Opinions and Advice for a Noob

[littlewing6283]

Originally Posted by bbrown

David, quick question: If one can mimic M/S from a stereo recording, using a DAW, is there any point in going to all the trouble to buy new mics (for those of us without a figure 8 mic) and get the set-up figured out, etc.? Does the DAW conversion create the same effect?

And, BTW, that's the kind of practical advice that I really like: just a description of how you do it. I think it would be great to get that sort of thing, including processing stages, from other folks who have developed a way to do things that works for them(I need to start a new thread, I know).

Sorry for the tangent here, and I hope the OP will excuse me.

--Bill

no excuse necessary. were all learning. i might have those questions in the future so this would be good reference

[littlewing6283]

Originally Posted by david_m

Is there any point in going through the effort to set up M/S in the recording phase rather than just converting to M/S in the processing phase?

Yes. If you like the sound of the figure 8 mic, and the effort requried to set up the mics then it is worth it.

From a physics standpoint the two approaches are identical. The DAW (or analog mixer or whatever) doesn't care what the recorded material sounds like, it just knows that it has three signals and two of those three signals are exactly out of phase. The science doesn't care whether you capture the signal as an XY pair or M/S spair or a spaced pair whatever.

Your ear may have a different opinion. Maybe you have a mic that produces "the" sound you want in the figure 8 polar pattern. Maybe you have a signal chain (mic, preamp, EQ, compression) that is just simply magical to your ear and the only way you can capture it is to use that figure 8 mic. Maybe there's some magic in the interaction between the two mics you're using (figure 8 and hypercardioid) and you just can't get "that" sound without capturing the source in M/S.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint I find it easiest to record my solo acoustic guitars as an XY and process in M/S. I only have 1 mic that can record in figure 8 (it has cardioid, omni and figure 8 polar patterns). It's set up for vocals and I have to completely change my mic set up to capture my guitar in M/S. I have a dedicated XY rig and a pair of matched KM184 mics, and I can start capturing XY recroded acoustic guitar in under 5 minutes. While I DO like the M/S recorded sound better than the XY recorded sound, the difference is subtle enough for me that I default to "ease of use" and my XY rig most of the time.

The best recording is the one that sounds the best. It's a combination of player performance and performance cpature. I find that if I spend 20 minutes futzing with a mic set up I don't perform as well as I would like. My brain goes into audio engineer mode while setting up the mics instead of staying in guitar player mode. If I can get 99% of the sound I want with 5 minutes of set up time I can stay in guitar player mode and capture the performance that I want.

I find that work flow decisions are EVERY BIT as influential as technical recording decisions when it comes to recording.

Your processing question is also a good one. I've built some audio rack templates in my DAW and audio interface software to make capturing the recording as well as processing the recording easier. When you do this for a while you end up with a default approach. That can be a HUGE help and a HUGE hindrance depending on what you want to do. I finally have a default approach for acoustic guitar, electric guitar, bass, drums and vocals that works for me and it has made a world of difference in the results I get.

David,

When you say processing as MS in the DAW with an XY setup. Im not completely understanding.

1. record both both signals as 1 stereo track
2. duplicate the signal twice, total of 3. pan 1 track left. pan 1 track right (put one side out of phase) leave one track center as is

Is this right or am I completely missing the boat.

btw I ended up ordering a pair of rode m5 mics, i hope it doesnt dissappoint. seemed like a good deal

thanks

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by david_m

............

I know this is confusing, but you can actually take ANY stereo recording and turn it into a M/S recording. It's basically taking two mono signals and converting it to three with one mono signal (of the three) placed out of phase. I know, I know, I know....confusing sounding. But really, it's not too bad once you get your head wrapped around it and the results are so worthwhile. You could take your current recording with the two mics and convert it to a M/S array within your DAW. I would recommend doing this to see if you like the results............

I disagree. You can run a stereo recording through a MS decoder, but it's not the same result as using a figure 8 as one of the mics in the original recording.

Originally Posted by MikeBmusic

.......
As you don't have a mic with figure 8 pickup pattern OR a treated tracking room, I would not look at M/S recording yet, just work on single/2 mic techniques, mic placement and how it affects the sound.

