In answer to Tom Fine's query "Can anyone point to a single M-S recording
of a full orchestra?", I will cite several Minnesota Orchestra recordings
that I produced for Vox in 1976 and 1977, particularly Skrowaczewski
conducting Bartók's DIVERTIMENTO and Stravinsky's SACRE (both were
engineered by D. Michael Shields), recorded in Orchestra Hall (unmodified)
with a single AKG C24 in M-S mode. I believe they remain highly successful
qua recorded sound. Another recording made in similar fashion was
Stravinsky's PÉTROUCHKA conducted by Rudolf Albert and recorded in Paris. I
first heard it on an Omegadisc Lp. I suspect Karajan's BPO Dvorák Fifth
recorded by DG in the mid-sixties was made the same way; however, I have no
supporting documentation for that assertion.
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> BTW, I don't think it would sound very good to use ribbon mics for a
> large-ensemble M-S recording in a real-world space. You'll be out far
> enough that you'll need a pronounced "presence peak" on the mic to combat
> upper mid and treble depletion/absorbtion. This is why the brief fad of
> using a handful of B&K instrumentation mics to record orchestras didn't
> produce very exciting results. Clinical, and perhaps and accurate
> representation of what was "heard" at the mic locations, but not good,
> exciting recordings of orchestral music. The "focus" I've talked about with
> Mercury M3 recordings is finding the position where the presence peak
> overcomes high-end dissipation enough to provide intimacy/clarity as well
> as space/reverberance. That's the key to 1-mic mono orchestral recording,
> and it carries over to 3-mic stereo.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 8:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Accidental stereo (again)
> Hi Goran:
>> I meant to say that two spaced omni's won't sum to mono very well. There
>> is a distance where you can successfully record something like a small jazz
>> ensemble or a chamber classical ensemble without a hole in the middle but
>> have two much combing to successfully combine to mono. I think what you are
>> describing is ORTF-like 2-mic technique, which does sum to mono because the
>> wavefronts hit both mics close enough in timing to cause minimal
>> cancellations when summed.
>> Can anyone point to a single M-S recording of a full orchestra? I'd think
>> you'd not be able to have a strong center AND wide/deep/high stereophony,
>> it would be one or the other depending on how you mixed it. I've heard of
>> many engineers using one of the various crossed-matrix setups for a center
>> array and then using other mics on the sides and sometimes also filler
>> mics. I suppose that would work but what if, for instance, you have a solo
>> cellist up front and slightly right or left of center who is very "active"?
>> I would think you'd have image-instability issues, perhaps because the
>> crossed-matrix array is accurately recording the bobbing and weaving of the
>> "active" soloist. Accurate it may be, but it's probably somewhat annoying
>> on playback in the home. I think a single omni in the middle eliminates
>> this problem unless the "activity" is so extreme as to self-comb the cello
>> -- Tom Fine
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "[log in to unmask]" <
>> [log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 6:55 PM
>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Accidental stereo (again)
>> Tom Fine:
>>> You definitely can't successfully sum 2-omni stereo to mono.
>>> I do not agree with the above, Tom.
>>> You only get comb filtering artifacts
>>> if the mics are fairly close together.
>>> If I use just two omni mics I use a
>>> spacing of around 60 cm for a nice
>>> stereo spread with no apparent
>>> hole in the middle.
>>> Each mic will get sufficiently different
>>> amplitude and time differences so when
>>> you mono them no comb filtering can be heard.
>>> Goes for the 3 mic omni one, M3, Mercury
>>> style mic set up too.
>>> Also the Decca tree, M5, with outriggers are free
>>> of audible comb filtering too.
>>> Comb filtering can only be heard IF there is
>>> enough correlation with a time delay between
>>> mics and that is not true of spaced mic techniques.
>>> Here the correlation between the mics are
>>> low so the sum together in mono fairly well
>>> in practice.
>>> I think the Europeans who used MS or other crossed-matrix
>>>> methods were able to use one channel for mono (although
>>>> there were crosstalk phase-cancellation issues with that method).
>>> Not so.
>>> In M/S we have M-S = L and M+S = R when
>>> you matrix M and S to get stereo or L & R.
>>> When you have stereo or L & R when you mono L + R
>>> you get (M-S) + (M+S) = 2M.
>>> So the difference signal (-S) + (+S) cancels completely
>>> 100 percent and we are back to the original M signal
>>> only for 100 percent mono compatibility.
>>> One never ever use only L or R only just mono, L+R,
>>> the thing and we are back to the original M mic.
>>> Very simple in fact.
>>> No wonder that M/S is so popular in some quarters.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Goran Finnberg
>>> The Mastering Room AB
>>> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>> Learn from the mistakes of others, you can never live long enough to
>>> make them all yourself. - John Luther
>>> (")_(") Smurfen:RIP
1006 Langer Way
Delray Beach, FL 33483