Very nice, Marco.

A technique I have developed for M-S on a single acoustic guitar is move the mic array sideways so it is perpendicular to the 12th fret (i.e. not directly in front of the sound hole), but then to rotate the M mic around a vertical axis by about 20 degrees towards the sound hole. This brings the main body of the sound back to the centre of the sound field to avoid sound hole boom while maintaining the width generated by the S mic. To achieve this positioning, you need to have the M-microphone on a vertical axis. The S-microphone can be on the same vertical axis as the M with one of them inverted (upside down), placed so their diaphragms are as close as possible, or else the S-mic can be on a front-rear axis with the M-mic vertical.

Through use of rear-path acoustic baffles, most moving-coil dynamic microphones are designed to approximate a pressure-sensitive response, so can be used as the M channel in conjunction with a condenser mic set to fig-8 as the S-channel. The fig-8 pattern on switchable condensers is usually arrived at by adjusting the voltages on the polarizing elements, but is still a pressure-sensitive response. It's specifically fig-8 ribbons that have the velocity-sensitive response.

Your video has spurred me to thinking about setting up a demonstration video to illustrate the phase differences between the various types and patterns of microphones. I've been meaning to do this for a while, as I want to compare my Haun MB301 against my Beyer M160 and Beyer M500, all cardioid/hypercardioid ribbons. I would also include the M130 and maybe also the B+O BM5 fig-8 ribbons as a reference.

I follow the same M/S as Bos, in fact he pointed out when I did it wrong initially:). (Thanks Bos). I get that lovely acoustic guitar recording you’ve heard from my Taylor that way.

Tony

Boswell, post: 456674, member: 29034 wrote: Your video has spurred me to thinking about setting up a demonstration video to illustrate the phase differences between the various types and patterns of microphones

That would be great !!

Boswell, post: 456674, member: 29034 wrote: A technique I have developed for M-S on a single acoustic guitar is move the mic array sideways so it is perpendicular to the 12th fret (i.e. not directly in front of the sound hole), but then to rotate the M mic around a vertical axis by about 20 degrees towards the sound hole.

That might not show in the video but the M/S is not in front of the sound hole but more between the start of the board and the 12th fret and the mid mic is turned toward the sound hole.
I wasn't following any science but it just sounded ok to me at the time.
I will try your version for sure... thanks !

I've always thought the C1000S was quite usable. They don't deserve the bad reputation they have, you just have to use them on the right source.

Nice video. I'm sure many beginners will appreciate the clear explanations and examples which should give them a head start with stereo mic techniques and help them avoid some pitfalls.

I would suggest using manual focus. Several times the camera attempts to refocus when you gesture. Also, perhaps it would be especially enlightening to demonstrate the three techniques using the same pair of multi-pattern mics to eliminate the tonal differences between the different mics. I might try this with the pair of 4050s I have access to, if I can muster the motivation.

bouldersound, post: 456689, member: 38959 wrote: I would suggest using manual focus. Several times the camera attempts to refocus when you gesture.

Great suggestion. thanks.

(y)(y)

I would like to hear exactly the same techniques used on a wide instrument - like a piano. I found the differences between the techniques on a guitar evident, but I wonder if beginners would not hear what we hear? We understand the subtle tonal differences on a guitar from the bridge end, through the sound hole to the fingerboard - but I wonder what a total newbie would hear. Would they understand that 'stereo' and 'stereo' may not always be the same thing. I've used all these techniques, but when I use them on a wide source - orchestras, choirs, quartets, possibly grand piano, I think stereo, but when I record a guitar, I just think of two sources that sound different that I can blend in several ways to get the right sound for the job. Stereo means to me, an attempt to create what we'd hear if we were there, in the space, where the camera is. Which one in this case is 'best' depends on not just the mic outputs but what we do with them. It's a great subject for discussion.

I think I probably am alone in my thoughts that putting a coincident pair out, with 90 degrees between them, capsules aligned vertically isn't recording a guitar in X/Y stereo. I know that this is exactly what an X/Y stereo technique is - but on a small instrument, listened to from where the camera is, I have a problem calling this 'stereo'. In my head, I'm imagining Marco's excellent video with exactly the same mics, techniques and explanations, pointing at multiple sources, not just one. It's just something that I've thought a lot about over the years - stemming back to when a trumpet player wanted me to record him in stereo, and I ended up with a nice recording in stereo of a room, with a mono instrument right in the middle.

paulears, post: 456697, member: 47782 wrote: I would like to hear exactly the same techniques used on a wide instrument - like a piano. I found the differences between the techniques on a guitar evident, but I wonder if beginners would not hear what we hear?

If only I had a piano ! ;)

paulears, post: 456697, member: 47782 wrote: It's just something that I've thought a lot about over the years - stemming back to when a trumpet player wanted me to record him in stereo, and I ended up with a nice recording in stereo of a room, with a mono instrument right in the middle.

This is a good point. If I do a part two, I'll make sure to use X/Y as drum overhead as an exemple. Thanks