A mid-side question....

[danander11]

OK... I re-tubed a mic pre, (TL Audio 5052), that I have and wanted to test it out so I set up a mid-side with 2 AT-4050's and pulled out my acoustic.. (and let me tell you that as a guitar player I make a pretty good drummer!)

I set up two mono tracks and recorded a small segment. I duplicated the 'side' track and inserted TRIM and flipped the phase.

At center, they null perfectly. I then panned one left, one right and listened. It sounded very balanced and clear. However, when I un-muted the 'mid' track, the volume was louder on the left than on the right... Both in my master fader meter and in my monitors, (and headphones).

To get a level that was balanced I had to pan the 'mid' track 30-33 towards the 'quieter' side.. but then, the guitar lost its center focus.

It's been suggested that I use pink noise to test the mics in figure 8 and make sure that they balance from side to side.. and I'm a bit concerned that I had used new tubes in the mic pre, but since they nulled I didn't think that would be an issue.. I've seen article after article stating that dissimilar mics could be used so would it be that critical? (it's got to be in the neighborhood of 6db of difference).

I'll test the mics this afternoon, but would welcome any other knowledge, information or suggestions..

Is it that since only two mono sources are being used that there will always be a disparity biased towards the 'side' waveform matching the 'mid'? I thought it was supposed to come back to center. Lastly, the sound is clear and nice until I start panning the 'mid', then the focus gets lost.

Peace-O-Matic! (and thanks!)

[danander11]

OK, well.. I did a restart of everything just for grins, and now it seems to be working just peachy. A slight imbalance to the left on the meter, (and if i put my head between my monitors), but it's slight and it sounds great at about 1.5 feet and farther...

Maybe I'm just leaking brains out of the right side? Hmmm....


(I wonder if the pink noise will work on my ears... Her stuff aint so bad...)

[Top Jimmy]

I could see your problem happening if the side mic wasn't truly in figure 8 or has a front/rear mismatch when you recorded it. It wouldn't hurt to blow raspberries at both sides of the mic and see if it sounds and measures identical.

What happens if you use a plugin M/S matrix to decode instead of the way you did it? Waves has an M/S matrix. If you don't have it, Soundhack has a free RTAS one and there are a number of free ones for VST that can be wrapped.

[danander11]

Originally Posted by Top Jimmy

I could see your problem happening if the side mic wasn't truly in figure 8 or has a front/rear mismatch when you recorded it. It wouldn't hurt to blow raspberries at both sides of the mic and see if it sounds and measures identical.

What happens if you use a plugin M/S matrix to decode instead of the way you did it? Waves has an M/S matrix. If you don't have it, Soundhack has a free RTAS one and there are a number of free ones for VST that can be wrapped.

Thanks TJ... I'll go through and check the mics tonight. I have merc so I have the S1 stuff... and I've read through the manual a bit, but everything just goes south when I put them on.. I'll read the whole thing and try again..

The main use of MS for me is the way things can really open up in a mix just by using different EQ's and compression on mids and sides.. I really like it.

I also have ozone 4 which has nice MS capabilities in regard to EQ, Comp, Loudness, etc... I just wanted to learn how to use it without Ozone.. Why reinvent the wheel I suppose.. but still.

Thanks for the help!

[danander11]

Once again, a great debt of thanks to the Hobo's... (Dave and TJ)

The 4050's each had around a 13 db difference front to back. They were similar mic to mic, but unbalanced in themselves.

I pulled out a Rode Classic II that I just had serviced and there is less than 1/2 db between front and back so I tried that and it works beautifully.. although the Rode is too bright for my tastes on acoustic.. (nothing a pultec couldn't handle nicely though. I wonder if I can convince Wifey I need those psidex EQP1's ). Seems to push at around 4k..

Again, Thanks!

[aka21stCentury]

Allan Hyatt (PMI Audio) told me the mics did not have to be matched... don't know what you have heard, although I couldn't see how it would hurt to use dual 4050s. Allan at the time was importing Fletcher's Joe Meek boxes and CLM Dynamics' limited edition mic pre with switchable M-S pairs. These CLM Dynamics guys were the top BBC design engineers and I am certain Allan had his info correct on what EMI had done prior to Abbey Road Studio.

