Andreas, you might want to consider the battery operated AT822 stereo microphone for $250. It has a pair of cardioid elements in one housing. This would fit into your requirement for "ultra portability" and eliminate fussing with the set up of two mics.

Andreas, off the top of my head, if you wanted
to use some non-phantom cardioids with a
stereo bar such as that Shure model, I'd
maybe look at the Audio Technica Artist line
for some battery operated mics.
Maybe not as good as 3031 and NT5
but that's about the best I can think
of that don't use phantom.
Maybe someone else would have some
thoughts on this.

thank's Fred for your fast reply.
edited: and Laurent..your post appeared while I was writing this:

about a weeks ago I bought an AT822! and I really like it - my first 'real' mic!

I want the ability to record audio only as well and therefore just also bought an iriver H120 and had planned to add a socalled Denecke AD-20 preamp+A/D to go optical in on the iriver. Later I got word though that the AD-20 does not sound to good and I also realized that this set up would be quite bulky. Therefore I may change my audio recorder to be an Edirol R-09 - specially if I get confirmed that it's built-in preamp would even be good enough for ambience recording which would make the external preamp obsolete.

Now I do want the ability to record audio to my GS400 and to my audio recorder simultaniously, hence the need of another mic. - preferably one which adds variety to the AT822 and therefore thought of cardidoid or omni pairs, preferably ones which have interchangeable capsules.

In another forum I just got pointed to those:
http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/SP-CMC-4
if loud or quiet sound coupled with:
http://www.soundprofessionals.com/cgi-bin/gold/item/SP-SPSB-6

seems like a quite good solution! Those mics house AT853 cardioid capsules, if I understand right the capsules are changeable to house omnis as well. They seem to perform alright even with plug in power and if powered do with just 9 Volt.
Is this something like you, Dave, were pointing at?

I also wonder if, in case I get the Edirol R-09, the onboard mics could even be sufficient.
( I am buying too much stuff lately...)

...
Now I do want the ability to record audio to my GS400 and to my audio recorder simultaniously, hence the need of another mic. - preferably one which adds variety to the AT822 and therefore thought of cardidoid or omni pairs, preferably ones which have interchangeable capsules.

I...

Not necessarily. You could send audio from one set of mics to both the camera and the audio recorder with by using an inexpensive mixer or mic splitter with multiple outputs.

Sorry, I havent had time to read all the posts,
but I use Shure SM81's. 1 far left, 1 far right, and a set in the XY setup in the middle. It covers nicely, prefrb. not more than 10 feet away from the stage, unless it's run through a sound reinforcement system. If it is, I try to get an output from the sound tech, if not mic the speaker cabs with a dynamic (Shure SM57 and AKG D12) mics. I tend not to put a condensor on a speaker cab, it comes in too hot.

For high end stuff, I use Neumann KM140's (cardioid head), on the same pattern, and the Crown Stereo PZM (MKII?) mic in the middle behind the XY pattern.

WAVES has 4-5 plugs that dematrix M/S if you would prefer it in FCP or Soundtrack Pro.

What do you think of those plug-ins
that are supposed to turn your
XY recordings into M-S? There's
got to be something here that is
not the same as M-S? There's got to
be some compromise?

Not necessarily. You could send audio from one set of mics to both the camera and the audio recorder with by using an inexpensive mixer or mic splitter with multiple outputs.

obviously!...though not for me, I had never thought of this...

I am planning to document a 10 day long art and music festival in south India. I won't have any help and will do all myself. I thought to set up a separate audio recorder, and shoot videos + AT822 but not only from a tripod, but also at times to carry the cam to get other angles, close ups etc. I want to put all on a DVD which features audios of individual musical performances at 'full length', but videos which rather show the variety of musicians then covering full lenght individual performances. I guess in this case a separate recorder still would be good.

you say: 'inexpensive mixer or mic splitter'...that makes me very curious though...could you please point at one specifically, e.g. brand name, model name..?

thank you ( - and please tell me if my postings disturb in this thread and I rather stopped posting here )

obviously!...though not for me, I had never thought of this...

