Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Nature Recordists] mic arrays and M/S behaviour

Expand Messages
  • Luiz do Carmo
    Hi Rob, Thanks for the welcome and the attention. I ought to say that I am the one who is late most of the time. As you might notice, I don’t have a
    Message 1 of 19 , Sep 1, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Rob,

      Thanks for the welcome and the attention. I ought to say that I am the one who
      is late most of the time. As you might notice, I don’t have a reasonably steady
      working schedule.

      As for the missing ambience tracks, there is a Brazilian saying which states:
      “Since the rings are gone, bless your fingers.” (“Better lose the saddle than
      the horse”). Oh, well...

      I haven’t had the chance or time to make a full research on the arrays you’ve
      suggested, but I’ve taken a quick look around and the Back to Back Crown SASS
      seemed to be a good idea, at least in theory. And it could be mounted with the
      AT4022, considering it looks DIY friendly. (I couldn’t find or best translate
      the specs concerning self noise and sensitivity on the Crown mics, though). I
      hadn’t boundary mics in mind (or assemblings adapting the concept), although
      I’ve heard of them, but mostly among nature sound recordists. I only know one
      sound mixer – here in Brazil – who uses PZM mics in his recordings, and mostly
      for documentaries.

      I still couldn’t get rid of my doubt, which concerns the cardioid mics that play
      the mids in a M/S array. Do they actually ‘sound’ or only work as a tool to
      separate (or design) the L and R channels? Because if they do not take part on
      the overall sound after decoding, I could have a pair of MKH-416 or even the way
      less expensive NTG-3, with a NT2-A in the middle. Does it sound completely
      nonesense?

      About the recorder, I followed the thread discussing the DR-680 and got worried
      about the reliability of the software, as far as an issue concerning files that
      ‘simply disappear’. In a feature film it could lead to murder. But I didn’t give
      up on this machine. I had this recorder already in mind since its release.

      The R-44 looks a little flimsy, but what got me not so much excited about it was
      the way it saves the tracks, stocking every single take in a different folder.
      It wouldn’t be a big hassle for ambience recording, but for a film set where I
      record 100 plus tracks in a day it could drive me crazy – either to playback or
      during post.

      I’ve also thought about a setup with an interface + laptop – mostly for the
      small issues regarding the DR-680 and the R-44 –, but the noisy pres on the
      M-Audio Fast Track Ultra were not compelling. Then I heard here about the Motu
      Traveler-mk3, took a look at it and was impressed with the quality of the
      preamps – allegedly great, at least for the reviewers.

      I believe that I’m researching on mic arrays first, because I’m maybe waiting
      for the release of an FR’4’-LE, which would be the best thing to happen for my
      budget/expectations.

      I’ll keep on researching and thanks again for the help.

      Luis



      ________________________________
      From: Rob Danielson <type@...>
      To: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 6:46:29 AM
      Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] mic arrays and M/S behaviour


