format even for location recording, I would also only use M/S mic's that are designed for the purpose as even rigs with pro mic's can give some of the phase problems that may have been mentioned.

A good M/S mic is perfect as a stereo compromise that will also give good mono collapse compatibility and I personally prefer it to crossed pairs etc as the M capsule is always on mic and pointing where the action is happening.

Some of the phase problems mentioned may be from sep mic rigs and it is critical that such rigs have capsules that are compatible and that is what I like M/S mic's designed for purpose rather than made up rigs.

I am lucky that I have also dubbed most of my past 20 years on AMS Neve digital desks such as the Logic and DFC ser, I even worked for AMS Neve in the early 90's so have helped design the A/B wide and M/S matrix controls that are available and assisted with the 5.1 set-ups on the DFC now used by skywalker and warner bros etc.

I have to chuckle when people pronounce that MS that collapses to perfect in mono..... well if you were wanting a MONO recording of a performance etc, would you put up a SINGLE cardioid mic? (i doubt it)
And the idea of changing the spread with MS..... I prefer to use a wide XY set up and if it needs to be changed then I will. I have discovered these wonderful controls on an audio console... they are called PAN knobs you don't have to use them on full L/R, they do move (sorry for my sarcasm).
With MS if you want to make it wider you are ADDING phase errors, how many people go out there intentionally to add errors to a production?
The other thing I have noticed is that the people that rave on the benefits of MS are normally a long way from the final delivered product.... keep in mind you might like MS...... but does the next person up the chain FULLY understand the MS process? you might actually be creating problems for them....

Has the the discussion on understanding MS almost become a "badge of credibility" for soundos a bit like a comment made to me years ago "unless you can understand a hysteresis loop you will never make a good sound operator" or is it a case of the "boffins" trying to say..... well we understand and you don't?

My personal thought is MS = Maybe Stereo rather than Mid Side (and that comes from 25+ years of hands on experience of stereo broadcasting)

Mr. Reynolds... if you feel strongly about something, please feel free to 'speak-up'. Heh, heh!

Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. I've never used M/S, or for that matter, any 'stereo technique', and therefore I'm really not qualified to lend much to this discussion, hence the reason I started this thread. I recently purchased a 'matched' pair of AKG C414 XLS mics. and I plan to create a library of 'ambient-sounds' and 'Folly' for use with my videos. I also have a fairly decent 'field audio' kit, for use with EFP/ENG.

Regards,

J.

James, it's folly to call Foley Folly mate :)

Seth,

years ago, so they could send mono dubs to other stations some local stereo radio classical concerts were M/S recorded in small halls and the M/S side figure 8 Neumann picked up bass bouncing around the walls and they regularly got out of phase component with the mono cardioid Neumann.

Post equalisation would never work and M/S soon faded away.

M/S in the audio world rates with that crippling disease in the medical world.

Fortunately the audio cure is much easier, quicker and better.

Cheers.

It's my impression that M/S has a potential problem with the Side mic picking up as much sound to the rear of the mics (i.e. backward into the hall) as it does to the front of the mics (i.e. forward toward the stage). That can give you too much ambience and crowd noise. If you fade down the Side channel to reduce the ambience and crowd, you also fade down the stereo spread of the desired sound from the stage. I've never had that problem with a coincident X/Y pair of cardioids because their live sides are all facing forward (albeit angled to either side) whereas the dead sides are facing back into the house.

I agree M/S is not a fix all for everything and for music X/Y can be far superior, most of my FX recording is for TV and film work so being able to record with an M/S mic and then adjust the stereo width can be very useful in post especially when mixing pro logic where the surround speakers are basically S content anyway.

Mr. Black...I'm no stranger to 'folly', not so much 'Foley'. ROTFLMAO! Thank you for the correction.

Regards,

J.

