It's interesting that our appreciation of different stereo configurations
changes over time. I listened to The Beatles "Revolver" and "Rubber Soul"
albums recently after not playing them for 20 years or so, and found the stereo
placements rather odd, so much so that I tweaked the panning on my mixer to
give (for me) a more "normal" mix (sacrilege I know, but hard-panned voices
just don't sound right!) - and in headphones it was even worse. I subsequently
found out that apart from "Let It Be" and "Abbey Road", all the Beatles albums
were meant to be mono anyway.
So over the next few months I will try the various stereo options for recording
in the field and see what 'lights my fire'. I think that final mix flexibility
will be a major imperative, and as long as it can be done live into a 2-channel
recorder it will be interesting (and fun) to test the various techniques.
Keith
Tasmania
--- In "Grant Finlay" <> wrote:
>
> --- In "oystercoveau" <bdfarm@> wrote:
> >....I guess the reason why I like the idea of MS is the more focused centre
> >mike supported by adjustable stereo ambiance from the sides....
> > Keith
>
> Yep,
> Thats the very reason why I use M/S.
> Sometimes it's not as spacious as I'd like, thats why I'm looking at getting
> a stereo set of mkh8040's as well.
> I've never mixed my recordings with music, but to me the idea of using an
> orft setup sounds better in theory. That way the SFX are in a wider
> soundstage. Of coure it's easy to do that but pulling down the M channel in a
> M/S recording, It's a matter of personal taste I guess...
>
> Just thought I'd mention an alternative set up that sounds a lot easier then
> what you are planning to do.
>
> Regards,
> Grant.
>
|