      At 10:51 PM -0700 8/30/10, Luiz do Carmo wrote:
      >
      >Hi,
      >
      >I am a sound professional based in Brazil. At
      >the moment I am working in a film
      >in which the action takes place in a rural environment surrounded by a dense
      >forest. The easy way to work around our low budget enterprise would be the
      >utilization of some (quite someŠ) stereo ambience recordings I have collected
      >over the years, but I lost all of them in a Œcomputer accident¹ ­ which is a
      >story longer than what I believe would suit the present occasion.
      >
      >The good part of this tragic story is that it forced me to do something I was
      >procrastinating for quite a while, since I have being inclined to start
      >producing 4 channel recordings for such purpose,
      >but the lack of available time
      >and money kept delaying my plans.
      >
      >After gathering (googled) information around and lately here in this list I
      >ended up with two types of mic arrays that I suppose would work fine in a 5.1
      >Dolby Digital final mix, which requires discrete channels: An IRT Cross or a
      >Double M/S.
      >
      >To fit my budget, 4 AT4021 mics in an IRT Cross setup would do it. The only
      >problem in using the ATs would be the fact that
      >these mics would only be useful
      >­ for the kind of work I do: post production and location sound ­ for ambience
      >recordings (I have Oktava MK-012s for sfx), as they are not suited for
      >production sound/dialogues, which are almost always recorded with shotguns,
      >principally in outdoors situations.
      >
      >My first question is: Do the sound of the mid
      >mics on a Double M/S take part in
      >the overall sound, or the resulting 4 channels
      >only carry the audio information
      >captured by the figure-8?
      >
      >I ask that because if the sound of the figure-8
      >mic is what actually is heard in
      >the 4 channel image, I could use whatever cardioids or supercardioid ­ for
      >example, a MKH-416 or a pair of Oktava MK-012, which I already have ­ without
      >altering the quality of the figure-8 mic. I could add to this that with such
      >setup I could have a mic array already set for directional plus surround
      >recording, which would suit perfectly for documentary film situations, besides
      >the adition of easiness represented by a lot less gear to carry around.
      >
      >(The second question is about recorders and I rather leave it for another
      >thread).
      >
      >I would like to thank all the list members for sharing your knowledge, which
      >already helped me a lot and specially, for the
      >present matter, Rob Danielson for
      >his microphone chart.
      >
      >Regards,
      >Luis

      Hi Luis -
      A belated welcome to the list! Sorry to read about your lost recordings.

      If only there was a web site with controlled
      recordings where you could compare the impacts of
      a number of surround array options! Without
      samples, there are many opinions and different
      goals to wade through without reference. It would
      be well worth your time to find and listen to
      actual recordings made in settings similar to
      those you record in. To aid partially in this, I
      can suggest a small work-sharing group that
      focuses on surround recording. You can ask the
      people in this group for links to samples. One of
      the recordists uses a surround array that is a
      variation of an IRT Cross. (Anyone who wishes to
      have their email address added, contact me, off
      list.)

      As you are on a tighter budget, I would
      definitely look for field samples made with these
      array types:

      Double M-S Arrays
      Back to Back SASS-B Arrays (People are making DIY SASS-B's and variations)
      Spaced Rear Arrays (usually a stereo array in
      front with wide spaced omni's in the rear)
      Spaced Front & Back Arrays (Usually two stereo
      arrays spaced according to habitat(s) and
      acoustics)
      Decca Tree (Greg Weddig comes to mind)
      Holophone (possibly not too hard to DIY)

      Harder to DIY arrays:
      Ambisonic Arrays
      Sphere Arrays (Double-MS on a sphere boundary
      like SchoepsKFM 360 or two stereo spheres back
      to back to with a sound-blocking panel in between)

      I would not base opinion only on recording
      samples that were made inside or of loud subjects
      . If the "natural ambiences" you want to capture
      become very "quiet" at times, you will want to
      only use very low-noise mics.

      As for your recorder question, "Tascam DR680" is
      one answer to investigate. Rob D.

      --







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Rob Danielson
      ... SYou can start with Andrew s and Paul s test in the DIY Boundary Mics blog and go through posts chronologically to get some ideas:
      Message 2 of 19 , Sep 1, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        At 12:27 AM -0700 9/1/10, Luiz do Carmo wrote:
        > Back to Back Crown SASS seemed to be a good
        >idea, at least in theory. And it could be
        >mounted with the AT4022, considering it looks
        >DIY friendly.

        SYou can start with Andrew's and Paul's test in
        the DIY Boundary Mics blog and go through posts
        chronologically to get some ideas:
        http://tinyurl.com/29mgcj6


        >I still couldn't get rid of my doubt, which
        >concerns the cardioid mics that play
        >the mids in a M/S array. Do they actually 'sound' or only work as a tool to
        >separate (or design) the L and R channels? Because if they do not take part on
        >the overall sound after decoding,

        Because using phase difference to to encode
        "Left" and "Right" seems like a simplification?
        Not really, the sound waves are striking both
        sides of the figure 8 capsule and all stereo
        relies on the brain discerning left-right
        differences. Most listeners find M-S stereo
        imagery very satisfying.

