The DR-40 built-in microphone patterns are A/B and X/Y. It doesn't have M/S. Do you think it's worth investing in a Sony ECM-MS957 ?
New to outfield/location recording - need some help
- Thread starter PPeter
- Start date
The DR-40 built-in microphone patterns are A/B and X/Y. It doesn't have M/S. Do you think it's worth investing in a Sony ECM-MS957 ?
I think this is something that only you can decide. While many people like the flexibility of ms, some find it bothersome. I strongly recommend that you try it out and see how you like the workflow before you buy. If you can't rent or borrow, see if you can buy some used equipment - if you don't like it or want to upgrade you can then sell them with little or no loss.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Ironically the handheld he has coming can (according to the manual) decode M/S recordings.
I'm personally not a big fan of M/S and don't see any real advantage over X/Y. You can convert from one to the other in post so any
re-imaging can be done then, where you want to do it anyway. And I find it a pain to have a bunch of files you have to decode just to listen to.
But others swear by M/S so...
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
THis is not a very accurate statement. M/S is popular, or was, in europe and with a few recordists in the US. It is not at all the majority in the US and I kind of doubt it world wide also. Second it is no more "realistic" than any other mode. They are all unrealistic, and for film work realistic is a particularly weird argument since film "realistic" has very little to do with the real world.
I don't mean to come on too strong but there are a lot of advocates of really crazy recording setups that are always promoted for their "more accurate" recordings. Usually these things have some head contraption so that it "hears" just like a real head.
The first utter BS part is that human hearing is constantly filtered by our brains and relates to what we see and out state of mind at the time. It is not ever even close to what sound is actually present. Humans for instance tune out any constant sound rather quickly and are very sensitive to a constant sound that suddenly stops. So an "accurate" recording is not "realistic" at all since with out the other stimulus we will not filter the same way.
The second big BS part is that those devices only sound "accurate" if you are wearing headphones. Sure you can record with molded ears and get just what is coming in a "normal" head, but then you play it back on speakers and that virtual head just became 80 feet wide. Now america has some pretty large people but I havent seen anybody with an 80 ft head yet.
M/S has two advantages. First if you don't own a DAW and you mostly use mono sounds but occasionally would like stereo then it's easier since most of the time you can just pull the M and your good to go. The second is that an M/S rig can be a lot more compact than an X/Y one (for the same size capsules).
I'm not sure why M/S is an advantage here? Your just using it as another stereo pair, that could just as easily be a second X/Y pair.
...
OTRF is another technique that is generally too much trouble to set up for non staged interior recordings. For concerts (acoustic chamber music) I was a very wide spaced pair of mics, kind of super wide X/Y. It sounded fantastic on speakers and you felt like you wee on the stage with headphones. But again pretty useless for 90% of film work.
If people stop worrying about "realistic" and "accurate" then you can go out and just go for really good recordings.
I'm not a big advocate of any technique other than what sounds good and works for you. I have a good friend who uses a really nice M/S mic. She does radio work and she is recording interviews 80% of the time. It's great and saves her time. When she is doing interviews she just tosses the S track. But she is always recording M/S so she can decode what she wants for stereo ambs and doesn't have to change mics or settings.
I mostly do FX work and having my library in M/S would be a pain in the butt.
The whole changing the perceived spread of the mics is rarely an issue and IF you need want to then you can do it in the mixer or with any number of free plugins. It's very simple math.
The bottom line is there are differences between setups (though virtually none between M/S and X/Y but how you deal with the file in post) and none of them are really any more "accurate" or "realistic" than the other so pick what works well for you and don't sweat it too much.
Last edited:
I would like to add to Noiz's post above. I agree that a library with MS-files would be very inconvenient, but no one should stay away from such a setup because of that. You either record the files directly converted to XY, or convert it to it before adding it to a library. They will then be ready to use as is, and if the user know they were recorded using MS then they can change the width if they like (which you can do with all stereo recordings regardless of technique, but MS is more suited for it).
paulears
Veteran
Sadly - Scott's viewpoint is not supported by the people who work in audio. Your understanding of audio recording seems to have some holes in it. For example, I'm not using the M/S as just another mic. The really important part of M/S recording is the side microphone not recording anything worthwhile at the 90 degree point. Figure 8 patterns are very useful - the nulls particularly (think Blumlein - but I guess you'll dis that one too, and the thousands of amazing stereo recordings made with it). The real problem with coincident, near coincident (like ORTF) and spaced A/B is the lack of evenness, in the forward direction meaning that with a wide audio source, it's easy to emphasise certain directions. So M/S scores for me when I need a particular sound. M/S lets me adjust the width afterwards. A perfectly valid reason to do it. Unless I want to ship out my monitoring system, I've no idea what my X/Y really sounds like. Headphones are great for checking quality, but useless for realism checking.