It's my impression that M/S has a potential problem with the Side mic picking up as much sound to the rear of the mics...I've never had that problem with a coincident X/Y pair of cardioids...
Greg reminds me that we should be talking about the "how" of M/S and X/Y mics. How and when we use them is all-important. His point about rear pickup seems very applicable where rear content is not what is wanted, and/or, the placement possibilities or venue aren't as good as we might wish.
I have to chuckle when people pronounce that MS that collapses to perfect in mono..... well if you were wanting a MONO recording of a performance etc, would you put up a SINGLE cardioid mic? (i doubt it)...
My personal thought is MS = Maybe Stereo rather than Mid Side (and that comes from 25+ years of hands on experience of stereo broadcasting)
Well, I am certainly not going for "collapse to perfect in mono"! Hah. Perfect collapse to mono is a little bit of a different goal.

Let me digress a little, then come back to it.

Why stereo recording techniques? Why go back to the state of the recording art of 1938?

For me, that answer is, with a good group of self-balanced acoustic musicians in a good room with freedom to place the mic where it needs to be, the results can be glorious. VERY musical recordings. Low-budget audiophile recordings. That's what got me started with direct to stereo techniques.

Fast forward a few years, and manufacturers are trying to figure out what cheep mike they can ship with their MiniDisc recorders. MD was briefly pretty important as an acquisition format, it was stereo and it could be as expensive (my HHB MD is on a shelf here somewhere) or as cheap (<$120 US) as one might wish, it was digital, though it was lossy ATRAC compression, but it sounded pretty darn good if the right mic was in the right place.

Enter the $50 to $200 US microphones, both X/Y and M/S. Not to mention little lav pairs heatshrinked to sunglasses for tapers, but that's another story.

For my story, fast-forward a few more years, I'm producing a documentary in Turkey featuring the Whirling Dervishes and their music... played by well-balanced acoustic ensembles in good halls. And, my best sound buddy is available for the trip, and he's got a stellar $4,500 US Neumann RSM 190 M/S mic, which we use as the primary for these small ensembles, with some spot fill in from small-diaphram AKG cardoids. I have some incredible recordings from that trip, run and gun, but they sound great. Of course, the mic is as only as good as the recordist.

Today, my minidisc recorder has been replaced by some music prosumer flash recorder, and the Sony MS957 is very handy for casual recording of my and other's performances for reference, and as an audience mic for multitrack close-miced performances. The ORTF array hasn't come out for a while.

Based on my personal experiences, an M/S mic has been good for:
Casual music recording for reference.
Production level stereo recording of self-balanced acoustic ensembles in good halls (think folk music).
Production level ambience recordings.

I don't have any experience as a taper of amplified concerts, don't know how it works compared to other approaches.

I've never used M/S for direct to broadcast, but if I did, I'd think of it as an ambience source in a larger mix, not a solo source. But "perfect mono" is not the goal that production audio engineers aspire to, no. Mono compability is a pretty big issue among broadcasters here, and if one submits a stereo mix that shows phase cancellation artifacts when collapsed to mono there's a lot of pushback. As well there should.

...years ago, so they could send mono dubs to other stations some local stereo radio classical concerts were M/S recorded in small halls and the M/S side figure 8 Neumann picked up bass bouncing around the walls and they regularly got out of phase component with the mono cardioid Neumann.

Post equalisation would never work and M/S soon faded away.
Very interesting - I appreciate this info. The recordings I've done don't have much of a bass component, and IMO direct-to-stereo mic technique is really only appropriate for production-level sound when the hall is very good. But this is certainly something to be wary of. Thanks for sharing it, Allan.

...M/S in the audio world rates with that crippling disease in the medical world.

Fortunately the audio cure is much easier, quicker and better.
Well, I have to disagree. M/S has been very good to me!

Some extremely qualified soundies with general release feature film credits in this region use M/S, M/S is a friend of mine, but if it doesn't work for you don't use it!

Mr. Bloombaum...thank you for your insightful response. You obviously have a great-deal of experience (as do others) and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and observations. There is no replacement for 'experience'.

Best regards,

J.

Some extremely qualified soundies with general release feature film credits in this region use M/S, M/S is a friend of mine, but if it doesn't work for you don't use it!