I agree about just doing stereo micing, either a spaced pair or XY, vs MS

Originally Posted by david_m

.......
Also, the physics work on ANY dual mono signal so you can convert any stereo mic arrangement into a M/S signal. Yes, you have to have a figure 8 mic to record M/S if you want to do it from the source, but you can easily get a M/S result from two cardioid mics.

I disagree. You can run a stereo recording through a MS decoder, but it's not the same result as using a figure 8 as one of the mics in the original recording.

Originally Posted by david_m

.......
I will say that I almost always process solo acoustic guitar in my DAW as M/S even if I record it using XY. I like having control over the size of the stereo image that M/S provides and I like being able to EQ the mid and sides differently. FWIW, I also apply reverb/delay differently to the mids and sides and this can only be done using the M/S stereo rather than the traditional left and right.....

I disagree. You can run a stereo recording through a MS decoder, but it's not the same result as using a figure 8 as one of the mics in the original recording.

Originally Posted by bbrown

David, quick question: If one can mimic M/S from a stereo recording, using a DAW, is there any point in going to all the trouble to buy new mics (for those of us without a figure 8 mic) and get the set-up figured out, etc.? Does the DAW conversion create the same effect?
......

You can run a stereo recording through a MS decoder, but it's not the same result as using a figure 8 as one of the mics in the original recording. If you like the effect fine, but it's not the same

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by littlewing6283

David,

When you say processing as MS in the DAW with an XY setup. Im not completely understanding.

1. record both both signals as 1 stereo track
2. duplicate the signal twice, total of 3. pan 1 track left. pan 1 track right (put one side out of phase) leave one track center as is

Is this right or am I completely missing the boat.

btw I ended up ordering a pair of rode m5 mics, i hope it doesnt dissappoint. seemed like a good deal

thanks

I think you've gotten good advice about trying XY setup, as this may give fine results with the least amount of problems. If you think you'd like a wider stereo field, try a spaced pair, but you will probably spend a good amount of time with mic placement to get the stereo image you like (but spending time with mic placement is a good thing for learning).

If you do record in MS, use a figure 8 mic and a cardioid mic. You might like the results, and you can adjust the width of the stereo field post recording. Personally, I dont' feel it is the best for guitar because the guitar is not a physically wide source (like an orchestra) and unless you place the mics very close to the guitar much of the guitar's direct sound is in the null of the figure 8 mic; thus the figure 8 mainly picks up reflections.

[coconuts]

My experience is that a 12x12 room with an average 7-8 ft ceiling is a real problem for recording acoustics. Significant treatment will be required primarily on the bass traps. It is doable and not necessarily that expensive. However a good approach if you can afford it is to use a real time analyzer during the treatment process. I have a Rane RA 30 RTA Real Time Analyzer with reference mic. However if you have a computer / audio interface, there is cheap software that does the same thing. You can set up using your mics, although a mic designed for this has a very flat response. It is best if you can generate pink noise at the position your guitar would be at and treat the room until the spectrum is flat. Works best with two people, but not required. Then you can adjust to taste from flat by modifying the room treatment. Time consuming process with trial and error but without the spectrum analyzer and pink noise it is a crap shoot. Once dialed in, your recordings will be balanced and switching mics won't have an overwhelming negative impact that mic position can't correct.

[littlewing6283]

Room treatment is next on my to do list.geez I could have bought that d28 I've been gassing for hahhaa. This has been a pretty fun. I gotta do a lot I'd research on treatment

[coconuts]

Originally Posted by littlewing6283

Room treatment is next on my to do list.geez I could have bought that d28 I've been gassing for hahhaa. This has been a pretty fun. I gotta do a lot I'd research on treatment

Maybe the d28 should top your list. Used ugly carpets can be acquired to treat a room!!! I would rather have quality instruments than a treated room. But once you enter this black hole of recording, the costs skyrocket rather quickly. It won't be long before you want recordings as good as if done in a top studio...and they don't scrimp on what it takes to get their sound.