        I can post some Perp2Sphere, SASS- B and Parallel
        Boundary imagery from the same location to
        experiment with. There are some samples you can
        access through the Community FAQ
        http://tinyurl.com/2bqxh2w (Folks can add other
        links that Luiz can use or email them to me and
        I'll be happy to add them.)

        >I could have a pair of MKH-416 or even the way
        >less expensive NTG-3, with a NT2-A in the
        >middle. Does it sound completely nonesense?

        Nothing that sounds good is nonsense. :-) The
        only qualification might be on-going interest and
        awareness of what stereo and surround imagery is
        capable of. Mics/arrays/positioning is what we
        do, right?

        >About the recorder, I followed the thread
        >discussing the DR-680 and got worried
        >about the reliability of the software, as far as
        >an issue concerning files that
        >'simply disappear'. In a feature film it could
        >lead to murder. But I didn't give
        >up on this machine. I had this recorder already in mind since its release.

        I've owned a number of digital recorders that
        have preferred ways to be "managed." Once I
        figured out what they were, the recorder became
        very reliable for me to use. Sufficient powering
        is the #1 field concern no matter what recorder
        is used. Based on the whole of the reports I've
        read about the DR-680, I think one can use it
        reliably. There are some very accomplished sound
        for film recordists on this list and some may
        have had a DR680 out in the field. Perhaps look
        through the
        rec.arts.movies.production.sound@...
        list? http://tinyurl.com/2ewvbm6 Let us know if
        you discover chronic issues.

        >
        >The R-44 looks a little flimsy, but what got me
        >not so much excited about it was
        >the way it saves the tracks, stocking every single take in a different folder.
        >It wouldn't be a big hassle for ambience recording, but for a film set where I
        >record 100 plus tracks in a day it could drive
        >me crazy - either to playback or
        >during post.
        >
        >I've also thought about a setup with an interface + laptop - mostly for the
        >small issues regarding the DR-680 and the R-44 -, but the noisy pres on the
        >M-Audio Fast Track Ultra were not compelling.

        Oh, boy. Having done this for two years, I would
        definitely advise against it. The list of
        possible problems that can crop up is much
        longer. I can see how some people could make an
        enjoyable ritual out of booting-up in the woods
        but it felt too tenuous to me.

        Recording longevity is becoming more of a factor
        to look at. I love that I can put a 300GB drive
        in my 744T and even record to an external drive.
        I also love being able to record in .flac.



        >Then I heard here about the Motu
        >Traveler-mk3, took a look at it and was impressed with the quality of the
        >preamps - allegedly great, at least for the reviewers.

        The pres in the first Travelers models had pretty
        low gain. Not sure about the newer ones.

        >
        >I believe that I'm researching on mic arrays first, because I'm maybe waiting
        >for the release of an FR'4'-LE, which would be the best thing to happen for my
        >budget/expectations.

        The DR680 will remain one of the top bargains for a while I'd guess. Rob D.

