|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 6th, 2013, 08:33 AM | #16 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA
Posts: 710
|
Re: M-S vs. X-Y for field use
I'll bite -- why? In particular, if it's never going to be heard in mono, why check in mono?
|
September 6th, 2013, 01:02 PM | #17 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,992
|
Re: M-S vs. X-Y for field use
Quote:
I personally prefer using a stereo M/S mic on location but recorded as a matrixed A/B signal as the M capsule is always pointing at the sound source.
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/ |
|
September 6th, 2013, 05:00 PM | #18 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Re: M-S vs. X-Y for field use
Because a lot of your listeners will actually hear it in mono.
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! |
September 6th, 2013, 05:48 PM | #19 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 466
|
Re: M-S vs. X-Y for field use
Quote:
Subwoofer (low frequency material ) is played as mono, even wide screen TVs have subwoofer systems in them. Theatre / stage shows / productions are mono. MP3 / MP4 files often have poor channel separation at lower frequencies, resulting in virtual mono results. PA systems are mono. SO if you use a bad mic setup like 'over wide MS' or poorly aligned XY phase errors WILL occur, this will result in frequency cancellations in your mix / recordings. So if your recordings / mix EVER ends up on YouTube, mobile phones, tablets, laptop computers, Broadcast, PA, DVD's, Theatre, or played on a big screen make sure that you have correct phase correlation...... |
|
September 6th, 2013, 07:25 PM | #20 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 2,039
|
Re: M-S vs. X-Y for field use
Hence my suggestion to use a single 'stereo' mic which should be mono compatible w/o alterations. But I would check mono compatibility anyway.. via listening to L+R summed AND a scope.
|
September 6th, 2013, 10:43 PM | #21 | ||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,420
|
Re: M-S vs. X-Y for field use
Quote:
You'd have to go way past "overwide" before you lost significant gain on summing L+R to mono... A "poorly aligned XY" array becomes a near-coincident pair, rather than the coincident pair that you're supposed to use with this technique and a pair of mics. You could describe ORTF as a poorly aligned XY, or even look at AB that way. Phase errors will occur, yes, but what is the audible result of this? I recommend listening, trust your ears! But, as Brian and many have pointed out, checking out how your mix sounds in mono is really a best practice no matter what stereo techniques you might be using. Sorry to go into rant mode here, but the way that MS works in mono is a strength of the technique, not a weakness. Granted it is possible to screw it up... The best way to screw up mono compatibility is to have a phase problem in your monitoring, do pay attention to polarity all the way from your sound card to the monitors and get it right! Likewise, in any playback system. Check all mixes in mono all the time. X-Y, A-B, ORTF, and yes M-S too can all be screwed up if you're not careful. Quote:
There are some accepted truths in this business that are worth testing for yourself! The theory behind phase cancellation and comb filtering is solid, it's good engineering and math, but in practice it is not so cut and dried, everything seems to be a lot looser when you have microphones in real spaces with real sources... in my experience. If it sounds good, it is good - was that Count Basie or Duke Ellington?
__________________
30 years of pro media production. Vegas user since 1.0. Webcaster since 1997. Freelancer since 2000. College instructor since 2001. |
||
September 6th, 2013, 11:25 PM | #22 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 466
|
Re: M-S vs. X-Y for field use
Seth.... have you ever broadcast MS mics LIVE to air?
I did a golf tournament in the early days of stereo TV using MS mics, to match some of the wide pretty shots we set the stereo mics to wide (nothing tricky JUST the 'wide' setting on the mics). It went like this.... program open music xfade to stereo FX (wide MS mics) for 10 seconds to established the location, cue commentary..... BUT what occurred at ALL the transmission station(s) across the country was the auto phase correction detected an out of phase signal so it corrected it and phase inverted R channel to bring it into 'what it assumed as correct phase', and when the commentary started the mono commentary was completely canceled out.......... YEP thats right NO commentary across the country..... and ALL caused by some MS mics set to the wide setting on the mic. So don't tell me there is NO problems with MS mics !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Since that incident many years ago I now use XY set VERY wide almost to a point of having a dip in the centre of the audio image, the mono commentary and spot FX sits in there nicely giving a VERY wide spatial sound image that suits wide screen TV fantastically. This XY stereo technique is what I have used for the past 25+ years in live to air sporting Outside Broadcasts. And thats why I have ALWAYS said that EVERYbody that has some ability to change the sound of a mix MUST be aware of how MS works and how it can be used and more to the point how it can destroy a Broadcast.... If you ever do a movie or music record using wide MS how do you know what will occur to the material you have created many years down the track...Could you be creating future problems for others? Last edited by Brian P. Reynolds; September 6th, 2013 at 11:57 PM. |
September 7th, 2013, 02:41 AM | #23 |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,992
|
Re: M-S vs. X-Y for field use
With best respects Brian that is a problem with the transmission system and not a problem with M/S mics.