Interesting comment tho.... many many films were recorded on 1/4" analogue tape at 3-3/4ips and 16mm film so should we contine to use that method?..... it might have been standard then but things have advanced since those days.
Vinyl LP were once highly regarded as a music play out device.... how many people use them today?
Even 3k and 16k telco lines were acceptable once for program sound for broadcast but not now.
Yes we can all quote the past but things have moved on in the technology race ..... and so have mic techniques.
Yes in the early days of MS using condenser mics were fantastic but compared to what?......a couple of dynamic mics poorly placed on a stereo perch, it would!!!

My suggestion is don't get locked in paradigms of the past, often there are better ways of doing things particularly in an era of rapid technology change. Try and you might be pleasantly surprised.

Thanks Seth, I appreciate your point of view.

For my story, fast-forward a few more years, I'm producing a documentary in Turkey featuring the Whirling Dervishes and their music...

They are an amazing group of performers .. straight away I realised it wouldn't be a good idea to fit the dancers with wired lavs for interviews :)

Early in my career I bought a Neumann U69 stereo mic. along with a Nagra 4S, so XY came naturally and I had to send in original recordings for b/cast.
My instructions always included a note which summarised read, 'don't anybody mess with them.' I knew of another situation where a concert M/S decoding was mucked up by 'kids' at the station.

James, if you're building up your own sound FX library, imo you'd be better off recording everything XY or ORTF. Others will disagree but quickly getting an M/S mic into the best position outdoors for the best image, can take time and is not always possible.

And a mix of M/S and XY or ORTF recorded library effects would always be a worry in case they happened to repeatedly alternate in one of your video programs.

At first that may not be apparent, but as you gain experience it will.

Cheers.

Are we not in fact talking about recording methods that are more resilient to poor set-up and lack of aural discrimination? For a number of years I was the Principal Examiner for the new A Level in Music Technology, and one of the exam tasks was for students to make a direct to stereo recording - what got called 'the natural acoustic'. The work was assessed for stereo image, avoidance of noise and distortion and many other technical features. The feeling I had was that it was almost always an task that produced the most amazing number of flawed performances. Examiners would smile when they read in the attached logs mention of Decca Trees, ORTF and other very specific mic techniques, and then listened to the utter mess their misuse produced. Without any doubt whatsoever, the X/Y method produced better results than all the clever ones - mainly because they were recorded in less than ideal venues and locations. Clever techniques need careful control, and without this control, then X/Y has the best chance of being salvaged.

M/S does indeed introduce phase as a feature - and if creating a stereo field is the goal - then it works fine. Is it an accurate stereo field? Probably not, but the point for me is that there is a stereo field present. You can close your eyes and 'see' sound sources. If you are recording essentially location 'ambience' - then I find M/S can delver the goods. I also find it handy for less than ideal venues where the sound when you are there is weak. maybe a building that looks like it should sound BIG - but the acoustics just don't work. There, M/S with even an omni (spit on the floor) can produce something bigger sounding. Phase errors galore, I guess, but does that really matter if it produces the result you want? After all, using a reverb unit of any quality adds phase errors by design.

In the range of student work I heard examples recorded in Cathedrals up against work recorded in a totally dead classroom. The church type sound should have been better, but frequently mic placement, done by the book following the teachers recommendation (often an ABSOLUTE rule) mean it was a swim my mess, while the over dead classroom recording, spiced up with a little artificial reverb was better to listen to. By far the largest amount of work had X/Y mics, often quite poor ones because they had nothing better. for some odd reason, so many also had a pair of rear mics mixed in with little thought - to make it sound better! Rarely did these work because they'd often forget the L and R would fight with the L and R from the X/Y pair and the imaging would be a total mess. Part of my job was to check the examiners had marked them properly - and I always ran an on-screen scope to check for phase issues. Loads had followed their teachers instructions and backed off the pan positions from hard left and right - and the scope confirmed this - essentially mono, with just a little excursion left and right. Some would have reversed phase on some inputs and the scope display would make interesting viewing - but the aural result was just 'not right' - the scope revealing what was happening. I think my feeling after 4 years of this was simply that any technique coupled with a decent set of ears was the key to success - and I really feel that any attempt to dictate techniques by physics only is doomed to failure if the ears are not involved. I will happily consider X/Y, A/B and M/S - but I can't really be certain till I am there and can listen to the space. M/S as a 'space recorder' seems to work well, but for stereo without too much gaffing around, then X/Y works for me. All the other clever techniques need ultra careful setup, and control. If the venue, the performers and monitoring space are top-notch, which not try the clever ones. If, we don't have speakers to monitor on, then how do we set them up and tweak them? To do that you need loudspeaker monitoring. Headphones are no use whatsoever, and that's what most video people have to hear their audio. Lifting the top mic in a sophisticated array makes no difference to headphone monitoring. Keep it simple - as a working rule always pays off.

