Quantcast
What attacts you to coincidnt mic'ing? - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
What attacts you to coincidnt mic'ing?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #1
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
What attacts you to coincident mic'ing?

A poll of sorts - under what circumstances / for what reasons do you prefer coincident mics over near coincident or spaced?

I'm interested in reasons other than the polarity/angling flexibility of MS, which is unique and rather obvious. Why else do you choose coincident?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 
surflounge's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
never use coincident, just using ORTF centered between A-B spaced wide-cardiods to avoid picking up external sounds
but am putting the mics on 30cm bar to simulate near-coincident close enough if that helps
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3
Lives for gear
 
jnorman's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
I have in the past used XY for soloist spots, but have moved to narrow AB for that now. Never been a fan of MS, and blumlein only works sometimes…
My main setup is the same as surf lounge - schoeps MSTC64 with flanking subcards.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #4
Lives for gear
 
tourtelot's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Never liked it myself. ORTF is as near (coincident) as I ever come and prefer omnis as a rule.

D.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #5
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
In the past I've used a Rode NT-4 xy mic....with a pair of NT-45 omni capsules instead of the cardioids...as a spot mic. Theory would tell you that would simply sum to mono, right ?
You believe theory....?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #6
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
I like blending an LCD tube and ribbon in MS.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #7
Lives for gear
 
king2070lplaya's Avatar
I find coincident pairs useful in stereo spotting within larger ensembles, for instance a drum kit in a big band or an ensemble piano in an orchestra, where you don’t really want a big stereo spread for that source in the overall picture, or where you need more flexibility to pan them around without distracting phase cancelation.

I’d like to get better as using Blumlein or MS as a main pair, it’s a skill Id like to improve. But I’m still mostly using the 3-mic Decca tree, AB pairs, or near-coincident pairs for that job with success.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #8
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
I guess I should have phrased my question more specifically - for those who usually use coincident mics as your main pair, why do you prefer it (other than the flexible pattern/angling of MS, as mentioned in the OP)?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #9
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Phantom image accuracy.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #10
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Simplicity of set up
Once you 'get' MS and can see its fields in your minds eye it is remarkable how easy it is to do the geometry and know where to put the master pair.
After that knowledge you can experiment with various patterns and tweak to get sympathy between room and performance.
Im no maths fiend but I can see the magic in numbers Alan Dower Blumlein formulated nearly 100 yrs ago
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #11
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
- precise localisation of sources within the stereo (or even the surround) soundfield
- transient detail
- simplicity of use (specifically in case of double m/s and/or soundfield)
- steering capability in the latter case
- prerequisite for precise delay adjustment of spots
- superior (up-/)downmixing
- mono-compatibility in case of broadcasting
- sheer personal preference*

i almost always deploy both a (close to) coincident and a spaced main mic array plus of course ambis...




* does NOT include blumlein, even less (if that's possible at all) blumlein with ribbon mics!

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 4 weeks ago at 04:46 PM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Phantom image accuray
Correctness of tonality (no comb filtering !)
Correct spatial representation of the acoustic space
Time coherency - no smeared transients
Natural representation of the event (anecdotal - that is what most musicians tell me. All in fact, except the 5% who whish a "produced" recording)
Old 4 weeks ago
  #13
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
One not often talked about yet useful “feature” of MS is that it can guide you precisely where you should pan all the spot mics in your mix. The documentary pictures taken at the session could aid you to shape the sound layout but the pictures don’t always reflect the actual hall stereo image correctly, at least nowhere near precisely. MS gives you a much more definitive sound image, eliminating a lot of guessing game, in the case of having both AB and MS stereo pair available at the mixing session and you decide to only use AB.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #14
Lives for gear
 
emrr's Avatar
 
24 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
I usually work pop music in smaller spaces, with sources that don’t usually have pre-envisioned placements and widths. Coincident, and most frequently MS, gives me best flexibility. Spaced mics in small spaces with low frequencies are frequently problematic because of the effects of room modes.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #15
Lives for gear
 
kludgeaudio's Avatar
 
About the only time I use coincident techniques is if there is going to be some processing after the fact, such as when recording something that will become part of a Dolby Matrix mix.

