Print

Print


Dear Tom,

Thanks for your kind comments. The Albert/Cento Soli SACRE was credited to
a Neumann SM-2 as the single mic used. That was cited on the jacket of the
Omegadisc Lp.

The qualities you mention were what made the C24 so useful to me when
recording concerts for later broadcast: easy set-up, excellent room control
and focus. I think I made perhaps 500 recordings using M-S technique, with
a very low rate of failure.

DDR


On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hi Dennis:
>
> Those are good-sounding recordings, so M-S does work for a full orchestra.
> The AKG mic has a pronounced presence peak and is quite sensitive, so it
> can be "focused" and yet be stood out enough to capture the whole ensemble
> with good details, as was clearly done on your Vox records.
>
> Was a single M-S pair also used on Albert's recording of the Sacre that
> was included in the recent 100th anniversary UMG box set? That's a striking
> performance, the biggest surprise to my ears in the box set.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Rooney" <
> [log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 12:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Accidental stereo (again)
>
>
>  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.
>>
>> DDR
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  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
>>>> soundwaves.
>>>>
>>>> -- 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
>>>>> Goteborg
>>>>> Sweden
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>> 212.874.9626
>>
>>
>>


-- 
1006 Langer Way
Delray Beach, FL 33483
212.874.9626