Mr. P.R. Johnson...that's an interesting dissertation. I'm also a firm believer in "KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). Speaking only for my self, of course. Heh, heh!

If I can summarize, a simpler technique, properly executed and 'tweaked' to the venue, in more cases than none, will exhibit better results than a more sophisticated set-up (M/S, Decca, etc.), poorly implemented. That makes sense to me.

I still plan to experiment with M/S, mainly because I've never used it and it's an interesting 'puzzle' for me to solve. Although, I find the characterization of M/S as induced 'phase-offset' interesting and thought provoking. I'm sure people who know what they're doing would call it 'controlled phase-offset'. Heh, heh!

This is a wonderful discussion, I really enjoy hearing the divergent opinions, and as always, backed up by years of experience.


Best regards,

J.

What is you 'GOTO' microphone technique you use for 'live' recording of musical groups?

ORTF. I've listened to a lot of recordings, made a few, and the recordings that sound "correct" to me are the ones made with the ORTF technique. Others can sound good, even extremely good, but ORTF seems to "click into place" as it were. I suspect this is due to the accuracy and precision in preserving the phase relationships between the two channels, but IDK for sure. All I know is that with a first class ORTF recording I can close my eyes and be there.

It's a bit ironic Bruce likes ORTF, because it's the combination of amplitude differences left to right, plus the phase error from the outside edges that makes it work so well. I don't use it very often, unless I need to use two large bodied mics where co-incident diaphragms can't fit - so X/Y kind of drifts into ORTF, and just needs opening up a bit - although I must admit to leaving the angle the same as X/Y with little result.

One big factor for using M/S in broadcast is very simple, if you have an X/Y or crossed pair and lose one leg you either have left or right content only, if you lose a leg from an M/S mic fed to you in A/B you still have a mono capsule pointing in the right direction for the action!

Also on a boom the M capsule will always be pointing at the action where a crossed pair can do some very strange things to the stereo image in the hands of a boom op.

We had loads of bad examples on our broadcast ITV stereo sound training course in the 80's including tests on soap operas and BBC drama and using an M/S or mono mic on a boom was always the best option.

Depends on the job.

I just recorded a 20-person flute choir in a church. I used a pair of Schoeps cmc641 in coincident XY and a pair of TLM103 in AB to the four channels of a Sound Devices 744T. In post, having both sets up equally and pulling down around 6 kHz a bit for the TLM 103 worked very nicely.

I have used the Audio Technica BP4025 to really good effect on nat sound and ambience.

The AT4050ST is another fixed position XY solution. Like the BP4025, large capsules making for quieter selfnoise.

I have a review of it and the Sennheiser 418S on my blog.
Ty Ford Audio and Video: Audio-Technica AT4050ST Stereo Studio Condenser Microphone (http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/2012/02/audio-technica-at4050st-stereo-studio.html)

Regards,

Ty Ford

Mr. Ford...as always, your insight is greatly appreciated. My initial foray into 'stereo techniques' will be the 'BlumLein Array'. My friend is an excellent guitarist and singer/song writer, I plan on using him as a Guinea-Pig. Heh, heh! Since my Sound Devices SD-302 has three 'primary' Inputs, I think I'll use the AKG C 414 XLS in the 'Blumlien' configuration and mic the sound hole or bridge with a small diaphragm Cardioid, either my AKG C451 B or the AT4053b. We'll see how that works out. I don't feel 'confident' in my skills to employ 'M/S' at this juncture. All things with time, eh?

Thank you for your input.

Regards,

J.

Mr. Kuhn,

I have had great success with a specific config with guitar playing singer-songwriters.

If you find Blumlein unsatisfactory, you might give this a try.

