Sennheiser mkh 30/50 for MS vs Sennheiser mkh 8040 Stereo pair for Ambience and SFX recording

[Donald Kauffman]

Would you guys suggest a cardioid or Hyper/super cardioid as mid mic for m/s? I'm just thinking that for mono spot fx a tighter polar pattern could be handy to have, but then I'd also like to be able to use it in a stereo setup. Perhaps hyper/super could be limiting in terms of other stereo setups...

[The Immoral Mr Teas]

On 6 December 2015 at 7:01 AM, ninjafreddan said:

If you're trying to record a sound source or instrument that's not physically too wide, using a stereo technique with one microphone pointing on-axis towards the sound source and another one picking up the diffuse field, with practically no phase issues, can't be a bad thing. :-)

And you can manipulate the stereo width or "air" of the sound effect by just adding a bit of Side-information to the matrix. IMHO very handy for sound effects editing.

 

But it will have the most extreme phase issue possible - 180 degrees. If phase is not an issue, so be it, but if it is an issue then splitting a mono signal and panning it either side with a phase reversal into one channel is just about the worst thing that could be done!

You can add 'air' just by adding some air. Adding that air in and out of phase will produce problems where such extremes of phase are a problem. Often a mixer will 'solve' this problem by deleting one of the legs and panning it central (or either side). Bang goes the stereo image, but then it wasn't really there in the first place, just a diffusion … of air.

Handy only if you're dealing with a format which accepts extremes of phase without problems. Sometimes its not so much a problem as an annoyance. Essential to understand however if you're dealing with a format such as a vinyl stereo disc which allows such extremes of phase only within carefully controlled limits.

On 6 December 2015 at 6:18 PM, soundmanjohn said:

However, what I mostly don't do is state how I've recorded the material that I release as commercial effects recordings. 

Well, an effect is either useful for one's purpose or not, and it will rarely be ideal for many different purposes. I might choose one sound effect precisely because the way it was recorded results in a stereophonic image which perfectly suits the psychoacoustic effect I'm after and the technical format of its reproduction - and I might reject another for the reason it doesn't. I would never complain about an effect's phase make-up (unless I specifically asked for something and was given the opposite of what I asked for). If something wasn't suitable (for that purpose) I simply wouldn't use it. And usually a sound is 'semi-useful' - if it fits what I'm looking for then I'll cut, pan, EQ it or whatever to make it work in its new context.

On 6 December 2015 at 6:18 PM, soundmanjohn said:

What I don't do, is provide un-decoded raw M/S tracks or B-Format tracks (although that's about to change, thanks to a resurgence in interest in Ambisonics.)

 

A shame, because I'll often take the (useful) mono element of an MS recording and discard the side element: it saves me some time-consuming processing if I can simply grab the mono leg (and sometimes if pushed for time I might just take one channel of the encoded effect if the sound is clear enough without bothering with decoding). Even if I was editing something 'in MS' I would most likely decode the channels to allow my own decision on side information. I have decoded a certain amount of my FX library's encoded MS cues to have quicker access to the more commonly used 'front mono' sounds, but its a pain. On the other hand, its a very easy pain to decode: ambisonics is another kettle of fish entirely!!

On 6 December 2015 at 6:18 PM, soundmanjohn said:

So I think my question is how do you tell the difference in stereo sound effects recordings between the various methods used to record them?

Regards,

John

Well, it often doesn't matter, and its rare indeed to find a library effect that might exactly match a picture without a certain amount of work being done to alter or augment it. But in the case of an MS encoded cue it's very simple indeed - in fact I don't even have to listen to it: I can tell what it is just by looking at the waveform.

Best,

Jez  xy

[Glen Deakin]

On 12/9/2015 at 3:21 PM, Donald Kauffman said:

Would you guys suggest a cardioid or Hyper/super cardioid as mid mic for m/s? I'm just thinking that for mono spot fx a tighter polar pattern could be handy to have, but then I'd also like to be able to use it in a stereo setup. Perhaps hyper/super could be limiting in terms of other stereo setups...

Get both  the 8000 system for your mid will give you both options with the 8040 and the 8050. 