With coincident techniques all of the imaging is coming from amplitude differences between channels, not phase differences, so there is no perceived imaging at low frequencies. I don't like that at all.

That is, the thing that is a disadvantage for emrr about near-coincident methods is an advantage to me.

Lots of folks demand mixes with "100% mono compatibility" but I have never had any of them ever complain about an ORTF or NOS recording.
--scott
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kludgeaudio ➡️
With coincident techniques all of the imaging is coming from amplitude differences between channels, not phase differences, so there is no perceived imaging at low frequencies. I don't like that at all.
Why wouldn't there be imaging at low frequencies ? I have never seen a recent paper on this.
That is quite the opposite of what I hear in my studio.
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #17
Lives for gear
 
kludgeaudio's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick ➡️
Why wouldn't there be imaging at low frequencies ? I have never seen a recent paper on this.
That is quite the opposite of what I hear in my studio.
Because most of our ability to image sounds at low frequencies comes from phase differences between our ears. Once the wavelength becomes about the width of your head, the amplitude baffling of your head provides amplitude imaging. A good introduction to psychoacoustics should detail some of this.
--scott
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #18
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick ➡️
Why wouldn't there be imaging at low frequencies ? I have never seen a recent paper on this.
That is quite the opposite of what I hear in my studio.
Any frequencies whose wavelengths are larger than the distance between our ears, is perceived as mono because there is zero phase difference between them. It was the whole reason Blumlein came up with 'shuffling' at low frequencies for baffled omnis, to compensate.
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #19
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kludgeaudio ➡️
Because most of our ability to image sounds at low frequencies comes from phase differences between our ears. Once the wavelength becomes about the width of your head, the amplitude baffling of your head provides amplitude imaging. A good introduction to psychoacoustics should detail some of this.
--scott
sorry but as much as phase differences (in any frequency range) can enable a pleasing, slightly blurred image, they first an foremost lead to a deterioration of our ability to localize sources within the stereo or surround field!

a rather simple comparison between m/s or x/y and a/b on a drum kit or a day with measurement mic, an fft and enough muscles to experiment with different subwoofer arrays will reveal this...

...but maybe we can skip the discussion, at least for small a/b, because the distance between the microphones has to be much greater (above a quarter of the wavelength of the frequency of interest) before you can hear a significant difference.

Last edited by deedeeyeah; 4 weeks ago at 12:03 AM.. Reason: more precise information
Old 4 weeks ago
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
IMO the jury is still out on panning LF on stereo subs. There is almost zero scientific research.

There is as much to be said that localisation does not work at all below 120 Hz.

So you could as well highpass your ORTF and mix it with a mono omni mic.
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
How can you hear a transient ITD at 40 Hz ?

Nobody could ever explain this to me.

Please point me to a scientific study focussing on LF continous sounds, and ITD localisation.
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
To be more specific, the assumption that ITD works at LF is based on the trivial fact that above a certain frequency ITD does NOT work (as the wavelengths become smaller than the distance between are ears, and ambiguity starts) - so it would seem logical there is no lower limit.

Well, IMO that is a false assumption. Clearly ITD localisation has been tested with noise, and works better with noise, broadband between eg. 20Hz and 1000Hz. But that does not prove we can locate a non distorted 20Hz wave using ITD.

https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.5087566
and more to the point (but I can only read the abstract):
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1121/1.4795778

Note this phrase: At low frequencies, 250–700 Hz, threshold ITDs were approximately inversely proportional to tone frequency.

Meaning: ITD localisation becomes LESS below 700 Hz. ITD localisation is happening mainly the two octaves around 1KHz.

What exactly happens below 100 Hz, I do not know. It seems most research does not bother with pure tones, and almost invariably suffers the fact that there are no test conditions where acoustics do not become a large obstacle.

There is still the camp of about 50% of the population who argue that nobody can localise anything below 80Hz. Coincident or space meters apart, it would not make a difference. Even here there is no consensus, so I do not see how we could know - if localisation at LF exists - how it works ?

IMO the added spatiality of ORTF is mainly due to "augmented" localisation exactly in those two middle octaves, which magically coincide with the distance between those capsules.