[littlewing6283]

Originally Posted by coconuts

Maybe the d28 should top your list. Used ugly carpets can be acquired to treat a room!!! I would rather have quality instruments than a treated room. But once you enter this black hole of recording, the costs skyrocket rather quickly. It won't be long before you want recordings as good as if done in a top studio...and they don't scrimp on what it takes to get their sound.

D28 will wait. I just got my ooo18ge last month. So a d28 will likely happen 1st q the next year. Home recording is my focus

[alohachris]

Aloha Littlewing,

Adequate Room Treatment is ABSOLUTELY critical if you're serious about home recording. It makes a larger difference to the quality of your recordings than the gear itself. It will save you lotsa money in fruitless gear upgrades & much time as you learn how to record your D-28 - when you get it, Ha! (BTW, larger guitars like dreadnaughts are more difficult to record & also to amplify live than smaller bodied instruments - just sayin,) So make Room Treatment a TOP priority, Littlewing, OK?

Here's some useful info to get you started on your "room treatment research," some of which is re-printed from an earlier post:

First, here's the room treatment bible from Ethan Winer - everything you need to know:

http://ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html


Here are a coupla helpful videos from Fran Guidry for building & understanding the need for DIY broadband absorbers.

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...-on-the-cheap/

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2011/...adband-panels/


Another good place for lotsa studio building inspiration is found at this Gearslutz site:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/stud...ing-acoustics/


First, put an SPF meter (Radio Shack has several brands) on your recording space to see where (freq's) the treatment needs to be emphasized.

Make 2-9 broadband absorbers (place 2 behind the mic, 2 behind you, 2 on each side, & 1 above you). You'll be able to control those nasty early room reflections & have the potential to achieve clear, balanced acoustic recordings earlier in the home recording game.

Hint: Don't frame out the absorbers. The hard surfaces are counter-productive.

You'll also be able to experiment more using treatment with important things like mic placement (like the aforementioned Mid-Side or M-S pattern), something that an untreated space will never allow. See why treatment is so important?

How to Make Broadband Absorbers -

I made 22 broadband absorber panels using Fran's video as a rough guide. Relatively Cheap, portable, & storable, my absorbers have worked for me in several studio & location live recording settings for most of a decade now. All the materials & tools ya need are at Walmart. White burlap is a nice looking covering choice & very durable. Making your own can save you thousand$ over pre-made gobos.

Note: Use Owens-Corning OC 703 rigid fiberglass to make your broadband absorbers (rigid side facing the music source). They come 6-12 in a box. Most acoustic material suppliers carry or have access to this very common (in the USA) insulation material. (Not available at Walmart or similar).

Buy the 2"x2'x4' panels & double them up into 4"x2'x4'. Use Loctite #200 or 300 spray adhesive (best I've used) to join them & also for the flat surfaces when putting on the covering (as I said, white burlap from Walmart is nice looking, durable & works). Covering is necessary to prevent minute fiberglass fibers from suspending in the air around you - health concerns - so it's a must.

Use hot-melt glue in a high temp. gun (under $10 @ Walmart) to secure the panel corners & the main material joint across the back of each panel. It only took me a weekend in my spare time to make my first nine absorbers. I added more as needed. I store them out of the way when I need the room for some other purpose.

My panels have held up extremely well (no glue joint failures) for almost 10 years now & make all the difference in separating & defining the frequencies, avoiding mid-range mush, squashing room vibration if a bass is involved & producing sharp, clear-sounding, quiet & natural acoustic recordings w/ no room reflections.

You can vary the space between the absorbers in different recording settings for whatever sonic effect you desire. I consider them to be my most essential recording gear.

Hint 2: If your space has a carpeted floor where you track, then use a portable 1/4" plywood sheet over it where you sit/stand & play. I've found that a wooden floor works best with the absorbers. It's a balance of hard-soft that is the goal. Ya don't want all of the sound deadened in most rooms. Portable absorbers allow you to "tune" your space.