On the realism stakes - I have no problem with seeking realism. I am not talking about the mangled realism of the movie industry, I'm talking about recreating a soundtstage faithfully. I reject the idea that accuracy and realism is not important. Without this, how can the result be considered good?
Many of my clients are very picky about audio, and want, for example, their piano to sound like it sounds to them, not to a listener. I get the impression many video people can't accept that audio has it's own versions of the popular hot topics, like Dof, Colour treatment, gamma curves and lens aberrations.
I'm happy for people to disagree - but please, let's not call it BS, because that just shows a lack of manners and decent ears!
On the realism stakes - I have no problem with seeking realism. I am not talking about the mangled realism of the movie industry, I'm talking about recreating a soundtstage faithfully. I reject the idea that accuracy and realism is not important. Without this, how can the result be considered good?
Many of my clients are very picky about audio, and want, for example, their piano to sound like it sounds to them, not to a listener. I get the impression many video people can't accept that audio has it's own versions of the popular hot topics, like Dof, Colour treatment, gamma curves and lens aberrations.
I'm happy for people to disagree - but please, let's not call it BS, because that just shows a lack of manners and decent ears!
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
I think maybe you mis read my post. Or I wasn't clear. What I'm calling BS and I do think it's valid here, is the claim of "accuracy" or that if you use some weird contraption you will record sound that will sound some how intrinsically "correct". These claims ignore basic physics and acoustics.
The set ups are all fine, they have different sounds and some will sound "better" than others to different individuals. I have used most of them at one point or another. And to correct your impression I have worked in sound both live, recording studios and films for a little over 30 years. I have worked as a sound designer, resident sound engineer, mixer, producer, editor supervisor, recordist,... I'm probably leaving something out but it's been a lot of years. I have worked with and know many of the top people in american film sound and I can say that my views are actually quite in align with theirs. I did mention that there is a divergence as you cross the pond so it may be that I would be ad odds with british sound folks?
But in the end I'm not saying don't use M/S or even that head shaped surround rig, I'm saying use it for the right reasons. And that would be because it sounds the way you want it to.
What you are doing is working for you and your clients, great! I'm not saying to change anything. I just don't want the OP who is new to all of this going off on a quest for the holy grail. He can spend a ton of cash to get the perfect "real" sounding set up. But in the end it's not actually any more "real" sounding than some other setup, so he really should be spending his time learning and trying things out so he can find what works for him and his clients.
On a slightly different tact.
I may be dense but I still don't see the big advantage to your use of M/S. You can't change the "balance" of the image, actually even less than you can with X/Y since you have no L/R control with M/S only width. I'm not arguing against it, I just don't understand what it gets you. And I am curious because if I am missing something then I want to know what it is because I may be able to use it some time.
The set up I tend to use evolved for a number of reasons not originally aimed at the ideal sound but because of placement restrictions. I probably would have used a coincident pair (or a M/S pair if I had the mics handy at the time) but mics in the center were a no no. The only place to hang over heads were too far up stage, and once you get close to the fly loft it starts sounding like singing in a bathroom. So I went high and wide on stands. In the end it sounded great, to me. This group also started getting grants they had not before and comments on the approvals about the quality of the recordings. I have no illusions that this was a "realistic" set up, though in a way it's kind of close since I was recording at about where speakers would be so when played back on speakers you get a very wide image and a feeling like you in a larger space. I think it worked for the grant committees because they were (we heard) playing work samples back on computers and boom-boxes, and the wideness of the recordings really helped their sound. This set up is quite impractical for many things. A large orchestra would probably be too big, though I did do a small orchestra once. Compared to a M/S recording of the same piece the wide set up is much more spacious and open where the M/S felt much tighter and less "open". That could also have been because of the specific mics used?
Anyway that is what I was doing for the chamber music folks and why. For that kind of situation I like it a lot. But there are any number of situations it wont work in which is why I'm asking about your set up. As far as I can tell you are using an X/Y pair someplace back in the house and an M/S pair front and center at the stage. That is kind of a guess from your posts. I was confused over why you wouldn't be able to listen to the X/Y, but can? to the M/S? And I'm still unclear of what the big advantage is of the M/S. Yes you can cancel out most of the side, but you could also just use a hyper or cardioid and do the same. I guess you could force a more focused front sound that is very narrow stereo, but you can do that with X/Y by just changing the mic angles. You could also do this in post but I get the impression that you are not doing a lot of post. That could be wrong but I was getting the impression that these was more of a film and hand off the tape type of gigs.
The set ups are all fine, they have different sounds and some will sound "better" than others to different individuals. I have used most of them at one point or another. And to correct your impression I have worked in sound both live, recording studios and films for a little over 30 years. I have worked as a sound designer, resident sound engineer, mixer, producer, editor supervisor, recordist,... I'm probably leaving something out but it's been a lot of years. I have worked with and know many of the top people in american film sound and I can say that my views are actually quite in align with theirs. I did mention that there is a divergence as you cross the pond so it may be that I would be ad odds with british sound folks?
But in the end I'm not saying don't use M/S or even that head shaped surround rig, I'm saying use it for the right reasons. And that would be because it sounds the way you want it to.
What you are doing is working for you and your clients, great! I'm not saying to change anything. I just don't want the OP who is new to all of this going off on a quest for the holy grail. He can spend a ton of cash to get the perfect "real" sounding set up. But in the end it's not actually any more "real" sounding than some other setup, so he really should be spending his time learning and trying things out so he can find what works for him and his clients.
On a slightly different tact.
I may be dense but I still don't see the big advantage to your use of M/S. You can't change the "balance" of the image, actually even less than you can with X/Y since you have no L/R control with M/S only width. I'm not arguing against it, I just don't understand what it gets you. And I am curious because if I am missing something then I want to know what it is because I may be able to use it some time.
The set up I tend to use evolved for a number of reasons not originally aimed at the ideal sound but because of placement restrictions. I probably would have used a coincident pair (or a M/S pair if I had the mics handy at the time) but mics in the center were a no no. The only place to hang over heads were too far up stage, and once you get close to the fly loft it starts sounding like singing in a bathroom. So I went high and wide on stands. In the end it sounded great, to me. This group also started getting grants they had not before and comments on the approvals about the quality of the recordings. I have no illusions that this was a "realistic" set up, though in a way it's kind of close since I was recording at about where speakers would be so when played back on speakers you get a very wide image and a feeling like you in a larger space. I think it worked for the grant committees because they were (we heard) playing work samples back on computers and boom-boxes, and the wideness of the recordings really helped their sound. This set up is quite impractical for many things. A large orchestra would probably be too big, though I did do a small orchestra once. Compared to a M/S recording of the same piece the wide set up is much more spacious and open where the M/S felt much tighter and less "open". That could also have been because of the specific mics used?
Anyway that is what I was doing for the chamber music folks and why. For that kind of situation I like it a lot. But there are any number of situations it wont work in which is why I'm asking about your set up. As far as I can tell you are using an X/Y pair someplace back in the house and an M/S pair front and center at the stage. That is kind of a guess from your posts. I was confused over why you wouldn't be able to listen to the X/Y, but can? to the M/S? And I'm still unclear of what the big advantage is of the M/S. Yes you can cancel out most of the side, but you could also just use a hyper or cardioid and do the same. I guess you could force a more focused front sound that is very narrow stereo, but you can do that with X/Y by just changing the mic angles. You could also do this in post but I get the impression that you are not doing a lot of post. That could be wrong but I was getting the impression that these was more of a film and hand off the tape type of gigs.
paulears
Veteran
If I was going to record a large orchestra or choir, then separating the mics in space, can be a bad idea, for clarity, because you start to get cancellation - and comb filtering sounds horrible. If you try to avoid this with mic positions that don't cross, you begin to have very hard left/right differentials. Back in the 70s, when I was starting out I was involved with recording some Glenn Miller big band arrangements by a popular UK bandleader, and what we ended up with was quite horrible by todays standards, the saxes and clarinets from one side and the bones and trumpets on the other side - and if you solo'd one channel you could just hear the other side as a kind of reverb wash. The solos and drums and bass were dead central. To anyone familiar with the sound of the real thing, totally unrealistic. I like M/S because you can treat it a little like recording in mono. You pick the point with the best balance, and that is where the mic goes. The side component then allows you to spread the left and right elements to a point where it sounds similar to what a listener would hear. I have no issue with coincident mic techniques, especially as M/S mics are not that common. The trouble is simply that moving from say 90 to 120 degree positions might be necessary if you cannot get the mic quite far enough away, and this increases the loss at centre. using the big band example, too wide a cross means the important centre position of the rhythm section appears less loud, compared to the split either side. With M/S you have control afterwards, with X/Y if it wasn't recorded, it's simply not there. In a bigger building with weaker acoustics I'll probably use a couple of spaced mics durther into the room that I can blend to make the room sound bigger (although I'd admit that a bit of digital tweaking can actually work better).
People have mentioned that you can matrix X/Y into M/S, but the problem is that as I said, if it's not recorded, you cannot retrieve it, so a front facing (or omni) mic can still work best for certain things. In my current recordings, I'm recording grand piano with two close mic condensers, that sounds very artificial and modern - I've also got an M/S about 6 feet away, and for this project, what is needed is clarity and detail - not a typical acoustic grand piano, that is in a 'space'. It will be replayed in a very live room, so needs to be as dry as possible. I have four tracks, and have plenty of choices. The ability of the M/S and the close mics to adjust the width works for me.
I just hate the sound of crossed cardioids when some sound sources are in the poorly covered area.
People have mentioned that you can matrix X/Y into M/S, but the problem is that as I said, if it's not recorded, you cannot retrieve it, so a front facing (or omni) mic can still work best for certain things. In my current recordings, I'm recording grand piano with two close mic condensers, that sounds very artificial and modern - I've also got an M/S about 6 feet away, and for this project, what is needed is clarity and detail - not a typical acoustic grand piano, that is in a 'space'. It will be replayed in a very live room, so needs to be as dry as possible. I have four tracks, and have plenty of choices. The ability of the M/S and the close mics to adjust the width works for me.
I just hate the sound of crossed cardioids when some sound sources are in the poorly covered area.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Ah, this does bring up a positive for M/S that I don't really deal with but would be a plus for radio folks. The set up I described is stereo and is not mono compatible, except with luck. Coincident is generally considered mono compatible but a straight mix down can still give you some weirdness (doing the X/Y converted to M/S and tossing the S will work with the conversion limitations you mentioned). But M/S is completely mono compatible. Radio often needs mono, film post generally either records in mono or uses just the L channel so mono compatibility is not really an issue. We knew that the recordings I was doing might sound really funky in mono but they were never going to be played in mono so that didn't factor in.
The comb filtering your talking about is only going to happen if you play the recording back as a mixed down mono file. I know you know that, it was for the benefit of the OP and others that probably don't.
Most folks use a cardioid or hyper for the M (I hadn't actually heard of anyone using an omni as the M) and that will give you the oposite problem of the X/Y (hole in the middle) in that you are not getting much fron side coverage. But you are absolutely correct if you wanted to go really wide with X/Y you would need to go omni, which I have heard of people doing) and that seems to me would really make mono compatibility problematic.
Thanks, I can see the logic of it. The chamber music group was usually four or less and never over a very tight ten so coverage wasn't a problem in my case. I did have to toy with the set up for the small orchestra but that was a weird situation. It wouldn't be my first choice for that situation and was actually used primarily as a feed and reference track, the concert was discretely miced for the recording. Though it did come out pretty well.
Lots of solutions for lots of situations... There is a big argument on another post list about using lavs for ADR.
OT but related - kind of.
There is a technique that was used at Saul Zaentz (may be a facility thing or maybe just a norther CA term - I havent heard it in many other places). It's a little like "worldizing" another NorCal term. They had a "futz" room buried someplace in the basement. It had a bunch of old radios, and telephones etc. in it and they had been rewired so you could send a signal to the speakers. Then there was a nice omni set up there to return to the stage. On the mix console was a big rotary switch and so you could pick what speaker you fed.
They would use this all the time for making things sound like they were coming from TV's, radios, telephones whatever. Worked great, totally anti HiFi.
The comb filtering your talking about is only going to happen if you play the recording back as a mixed down mono file. I know you know that, it was for the benefit of the OP and others that probably don't.
Most folks use a cardioid or hyper for the M (I hadn't actually heard of anyone using an omni as the M) and that will give you the oposite problem of the X/Y (hole in the middle) in that you are not getting much fron side coverage. But you are absolutely correct if you wanted to go really wide with X/Y you would need to go omni, which I have heard of people doing) and that seems to me would really make mono compatibility problematic.
Thanks, I can see the logic of it. The chamber music group was usually four or less and never over a very tight ten so coverage wasn't a problem in my case. I did have to toy with the set up for the small orchestra but that was a weird situation. It wouldn't be my first choice for that situation and was actually used primarily as a feed and reference track, the concert was discretely miced for the recording. Though it did come out pretty well.
Lots of solutions for lots of situations... There is a big argument on another post list about using lavs for ADR.
OT but related - kind of.
There is a technique that was used at Saul Zaentz (may be a facility thing or maybe just a norther CA term - I havent heard it in many other places). It's a little like "worldizing" another NorCal term. They had a "futz" room buried someplace in the basement. It had a bunch of old radios, and telephones etc. in it and they had been rewired so you could send a signal to the speakers. Then there was a nice omni set up there to return to the stage. On the mix console was a big rotary switch and so you could pick what speaker you fed.
They would use this all the time for making things sound like they were coming from TV's, radios, telephones whatever. Worked great, totally anti HiFi.