If networks chose to put auto phase correction across their output that is not my problem as a sound supervisor if I am sending a valid stereo signal. I appreciate what you are saying but if that was the case then pretty much every dolby pro logic mix that has ever been done would cause the same problems so it is not specifically an M/S mic problem.
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/ |
September 7th, 2013, 04:01 AM | #24 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lowestoft - UK
Posts: 4,045
|
Re: M-S vs. X-Y for field use
For a moving object against a stationary background, although I don't use it much myself, I'd go the M/S route on this one, because of the complexity of the moving sound source. For a passing noise like maybe a Police siren, X/Y or even a spaced pair of omnis would be nice, for the passing object that has extreme length, like a train, M/S offers a more suitable recording method. Not so much for the actual stereo image, but the possibilities of controlling it afterwards. The only issue with M/S is when post is carried out by people who don't understand how it works.
|
September 7th, 2013, 07:37 AM | #25 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 976
|
Re: M-S vs. X-Y for field use
Quote:
The coincidental mics are much easier to windshield, direct and control than an XY pair. I never use XY nowadays - if it's not MS, then I use ORTF or spaced omnis - but for whhat you suggest, then MS is definitely the best option. My MS rig is Sennheiser MKH 40/30 and I have two of them.
__________________
John Willett - Sound-Link ProAudio and Circle Sound Services President: Fédération Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons |
|
September 7th, 2013, 09:15 AM | #26 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA
Posts: 710
|
Re: M-S vs. X-Y for field use
|
September 7th, 2013, 09:19 AM | #27 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA
Posts: 710
|
Re: M-S vs. X-Y for field use
Hadn't thought about the small handheld devices. But the audio is so bad on those things that it would probably be difficult to hear any sound problems with them anyway. Still, something to think about.
|
September 7th, 2013, 10:26 AM | #28 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,420
|
Re: M-S vs. X-Y for field use
Quote:
My broadcast TV days were pre-stereo... but I also had some problems with the processing done downstream of my console. The guy who trained me always listened to the transmitter return, because the compression/limiting done in Master Control was seriously screwy, and if I wanted the folks at home to hear a reasonable mix I had to monitor post of that processing. I got a rather serious dressing down after it turned out that the feed to cable distribution occurred pre of that processing, and the cable subscribers were hearing levels all over the place. The resolution was to make the (pre) air tape mix sound good, then management would be happy. "Sorry" to the broadcast viewers at home. You know, the real problem was the compression/limiting setup done by transmitter engineers who had no f****ing idea what they were doing with sound. I have to agree with Mr. Nattrass, above... though that's small comfort when management comes down on YOU! One can hope that the days of auto phase "correction" without human intervention are gone, you'd think there would be all sorts of contemporary pop music that might trigger it, but probably the tradition continues somewhere. Presumably with a strong Mid signal in the mix it wouldn't happen. What mics were these? BBC, on the other hand, mandated that all atmos / ambience be acquired in M-S, because of the graceful sum to mono. Don't know if that mandate is still part of the programming spec (I'm in the U.S.), but it was true for many decades. But I hear your criticism, and I've been caught in the trap I pointed out earlier in this thread - there is theory, and there is experience. We need to have our practice informed by both. And though I'm a huge fan of M-S, if it ever comes up that my work might make it to Australian broadcast, I'll keep what you wrote in mind! There's only so much I can do to prevent problems down the road; it really isn't my responsibility to think about every possible future screwup, only the common ones. My real responsibility is to my employer-of-the-moment; the best practices that will support their goals.
__________________
30 years of pro media production. Vegas user since 1.0. Webcaster since 1997. Freelancer since 2000. College instructor since 2001. |
|
September 7th, 2013, 06:38 PM | #29 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 466
|
Re: M-S vs. X-Y for field use
Quote:
At the time I would assume it would have been the logical choice otherwise location sound guys would have used crossed pairs of MKH816's.... AND the post production guys then would have been attuned to working in MS, these days people don't understand the technique let alone be attuned to using it. Last edited by Brian P. Reynolds; September 7th, 2013 at 07:27 PM. |
|
September 8th, 2013, 01:32 AM | #30 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lowestoft - UK
Posts: 4,045
|
Re: M-S vs. X-Y for field use
The automatic phase error problem was perhaps not the 'fault' of M/S but of the use of M/S mics that do the re-matrixing in the mic - as in without any attempt to listen to the recombining. Gary has one of the Sony mics that do this, but the width adjustment must be listened to - or the left to right differences can be extreme - especially when presented with a dead centre component in the sound field.
I suspect this just emphasises that there is is no 'correct' technique, just ones that are appropriate on a case by case basis. |
| ||||||
|
|