One mic concept

[ukejon]

Very grateful for the wonderful insights and tutorials regularly offered to novices like me from AGF's more knowledgeable members.

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by ukejon

Interesting idea. Logical, although perhaps too simplistic. It may lead to a "boomy left, tinny right" sound:

http://www.guitarplayer.com/miscella...-guitars/21691

Wonder if adding a slightly more ambient mic set back to get more of the room might help out?

Several years ago, I experimented with the concepts mentioned in the reference, among some others. While there were some interesting results, none of them sounded like a recording with two mics. The major complaint, to me at least, was that they sounded artificial, contrived and not quite right.

[Doug Young]

I think MS does a great job of giving the article author what he's looking for - centered, focused, phase coherent, mono-compatible, yet as big and wide a sound as you wish.

The most convincing aspect of his argument might be the bit about affording one good mic, but even there, I'm not totally convinced. There are so many perfectly acceptable inexpensive mice out there, and stereo is usually enough more compelling, that most people would probably prefer a good stereo recording with a pair of inexpensive mics to a mono recording with a better mic.

Of course, I know there's been some discussion here on AGF from people who are fans of mono, which is fine, too. Whatever sound you're going for... But I think in most cases real mic techniques, mono or stereo, trump simulated approaches.

[KevWind]

Doug thanks for doing that, couple of quick observations. What I did was listen to just the last sections quickly back and forth on all three tracks agree the MS stereo track does come out more. But I wonder though if perhaps it is not also just ever so slightly louder ? being two mics and to my ear especially if compared back and forth between the MS and article version it does actually to me sound a bit louder. And in going quickly between all 4 the article version actually sounds a bit softer then the other three. I am certain this is not intentional but it does highlight what a bugger level matching can be

Also it is interesting and doing the same focus on the last section, to my ears between the straight mono and MS while I can hear more resonance (could be phase) in the MS and it is no doubt a great sound. I am not certain it is also not just ever so slightly less distinct on actual detail .

In truth though all 4 are actually very nice totally usable recordings I 'll listen on my studio set up later

[Doug Young]

I didn't check the level matching, but since it was the same exact recording, I just let Logic normalize all the tracks when I exported them. So unless I made a mistake, all takes should peak at 0db. It is possible that with the differences in the stereo processing that that results in one being a different overall level - perceived loudness rather than the peak, tho I'd expect it to be close. But I think it's better to just check out the differences in stereo image between these, than to try to AB them to decide which sounds "best"

It's really tough to truly match the levels of something like a mono vs a stereo track - even if the meters say they're identical, they may come across differently. You run into that with the GP approach, with balance, for example. I just tried to make another stab at balancing the stereo of that version, and because there is so much more power in the lows on one side, and very little but string squeaks on the other, my ears and the meters don't agree on when it sounds balanced.

[KevWind]

Yes and it very well could be perceived more than actual level
but honestly when popping back and forth for just the first few seconds on the last sections, it (MS) seems louder particularly to the GP . I actually have no particular preference in terms of 1 or 2 mics. I use and do like both methods, I do not however at this time have a matched pair. Only having 1 Schoeps and 1 Brauner .
So am I correct in assuming you prefer MS for stereo ? I agree I might like the mono run through the M7 better than the logic or gp

[M19]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I did a quick demo to try the settings suggested in this article. I recorded with an MS pair, so I'd have both the mono track - the mid mic alone - and then could also compare the results to a stereo micing technique. I also compared a plugin I have in Logic that does something very similar, but applies a more complex EQ to each side - sort of like taking every other band of a graphic EQ and cutting it on one side, then doing the opposite on the other.

So here's the comparison - mono, "stereo, GP-style", Logic's stereoizer, then finally real stereo (MS)

https://soundcloud.com/doug-young/st...coustic-guitar

The GP method was very right-sided, and the Logic processed method was more even, but not a lot of separation or differentiation in the separation achieved. The stereo recording was awesome. Reasonably (but not excessively) wide separation and each side was quite distinct.

Doug, you've done that "recording thing" before, haven't you!

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Yes and it very well could be perceived more than actual level

Just checked this out and I think what's going on is that because the sound's very different on each side, the normalizing is triggering on a peak on the left that isn't there on the right, reducing the level on the GP track more than it should. Interesting thing to watch for with these techniques. let me see if I can bring it more in line and update the track.