        >I'll keep on researching and thanks again for the help.
        >
        >Luis
        >
        >________________________________
        >From: Rob Danielson <<mailto:type%40uwm.edu>type@...>
        >To:
        ><mailto:naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
        >Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 6:46:29 AM
        >Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] mic arrays and M/S behaviour
        >
        >At 10:51 PM -0700 8/30/10, Luiz do Carmo wrote:
        >>
        >>Hi,
        >>
        >>I am a sound professional based in Brazil. At
        >>the moment I am working in a film
        >>in which the action takes place in a rural environment surrounded by a dense
        >>forest. The easy way to work around our low budget enterprise would be the
        >>utilization of some (quite some·) stereo ambience recordings I have collected
        >>over the years, but I lost all of them in a
        >>‘computer accident©– °© which is a
        >>story longer than what I believe would suit the present occasion.
        >>
        >>The good part of this tragic story is that it forced me to do something I was
        >>procrastinating for quite a while, since I have being inclined to start
        >>producing 4 channel recordings for such purpose,
        >>but the lack of available time
        >>and money kept delaying my plans.
        >>
        >>After gathering (googled) information around and lately here in this list I
        >>ended up with two types of mic arrays that I suppose would work fine in a 5.1
        >>Dolby Digital final mix, which requires discrete channels: An IRT Cross or a
        >>Double M/S.
        >>
        >>To fit my budget, 4 AT4021 mics in an IRT Cross setup would do it. The only
        >>problem in using the ATs would be the fact that
        >>these mics would only be useful
        >>°© for the kind of work I do: post production
        >>and location sound °© for ambience
        >>recordings (I have Oktava MK-012s for sfx), as they are not suited for
        >>production sound/dialogues, which are almost always recorded with shotguns,
        >>principally in outdoors situations.
        >>
        >>My first question is: Do the sound of the mid
        >>mics on a Double M/S take part in
        >>the overall sound, or the resulting 4 channels
        >>only carry the audio information
        >>captured by the figure-8?
        >>
        >>I ask that because if the sound of the figure-8
        >>mic is what actually is heard in
        >>the 4 channel image, I could use whatever cardioids or supercardioid °© for
        >>example, a MKH-416 or a pair of Oktava MK-012,
        >>which I already have °© without
        >>altering the quality of the figure-8 mic. I could add to this that with such
        >>setup I could have a mic array already set for directional plus surround
        >>recording, which would suit perfectly for
        >>documentary film situations, besides
        >>the adition of easiness represented by a lot less gear to carry around.
        >>
        >>(The second question is about recorders and I rather leave it for another
        >>thread).
        >>
        >>I would like to thank all the list members for sharing your knowledge, which
        >>already helped me a lot and specially, for the
        >>present matter, Rob Danielson for
        >>his microphone chart.
        >>
        >>Regards,
        >>Luis
        >
        >Hi Luis -
        >A belated welcome to the list! Sorry to read about your lost recordings.
        >
        >If only there was a web site with controlled
        >recordings where you could compare the impacts of
        >a number of surround array options! Without
        >samples, there are many opinions and different
        >goals to wade through without reference. It would
        >be well worth your time to find and listen to
        >actual recordings made in settings similar to
        >those you record in. To aid partially in this, I
        >can suggest a small work-sharing group that
        >focuses on surround recording. You can ask the
        >people in this group for links to samples. One of
        >the recordists uses a surround array that is a
        >variation of an IRT Cross. (Anyone who wishes to
        >have their email address added, contact me, off
        >list.)
        >
        >As you are on a tighter budget, I would
        >definitely look for field samples made with these
        >array types:
        >
        >Double M-S Arrays
        >Back to Back SASS-B Arrays (People are making DIY SASS-B's and variations)
        >Spaced Rear Arrays (usually a stereo array in
        >front with wide spaced omni's in the rear)
        >Spaced Front & Back Arrays (Usually two stereo
        >arrays spaced according to habitat(s) and
        >acoustics)
        >Decca Tree (Greg Weddig comes to mind)
        >Holophone (possibly not too hard to DIY)
        >
        >Harder to DIY arrays:
        >Ambisonic Arrays
        >Sphere Arrays (Double-MS on a sphere boundary
        >like SchoepsKFM 360 or two stereo spheres back
        >to back to with a sound-blocking panel in between)
        >
        >I would not base opinion only on recording
        >samples that were made inside or of loud subjects
        >. If the "natural ambiences" you want to capture
        >become very "quiet" at times, you will want to
        >only use very low-noise mics.
        >
        >As for your recorder question, "Tascam DR680" is
        >one answer to investigate. Rob D.
        >
        >--
        >
        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >


        --


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Kevin
        Not sure its good enuf but the H2 can be post proceeded to do M/S or fig 8 ?
        Message 3 of 19 , Sep 1, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Not sure its good enuf but the H2 can be post proceeded to do M/S or fig 8 ?

