MS mics placement
- Thread starter Teejay41
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
k brown
Well-known member
Trust me - Aubort knew what he was doing.
k brown
Well-known member
Others have used the term 'Maybe Stereo'; the Aubort quote I'm familiar with is that he referred to coincident technique in general as "fat mono". He did all his (on-location Classical) work monitoring on headphones, and that's just what coincident (and MS especially) sounds like on phones.
All my remarks about coincident are in the context of recording Classical music in reverberent spaces; it bears noting that except for some brief experiments at EMI at the very beginning of the stereo era, no major-label Classical was recorded with coincident main pairs. The biggest reason for this is that recording of such music (especially orchestral) only really sounds satisfyingly realistic if there is considerable time delay between channels, especially at low freequencies. It is at low freq that coincident most sounds 'Maybe Stereo' and 'fat mono'.
Last edited:
I did a recording of 5 vocalists - 1 lead, 4 backing grouped around a matched pair of AKG414 set up as M/S all vocalists grouped around the mic array to 140 deg with the lead front and centre - worked perfectly. After trying various other patterns with different placements this gave the proximity the vocalists needed to work off each other as this was how they worked live. Sounded great in the headphones too.
Edit: downside of this was the lead vocal drop-ins- do one do them all
Edit: downside of this was the lead vocal drop-ins- do one do them all
MidnightArrakis
Well-known member
I have been involved with quite a few large organ recital recordings and what has worked out well for me is just using a ROYER SF-12 stereo ribbon microphone placed on a 16-foot high mic-stand, along with two Audio-Technica cardioid condenser mics placed about 10-feet away on either side from the main pipes, but facing towards them. The SF-12's and the Audio-Technica's were all recorded onto their own tracks of a 24-track recorder.
If there were any choirs, other instruments and/or vocalists, then of course, they were also recorded onto each of their own tracks as well.
During the mixdown of these sessions, the ROYER SF-12 was "front and center" of the mix and the sound and then I would bring up the Audio-Technica's just a smidgen in order to add some solid low-end and a bit of "closeness" to the overall sound. Within some churches, the room ambiance and reverberation while sounding really "cool", could also somewhat overwhelm the listening sound.....so, mixing in the "closeness" sound of the Audio-Technica's just a bit gave the mix some added "body" to it. Sounds great on headphones!!!
I never had any problems with "phase" issues. My main problem with these organ recital recordings was keeping the audience members from knocking over my 16-foot high mic-stand with a $2,500.00 mic sitting on top of it!!! I ended up having to tape large signs onto the stand to tell people to > STAY AWAY < while also glopping a bunch of Duct-tape to the legs to try and secure the stand to the floor!!! It all worked well enough!!!
>> HAPPY ORGAN RECITAL RECORDING!!! <<
/
I remember doing a “re-audio” of video footage where the live sound recording was terrible - the band were able to use the same pavilion to do the retakes plus also get video cutaways that were not possible on camera because of the front of stage crowd. We fed the crowd sound (plus this of course included original band sound) from the original room mics back into the PA and the band synced to that on their foldbacks. The natural empty room reverb plus the direct from the PA sound was captured on two 32mm diameter tube condenser mics on separate stands, in Omni, spaced 2 1/2 meters apart in the walkway centre of the hall, (the PA mix was in stereo). The result mixed with the direct miking of the band was superb - everything in sync as well.
k brown
Well-known member
MONO bass for an organ recording? - no thanks . . .
And yes phase/time delay differences below 200 are audible.
It's exactly below 200 where L/R time differences are so important to producing in the listening room that sensation of envelopment that one gets hearing an organ in a large church/cathedral.
And the small time difference of ORTF (or any near-coincident array) will not get you there either.
Last edited:
It depends..
This technique is NOT mono bass. If the omni signal is mixed carefully the differences are subtile. I admit that the result is also dependant on the recepient situation (room, speakers or even headphones). However it is worth to give it a try..
In former analog vinyl times it was a must to avoid phase diffs between LR channels at low frequencies. A lot of recordings sounded very convenient and pleasant. Higher harmonics stay locatable nevertheless..
k brown
Well-known member
True, I overstated a bit.