I am planning to document a 10 day long art and music festival in south India. I won't have any help and will do all myself. I thought to set up a separate audio recorder, and shoot videos + AT822 but not only from a tripod, but also at times to carry the cam to get other angles, close ups etc. I want to put all on a DVD which features audios of individual musical performances at 'full length', but videos which rather show the variety of musicians then covering full lenght individual performances. I guess in this case a separate recorder still would be good.

you say: 'inexpensive mixer or mic splitter'...that makes me very curious though...could you please point at one specifically, e.g. brand name, model name..?

thank you ( - and please tell me if my postings disturb in this thread and I rather stopped posting here )


There are a number of ways to split a single mic signal for two destinations. Here's a couple of examples of simple splitters, The Whirlwind Splitter-L
http://www.whirlwindusa.com/split.html#splitterl
and the SP1X2 and SP1X3 right below it on that page. For stereo micing you'd obviously need 2 of them, one for each mic line. HOWEVER, in my previous post I overlooked the fact that you were using the the AT822 and I'm pretty sure these won't work with it. They are designed to split a mono, balanced mic to feed 2 or 3 inputs. But your AT822, while it does use an XLR output, is wired so it sends two unbalanced stereo channels on the XLR and a splitter designed for balanced mono will do very strange things to the signal even though the connectors are compatible- very likely you'd hear nothing at all on the outputs.

You said you wanted to record the audio continuously and move around with the camera catching different angles etc. For good music recording the mic needs to be fairly precisely positioned and should stay in that one place. As I think about your project, I'd use the 822 on a stand to feed your recorder that becoimes the program's audio and the in-camera mic to record a "scratch track" with the video to aid you in lining up the two in post. The quality of the audio in camera is immaterial in that case since you just using it for reference and it won't appear on the finished product.

I'm a little confused though. Are you planning on using the 822 or in a previous post you also mentioned you were looking for a pair of seperate cardioids. Is this an either one or the other or are you planning on going with both?

If you're by yourself, what are you doing about security for your stuff as you move about the crowd? Call me distrustful but I don't think a pocket-sized $400 recorder and $250 mic are going to last 2 minutes in a crowd if you move away from them to get a closeup of the performers.

Your posts are just fine, keep 'em coming - we're all just users helping users. If you have a question that you think might go too far off-topic in a particular thread, just post it as a new thread.

....But your AT822, while it does use an XLR output, is wired so it sends two unbalanced stereo channels on the XLR and a splitter designed for balanced mono will do very strange things to the signal even though the connectors are compatible- very likely you'd hear nothing at all on the outputs.

interesting...I believe that I will not need a splitter anyway though. I am even happy that the AT822 does not have ballanced cables, because little volume, little weight, easy to set up are essential to me.

You said you wanted to record the audio continuously and move around with the camera catching different angles etc. For good music recording the mic needs to be fairly precisely positioned and should stay in that one place. As I think about your project, I'd use the 822 on a stand to feed your recorder that becoimes the program's audio and the in-camera mic to record a "scratch track" with the video to aid you in lining up the two in post. The quality of the audio in camera is immaterial in that case since you just using it for reference and it won't appear on the finished product.
I'm a little confused though. Are you planning on using the 822 or in a previous post you also mentioned you were looking for a pair of seperate cardioids. Is this an either one or the other or are you planning on going with both?


Yes, I was planning to set up the audio recorder fixed with it's mic near to the sound source. Why I was thinking to get another mic, or rather a pair of cardioids or omnis ( best interchangeable ), is that I thought I wanted to have decent sound from both the cam and the audio recorder, the AT822 using shockmounted on the cam. But you are very right, I could just drop wanting to have 'useable' audio from the cam, only use it's onbopard mic's sound as reverence.