So am I correct in assuming you prefer MS for stereo ? I agree I might like the mono run through the M7 better than the logic or gp

I usually use spaced pairs, tho I always like MS. Probably should use it more.

[Doug Young]

Check it out now, I tried to balance the GP method a little better by ear, and also tried to level match it just by ear. I think it sounds more competitive now - mostly because the side-to-side balance is better. Hopefully the levels are closer. See what you think.

As Rick says, you can certainly spend a lot of time on this. Somehow, I think just putting up 2 mics is easier!

[ukejon]

What do you make of the author's comment about one mic reducing the amount of preamp noise? Is that right? Not a big issue but just curious.....

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by ukejon

What do you make of the author's comment about one mic reducing the amount of preamp noise? Is that right? Not a big issue but just curious.....

Hmm, not sure. You have the same amount of noise on one track, and you make 2 more copies, so potentially you now have 3 tracks with the noise adding up, tho you've EQ'd away some of it on the side tracks. Maybe I'm missing something. I don't usually worry about preamp noise, it's way below the level of environmental noise for me.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

He is overlooking that one mike records a guitar out of phase with itself since the guitar is a broad sound source - probably one the main reason a guitar is hard to record well. His method does increase the sense of space of course by separating high and low frequencies right and left and the illusion does help reduce the noticeability of the one mike phase effect except in the mid frequencies.

I have been thinking about this and something doesn't quite add up for me. (unless I am missing something in the basic physics of acoustics which is certainly possible). But I have no idea what you mean by "one mic phase effect", per se. Because I don't understand how adding a second mic will actually change "one mic phase effect"

Bear with here. First to clarify I am not talking about the merits or lack of in the method in the article, just about the term "one mic phase effect"

Where as I completely understand that a guitar is a broad band frequency source and that different frequencies come off of different locations on the guitar. And I understand that different frequencies with different amplitudes are going to be at different points in their wave cycle when the arrive at the mic diaphragm and thus there can be some phase issues and thus as you say make the guitar not easy to record.

And I can understand that two mics can potentially cover more of the guitars surface in closer proximity, thus could potentially cover more frequencies equally. Which may sound better to any given individual. ...... So I get all that

But: what doesn't add up as far as out of phase issues. Is that using two mics would some how change those inherent phase issues ? In fact what ever slight inherent phase issue you might have one mic, wouldn't adding a second mic actually be the same issues times two plus different arrival times at two different mics ? In other words potential phase issues quadrupled ? Just musing out loud here.

[ukejon]

Kev, I don't know the answer to your question but is it that with one mic placed up by the neck/body joint might not receive the lower bout frequencies quick enough, whereas two mics widely spaced but at the same distance to the guitar or a two-mic coincident arrangement has a better chance of simultaneously catching more of the instruments diverse frequencies (in other words, more "in phase")?

Which leads to the novice question "Do lower frequencies travel slower through space than high frequencies, and if so should your neck mics be set back more than the lower bout or body mic?"

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I
what doesn't add up as far as out of phase issues. Is that using two mics would some how change those inherent phase issues ? In fact what ever slight inherent phase issue you might have one mic, wouldn't adding a second mic actually be the same issues times two plus different arrival times at two different mics ? In other words potential phase issues quadrupled ? Just musing out loud here.

The brain will resolve phase and timing differences between the two ears, when possible, into space and direction (ambience).

With one mike (mono recording) the exact same phase discrepancies are presented to each ear and the brain's ability to interpret
it (hear it) as ambience is absent, or at least limited.

Two mikes (stereo) and you have the same phase discrepancies in each mike but each ear hears a different set of discrepancies.
So you could say each specific discrepancy being presented to one ear is at one half the total level of a mono discrepancy which
is presented to both ears. Plus the brain is presented with a variety of signal differences between the right and left mikes with
which it creates space and ambience.

So in stereo some of the one mike phase problems are suppressed to a degree. Plus there is a lot of additional special and
directional information being processed by the brain which helps obscure some of the single mike phase issues.

Take apart one of your stereo recordings you feel came out well. Make a mono recording from the right track and another one from
the left track. Listen to each mono track separately. Very probably not so nice sounding Then think about the almost magic improvement
of sound of those right and left tracks in the original stereo recording.

[M19]

Originally Posted by ukejon

"Do lower frequencies travel slower through space than high frequencies, and if so should your neck mics be set back more than the lower bout or body mic?"

Nope. The speed of sound is independent of the frequency. The wavelength changes, not the speed. V = W * F.