Good Luck, Littewing, in your home recording odyssey. May it be all you hope it will be. Take your time. Build on what works (your ears will tell ya). Experiment A LOT, especially w/ mic placement & combo's once your treatment is in place.

alohachris

PS: It makes no difference if your recording gear is a simple, all-in-one recorder like a Zoom H4n or something more substantial. You need adequate room treatment (no soft foam, rugs or egg cartons) to achieve the results you're seeking, Littlewing. BTW, Jimi's 'Little Wing' has been one of my most requested songs to play at my gigs the last 45 years or so. Love that song! Must have played it 5000 times, Ha! alohachris-

[david_m]

I AGREE that an m/s decoder is NOT the same as an m/s recording from the source.

I am saying that converting to m/s, regardless of source, provides a lot of advantages in the mix. I find it much easier to get a richer and more satisfying sound when I can apply EQ and effects to the mid and sides separately. I like having direct control over the size of the stereo image that is provided by m/s processing.

I'm not sure what anyone would either agree or disagree about this point.

[david_m]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

I think you've gotten good advice about trying XY setup, as this may give fine results with the least amount of problems. If you think you'd like a wider stereo field, try a spaced pair, but you will probably spend a good amount of time with mic placement to get the stereo image you like (but spending time with mic placement is a good thing for learning).

If you do record in MS, use a figure 8 mic and a cardioid mic. You might like the results, and you can adjust the width of the stereo field post recording. Personally, I dont' feel it is the best for guitar because the guitar is not a physically wide source (like an orchestra) and unless you place the mics very close to the guitar much of the guitar's direct sound is in the null of the figure 8 mic; thus the figure 8 mainly picks up reflections.

This has not been my experience.

If you want to try a spaced pair for a wider image, please make sure to measure the distance between the mics and source accordingly to avoid phasing issues. I find a spaced pair approach wonderful for things like a guitar cabinet, room mics for drums, even an orchestra, choir or band. For solo acoustic guitar a spaced pair is not my preference.

As I've said before, there's no exclusively right or wrong answer, and experimentation is always a good thing. Chuck has apparently had good results with a spaced pair and that's wonderful. In a home recording setting I've never been satisfied with a spaced pair result on acoustic guitar.

[littlewing6283]

Originally Posted by alohachris

Aloha Littlewing,

Adequate Room Treatment is ABSOLUTELY critical if you're serious about home recording. It makes a larger difference to the quality of your recordings than the gear itself. It will save you lotsa money in fruitless gear upgrades & much time as you learn how to record your D-28 - when you get it, Ha! (BTW, larger guitars like dreadnaughts are more difficult to record & also to amplify live than smaller bodied instruments - just sayin,) So make Room Treatment a TOP priority, Littlewing, OK?

Here's some useful info to get you started on your "room treatment research," some of which is re-printed from an earlier post:

First, here's the room treatment bible from Ethan Winer - everything you need to know:

http://ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html


Here are a coupla helpful videos from Fran Guidry for building & understanding the need for DIY broadband absorbers.

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...-on-the-cheap/

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2011/...adband-panels/


Another good place for lotsa studio building inspiration is found at this Gearslutz site:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/stud...ing-acoustics/


First, put an SPF meter (Radio Shack has several brands) on your recording space to see where (freq's) the treatment needs to be emphasized.

Make 2-9 broadband absorbers (place 2 behind the mic, 2 behind you, 2 on each side, & 1 above you). You'll be able to control those nasty early room reflections & have the potential to achieve clear, balanced acoustic recordings earlier in the home recording game.

Hint: Don't frame out the absorbers. The hard surfaces are counter-productive.

You'll also be able to experiment more using treatment with important things like mic placement (like the aforementioned Mid-Side or M-S pattern), something that an untreated space will never allow. See why treatment is so important?

How to Make Broadband Absorbers -

I made 22 broadband absorber panels using Fran's video as a rough guide. Relatively Cheap, portable, & storable, my absorbers have worked for me in several studio & location live recording settings for most of a decade now. All the materials & tools ya need are at Walmart. White burlap is a nice looking covering choice & very durable. Making your own can save you thousand$ over pre-made gobos.