I like using the 8040 for the mid

[ninjafreddan]

On 2015-12-18 at 9:02 PM, The Immoral Mr Teas said:

But it will have the most extreme phase issue possible - 180 degrees. If phase is not an issue, so be it, but if it is an issue then splitting a mono signal and panning it either side with a phase reversal into one channel is just about the worst thing that could be done!

You can add 'air' just by adding some air. Adding that air in and out of phase will produce problems where such extremes of phase are a problem. Often a mixer will 'solve' this problem by deleting one of the legs and panning it central (or either side). Bang goes the stereo image, but then it wasn't really there in the first place, just a diffusion … of air.

Are we talking about the same thing, M/S stereo?

You're not splitting up a mono signal, you're splitting up a side-signal made by a figure-8 microphone with one positive side and one negative side, angled 90 degrees to the forward pointing cardioid microphone. Arguably, you're actually flipping the right-hand side of the figure-8 into phase again by phase flipping it 180 degrees. 

In my opinion, M/S stereo will bring you the least problems with phase. BUT, the microphones have to be properly aligned. As soon as they drift apart or the distance between the two capsules increase, the quality of the M/S recording decrease. That's why I prefer to use a single purposely built M/S-microphone, because I never have to worry about it.

On 2015-12-18 at 9:02 PM, The Immoral Mr Teas said:

Handy only if you're dealing with a format which accepts extremes of phase without problems. Sometimes its not so much a problem as an annoyance. Essential to understand however if you're dealing with a format such as a vinyl stereo disc which allows such extremes of phase only within carefully controlled limits.

I don't know what kind of M/S-recordings you've dealt with, but it sounds like you have experienced problems with them. Problems I've never had.

On 2015-12-18 at 9:02 PM, The Immoral Mr Teas said:

Well, an effect is either useful for one's purpose or not, and it will rarely be ideal for many different purposes. I might choose one sound effect precisely because the way it was recorded results in a stereophonic image which perfectly suits the psychoacoustic effect I'm after and the technical format of its reproduction - and I might reject another for the reason it doesn't. I would never complain about an effect's phase make-up (unless I specifically asked for something and was given the opposite of what I asked for). If something wasn't suitable (for that purpose) I simply wouldn't use it. And usually a sound is 'semi-useful' - if it fits what I'm looking for then I'll cut, pan, EQ it or whatever to make it work in its new context.

Not arguing with that.

On 2015-12-18 at 9:02 PM, The Immoral Mr Teas said:

Even if I was editing something 'in MS' I would most likely decode the channels to allow my own decision on side information. I have decoded a certain amount of my FX library's encoded MS cues to have quicker access to the more commonly used 'front mono' sounds, but its a pain. On the other hand, its a very easy pain to decode:

That's the cool thing about M/S-recordings. If you don't fancy the stereo information you just use the mid-signal, recorded by a microphone that was pointed towards the sound source - and layer it with FXs and other sounds to create a believable sound effect.

I'm not claiming that M/S-recording is the best stereo recording technique of all. Each and every one of them have good use, so does different microphones and different positioning. It all depends on the source and the expected result.

Right now I'm having a honeymoon with a newly bought Pearl MS8 microphone.

 

Cheers

Fred

[soundmanjohn]

The usual cause of problems with M/S systems is that they're badly set-up: level setting is as important as the physical side and attempts to get super-wide imaging by increasing the side signal to a higher level than the mid signal will always prove problematic. Oh, and to make use of the mono channel of a stereo signal originally recorded in M/S, all you need to do is mono it up or pan centre. No need for any fancy and time consuming processing. And of course, if it's the raw mid/side signal, you just need the mid channel: again, no time-consuming processing required.

On a related, but sad, side-note, my colleague Mike Skeet, passsed away last weekend. Mike was a passionate advocate of M/S and made very many excellent recordings of effects and music using various custom-designed set-ups. Much of his microphone stock was not sold prior to his death and is now for sale by his executors. It includes a number of both Schoeps and Sennheiser Figure-of-Eight and Cardioid microphones at reasonable prices, (a M/S set of MKH30/40 will cost you UK£1,200.00, as will a Schoeps CCM8/CCM4 set-up) as well as a superb Pearl DS60 for the afficionado of fine Swedish audio engineering. I've listed them, with UK prices, on the For Sale list, and will pass on the details of the person looking after the sale in response to private messages.

Thanks,

John

[Constantin]

Mike Skeet = MS. Brilliant