All Decca Classical LPs were recorded with huge L/R phase diferences; Decca Tree, plus outriggers 10s of feet apart - somehow they were able to cut the LPs so most players could play them. Maybe the LP mastering summed below 60Hz or so? IDK.
There is a problem I find in recording in large spaces and that is reproducing the spatial feel you get in the ears, back on a 2.1 system and on 2.0 speakers and headphones. The 60Hz to 240Hz range covering two octaves is especially prone to being mishandled in domestic reproduction systems - because of mismatched crossover between sub and main L/R’s, mismatched sub level, or bad placement of speakers and sub or a combination. In plain stereo (eg on headphones or 2 way speaker systems) this range should be monitored in the recording process to ensure maintaining the same spatial feel as the original space being recorded. This is why I like to use well isolated headphones (mine go down to 5Hz also and I set the overall level to match room levels) and A/B between them and the actual room sound when placing mics in a large room. Close placed mics can often lose the “awareness” of a large space in the recording when played back on a system whether speakers or headphones. Too far apart - like on either side of a large auditorium and the centre can suffer.
A pipe organ being not a single point source, as the pipes are all situated each in a slightly different location, creates a wealth of reflections from wall surfaces interacting with each other as well as floor and vaulted ceiling spaces as in a cathedral much akin to a tightly grouped orchestra. The same can be said for a band on a 10 metre wide stage with PA stacks on either side and subs across the middle at floor level.
There are no rules - each room is different and can also change with each different artist array on stage or in a pit - it’s not possible to apply a formula, you have to try all the available possibilities and see which one works best for that instance.
I found it helps to set up mics and stand behind them looking at the front of the room with each mic (for a pair) in eye-line with the left and right of the sound stage and take the headphones off and on and listen to the difference. With wide spaced mics (Edit: 1.5 - 2.5M) to get started, I tend to stand at a distance from the mics equating to the normal listening distance from monitors in the studio and place them forward until they’re in eye-line with the left and right of the visualised sound stage for the recording and work from there.
Using an Omni pair captures reflections from all round the room and the phase differences between them can enhance the image (or destroy it!) depending on mic spacing and distance from the source and the rear of the room.
A pipe organ being not a single point source, as the pipes are all situated each in a slightly different location, creates a wealth of reflections from wall surfaces interacting with each other as well as floor and vaulted ceiling spaces as in a cathedral much akin to a tightly grouped orchestra. The same can be said for a band on a 10 metre wide stage with PA stacks on either side and subs across the middle at floor level.
There are no rules - each room is different and can also change with each different artist array on stage or in a pit - it’s not possible to apply a formula, you have to try all the available possibilities and see which one works best for that instance.
I found it helps to set up mics and stand behind them looking at the front of the room with each mic (for a pair) in eye-line with the left and right of the sound stage and take the headphones off and on and listen to the difference. With wide spaced mics (Edit: 1.5 - 2.5M) to get started, I tend to stand at a distance from the mics equating to the normal listening distance from monitors in the studio and place them forward until they’re in eye-line with the left and right of the visualised sound stage for the recording and work from there.
Using an Omni pair captures reflections from all round the room and the phase differences between them can enhance the image (or destroy it!) depending on mic spacing and distance from the source and the rear of the room.
Last edited:
They used specially designed equalisers to filter, sum to mono and roll off the bass
k brown
Well-known member
Which I would hope were not used for the CD remasters.
In most cases the CD remasters were done from the original 2 track tape masters pre vinyl mastering, these would be what would have been sent to the record cutting plant - all final EQ compression/limiting and level matching adjustments, to fit album side times, would be done in the cutting studio including of course the RIAA cut/boost. Some remasters were done by digitising the multitrack tapes and remixing and mastering for CD.
We often would have to track select when mixing (when I started it was all tape and vinyl) to give an even spread of bass heavy tracks on both sides of a record to be able to fit all the tracks - approx 22mins/side - any longer time than that required sacrifice of low end and/or volume - more bass or volume, greater track width, less time, shorter album, unhappy record company. Sometimes masters would be sent back for remix and then remastering as we were not able to exactly predict the post RIAA track cut width and depth unless we cut a vinyl master - but we got pretty good at it.
