Thanks Matt, for shedding some more light--clearly I need field time using =
both systems, and I'll be getting some--I'm spending 4 days this next week =
on Maui in the high eastern mountains where I've been trying to get for yea=
rs, then to Lehua a few days later.
Several in this group have a SASS system modified by Walt Knapp, from whom =
we haven't heard much in a while. Walt is not only an estimable nature reco=
rdist but also an accomplished craftsman, see here--
http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/mod_sass.html
Aloha,
David
--- In Matt Blaze <> wrote:
>
> David,
>
> The key to understanding the *theory* of mid-side encoding and
> decoding lies in understanding how figure-8 microphones work, with the =
> front and back 180 degrees out of phase. Once you understanding what =
> happens when in-phase and out-of-phase signals are mixed, look at the =
> formulas, and it will make sense. It's actually much simpler (and
> thus more ingenious) than it seems at first.
>
> The stereo perspective given by an ideal mid-side pair is
> theoretically equivalent to that given by a coincident XY pair of
> ideal conventional directional microphones. But in mid-side you can
> control the spread simply by varying the relative gain of the mid and =
> side mics before
> decoding them -- and because decoding happens in postproduction, you
> can decide the width *after* you make your recording. You can
> do this with regular XY, too, actually, by mixing that into M-S and
> then back to XY, and most DAW software can do this. So in *theory*, M-
> S offers no advantage to the digital recordist that a coincident XY
> pair of ideal cardioids could offer.
>
> But, as either Yogi Berra or John Von Neumann said, in theory, theory =
> and practice are the same, but in practice, they're different. And
> here, the difference is that the theory requires *ideal* microphones, =
> which don't actually exist. In particular, XY and MS are the same
> only to the extent that the microphones have a flat response across
> their entire polar pattern, which no real mics actually do. The MS
> techique can have a practical advantage over XY because of the way the =
> capsules are arranged, with the center capsule facing straight ahead, =
> and two capsules (the front and back of the figure 8) facing to either =
> side. This means that sounds from the primary subject, presumably
> straight ahead, are dead on axis for the main microphone, where it
> delivers the best frequency response.
>
> So that's M-S vs. XY. But you asked about SASS. SASS is a totally
> different animal, because it's not coincident, but rather quasi-
> binaural. Personally, I really like the image that a SASS rig gives, =
> especially in the field. (Where do you get a SASS head modified to
> take good mics? I'd love to put my MKH-8020s inside mine, which just =
> has the stock electric PZM capsules).
>
> In any case, because SASS is a barrier-based separated mic technique, =
> and not a coincident array like MS is, you'll likely find results from =
> the two to be quite different for many subjects. Again, I like SASS a =
> lot for outdoor recordings, and you should definitely try to compare
> your M-S rig with your SASS rig under various controlled conditions to =
> get a feel for how each will perform. Personally, if I had a modified =
> SASS head that would work with good mics, I'd use it quite a bit.
>
> -matt
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2009, at 19:42, David Kuhn wrote:
>
> > Hi Recordists, as I mentioned in my last post, I have recently
> > undertaken to learn the mysterious ways of the mid-side stereo
> > technique, having gotten together an MKH 30/40 set with Senn MZW 201 =
> > blimp windscreen and home-made furry cover.
> >
> > As Bernie has put it, mid-side technique is not intuitive like other =
> > systems we use. There seems to be no substitute for field/studio
> > experience in getting to know how to use it. At this stage I've used =
> > it enough to know THAT it works, but have little understanding of
> > HOW or WHY it works. I have used my SASS (Walt-modified with MKH
> > 20's) for three years now, so simple, what you monitor is what you
> > get. In fact I spend a lot of time just listening though that
> > system. Listening through the mid-side system is, for me, not so
> > satisfying or spell-binding, at least with the SD 702 set to "Inputs =
> > 1,2 linked for MS".
> >
> > Faced with two imminent extended field trips, I need to progress to =
> > some level of knowing when mid-side would be best to use, relative
> > to SASS. It may be that I just need field time with it, using both =
> > systems when time and gear allows, then sort it out in post,
> > manipulating the MS and comparing with SASS results. If, however,
> > any of you MS veterans have guidance, pointers, or even
> > commiseration, that would be welcome.
> >
> > Aloha,
> > David
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > David Kuhn
> > www.soundshawaiian.com
> >
> >
> > 808 335 0398
> > Cell 808 651 8247
> > Mail to: PO Box 1018
> > Waimea, Kaua'i HI 96796
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>
> mab blogs at http://www.crypto.com/blog/
>
|