One mic concept

[Doug Young]

How 2-mic stereo effects are created depends on the mic setup. True (theoretical) co-incident pairs create stereo totally due to level differences - that's the whole concept, that mics that are in exactly the same place, but angled differently have no timing(phase) differences, because all sound hits them both at exactly the same time. As you move mics further apart (NOS, ORTF, spaced pairs), you introduce more and more timing differences as well as level differences. Of course even with X/Y you have some phase/timing differences because 100% coincidence is a theoretical concept, and not a physical possibility - the two capsules can't occupy the exact same space. But with X/Y used in situations where it was intended - like micing an orchestra from a fair distance, it's close enough to be 99.99999% level differences and virtually no timing. Placed 6 inches from a guitar, where the guitar is also giving off difference tones, levels, and phases from different parts of the top and the small differences in spacing in X/Y end up having at least a little phase info as well as tone and level differences. The same differences in theory vs the way we use mics on a guitar tends to show up with any mic set, even something like spaced pairs. Using spaced pairs on an orchestra far away is a whole different thing than closing micing a guitar, where it's almost like you're picking up two totally different sound sources.

A quick search should turn up a lot of background on how level/phase/mic placement relate. Here's on article from SOS that touches on some of it:

https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/199...reomiking.html

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Yes of course and perhaps a bit to declarative of a statement. But to just clarify, I did not did say "two different mic's" I said "two mics". And went on to include some caveat's, to that statement. And now with the part I was not addressing (the different discrepancies) that matched pair might pic up as opposed to a duped single mic technique. The statement is indeed perhaps not accurate in totality.But none the less I still think the significantly largest amount of perceived difference in a stereo recording is time domain and panning.

What would be a truly interesting and confirming test. That would indeed put all this to rest. Would be a blind listening test with a single mic and a pair of the same mics.
Do a time slipped dup of the single with some slight eq. differences, then a stereo track of the pair run dry. Then see if in reality that first, the difference can be consistently identified, and also then if identifying which is actually which, can be accomplished consistently.

Lastly and perhaps it goes without saying he other factor in all this the context of use. If the intended use is for a solo acoustic instrumental track then I think squeezing the last few percent of quality out of stereo recording is certainly the primary goal . As soon as we start adding other instruments into the mix, the priority then begins to shift and increasingly so as more instruments are added.

I'm with you 100% on the idea that a blind "taste test" of the two concepts of generating a stereo image might prove interesting. I'm fairly certain that this isn't a new idea, though. It seems like there's already been some contributors in this topic that have stated a preference for true stereo miking over phase/time/EQ manipulation.

Perhaps someone will jump in to clarify that.

[sdelsolray]

There are two places from which I listen to an acoustic guitar live and unamplified. First, I listen from above and slightly behind when I'm playing. Second, I listen from out in front, more or less, when listening to someone else play, usually some distance away from the source (I'm leaving aside listening from the left or right side when I sit next to someone playing). Rarely have I listened out front from, say, two feet away, or 8" away, and it is impossible for me to change the distance between my ears.

Every mic combination/placement I use does not match where my ears are located when I listen to an acoustic guitar being played. It is not surprising that any recording I make does not have the same soundstage, sonority and presentation that I hear when listening as detailed above. It sounds different. Not necessarily worse or better, just different.

Is there a way to make a recording sound more closely to what I hear when listening in real time to the actual source (i.e., not a recording, not amplified)? I believe the answer is yes, but it's just a matter of how close or authentic. Of course, nothing says that getting close is any sort of holy grail. Moving away from or tweaking an authentic soundstage, sonority and presentation in a recording often results in very pleasing aural results.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by KevWind

What would be a truly interesting and confirming test. That would indeed put all this to rest. Would be a blind listening test with a single mic and a pair of the same mics.
Do a time slipped dup of the single with some slight eq. differences, then a stereo track of the pair run dry. Then see if in reality that first, the difference can be consistently identified, and also then if identifying which is actually which, can be accomplished consistently.

I have already gone into some detail in this thread why this would not be equivalent and I and Doug already presented recorded examples in this thread. Two separate mikes pick up different sets of frequencies as well as differences in timing. Taking one mike, doubling the track and delaying one of these tracks won't be the same. You might get a little farther with very detailed equalization on one track and you might like the result, but it won't duplicate stereo, especially spaced pair stereo. For a visual see my waveform post seven posts up.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

I have already gone into some detail in this thread why this would not be equivalent and I and Doug already presented recorded examples in this thread. Two separate mikes pick up different sets of frequencies as well as differences in timing. Taking one mike, doubling the track and delaying one of these tracks won't be the same. You might get a little farther with very detailed equalization on one track and you might like the result, but it won't duplicate stereo, especially spaced pair stereo. For a visual see my waveform post seven posts up.

No doubt a time slipped mono recording will not sound the same I agree it will sound different than a stereo and I believe my post mentions that ("that the difference can be consistently identified"). The question and purpose of the test I am talking about, is to determine "how discernible will the difference actually be ?". If I am not mistaken Doug's and your examples is of the method mentioned in the article and not the one I am describing. If you posted such a sample I missed it. Unfortunately at this point it is still an academic exercise because I no longer have a pair of the same mic's with which to test. And of course "might like the result" regardless of the specific method, is for me the entire point of recording and engineering in the first place.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by KevWind

No doubt a time slipped mono recording will not sound the same I agree it will sound different than a stereo and I believe my post mentions that ("that the difference can be consistently identified"). The question and purpose of the test I am talking about, is to determine "how discernible will the difference actually be ?". If I am not mistaken Doug's and your examples is of the method mentioned in the article and not the one I am describing. If you posted such a sample I missed it. Unfortunately at this point it is still an academic exercise because I no longer have a pair of the same mic's with which to test. And of course "might like the result" regardless of the specific method, is for me the entire point of recording and engineering in the first place.

My example was from using a matched pair of mikes. How similar you can come with a duplication of one mike + time shift + equalization matching the sound of the original two mike stereo depends in part on the stereo mike placement - not even close with spaced pair, somewhat closer with coincident mikes.

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

There are two places from which I listen to an acoustic guitar live and unamplified. First, I listen from above and slightly behind when I'm playing. Second, I listen from out in front, more or less, when listening to someone else play, usually some distance away from the source (I'm leaving aside listening from the left or right side when I sit next to someone playing). Rarely have I listened out front from, say, two feet away, or 8" away, and it is impossible for me to change the distance between my ears.

Every mic combination/placement I use does not match where my ears are located when I listen to an acoustic guitar being played. It is not surprising that any recording I make does not have the same soundstage, sonority and presentation that I hear when listening as detailed above. It sounds different. Not necessarily worse or better, just different.

Is there a way to make a recording sound more closely to what I hear when listening in real time to the actual source (i.e., not a recording, not amplified)? I believe the answer is yes, but it's just a matter of how close or authentic. Of course, nothing says that getting close is any sort of holy grail. Moving away from or tweaking an authentic soundstage, sonority and presentation in a recording often results in very pleasing aural results.

How about a pair of omnis and a Jecklin Disc?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

My example was from using a matched pair of mikes. How similar you can come with a duplication of one mike + time shift + equalization matching the sound of the original two mike stereo depends in part on the stereo mike placement - not even close with spaced pair, somewhat closer with coincident mikes.

Ok your example was with a matched pair. And your example was the method in the article correct? 3 tracks high and low pass filters and center track up in level no time slip.

I'm not clear as to why the differences of that method is relevant in the context of two tracks, no high or low pass and slight eq differences and slight time slip.

It may well be exactly as you say "not even close with a spaced pair " positioning and I am not saying otherwise, so I see no debate. I was simply suggesting that "if" that is the case , then I presume it will be consistently identifiable in a blind test. And would be interesting to do so.
Is there some reason you feel such a test would not be educational ? Or are you simply staking out your prediction as to anticipated result ?

And certainly if a spaced stereo pair is the sound that you prefer then indeed that would logically be the most accurate method to that spaced pair stereo sound. And that is certainly a common and valid goal and method.

However.
Because I agree with what sdelsolray said that first off and foremost, no recorded sound of any method actually sounds the same same as either sitting in the room listening to an un amplified acoustic or playing an un amplified acoustic. No matter the method of recording all recorded sound is "artificial" compared to live. And I predict, that difference would be in a blind test accurately identified every time.