Note: Use Owens-Corning OC 703 rigid fiberglass to make your broadband absorbers (rigid side facing the music source). They come 6-12 in a box. Most acoustic material suppliers carry or have access to this very common (in the USA) insulation material. (Not available at Walmart or similar).

Buy the 2"x2'x4' panels & double them up into 4"x2'x4'. Use Loctite #200 or 300 spray adhesive (best I've used) to join them & also for the flat surfaces when putting on the covering (as I said, white burlap from Walmart is nice looking, durable & works). Covering is necessary to prevent minute fiberglass fibers from suspending in the air around you - health concerns - so it's a must.

Use hot-melt glue in a high temp. gun (under $10 @ Walmart) to secure the panel corners & the main material joint across the back of each panel. It only took me a weekend in my spare time to make my first nine absorbers. I added more as needed. I store them out of the way when I need the room for some other purpose.

My panels have held up extremely well (no glue joint failures) for almost 10 years now & make all the difference in separating & defining the frequencies, avoiding mid-range mush, squashing room vibration if a bass is involved & producing sharp, clear-sounding, quiet & natural acoustic recordings w/ no room reflections.

You can vary the space between the absorbers in different recording settings for whatever sonic effect you desire. I consider them to be my most essential recording gear.

Hint 2: If your space has a carpeted floor where you track, then use a portable 1/4" plywood sheet over it where you sit/stand & play. I've found that a wooden floor works best with the absorbers. It's a balance of hard-soft that is the goal. Ya don't want all of the sound deadened in most rooms. Portable absorbers allow you to "tune" your space.

Good Luck, Littewing, in your home recording odyssey. May it be all you hope it will be. Take your time. Build on what works (your ears will tell ya). Experiment A LOT, especially w/ mic placement & combo's once your treatment is in place.

alohachris

PS: It makes no difference if your recording gear is a simple, all-in-one recorder like a Zoom H4n or something more substantial. You need adequate room treatment (no soft foam, rugs or egg cartons) to achieve the results you're seeking, Littlewing. BTW, Jimi's 'Little Wing' has been one of my most requested songs to play at my gigs the last 45 years or so. Love that song! Must have played it 5000 times, Ha! alohachris-

whew. Thank you so much for chiming in and posting all those links with helpful info regarding room treatment. im a complete newbie so it will help me a lot

any luck finding this stuff at home depot ? Im off for the next couple of days so ill have some time on my hands.

anyone record in a space where they hang guitars. I have a music room and due to space and GAS i cant keep everything in a case. I have a couple guitars hung will this be a problem ?

Originally Posted by david_m

This has not been my experience.

If you want to try a spaced pair for a wider image, please make sure to measure the distance between the mics and source accordingly to avoid phasing issues. I find a spaced pair approach wonderful for things like a guitar cabinet, room mics for drums, even an orchestra, choir or band. For solo acoustic guitar a spaced pair is not my preference.

As I've said before, there's no exclusively right or wrong answer, and experimentation is always a good thing. Chuck has apparently had good results with a spaced pair and that's wonderful. In a home recording setting I've never been satisfied with a spaced pair result on acoustic guitar.

ill keep trying multiple options and combos.

I did the MS recording per your video and actually really enjoyed the results

[littlewing6283]

also alohachris

do you have any sources for the fiberglass board. seems like its not available at home depot. Id like to make a couple of these.

[islandguitar]

Hello,

Here is one source I worked with....there are others. I opted for the "Eco-core" and have been pleased with the results. The do the job, you don't have issues with fibers (Corning 703) and they are recyclable. Anyway, whatever works for you purposes.

http://www.acoustimac.com/acoustic-i...ic-insulation/

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by littlewing6283

also alohachris

do you have any sources for the fiberglass board. seems like its not available at home depot. Id like to make a couple of these.

After checking out the specs I decided to use Roxul Rockboard 80 instead of the Owens Corning 703. A local lumber yard can order it in for me so I won't have the shipping charges that some on the online sellers add on. I didn't have luck at Home Depot, Menards, etc. The place I found primarily sells lumber, windows, insulation, etc to builders (not a big box hardware store).