>Wild Sanctuary wrote:
>> We've got plenty of experience with this type of system, Walt.
>> Although every system has its own limitations, this type (MS) offers,
>> for us, many more options on the post-production end than any other
>> we've found so far. But we're always looking...
>>
>> Bernie
>
>Your praise of M/S is one of the reasons why I'm into it, that's part of
> what got me looking into it. I'm impressed with what I've managed to
>fumble through so far. I may not, in the end, cart around so many
>versions routinely, but M/S is definitely well settled into my kit.
M/S just gives us more options, Walt. It ain't a panacea by any
means. We also record some sites in good ol' XY, and binaural
occasionally. It all depends on what you want your audio to sound
like and in what format it's ultimately intended to be heard
(headphones, stereo, stereo-surround, 5.1 surround, etc.). For me (my
opinion, only), M/S provides a much more robust post-production
result and is more compatible with various kinds of surround formats
and analysis. At one point a while ago, we A-B'd recordings done in
XY (2 Schoeps 541s), binaural (Aachen head system), and M/S, same
site, same data when last in Costa Rica, put the data on a random
playback off our hard drive system into a stereo (2-speaker) system
(no headphones), had 18 folks in a room taking notes and judging the
mixes using the following (subjective) criteria: stereo imaging,
depth of the sound from near-field to far-field, and over-all texture
and presence rating each from one to ten (ten best). Once the
playback was set up we had no idea which order the tracks would play,
however, the computer was set to note a performance schedule sheet so
we could correlate the test after. Nor did we tell the folks what we
were testing for other than their impression of the mixes.
Here were the results from this very un-scientific and subjective test:
Stereo imaging
A. MS 8
B. XY 5
C. Bin. 6
Depth
A. MS 8
B. XY 6
C. Bin. 7
Presence
A. MS 9
B. XY 6
C. Bin. 7
>
>One question comes to mind. My M/S decoding software has settings for
>the contributions of the two mics in percent. It defaults to a setting
>of 100% for both, I assume that's the equal mix from the two. It has
>settings that range from 0 to 200%, both positive and negative, allowing
>considerable latitude. In terms of mix what sort of range of ratios do
>you find work well?
I usually crank the setting just past 50% to bet. 50 and 60%
depending on the data and what sounds best...always the criteria for
that setting. Listen to your signal through headphones and then to a
well-calibrated pair of stereo speakers and determine what you like
best. If you like it, chances are that others will, too.
>
>The pan settings I have no real problem with. They are fairly obvious.
>But the mix is like a kid in a candy store. So many choices.
>
>A related question is when you record. Do you try to get the metering
>readings for the Mid and Side the same, or just keep the gain the same
>for both?
Unless you're mixing into stereo on site in the field, I would
recommend setting the input levels equal to one another since you
want to be sure to capture data that will create the illusion of
moving through "space" when you mix...much as you experienced in the
field. Although M/S is somewhat forgiving, you want to try to keep
the input levels more or less even to retain the super imaging
possible when you take care to do that.
Bernie
Wild Sanctuary, Inc.
P. O. Box 536
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
707-996-6677 tel
707-996-0280 fax
http://www.wildsanctuary.com
--
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|