Quoting wikipedia pages does not help, as there simply is no thorough research to base those pages on.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #24
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Maybe it's the first harmonic which does the job of locking our ears into the localizations....while the fundamental simply gives the 'impact and heft information' (thinking of concert drum, tympani et al) ?

You could filter out the fundamental entirely from the recording and still identify both instrument and its location from the related harmonic content alone. But could you do the opposite (retain only fundamental, filter out all harmonic material) and expect the same recognition of instrument and location) ....I doubt it ?

That's in the concert halls where the sound originates....it may be a different matter when those same (recorded) sounds, hopefully with accurate positional cues encoded via solid miking methods....is reproduced in a much smaller place, like a mixing studio (or lounge room at the end of a repro chain) ?

Is another possible complication that the instruments in the concert hall are effectively omni radiating....whereas when replayed in the studio, the speakers that reproduce the same sounds are directional (not omni) radiators ?
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 ➡️
Is another possible complication that the instruments in the concert hall are effectively omni radiating....whereas when replayed in the studio, the speakers that reproduce the same sounds are directional (not omni) radiators ?
Valid points. But the quote above needs correction : (almost) all speakers are omni below 100 Hz.
On the other hand, a while ago I again witnessed how a really good percussion player tunes the concert bass drum on the hall fundamental, triggering it when he plays. Thus, the bass drum becomes extremely directional ! Better than a fig8 !

Finally, instruments are not omni radiating, and exactly this is what is wrong about almost ALL commercially available Impulse responses of concert halls. They should be using directional speakers, and even better, with a controlled directivity that mimics certain types of instruments. There is a huge difference between a trumpet and a harp and timpani. All IR libraries are made with omnidirectional speakers.
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #26
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
lf behaviour and perception is best described in literature about positioning, arraying and aligning of subwoofer systems and in papers about studio design/acoustics - pls note fundamentally different conditions indoors vs outdoors...

bottom line remains: one cannot localise lf!
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #27
Lives for gear
 
kludgeaudio's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
sorry but as much as phase differences (in any frequency range) can enable a pleasing, slightly blurred image, they first an foremost lead to a deterioration of our ability to localize sources within the stereo or surround field!

a rather simple comparison between m/s or x/y and a/b on a drum kit or a day with measurement mic, an fft and enough muscles to experiment with different subwoofer arrays will reveal this...

...but maybe we can skip the discussion, at least for small a/b, because the distance between the microphones has to be much greater (above a quarter of the wavelength of the frequency of interest) before you can hear a significant difference.
ABSOLUTELY! Once you start spreading microphone much father apart than the width of your head you start getting badly exaggerated phase differences between them. This can cause all kinds of interesting effects including the rather unnatural sense of depth that a lot of people like about Mercury Living Presence recordings.

That's why near-coincident recording is a win to my ears... there is a little low frequency imaging but it's not exaggerated in any way.
--scott
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #28
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick ➡️
All IR libraries are made with omnidirectional speakers.
The think the idea is that the IR of the room should be independent on how its excited. It is a property of the room.

Last edited by David Spearritt; 4 weeks ago at 01:29 AM..
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #29
Lives for gear
 
kludgeaudio's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick ➡️
IMO the jury is still out on panning LF on stereo subs. There is almost zero scientific research.

There is as much to be said that localisation does not work at all below 120 Hz.

So you could as well highpass your ORTF and mix it with a mono omni mic.
It's very unusual to have a room where you can get any imaging down in the lower octaves, because the room modes in the playback room kill you.

But even as high as 500 Hz phase differences make some difference in imaging.

Try it. If you like it, use it. If you don't like it, stick with coincident pairs.
--scott
Old 4 weeks ago
  #30
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
When I was using MS frequently, I had a room that was 105' long.

Now that I am working in a smaller room, I have had better luck with Blumlein.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 376 views: 33127
Avatar for panatrope
panatrope 17th October 2020
replies: 168 views: 21711
Avatar for studer58
studer58 24th February 2018
replies: 3306 views: 70426
Avatar for Synth Guru
Synth Guru 21st August 2021
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump