New mics. What do you think?

[rick-slo]

Depends on what you are recording whether mono or stereo might be better. For solo voice for example mono probably better (or at least safer). For acoustic guitar for example stereo rules.

[Glennwillow]

I have been listening to stereo recordings for a long time, since I was 12 years old in 1960. So it's hard for me to think of stereo as some kind of hoax. My dad's first hi-fi system was a mono system, but he used two speakers. Then he changed to stereo and I noticed that it instantly sounded better to me. Even my dad thought it sounded better, and he was the one who resisted stereo for so long.

I guess we each have our preferences, but I really like stereo recordings. All the more modern stuff -- surround sound and such -- just seems like gimmicks to me, but not stereo.

Regarding stereo mics on guitar, I have to agree with Derek that spaced mics on a guitar, at least in my opinion and experience, do sound better than X-Y mics. I recorded with X-Y aimed mics for quite a while. I like the additional separation from spaced pair mics.

- Glenn

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

This is a stereo mic-centric forum but I'd encourage exploring both avenues. There's a lot of gold in a properly recorded mono acoustic.

There's a lot of gold in a well-miked mono anything. As far as I'm concerned, in most situations there's one best spot to place a mic. With stereo, neither mic is in that spot.

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by thefsb

What recording method do I use to present my works to an audience that will listen to them as stereo digital files? Mono played on mono speakers is great but that's no gonna happen.

If you prefer mono why not record in mono? With stereo speakers or headphones, both left and right will simply play back a mono signal.


And by the way - in my opinion, mono isn't any more realistic than stereo: neither method sounds quite like how we actually hear sound with two ears and the way our brain processes it. But most people find stereo more interesting because in many ways it's bigger than life.

[mixsit]

Originally Posted by thefsb

..You're right that the dynamic here are greater than is typical for acoustic guitar music. I love to play with the dynamics and listen to what the guitar does. It's part of my method. So since I'm aiming for a more natural, documentary-style presentation, as opposed to, say, a glossy, lush, well-finished product, I hesitate to introduce any dynamic processing.

And besides, we've all got 16-bits of DR in the playback these days so what's the problem with having some DR in the signal: noisy listening environment? expectation set by life in the wasteland left behind by the loudness war? idk

LOL
I think you took me the wrong way entirely. My reply was simply to this;

If you have any comments, criticisms, or suggestions please go ahead because I am new to using close-mic techniques.

I'm sitting here four feet from a really nice set of monitors. Forty some years in I kind'of know when a track or mix works. Usually.. pretty much why as well.
I spoke to the mics/sound hole/tone. But as to the dynamics all I offered was just put a little more into [the playing on] the soft stuff.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by thefsb

I'm the monophile. I think stereo is the biggest, stupidest, most sucessfully-lucrative hoax in all of consumer audio electronics' history.

Yet it is the standard. A tyranny I cannot defeat because of distribution networks and the installed base of playback equipment including all the headsets and IEMs.

Humm not to belabor the point ,, but more just for general info and consideration for any interested ...

While of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But I wonder if that view of what stereo is perhaps based in a couple of misconceptions of how human hearing actually works related listening to a solo guitar in a room ?
Because in a room (listening to solo acoustic guitar ) what one hears is mix of both direct and reflected sound . Which means what you hear naturally in a room from a guitar is not a single point source, it is a multi point source . Which means when the sounds reach a humans two ears with binaural hearing, the effect is considered stereophonic not monophonic .
And while a mono recording can certainly be great and is arguably the cleanest reproduction having no possible multi mic phase factor , it could be said to perhaps be not as natural as a well done stereo recording, especially as you said when heard via headphones or earbuds

I can copy one mic to two channels easy, and have done often to date, in fact that's mostly what I've done. But in headphones that produces a spooky middle-of-head thing and with loudspeakers they can produce comb filter effects that mess with the tonality.

Agreed splitting or duplicating a mono signal and then slipping one in time to fake a stereo recording, is problematic at best.

On the other end of the scale there are myriad mic techniques, effects, and mixing tricks all aimed at producing dramatic wide spacial percepts. To my mind that also qualifies as a stupid hoax. It's like the fancy computer vfx in movies that just make me groan with weariness.

Again perhaps another misconception Because while a wide stereo effect may be what someone wants That need not be the aim or the result of a well done stereo recording and mixing. So to answer your question of "how" it is simple , (with most full featured DAW's) if the stereo recording sounds too wide for what you want. You can always pan both the 100% left and 100% right of the stereo file inwards ,, to say for example 45 % left and 45% right (or any % inwards) to get closer to what you like

Somewhere between these two failed extremes is a compromise I' have to settle for.

Again the method need not be either of those two extremes nor a "compromise"

Hence a simple coincident pair. At least as starting point.

Hence any well done stereo mic position and well don mix ,, can work very well