x
anonymous 1 December 2005

Hi all

I'm slowly developping my beginner skills: mostly on acoustic al stuff (jazz, choral, folk).
I'm learning the difference between xy, ortf and ab and have tried them all.
So far I'm beginning to get a bit of a feel for these stereo recording techniques. Generally speaking I prefer ortf and ab, not xy.

Now I'm wondering what MS can do for me. I know about the theoretical stuff but don't have any hands on experience as I don't have a figure8

I was wondering if anyone could put up some files so I can try out the ms mixing / listening myself (I'm using Cubase sx, so I'm ok on that)
I'm especially interested in how much margin there is in focus / width

Up to now I can only assume MS is most comparatable to xy (soundwise)

Any other comments related to the sound of MS (vs. the other stereo techniques) is highly appreciated

Cheers

Topic Tags

Comments

Zilla Thu, 12/01/2005 - 15:37

GentleG wrote: ...Generally speaking I prefer ortf and ab, not xy.

Any other comments related to the sound of MS (vs the other stereo techniques) is highly appreciated.

I suspect what you are attracted to with ORTF/AB is the inter-aural time delay resulting from the non-coincident placement of the capsules. This delay imparts a sense of spaciousness. XY does not have this delay and therefore lacks spaciousness. However, XY has better monaural compatibility and better localization.

Like the XY config, MS is also a coincident stereo mic technique. In fact, the point of MS is basically to synthesize the XY configuration, but allow pattern adjustment, electronically, during or after the recording. The trade-off for this flexibility is the added processing of a MS matrix encoder. I always find any additional processing in my signal path to be unwelcome.

anonymous Thu, 12/01/2005 - 18:03

Thanks all,
Especially David

First impressions while listening: huge flexibility

I just reread about ms and xy in The Microphone Book by John Eargle (great book btw)
It's time I try encoding / decoding xy to ms to get another look / hear on the subject
And I guess I should try different angles on xy recording

Generally speaking I prefer ortf / ab on wider sources (choir)
and xy on smaller (upright piano, drums, mallets)

Cheers all

anonymous Thu, 12/01/2005 - 18:03

Thanks all,
Especially David

First impressions while listening: huge flexibility

I just reread about ms and xy in The Microphone Book by John Eargle (great book btw)
It's time I try encoding / decoding xy to ms to get another look / hear on the subject
And I guess I should try different angles on xy recording

Generally speaking I prefer ortf / ab on wider sources (choir)
and xy on smaller (upright piano, drums, mallets)

Cheers all

x

User login