C414 in figure of eight. Positioned horizontally, parallel to the ground.

WHile listening on headphones, get the performer to play guitar. Twist the C414 in the suspension mount so that the acoustic guitar is in the lower null of the figure of eight.

Cooch the C414 into place for vocals and check the rotation to make sure you have the guitar in the null.

AT4053 or 451 aimed toward the floor but with the capsule just a few inches off from where the neck joins the body of the guitar. The voice will be in the back null of the mic.

This will work very nicely unless the player has to be looking at his/her fretting hand a lot.

To hear what this sounds like, go here: Ty Ford Music Production (http://web.mac.com/tyreeford/Site/Ty_Ford_Music_Production.html)

Listen to Neil Harpe's "Elder Green" and Chris Bailey's "Someone Help Me." Both were recorded that way.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Sweeetttt!!! Thanks Ty, you are a very generous person. I'll try your technique and let you know how it works out. I'll go one better, 'your' technique will be in my 'quiver' from this point forward. Every-time I set it up, you'll get credit. : )

Thanks to ever one for contributing to this thread, I received a lot more than I ever expected when I asked the 'GOTO' question.

Just a great group of people, thoughtful, generous, and knowledgeable. Thank you all.

Best regards,

J.

XY receives a thumbs-down here for recording any type of ambient or ensemble recording:

Recording the Wren Organ TechDeck: XY and MS (http://recordingthewrenorgan.blogs.wm.edu/2010/02/06/techdeck-xy-and-ms/)

Here's the Audio Technica BP4025 XY, large diaphragm, stereo mic ambi recording.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7f0qg6se5bzvbev/4yJph3yRFU/ATBP4025ambi08.wav

Works for me.

XY also provides mono compatibility, which can be extremely important.

Regards,

Ty Ford

XY receives a thumbs-down here for recording any type of ambient or ensemble recording:

Recording the Wren Organ TechDeck: XY and MS (http://recordingthewrenorgan.blogs.wm.edu/2010/02/06/techdeck-xy-and-ms/)

Interesting listening test... they have recorded the sound of the hall rather than the organ. This is very evident with hearing of the footsteps.

Yes MS sounds huge and XY is narrower due to the distance the microphones probably were away from the sound source. AB (spaced omni mics) which they didn't do would have sounded even better.
It was noted in the link..."What I will demonstrate today is that MS is not the same XY with regards to imaging, and that XY is a poor choice for distant recording applications in comparison with MS." Why would anyone do a distance recording with a stereo mic anyway... use a shotgun mic!!!

I downloaded all 3 samples and had a look at them on a Stereo display (Lissajous display) the XY was in nice proportion of L/R + phase, the wide XY has a greater spread but still a good balance between L/R and phase but the MS sample has a VERY broad spread with lots of out of phase components in the signal. In fact it is much wider than I would broadcast safely, a signal that wide (depending on the TX path) could possibly cause problems with auto phase correct.

MS v XY is likely to be an ongoing debate for many years to come my suggestion is try lots of different combinations and find one YOU like.
Its a bit like art what you may like others may not.

There seems to be conflict here between recording techniques used for recording high quality, stereo sound for CD release and high quality sound for video. The ideal place in virtually every case for SOUND is terribly wrong for video, because the damn microphones are right in the middle, in full view.

To the audio recordist the concept of recording stereo from a distance with a shotgun type mic just doesn't cut it because the polar response is narrow at the top and cardioid at the bottom causing huge amounts of image shift as the music content changes frequency. You can get audio that make you feel quite nauseous if you use them. A piano that with your eyes closed physically appears to move across the stage as the pianist moves from left to right - yuk!

I'm mystified by the comment that X/Y is not suitable, when it's the most common technique - although as in the example, put the pair in the wrong place or set them too wide and very odd things happen.

With my pedantic head on, could I suggest we refer to twin channel sound rather than A/B, because that's another established microphone technique that some people like - using spaced rather than coincident pairs of cardioids (or even omnis). I'm also surprised nobody even mentioned Blumlein pairs - although I suppose many people don't actually have two figure-8 mics in their kit.