Subtle changes in kick, floor Tom and bass levels were often all that were required - the cutting engineer would give us a level of cut for specific tracks at which frequency they required. This was not always possible to be done with EQ and compression on a final master without compromising the track making it sound a lot softer than other tracks or cutting frequencies from the wrong instrument to fix excess in another - had to be done in the mix pre-master.
Later as multichannel recording became the norm there was a lot more flexibility in splitting up components of a drum kit for example - so there was a shift away from mono modified bass even before the takeover of digital - this was due largely to a change in instrument placement in the mix - centred bass and kick, floor Tom close to centre, other drums panned either side, as opposed to the’60s style of recording/mixing with say bass on one side, mono drums on the other Vox & piano centred (Cat Stevens a good example, also The Beatles). This change in approach also allowed a louder stereo mix to vinyl without mono’ed bass EQ (also on vinyl mono was always a louder cut). The louder to vinyl the better the signal to noise ratio and dynamic range.
Once digital hit, the centred bass approach, though no longer an issue, still stuck and is commonplace today, but bass heavy instruments like synthesisers etc do get panned away from centre - it seems the bass guitar and kick drum are just put there without too much thought! Does the lead vocalist play bass? Time for the dreaded bass solo…..
I quite often pan the bass away from centre but if the low end clouds away from centre I just split everything HP filtered above 60Hz to the side and on a duplicate track centre LPFiltered LF. For acoustic double bass the same applies. Simple software based crossover EQ.
One of the reasons for this centering of lows is a perception of balance which is needed for headphone mixes and 2 box stereo - 2.1 takes care of it nicely at LF’s with a correctly set up sub.
I'm also a fan of this ORTF + Omni method. The omni is there for a bit of support and focus. I think of it like parallel mix processing.
When I record jazz or pop grand piano, I similarly use an ORTF or spaced pair above the hammers and an omni (or sometimes I cheat and use a cardioid) above the bass strings and I sneak the bass mic in for focus and a more solid low end. It doesn't take away from the stereo image - I think it enhances the stereo image. The same goes for miking a Leslie speaker (for slightly different reasons).
I've never been a fan of MS recording for anything except interviews or location recording for ambience or just speech. For music, I feel like MS doesn't really represent what is actually on the left and right of center, it just presents the room sound in a weird sort of stereo.
For film scores and strings for pop music, I always use Decca tree with supplemental spot mics. I also add a wide-spaced omni pair behind the conductor but don't often use that in the final mix. These omnis are M50s, which are directional at high-frequencies, so a bit of a special sauce.
The Royer Sf-12 mentioned above is also a special-sounding mic that works in when other Blumlein setups might not work (and vice-versa, of course).
When A-B-C comparing mic arrays, it doesn't make any sense to put them in the same location at all, unless they are realy just different mics or preamps in the same array. I wouldn't put a Blumelein setup in the same location as an ORTF or Decca setup at all. The beauty of Blumelin is that you can fine-tune the direct vs. room sound by varying the distance from the source - even a very small change makes a huge difference. The same is true for other arrays, but not as much as with crossed eights...
Do what works for the instrument, room, particular piece of music, and what would please the listener! I'm happy to hear that so many people actually have time and support to try things for classical recordings!
This is more done when comparing arrays for a specific location - often there are constraints in mic placement locations. You have to select according to the location, mic choice for an array is also a major factor and obviously the same mics are not all suitable for all arrays.
I have done a few tests with M/S being initially sceptical and one of these was to set up the mics and walk around them to see how well the image tracked actual position of the voice - it was pretty close to placement position including 90deg hard left and hard right. I used a pair of AKG414’s for this one. The problem I find with M/S is it seems mainly suited to smaller spaces with grouping around rather than in front of the mics but if set up properly for the right situation it works really well.
4 omnis (main AB, with wide outriggers) is great.
Or ORTF with omnis or wide-cards as outriggers.
I always found MS too noisy for quiet passages.
Or ORTF with omnis or wide-cards as outriggers.
I always found MS too noisy for quiet passages.
Can I ask what headphones you prefer? I’ve been loving some of the planar headphones, like the HEDDphone Two or Audeze, but they are open-back, so no isolation.
Thanks!
Adam
MS has nothing to do with noise.