With that in mind it then becomes simply a matter of which "artificial" method is personally preferred to get what is personally deemed "the sound I am after". In terms of getting close to having a recording sound like listening live, if that is your goal that is quite valid. BUT I happen to also agree with sdelsolray that "Of course, nothing says that getting close is any sort of holy grail".

Be that as it may, in the vein of getting close to what the player hears. That was the goal of the engineer who recorded my demo songs in Nashville.
He used a pair of Shure KSM 44 LDC's
On was placed out from the 12th fret about 18" and up about 8" and pointing angled down at the neck. the other was placed up about 8" from right shoulder height (right handed player) directly over the body of the guitar and facing directly down. And the sound was quite good, and interestingly enough worked well in a about a 15 track mix.

[rick-slo]

Kevwind, if you want to, experiment with these raw recording files which are the stereo recording, the right mono track, and left mono track - all 16 bit 44100 sample rate wav files - from an earlier recording of mine.
http://dcoombsguitar.com/Misc/RebeccaStereo.wav
http://dcoombsguitar.com/Misc/RebeccaR.wav
http://dcoombsguitar.com/Misc/RebeccaL.wav

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

How about a pair of omnis and a Jecklin Disc?

Yes, along with ORTF (if both placements are far enough out in front). A pair of wide cardioids or omnis placed over the shoulders (L and R) seems to capture the above and slightly behind hearing position, but that placement makes me nervous. I swear some of my mics can hear my eyes blink.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Kevwind, if you want to, experiment with these raw recording files which are the stereo recording, the right mono track, and left mono track - all 16 bit 44100 sample rate wav files - from an earlier recording of mine.
http://dcoombsguitar.com/Misc/RebeccaStereo.wav
http://dcoombsguitar.com/Misc/RebeccaR.wav
http://dcoombsguitar.com/Misc/RebeccaL.wav

Thanks I'll give em a whirl this week looks like the weather is going to be yucky

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

Yes, along with ORTF (if both placements are far enough out in front). A pair of wide cardioids or omnis placed over the shoulders (L and R) seems to capture the above and slightly behind hearing position, but that placement makes me nervous. I swear some of my mics can hear my eyes blink.

Ha I once used the mic positions and mics I described in the Nashville demos. I had just recovered from respiratory cold and was just doing the git parts. And low and behold there in my (beautiful) playing was and odd wheezing noise of me breathing in and out.

[Doug Young]

Jecklin or ORTF is meant to approximate your ears, but there are lots of other issues. If you recorded, say, from 12 inches away, and then listen to headphones, you should get a reasonable close approximation of what you would hear if you were listening from the same spot. Of course, as sdelsolrey points out, we usually don't listen to a guitar with our ears a few inches from the soundhole. And up close, our ears don't have proximity effect the same way mics (at least cardiods) do, so there may be some differences. Once you get further back, you're hearing the guitar from a more realistic audience perspective, but the room starts to dominate, and mics don't pick up quite the same way as our ears/brains, so the sound may not seem so similar.

Kev, there's also the whole collection of raw tracks in Scott Wigham's "library" that he and I recorded using different mic patterns that you could play with. That was partly why Scott set up that collection, so people could play around with raw unprocessed tracks. I'm confused about the goal tho, you just want to know if someone can hear specific stereo techniques, including artificial processing? I'd say yes, some of the time, especially if you're listening on good monitors and know what your listening for, and other times no. A very definitive "maybe" :-)

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

…you just want to know if someone can hear specific stereo techniques, including artificial processing? I'd say yes, some of the time, especially if you're listening on good monitors and know what your listening for, and other times no. A very definitive "maybe" :-)

Hi Doug...

The best recordings are the ones where I find myself captivated by the music, and the musicality, not the ones that leave me wondering about the recording techniques.

Your recordings rate high on my list.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi Doug...

The best recordings are the ones where I find myself captivated by the music, and the musicality, not the ones that leave me wondering about the recording techniques.

Your recordings rate high on my list.

Thanks Larry. For me, recording's a lot like any technique, you want to put your time on the mechanics, so that when the time comes to actually use them, you don't have to worry much about them, and can just focus on the music. Like most technique things, if you do it right (which means focusing on a lot of technical details at some point), then the listener just hears the music and never notices the technique. Do it wrong, and the listener will be distracted and notice the lack of technique instead of hearing the music.