1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

M-S on acoustis with m160 and k2 in fig. 8

Discussion in 'Recording' started by stickers, Jan 8, 2006.

  1. stickers

    stickers Active Member

  2. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Well-Known Member

    Well Sticky, I liked both. Although when I listen carefully to both, initially I liked the stereo space better with your first example but your second example was a little more mellow and mono.

    I came to the conclusion that your matrix channels were swapped. I arrived at this conclusion by using the vocal cut method of reducing center information and instantly got more low-end bass on your first example. It should have been the opposite effect. By adding out of phase center middle to the mix, it should have reduced low-end response but instead, it increased it, indicating that your matrix was backwards. I dematrixed your first example and believe it's possible that you had the channels reversed when you decoded the matrix? I heard what I thought was figure 8 in the left Channel and middle microphone in the right Channel? So I'm not quite sure you got your first example correct? Again it all depends on whether you like a broader space or a tighter more mellow and intimate sound? Either way it all sounds lovely.

    So good job Sticky!
    wasn't that fun and educational?

    MS Remy Ann David
     
  3. stickers

    stickers Active Member

    any more feedback...
     
  4. stickers

    stickers Active Member

  5. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Well-Known Member

    I don't hear any difference?

    Remy
     
  6. stickers

    stickers Active Member

    Remy, you silly goose. I didnt make any changes. Im just want other people to respond besides you.
     
  7. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Well-Known Member

    I can't understand why you haven't gotten more feedback they are beautiful samples?

    I know you didn't make any more changes I'm just being my silly self.
     
  8. vladlv

    vladlv Guest

    I think both contains same "Stereo" level

    In fact i think both can have different function in mix
    First is Totally Rytmic Function
    and second is PAD+Rythm Function.
    it depends what is your mix about and what functions already present
     
  9. road_weary

    road_weary Guest

    Yes... beautifully played! What type of guitar were you playing? It almost sounds like a Taylor....

    Both clips sound great. I prefer the first because of it's broader stereo image.
     
  10. stickers

    stickers Active Member

    It's a martin custom. its a guitar center special edition, i guess. Ran around 900. I liked the way it plays and sounds better than the more expensive ones. I was in there for 3 hours playing practically all acoustics.
     
  11. Cucco

    Cucco Distinguished Member

    Hey Stickers!

    I'm afraid to see this thread die and hit the next page so I'm bumping it again.

    I listened to them on my home computer (Yamaha computer speakers... :x ) but what I heard I REALLY liked. I agree with Remy's comments about the stereo information being better in the first one. That doesn't mean that the second would make a bad take - quite the opposite - when you're wanting that close, intimate sound, a narrower field is better. It just doesn't seem to scream M-S to me - more "close XY"

    I'm going to give the courtesy of a good listen tomorrow while I'm in my studio over my dyn's and let you know more then. I'll also test Remy's other statements for validity, but I believe she's right. It's all too easy to accidentally reverse the polarity of the wrong side of the MS fig 8.

    Keep it up dude!

    J. :cool:
     

Share This Page