I need a pair of mics for live performance recordings

[Paul R Johnson]

the plug in-s that convert x/y to m/s are meant for post work - the idea being that you then have two channels, and lowering one fader gradually reduces the apparent width of the image. Hand when matching perspective in video shots. You know, you have perhaps a really wide 16:9 shot of a cathedral. The full stereo image (let's assume an orchestra playing) gives a fair bit of separation between left and right. You want a slow zoom to the conductor. You have the choice of leaving the image wide, as it was, and for music I stick with this, but if the visuals need the soundscape to shrink to match them, as the camera zooms or tracks in, then the normal process would be to shift both x/y channel pan pots in from their fully left/fully right positions in to the middle. Any small slips in the tracking between them produce image shifts, and these are very obvious on headphones. Lowering a single fader is much easier. A single mono feed is also easy to arrange, just sending some of the M channel.

The converter isn't trying to reproduce the 'sound' of an m/s pair - that's not what it is for at all, it is just the matrixing that is being fiddled with. The sound of an m/s pair is very different to any discrete two channel technique - but the benefit is the ability to 'play' afterwards!

[David Ennis]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

...The converter isn't trying to reproduce the 'sound' of an m/s pair - that's not what it is for at all, it is just the matrixing that is being fiddled with...

Yes, we know that. The question then became "if you can do that, then is there any real inherent virtue in the M-S mics we've had our eye on?"

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

The sound of an m/s pair is very different to any discrete two channel technique

In what way are they different? Is the M-S better? Specifically, what M-S pair(s) and two channel technique(s) have you compared?

[Jeff Mack]

Originally Posted by David Lach

I don't have the money for the high end stuff, but I need to best this money can buy me, because so far I've realized the artists I work for usually never complain about the video aspect as they don't know much about that, but they are awfully picky about sound and it needs to be as good as possible.

David,

When recording a performance, you really only have one option and that is to record off the board. The reason that there are so many lines in is that to make the audio sound good, you need to ISOLATE each channel. The isolated channels make it to the board and are then mixed to output a good sound mix to the audience. It is important to note that this is not STUDIO sound. The tech is making it sound good through the board to compensate for accoustics, crowd and effects. What sounds good to you live may not sound so good on tape. If you took your 4 channels from the board preprocessed, you could do the mix yourself. Many artists won't like that either because you are now changing their sound. If you are trying to use this footage to promote a band, you owe it to them to get the sound off the board. Any other setup does no service to capturing the sound as it is meant to be and imo, you are just wasting your money on equipment that's not necessary. Try sending a few beers to the soundman and see if that doesn't get you on the board.

SOmething that I invested in for about $1100 is http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Produc...4MTRE3_content. It's a wireless monitor mixer from SHure. It comes with a transmitter, a mixer and a bodypack receiver. I plug my 4 outputs from the board into my monitor/mixer. Then I sent the 4 signals into the transmitter. Then I output the stereo signal into the bodypack receiver and with a mini to stereo XLR, into my Z-1. I can move all around and always have the best audio possible short of micing the entire show myself.

This is just my opinion which you didn't really ask for but I think getting anything with seperate mics just won't give you good sound.

Jeff

[David Ennis]

Jeff, I'm curious as to what four outputs you're taking from the board.

[Dave Largent]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

The sound of an m/s pair is very different to any discrete two channel technique

I would like to know more about how the
true M/S differs from "XY converted in post".

[Jeff Mack]

Originally Posted by Fred Retread

Jeff, I'm curious as to what four outputs you're taking from the board.

Fred, I only use 4 channels when there are only 4 channels to the board. If there are more, I just take a stereo mix. If there ar emore than 4 channels and I want to record them all, I use my alesis 24hd to record them and then mix them in post.

Jeff

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Jeff Mack

Fred, I only use 4 channels when there are only 4 channels to the board. If there are more, I just take a stereo mix. If there ar emore than 4 channels and I want to record them all, I use my alesis 24hd to record them and then mix them in post.

Jeff

Are you taking mic direct outs, submix outs, or tapping into the main outs? Wondering what the 4 channels actually are .. tapping into the main outs, for example, would only be two channels, L & R, not 4.

[Jeff Mack]

I actually split the signal before it gets to the board when I intend to record a show. They are mic/line inputs. One side goes to my recorder or monitor/mixer. The only reason I mentioned 4 tracks was because the original thread suggested that he only captures four tracks. Again, another reason I use the wireless monitor mixer is because I can send 4 tracks through to the receiver and then with a mini to stereo xlr, I can send two channels mixed to right and to left or however I want them. The monitor mixer allows you to balance the signal to two seperate channels or anywhere in between.

Jeff

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Jeff Mack

I actually split the signal before it gets to the board when I intend to record a show. They are mic/line inputs. One side goes to my recorder or monitor/mixer. The only reason I mentioned 4 tracks was because the original thread suggested that he only captures four tracks. Again, another reason I use the wireless monitor mixer is because I can send 4 tracks through to the receiver and then with a mini to stereo xlr, I can send two channels mixed to right and to left or however I want them. The monitor mixer allows you to balance the signal to two seperate channels or anywhere in between.

Jeff

That's what threw me because depending on the nature of the performance you might have a lot more than 4 mics in use. If you're tapping between the mics and the main board you could have 5 to 7 or so separate mics on the drum kit alone plus lead vocal, backing vocal, keyboards, guitars, etc, the list could get quite lengthy. The topic is particularly timely for me today because if the truck has arrived at the local Long & McQuade store, I'll be picking up a Mackie 1642 on my way home from work this afternoon. Issues of how many channels to look for in a mixer and for what have been in the forefront of my mind for the last few weeks <grin>.

[Jeff Mack]

Congrats! Good luck with the recording

[David Ennis]

Originally Posted by Dave Largent

I would like to know more about how the
true M/S differs from "XY converted in post".

I guess that my post #60 above is as good as it gets on this. I figure that there is probably less off-axis coloration with M-S than with XY. Other than that, if elements of the same characteristics are used for both arrays, it has to be the same information recorded by either arrragement. The only difference would be that mid and side are already mixed in fixed proportions in the XY, but that can be undone with the plug in.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Jeff Mack

Congrats! Good luck with the recording

Thanks - after months of reviewing specs, browsing in the showrooms, etc, my desktop is home to a new Mackie 1642 this morning and I am a happy camper with a new toy. Ohhh the buttons, the buttons!!!!! Blinky Lights and Knobs and Faders - Oh My!! <grin>