          --- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, Steve Duncan <steve@...> wrote:
          >
          > It seems like the barriers to making one's own stereo boundary mic out of capsules are fairly low - sites like Rob D's & Curt O's cover the basic concepts, and the components are inexpensive and fairly easy to find. But for M/S it seems much less simple, which got me thinking - what would be the easiest/cheapest way to experiment with M/S, starting with a handheld recorder and no mics? What are the options?
          >
          > The cardioid part seems the easiest - there are several choices. There is at least one free plugin for decoding M/S on the computer, but a Rolls MX310 or the like could do it in the field, using a cable with two connectors wired out of phase at one end, right? That leaves the figure-8 mic, which seems to be the hard part as there aren't many inexpensive options.
          >
          > Has anyone been doing this without a heavy investment?
          >
        • Kevin
          Not sure its good enuf but the H2 can be post proceeded to do M/S or fig 8 ?
          Message 4 of 19 , Sep 1, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Not sure its good enuf but the H2 can be post proceeded to do M/S or fig 8 ?

            --- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, Steve Duncan <steve@...> wrote:
            >
            > It seems like the barriers to making one's own stereo boundary mic out of capsules are fairly low - sites like Rob D's & Curt O's cover the basic concepts, and the components are inexpensive and fairly easy to find. But for M/S it seems much less simple, which got me thinking - what would be the easiest/cheapest way to experiment with M/S, starting with a handheld recorder and no mics? What are the options?
            >
            > The cardioid part seems the easiest - there are several choices. There is at least one free plugin for decoding M/S on the computer, but a Rolls MX310 or the like could do it in the field, using a cable with two connectors wired out of phase at one end, right? That leaves the figure-8 mic, which seems to be the hard part as there aren't many inexpensive options.
            >
            > Has anyone been doing this without a heavy investment?
            >
          • lecarmo
            ... I ve been there and my first impression is that boundaries would lead to less interpolation, what is crucial for Dolby Analog (SR), which is the system
            Message 5 of 19 , Sep 1, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, Rob Danielson <type@...> wrote:
              >
              > At 12:27 AM -0700 9/1/10, Luiz do Carmo wrote:
              > > Back to Back Crown SASS seemed to be a good
              > >idea, at least in theory. And it could be
              > >mounted with the AT4022, considering it looks
              > >DIY friendly.
              >
              > SYou can start with Andrew's and Paul's test in
              > the DIY Boundary Mics blog and go through posts
              > chronologically to get some ideas:
              > http://tinyurl.com/29mgcj6

              I've been there and my first impression is that boundaries would lead to less interpolation, what is crucial for Dolby Analog (SR), which is the system that is (still) used in most theaters in Brazil. I'd guess that for movie theaters angled setups (from about 60 to 90 degrees) should work well for LR and from there up to 180 should be fine in the surround. Just a guess, though.

              > >I still couldn't get rid of my doubt, which
              > >concerns the cardioid mics that play
              > >the mids in a M/S array. Do they actually 'sound' or only work as a tool to
              > >separate (or design) the L and R channels? Because if they do not take part on
              > >the overall sound after decoding,
              >
              > Because using phase difference to to encode
              > "Left" and "Right" seems like a simplification?
              > Not really, the sound waves are striking both
              > sides of the figure 8 capsule and all stereo
              > relies on the brain discerning left-right
              > differences. Most listeners find M-S stereo
              > imagery very satisfying.

              I don't expect to simplify here -- although I don't crave for complexity. And I'm sure it's not simpler, having in mind the matrix effort in post. One of my interests in M/S arrays is the capability of this type of setup to become lighter, thus more agile, and versatile, principally for documentaries. The M/S results are great, but I would like to know which mic capsules would be involved in the final mixed sound.