For video work on certain things, A/B can work better because there's no central mic to spoil the pictures, but it can go badly wrong if the people in the studio don't quite understand what has been recorded. There's quite a famous (infamous?) recording from the 70s - The Syd Lawrence Orchestra playing Glenn Miller, where they separated the band in the studio and recorded in A/B - but too far apart so the saxes were all totally one side, with the trumpets and bones on the other - with drums, bass and solos central. On speakers it sounds pretty realistic - but on headphones, the total isolation makes you feel quite ill, especially when they do the doo-wah, doo-wah bits!


There is NO standard for recording stereo audio. We all have our favourite few, that we find work for certain circumstances - but to select the right one needs you to be there, in the building and able to clap your hands, and listen to what you hear. Only then can you decide which one will work best.


EDIT
With a while to spare today, I took the files into the studio, and did the same thing as others have reported - the vectorscope revealed for me, very similar information.

There is indeed a difference between the two recordings, and after a few listens I've come up with these comments.

The actual articulation in the playing in the second, louder section shows that the microphone placement was not ideal for the location of the rank used in the recording - the X/Y recording allows the particular rank of pipes to be heard better. The M/S recording suggests that the mid microphone was balanced too low - I'm not sure I agree that the M/S sounded bigger - I think it had more reverb content, that's all. I feel that in both recordings, the real issue was improper or inaccurate mic placement for both pairs of microphones. The organ sounded very small. Too much ambience, not enough source. The feel was very much a small rural church, recorded from too far away. I had never heard of the organ or chapel, so I looked it up, and it is a small organ. It's also a very small space, which also confirms the view that the mic positioning could have been improved. The RT60 of the space is probably not that long, so the more distant mic position made the space sound bigger, but removed clarity, accuracy and detail. There is also an issue with the organ - with it's single manual and limited number of ranks in the small casing - most ranks will be spaced across the width of the case, and each rank aligned in front of our behind the next. As such, the stereo width of the organ is probably only 8-10 feet. So in effect, when recorded from a distance, it is almost a mono source - making most of the stereo information a combination of reflections and comb filtering - so we are hearing stereo reverberation - VERY different from a stereo instrument.

I'm not certain the test was matched very well to the venue. From what I heard, I expected a much larger venue and instrument, but was surprised to find out it's real size. The recording seemed to have been planned to sound bigger than reality, and I feel this was a mistake.

I consider myself a recording engineer (with enough technical chops to have been certified by the FCC many years ago with a First Class Radiotelephone Operator's License), but I'm also a musician and sound designer.

I think using vectorscopes is useful for post analysis is valid, but using them to create music or sound is very problematic. OK so you can see degree of in phase or out of phase info and to some degree. Yes, that is valuable. But your ears should tell you that.

Every venue and situation is different. The x/y brackets may work in one situation, but need a tweek in another. AB the same way, M/S similarly.

Again, it comes back to "what does it sound like?"

Regards,

Ty Ford

OK folks, it's time to put this discussion to rest. Really, the answer is simple. Record everything in binaural, and play back only on headphones.

Dispense with all the world's loudspeakers. Think of the space this will free up in our listening rooms and home theatres. Admittedly, this will be a small inconvenience in the larger cinema, but inconvenience is a small price to pay for perfectly realistic sound reproduction.

[I can only pray that we won't start another sub-thread with serious replies to the above...]


P.S. to Ty Ford: You piqued my curiousity so I had to dig out my original First Phone ticket. I remember flying to DC to take the exam in '69. I still have my slide rule, too. ;-)

...Really, the answer is simple. Record everything in binaural, and play back only on headphones.

Dispense with all the world's loudspeakers...
This is really exciting! !!! !!!!!!!!!

Really, though, this will be great when we implant the transducers in our heads. How long will it be before we're so connected we have the, um, headPOD and retinalDISPLAY. Binaural recording will then come into its own, it's a technology before its time!

Greg for President!

Problem solved, nothing to see here, move along, move along.

Did you get yours commuted to a General too?

Yes, a small room somewhere in DC. I was there in 1969 as well! Maybe early1970.

I was three years old then.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Back to mono thats what I say as all this surround and stereo stuff just causes confusion!