If you're by yourself, what are you doing about security for your stuff as you move about the crowd? Call me distrustful but I don't think a pocket-sized $400 recorder and $250 mic are going to last 2 minutes in a crowd if you move away from them to get a closeup of the performers.

No, I don't worry. At the festival I am thinking of I would not have any security concern. I believe that the audio recorder would be way up in front at the front edge of the stage for everybody to see, nobody would touch it. Very likely I'd even get help like electrical current set up ( besides: India does have some inexpliable sides: e.g roadside shops in Mumbay just wrap their goods for the night with some plastic cover, and there will be many poor homeless sleeping next to it without touching it )

Your posts are just fine, keep 'em coming - we're all just users helping users. If you have a question that you think might go too far off-topic in a particular thread, just post it as a new thread.

thanks

What do you think of those plug-ins
that are supposed to turn your
XY recordings into M-S? There's
got to be something here that is
not the same as M-S? There's got to
be some compromise?Interesting question to ponder. I come up with "yes, there is a compromise."

Short form explanation:
The M-S works with three polar patterns, the XY with two. Over the coverage range of 180° in front, the XY pair has about 3/4 of each of two lobes in the field, for a total of 1 1/2 lobes. The M-S has one lobe to the front and two half-lobes to the sides for a total of 2 lobes. Without doing actual computations, my sense is that there will be more sounds more off-axis with the XY than with the M-S, with resultantly more coloration.

Long form explanation:
Placed at the same point in the room, both M-S and XY arrays are subjected to the same sound pressure information. In post, the mid and side signals from the M-S array can be mixed to form left and right channels, where L = M + S and R = M - S. And in post, the left and right channels from the XY array can be separated into mid and side signals. M = L/2 + R/2, S = L/2 - R/2.

[Side Note: This simple math is not a trick or an approximation invented by audio engineers, it's solid math and physics and has many parallels in the physical world. Any quantity with magnitude and direction is indistinguishable from the correct pair of perpendicular components added together. For instance, a crate on a floor being pulled by a rope to the northeast is the same as the crate being pulled with two ropes, equally to the north and east. And a million ropes pulling on that crate in a million different directions with a million different amounts of force would have the same net effect as one rope pulling in one direction. And finally, that one rope's force could be broken down into two perpendicular components. Such is is that all the frequencies and amplitudes of all the sounds in a room at a point can be represented by variations in pressure coming from the front plus variations in pressure coming from the side. Don'tcha love it?]

So yeah, the XY pair is, in a perfectly real sense, also recording the mid and side signals in both channels, and they can be retrieved later.

The question then becomes, does any given XY pair record the same mid and side signals as any given M-S pair? For any real comparison of particlar makes and models it's easy to see that the answer is no. There would be differences in the frequency responses of the elements and all that.

But let's rule those out and say that we have built arrays with identical cardioid component elements; two elements for the XY and three elements for the M-S. We know that we get off-axis coloration with cardioids. Let's say we have a musical sound coming from the front right. In my estimation there would more off-axis coloration with the XY than with the M-S. That's because for the M-S array, the sound source is 45° from the front and from the right side. The third element of the M-S is going to contribute very little signal to the mix. But for the XYs at 110° separation from each other, the sound source is 100° from the left facing mic and only 10° from the right facing one. Cardioids are irregular shapes so when all this is added up to mid and side signals, they would be different for the two arrays.

Which one will sound better? Hell, I don't know. [Edit-- But my guess is, other things being equal, that the M-S would sound better. All that said, I think I'll stick with ORTF :>) ]

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!

...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?" The sound of an m/s pair is very different to any discrete two channel techniqueIn what way are they different? Is the M-S better? Specifically, what M-S pair(s) and two channel technique(s) have you compared?

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/Products/PersonalMonitorSystems/us_pro_P4MTRE3_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

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

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, 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

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.

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

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>.

Congrats! Good luck with the recording

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.

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>