              > I can post some Perp2Sphere, SASS- B and Parallel
              > Boundary imagery from the same location to
              > experiment with. There are some samples you can
              > access through the Community FAQ
              > http://tinyurl.com/2bqxh2w (Folks can add other
              > links that Luiz can use or email them to me and
              > I'll be happy to add them.)

              I've collected a few links that I'll paste next.

              > >I could have a pair of MKH-416 or even the way
              > >less expensive NTG-3, with a NT2-A in the
              > >middle. Does it sound completely nonesense?
              >
              > Nothing that sounds good is nonsense. :-) The
              > only qualification might be on-going interest and
              > awareness of what stereo and surround imagery is
              > capable of. Mics/arrays/positioning is what we
              > do, right?

              As I said, I'm concerned about the sound quality (low self noise/clarity/colour) of the capsules used in the recording -- taking into account the budget. The doubt is whether the mid mics sum up to the sound or just trim the center, 'shaping' the stereo image. I understand, though, that by trimming the mid mic do interfere in the color of the stereo audio.


              > >About the recorder, I followed the thread
              > >discussing the DR-680 and got worried
              > >about the reliability of the software, as far as
              > >an issue concerning files that
              > >'simply disappear'. In a feature film it could
              > >lead to murder. But I didn't give
              > >up on this machine. I had this recorder already in mind since its release.
              >
              > I've owned a number of digital recorders that
              > have preferred ways to be "managed." Once I
              > figured out what they were, the recorder became
              > very reliable for me to use. Sufficient powering
              > is the #1 field concern no matter what recorder
              > is used. Based on the whole of the reports I've
              > read about the DR-680, I think one can use it
              > reliably. There are some very accomplished sound
              > for film recordists on this list and some may
              > have had a DR680 out in the field. Perhaps look
              > through the
              > rec.arts.movies.production.sound@...
              > list? http://tinyurl.com/2ewvbm6 Let us know if
              > you discover chronic issues.

              I haven't visited that list yet, but the problem I've mentioned was described here: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/message/42000

              > >The R-44 looks a little flimsy, but what got me
              > >not so much excited about it was
              > >the way it saves the tracks, stocking every single take in a different folder.
              > >It wouldn't be a big hassle for ambience recording, but for a film set where I
              > >record 100 plus tracks in a day it could drive
              > >me crazy - either to playback or
              > >during post.
              > >
              > >I've also thought about a setup with an interface + laptop - mostly for the
              > >small issues regarding the DR-680 and the R-44 -, but the noisy pres on the
              > >M-Audio Fast Track Ultra were not compelling.
              >
              > Oh, boy. Having done this for two years, I would
              > definitely advise against it. The list of
              > possible problems that can crop up is much
              > longer. I can see how some people could make an
              > enjoyable ritual out of booting-up in the woods
              > but it felt too tenuous to me.
              >
              > Recording longevity is becoming more of a factor
              > to look at. I love that I can put a 300GB drive
              > in my 744T and even record to an external drive.
              > I also love being able to record in .flac.


              A 744T plus a handful of MKH's would be heaven, but at the moment I've got to find my eden somehow differentely. ;D


              > >Then I heard here about the Motu
              > >Traveler-mk3, took a look at it and was impressed with the quality of the
              > >preamps - allegedly great, at least for the reviewers.
              >
              > The pres in the first Travelers models had pretty
              > low gain. Not sure about the newer ones.

              I'm inclined not to deal with a mechanical hd while climbing and perhaps sliding around.

              > >I believe that I'm researching on mic arrays first, because I'm maybe waiting
              > >for the release of an FR'4'-LE, which would be the best thing to happen for my
              > >budget/expectations.
              >
              > The DR680 will remain one of the top bargains for a while I'd guess. Rob D.

              You already had put the DR-680 back to my wish list.

              Best,
              Luiz

              PS: Some few sites I've been digging into:

              Rob Danielson's Pantherfile (lots and lots of things to search at)
              https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/www/audio-art-tech-gallery/

              Rob Danielson's fieldpost: Four Stereo Mic Arrays Compared - Take the blind test (pink noise extravaganza!)
              http://fieldpost.blogspot.com/

              DIY Stereo Boundary Mic Rigs (lots of stuff)
              http://diystereoboundarymics.blogspot.com/

              Gary Pillon mod on SASS MKII plus... (rig)
              http://www.crownaudio.com/kb/entry/200/

              Frogrecordist's Modified SASS Microphone using MKH-20's, MKH-110's, AT3032's et al (various samples)
              http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/modsass.html

              Frogrecordist's Mid-Side Stereo Setups (rig)
              http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/mssetups.html

              Frogrecordist's Microphone Sound Samples
              http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/samples.html

              Paul Segar and Francis Rumsey: Optimisation and Subjective Assessment of Surround Sound (pdf)

              Microphone Arrays (paper)
              http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/534/1/fulltext.pdf


              > >I'll keep on researching and thanks again for the help.
              > >
              > >Luiz
              > >
              > >________________________________
              > >From: Rob Danielson <<mailto:type%40uwm.edu>type@...>
              > >To:
              > ><mailto:naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
              > >Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 6:46:29 AM
              > >Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] mic arrays and M/S behaviour
              > >
              > >At 10:51 PM -0700 8/30/10, Luiz do Carmo wrote:
              > >>
              > >>Hi,
              > >>
              > >>I am a sound professional based in Brazil. At
              > >>the moment I am working in a film
              > >>in which the action takes place in a rural environment surrounded by a dense
              > >>forest. The easy way to work around our low budget enterprise would be the
              > >>utilization of some (quite some·) stereo ambience recordings I have collected
              > >>over the years, but I lost all of them in a
              > >>`computer accident©– °© which is a
              > >>story longer than what I believe would suit the present occasion.
              > >>
              > >>The good part of this tragic story is that it forced me to do something I was
              > >>procrastinating for quite a while, since I have being inclined to start
              > >>producing 4 channel recordings for such purpose,
              > >>but the lack of available time
              > >>and money kept delaying my plans.
              > >>
              > >>After gathering (googled) information around and lately here in this list I
              > >>ended up with two types of mic arrays that I suppose would work fine in a 5.1
              > >>Dolby Digital final mix, which requires discrete channels: An IRT Cross or a
              > >>Double M/S.
              > >>
              > >>To fit my budget, 4 AT4021 mics in an IRT Cross setup would do it. The only
              > >>problem in using the ATs would be the fact that
              > >>these mics would only be useful
              > >>°© for the kind of work I do: post production
              > >>and location sound °© for ambience
              > >>recordings (I have Oktava MK-012s for sfx), as they are not suited for
              > >>production sound/dialogues, which are almost always recorded with shotguns,
              > >>principally in outdoors situations.
              > >>
              > >>My first question is: Do the sound of the mid
              > >>mics on a Double M/S take part in
              > >>the overall sound, or the resulting 4 channels
              > >>only carry the audio information
              > >>captured by the figure-8?
              > >>
              > >>I ask that because if the sound of the figure-8
              > >>mic is what actually is heard in
              > >>the 4 channel image, I could use whatever cardioids or supercardioid °© for
              > >>example, a MKH-416 or a pair of Oktava MK-012,
              > >>which I already have °© without
              > >>altering the quality of the figure-8 mic. I could add to this that with such
              > >>setup I could have a mic array already set for directional plus surround
              > >>recording, which would suit perfectly for
              > >>documentary film situations, besides
              > >>the adition of easiness represented by a lot less gear to carry around.
              > >>
              > >>(The second question is about recorders and I rather leave it for another
              > >>thread).
              > >>
              > >>I would like to thank all the list members for sharing your knowledge, which
              > >>already helped me a lot and specially, for the
              > >>present matter, Rob Danielson for
              > >>his microphone chart.
              > >>
              > >>Regards,
              > >>Luis
              > >
              > >Hi Luis -
              > >A belated welcome to the list! Sorry to read about your lost recordings.
              > >
              > >If only there was a web site with controlled
              > >recordings where you could compare the impacts of
              > >a number of surround array options! Without
              > >samples, there are many opinions and different
              > >goals to wade through without reference. It would
              > >be well worth your time to find and listen to
              > >actual recordings made in settings similar to
              > >those you record in. To aid partially in this, I
              > >can suggest a small work-sharing group that
              > >focuses on surround recording. You can ask the
              > >people in this group for links to samples. One of
              > >the recordists uses a surround array that is a
              > >variation of an IRT Cross. (Anyone who wishes to
              > >have their email address added, contact me, off
              > >list.)
              > >
              > >As you are on a tighter budget, I would
              > >definitely look for field samples made with these
              > >array types:
              > >
              > >Double M-S Arrays
              > >Back to Back SASS-B Arrays (People are making DIY SASS-B's and variations)
              > >Spaced Rear Arrays (usually a stereo array in
              > >front with wide spaced omni's in the rear)
              > >Spaced Front & Back Arrays (Usually two stereo
              > >arrays spaced according to habitat(s) and
              > >acoustics)
              > >Decca Tree (Greg Weddig comes to mind)
              > >Holophone (possibly not too hard to DIY)
              > >
              > >Harder to DIY arrays:
              > >Ambisonic Arrays
              > >Sphere Arrays (Double-MS on a sphere boundary
              > >like SchoepsKFM 360 or two stereo spheres back
              > >to back to with a sound-blocking panel in between)
              > >
              > >I would not base opinion only on recording
              > >samples that were made inside or of loud subjects
              > >. If the "natural ambiences" you want to capture
              > >become very "quiet" at times, you will want to
              > >only use very low-noise mics.
              > >
              > >As for your recorder question, "Tascam DR680" is
              > >one answer to investigate. Rob D.
              > >
              > >--
              > >
              > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > --
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • Dan Dugan
              ... All of them! Well, directly on-axis in front is in the null of the side mic, so that direction is just the M mic. for direct sound. All other angles are
              Message 6 of 19 , Sep 1, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                > The M/S results are great, but I would like to know which mic capsules would be involved in the final mixed sound.

