This is mentioned in a lot of threads, so if you do a search you will get a lot of details. But here is the basic info: MS involves two mics. The mid mic is usually cardioid, but can be any pattern. It is pointed directly at the source, recorded to a track that is panned to center: track M. The side mic must be a figure 8. It is pointed to the side, with its null at the source. The signal from the side mic is copied to two track, and one of them is inverted: tracks S and -S. The tracks are panned hard left and hard right. At this point the two side track cab be combined into a stereo track. Now the mid and side tracks are added together. You get M+S in the left speaker and M-S in the right. This gives a good stereo image, but sums to the mono M track when the two stereo track are added.

BobRogers, post: 359868 wrote: This is mentioned in a lot of threads, so if you do a search you will get a lot of details. But here is the basic info: MS involves two mics. The mid mic is usually cardioid, but can be any pattern. It is pointed directly at the source, recorded to a track that is panned to center: track M. The side mic must be a figure 8. It is pointed to the side, with its null at the source. The signal from the side mic is copied to two track, and one of them is inverted: tracks S and -S. The tracks are panned hard left and hard right. At this point the two side track cab be combined into a stereo track. Now the mid and side tracks are added together. You get M+S in the left speaker and M-S in the right. This gives a good stereo image, but sums to the mono M track when the two stereo track are added.

GREAT 'How-to' Bob. It helps to have a fig'o'eight mic that is very similar in response front and back...(in this case side-to-side). M-S on the back of a loud combo amp can be amazing.

Thanks guys for all the help on this!! and I will do some searching to see what I can find. Thanks so much!!

With pictures: Mid-Side Microphone Technique - WikiRecording

You guys ever do M-S with Royers ( 121, 122) ? The Royers are slightly brighter on the back side.

It seems to me that it is not truly usable for MS.
What you are after is at best a matched pair of mics + an omni. *

* an equal sounding figure 8 mic or a pair of matched cardioid...

Thanks Big K, but I was wondering because the Royers are figure 8, one Royer and one cardioid might have been tried.

I believe John has tried, yes with your 101? And he explained MS but I've already forgotten if he used them for that. Like me... never really get it until I do it myself.
But I know the back side is slightly brighter so that's the part that confuses me with Royer's for MS. I have a few 122 going into Choir work this spring. I'm going to be asking a lot of question as this will be my first big event coming at it from the recording end. I've always been performing, never recording a choir.

Looking after my question... The manual notes here for 121: http://www.royerlabs.com/pdf/manuals/R-121manual.pdf
and here for 122:
http://www.royerlabs.com/pdf/manuals/R-122manual.pdf

Some of the Royers are true balanced figure 8. Those would be appropriate for the S portion of an M/S array. The R101's I have use an offset ribbon so they are not ideal for M/S. They worked very well in Blumlein. I bought the SF12 which does have a pair of symmetrical ribbons. The one opportunity I have had to use the SF12 was not ideal so not a good test. I have used the R101's very successfully in an A-B configuration.

Now a symmetrical pair of ribbon mic's could be used either Blumlein or rotated 45 degrees into a M/S array. I do not believe the R121 is symmetrical but that slight timberal difference could be used to advantage in certain situations I think. After all, the C414 is very very often used as a M/S mic and the back side of it is timberally different than the front. The M mic can be either cardioid or fig8 but an omni center is really for very specific situations as it does not produce the correct M+S/M-S to represent stereo separation.

Ah, found it on page 16. I never realized this brighter effect was only within 3 feet or closer! Very cool. I love these mics and the R-122's are so sweet.

In the FWIW category, I believe I'm going to have Michael Joly mod a pair of MXL2010 multipattern mic's I have. I don't use them for obvious reasons-stock they are about as brittle as they come. If I go ahead with it M/S will be one of the primary uses for them.

For the beginners and even if the seasoned, I keep records of the gigs that indicate what mic (serialized after all) is in what position and what pattern. I didn't always do this but I didn't feel I was making good judgments based on concrete facts. Now I know. A P-Touch labeler works to serialize those that don't have engraved numbers.

As I understand it matched pair isn't really the same as a figure 8 - the figure 8 picks up a pressure gradient component (vs. velocity). If you get into ambisonic recording you can compute different decoding patterns for multiple mics - MS and Blumlein are two examples.

I know Michael Joly does excellent work, but is it worth it on those MXLs? I'm a little surprised you are not considering dumping them on Ebay and going for some better mics for M-S configurations. I have never been a fan of the MXL internal electronics, let alone the variability of the capsules, although I admit I have not heard Joly-modified MXLs. However, for the money spent on the modification I would be surprised if something like a stock pair of Rode NT2-As did not provide a more reliable-sounding M-S set.

Bob R raises an interesting point about the fig-8 pattern being generated from a pair of capsules, but in fact conventional M-S usually works well with good LDCs, where the S-channel fig-8 mic is providing the width information. In contrast, I find Blumlein M-S really needs ribbons (velocity mics) to work well. However, much of the result of M-S depends on the sound source distribution, venue acoustics and mic positioning, with refinement of mic types coming after that.

If you do go ahead with the Joly mod, do let us know how it turns out.

I know. Modding an MXL feels wrong doesn't it? LOL. They are remnants of the time when I first got out of the Corps and was getting divorced and skint broke. To make matters worse, the Corps didn't see fit to send me home with all the Neumann's they had been so happy to let me utilize while Active! Darn them. Of course now I'm chock a brock full of AKG, AT, Royer etc so no real need to do the mod's other than I'm curious from all the reading of these things. The only reason to send two is just personal habit of buying pairs of microphones.

Apparently the things that will be changed are: all capacitors, circuit board modified, capsule changed to K47 type, and head basket changed to open type. Do I think this will be a Neumann when done? Not on your life. If it's usable then that is the goal. If it's pleasant to use that is even better.

So, the Corp uses Neumanns....interesting......

We use 'em all. I had Neumann, AT, AKG, Shure, EV. I did not have USMC owned ribbons though. Basically, you get given a budget or you write a sole source justification of the expense and vendor and if the Budget Gods smile at you, poof.

They don't call it mil spec for nothing.

Not every band had Neumann mics. I was fortunate in that I had four bands in my area to raid for recording mics. Every band had general PA mics though.