The Immoral Mr Teas

Well, with the title, "2 sides 1 mid ..." I completely got the wrong end of the stick ... I thought you were talking about the (multi) M/S method (which is the basis of ambisonic M/S) ... but you weren't! From what you ask, I would concur to focus on mono for the most part to hone your craft recording "mostly close proximity, focused sounds that I can process in post and experiment." So your single 8040 will do you nicely for what you currently 'mostly' want to do. For the future ... under controlled close recording conditions you shouldn't get any real difference using a cardioid or hypercardioid (nor, beyond intentional proximity effect, from the two outer extremes of omni and on-axis figure 8...) - such mic choice is far more necessary when dealing with 'less controlled' recording conditions .... more distant FX out in the field, more unwanted ambient spill, or indeed capturing dialogue on a shitty drama set. Personally my next purchase would be a second 8040 - so you can start recording 2 channel 'spread soundstage' FX, music, ambiences etc with a nice cardioid pair. The most useful reading to understand relationships of 2 channel recording (coincident to spaced, including properly explaining the 'regulars' like ORTF, and across the spread of microphone pattern) is Michael Williams' The Stereophonic Zoom, available from Rycote 'support' https://rycote-support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/6758019347485-The-Stereophonic-Zoom-Archived (If you can't get the link to work, follow rycote support through its archived documentation until you find the pdf download). Williams also wrote another very useful article expanding this to multichannel setups, although confined to cardioid mic pattern, although this doesn't seem to be available from rycote. If I find a current link I'll post it. It basically 'groups' the 360 degree recording area into interconnected sets of stereo pairs (so, 5 x 72 degree pairs; or 4 x 90 degree pairs etc) ... which would be a fine introduction/explanation of much of your original question of using a 3 channel LCR recording rig (which I've done a fair amount of, often specific to picture/scene) ... the maths works perfectly well for multichannel recording areas (or 'angles') of less than 360 degrees. Jez Adamson

Again Roland, thank you, a very useful write up. Jez

I can't speak for Vasi but I took his 3 mic setup to be probably a fixed stationary one where usually the 2 channel (ortf) of the 8040s was recorded/used/chosen and occasionally the mono forward facing channel 8050 if there was something interesting in front. Rather than a 3-channel ambience. But my interpretation is no doubt mistaken!! Thank you Ron And thank you again from post!! Jez

Ron, I think you may have detailed your tripod in the past but could you tell us again here what it is? cheers! So, Vasi, have you a single cable 7 pin running or a 3+5 or 3+3+3? Presently in Corfu by the way and might well fly back via Athens in a couple of weeks. Must try to meet up if that's the case!! Being a post sound person I like to have a clear idea when MS is being used and how: whether separate M and S tracks (generally preferable) or matrixed. If the former, and I understand one's workflow (of 'sometimes' MS), I would be perfectly happy to receive tracks where the M track was always present and the S track was often mute or blank: that's easy to understand and work with. Jez Adamson

Interesting, thanks Eve. I'll look out. In 2008 I spent several months in Himalayas and Qinghai Tibetan Plateau recording silent areas - a year or so later I met a bloke from Australia who recorded silences too and we traded. Ha thanks Phil, I realise I stood corrected back in 2017 and 5 years later had forgotten and reverted to my original bad memory (on the Nagra Stories thread). Jez

Wonderful condition DT48s there too. A very lucky find. Jez

Not a joke: you might find a pair of very old t powered MKH805s or even 815s which are more directional than the 416 for that money or even less; but beware, when they stop working they cannot be serviced by sennheiser any more. (And Daniel, my dear friend, no t-jokes from you either please!!) Jez

Likewise working fine on windows 10 - B or whatever i am on. I know it's not 11. In fact, remembering the original post a couple of years ago I had already had another look. Jez

The only tractors I lust after these days are the Lambourginis. Miserable in every other respect too Jeff! Long live JWS as it is and unfortunate RAMPS fell to google. For me (and I am post not production but nevertheless) it was a Rycote I craved as a teenager and even later as a dubbing mixer as I had no real professional need for the expense. Now I have several - and 3 beautiful Nagras: two of which, he IV-S and IV-SJ are still ready to serve particular effects recording duties. Jez

I KNEW they must be useful for something! Jez

Very nicely put, borjam. Jez

Yeah, I got most of the way through his SN 'spy collection' too, but realise why I (can) spend very little of my time watching internet stuff. But it looks like there's probably a lot of interesting objects and equipment shown and talked about up there. If you're watching us watching you, Adam, that's a very nice looking 1973 IV-S you have, and if you cleaned and polished it to make it so you did a fabulous job. '73 is pretty early (I think the first were '71?) And I believe from memory that the Nagra smuggled in to record on Diva was the smaller mono Nagra E ? C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres tres precis! Jez

Both I guess, Jason. At best, I would go out and record specific to the picture (try to find a location and set mics up to match what's up on the screen), particularly with 3+ channels. It's good when you 'clinch' it. Although a good recording usually has a life well beyond its original. Most recording however has focused on getting the necessary - stuff where library / 2nd unit recordings aren't good enough or simply don't exist - and a lot of this can be mono, let alone less than multichannel. Though I have recorded specifically multichannel FX, foley and ambience on occasion. And, like you said, I've gone back (and colleagues have) and 'created' 4.0 / 5.0 beds out of 2.0 recordings. The best and most satisfying way to source is to go out and record tho' - although it can be an expensive prospect (for production or oneself). Jez Adamson

I just have to like (or likeTM?) what Doug has said 'cos it's so simple yet still can happen (...after 1931...) I'm not a PSM but a post soundie but I'm happy to report when 'guiding' actors for on set ADR they have been very responsive to exactly the same guidance - might have well been the lack of stress when the camera isn't rolling (often very much not the case when camera stops either I'm well aware) - or I might just have been luckily blessed with talented talent ha, Doug, I just noticed you wrote, "Now principals..." J

No? It's completely additive (or reductive...) - assuming a 'slope' run off (12dB/octave @80Hz; or 6dB @100Hz, or 18dB @40Hz ...) the freq reduction at the output of the mic will be just that: any further filtering will give another (eg 6dB @100Hz) reduction to whatever signal arrives. If the 'microphone stage' filter was a brick wall (ie severe) filter then further filtering (of such frequencies) would be redundant, but then I don't know of any mic stage brick wall filters ... 18dB/octave seems about the maximum (which fair enough is a lot) for the 'add ons' (cut 1) and many on-mic filters. (Of course virtually all non-instrumentation mics are designed to completely eliminate the very low freqs, below say 3 to 10Hz). All that said however, if insufficient filtering from the mic means that the mic amp is being battered any further filtering at the 'too late' stage isn't going to help a fig. Jez