                All of them! Well, directly on-axis in front is in the null of the side mic, so that direction is just the M mic. for direct sound. All other angles are blends of the two except for straight back which, if M is a cardioid, will be in the null of both mics and dead, for direct sound.

                Since in the real world sound is diffuse, the tonality of all sounds is a blend of the two mics.

                -Dan
              • Luiz do Carmo
                Thanks Dan. I’m kind of embarassed for my laziness and severe lack of basic reading. If I were otherwise a little more attentive to my own stored files I
                Message 7 of 19 , Sep 2, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks Dan.

                  I’m kind of embarassed for my laziness and severe lack of basic reading. If I
                  were otherwise a little more attentive to my own stored files I could get the
                  texts I had gathered and solve my ‘doubts’. I simply didn’t do my homework.

                  Luiz



                  ________________________________
                  From: Dan Dugan <dan@...>
                  To: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Wed, September 1, 2010 9:16:04 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] mic arrays and M/S behaviour


                  > The M/S results are great, but I would like to know which mic capsules would be
                  >involved in the final mixed sound.
                  >

                  All of them! Well, directly on-axis in front is in the null of the side mic, so
                  that direction is just the M mic. for direct sound. All other angles are blends
                  of the two except for straight back which, if M is a cardioid, will be in the
                  null of both mics and dead, for direct sound.


                  Since in the real world sound is diffuse, the tonality of all sounds is a blend
                  of the two mics.

                  -Dan





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.