Did you actually solder a mid side XLR cable adapter or did you do this all with a template? I've seen the REAPER template but it was my belief one had to encode during the recording process. EMI used it for drums when only 8 tracks were available as you probably know. They then summed to a mono buss (45rpm) or stereo buss for Lp.

One of the benefits is on these two tracks are contained all the information needed with the third fader (template) to widen or narrow the image to a stereo mix. Or in the case of a mono (45 rpm) mix: hh, kick, snare, bass drum, balanced level or compression independent of the overhead cardiode mic.

If you listen to that first Traffic album, I believe M-S was used on the drums to narrow it down. There is a pyscho-acoustic technique used to raise the image up in the stereo mix but I am uncertain of all the details, as I missed that Stanford summer workshop so many many years ago. But I loved that Traffic mix with the drums raised up high as if on an elevated platform.

I think that narrowing the M-S track perhaps you perceive the instrument higher in the stereo image but I've never recorded traps M-S. Maybe someone here knows the trick and is willing to dish out the goods?

I personally would solder an XLR cable (if your pre does not have a M-S encoder) and then use the template only for widening or narrowing the image. My understanding, M-S has to be first recorded with hardware. The 3 fader template is for widening-narrowing only. But, to be honest, I've never had the opportunity. Drummers are pretty set in their ways regarding mic'n and mic positioning, as are board members demanding more mics than needed for a phase coherent orchestral recording (or we'd have more two points) only for the h.264 compression to suck out all this encoded ambient information.

Yeah it does drive one batty comparing tracks like these w/ dynamic phase problems. I empathize.

Somewhere I have the wiring diagram to solder your own M-S cable. Do you want it? XLR- USA pin out.

[danander11]

Originally Posted by aka21stCentury

Somewhere I have the wiring diagram to solder your own M-S cable. Do you want it? XLR- USA pin out.

Sure! Thanks for that.

I'm always interested in making things sound better/different/nice..

It's another tool to use at the recording and at the mixing stage to improve things I'm finding.. it's also an easy way to stuff things up if you get carried away..

I have a couple of cheapie ribbon mics around that I may try out today just to see how they do.. (though something tells me I'll be looking for a Royer one day in the near future).

[guitardom]

Originally Posted by danander11

Sure! Thanks for that.

I'm always interested in making things sound better/different/nice..

It's another tool to use at the recording and at the mixing stage to improve things I'm finding.. it's also an easy way to stuff things up if you get carried away..

I have a couple of cheapie ribbon mics around that I may try out today just to see how they do.. (though something tells me I'll be looking for a Royer one day in the near future).

once you go royer, you will never settle for less. i had to dump my other cheapy ribbon after i got my 121. just could not even listen to the other turd!!

[Top Jimmy]

A cheapo ribbon can sound highly respectable when you replace the tranny with a Lundahl.

Still may not be on par with an active FET output ribbon though.

[guitardom]

Originally Posted by Top Jimmy

A cheapo ribbon can sound highly respectable when you replace the tranny with a Lundahl.

Still may not be on par with an active FET output ribbon though.

me and a friend on here, thirdeye studios, did a shootout w our ribbons a few months back.

Royer 121-
new shure:
ksm 313- same price as royer
ksm 353- double price of royer

for my tastes on guitars, the royer spanked them both. i could see other areas though where the other 2 would excel. but the royer was punchier and brighter, the other 2 were much more mellow sounding. but after a few listens we could pick out these mics easily between the 3. have quite a sonic signature.

i have owned a couple other cheap ribbons which i shot out when i got the royer as well, no comparison on guitar!! cheap ribbons can feel dull and lifeless which is not what i am after.

he has a set of fathead II's now that hopefully we will do some shootouts w soon. these from what i hear are supposed to closer to the "royer" sound.

michael joly is supposed to do some wonderful mods, just knew the sound i was after for guitars, so decided to just do it instead of hoping it would get me there