Did you get yours commuted to a General too?
Yes... sigh. That little cheesy wallet card really isn't very impressive.

Yes, a small room somewhere in DC. I was there in 1969 as well! Maybe early1970. I was three years old then.

Danged kids!

Greg, Seth, Ty, & Gary...alright, that's enough! You guys are having way too much fun! Heh, heh!

Regards,

J.

I love the smell of tape oxide in the morning, to me it smells like victory!

anyway whatever happened to Q sound I though that was the saviour of stereo and surround mixing?

I was attending Penn State in the late '60s. There was some collaboration between the music department and the broadcasting people, which resulted in some very pleasing 4-channel R-R recordings. When done with four discrete tape channels, the sound was quite impressive. There were even a few "experimental" broadcasts, using the campus FM station for two channels, and a local FM station for the other two. (Both transmitters were in the same building, so by parking the R-R deck in the hallway, and running long audio cables to the two respective patch bays, it was possible to achieve this without any intervening telco lines which would have created phase problems.)

Quad never caught on in the consumer market, in part because there were at least three different systems: Sony/Columbia SQ matrix system (which did not work well), the RCA system using a high frequency subcarrier on the LP (which also did not work very well), and the Dynaco system using a simple additive/subtractive matrix (which also had poor separation, plus an unusual speaker placement: FrontLeft, FrontCenter, FrontRight, and RearCenter. The consumers, faced with three incompatible systems, none of which worked very well, wisely decided to steer clear of the whole mess. Quad was, back then, technologically impractical, and well before its time.

To the audio recordist the concept of recording stereo from a distance with a shotgun type mic just doesn't cut it because the polar response is narrow at the top and cardioid at the bottom causing huge amounts of image shift as the music content changes frequency.

Yes, thank you for responding with what I was thinking! I frequently record music "at a distance" with omnis. Shotgun microphones are rare at recording sessions.

[Addendum: I was confirming Paul's assertion that music recordists may think differently about recording than a dialogue/FX recordist. Many mics have different patterns at different frequencies (even omnis), and rarely do you hear image shift because of it. However, shotguns don't sound as full as omnis at a distance and the off-axis coloration leads to a smearing of the sound. To learn more, visit: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug11/articles/qanda-0811-1.htm.]

I'm not certain the test was matched very well to the venue. From what I heard, I expected a much larger venue and instrument, but was surprised to find out it's real size. The recording seemed to have been planned to sound bigger than reality, and I feel this was a mistake.

Smaller spaces are often more reverberant than larger spaces because the reflections are early and dense. Small chapels with hard surfaces are sometimes sought for choral recordings for this reason. Bigger doesn't necessarily equal more reverb.

With regards to the "match" of test to venue -- I encourage you to try the same test in any venue. XY will sound smaller than reality. A vectorscope is not needed to confirm good sound. You don't even need to listen to the organ play in this case. It is clear the instant you hear the room tone.

I suppose it depends on your version of reality. I've done a few live radio events in a really BIG church and needed it to actually sound smaller to retain definition - but I still don't really find X/Y to be unrealistic. When I do M/S I usually mix it so it sounds as similar to how I'd have made X/Y sound. I Like A/B for some things but have trouble with the hole in the middle. I have major difficulty hearing the difference between X/Y and ORTF which a colleague simple dribbles over. For me, X/Y works for loudspeakers and is solid in headphones too. It's all to do with personal preferences really.

As for the vector scope, I tend to always have one on the go for mixing projects because it's often a good confirmation that something isn't quite right. You get used to typical displays, but it's when something just doesn't sit in the mix and you notice something with a big phase error, or loss of stereo image.I recorded a grand piano only a few weeks ago with an old fashioned more distant stereo mic and two close mics, recorded direct into cubase using 4 channels. Working with the two close mics it was only the vectorscope that made me suddenly realise I'd messed up the routing and had recorded just one mic to two channels. Something didn't sound quite right - and the vectorscope made it pretty obvious what had happened. The distant mic was no good for the close perspective I needed, so in the end, I panned the two identical tracks left and right and applied a reduction slope to both, with one reversed, so the lower notes were louder left and the higher notes right. Not stereo, but it actually worked!