A wiki Recording encyclopedia

[KennyLusk]

Great thread! Thanks Jeff.

[cdbabel]

I'd just like to point everyone to my favorite new articles on wikiRecording that came from people on this message board.

This is my current favorite. Its a reasonably comprehensive article on the mid-side micing technique (what it is, how to do it, why it works.)

http://www.wikirecording.org/index.php? ... e&rcid=203

Here is a nice article on basic waveform shapes:

http://www.wikirecording.org/index.php? ... ms&rcid=77

And a nice one on Compression:

http://www.wikirecording.org/index.php/Compression

Finally, a good overview of DAW:

http://www.wikirecording.org/index.php/DAW

Thanks for all your help!

[Professor]

Hey Jeff, that's a really nice adaptation of my Mid-Side explanation. Thanks.
I do, however, have one small beef with the diagram...
It shows two significantly different microphones. It would be nicer, I think, to show two multi-pattern LDCs aimed 90? apart.
I'll see about typing up something to add to the article about why it makes sense to use microphones that are as closely matched as possible. The general idea is that since the volume difference of Mid vs. Side and the pattern differences on the Mid mic cause such a fluxation in the resulting angle and pattern of the mics, then having mics with significantly different frequency responses will shift the image as you move up and down the spectrum. Also, the response time and other factors that vary from mic-to-mic can cause the effect to break down.
There's certainly potential for using different mics, but a true beginner should aim to start with matched mics.

I'll write that up more formally & in-depth and get it to you later.

But hey, thanks for the inclusion.

-Jeremy

[cdbabel]

Hey Jeff, that's a really nice adaptation of my Mid-Side explanation. Thanks.
I do, however, have one small beef with the diagram...
It shows two significantly different microphones. It would be nicer, I think, to show two multi-pattern LDCs aimed 90? apart.
I'll see about typing up something to add to the article about why it makes sense to use microphones that are as closely matched as possible. The general idea is that since the volume difference of Mid vs. Side and the pattern differences on the Mid mic cause such a fluxation in the resulting angle and pattern of the mics, then having mics with significantly different frequency responses will shift the image as you move up and down the spectrum. Also, the response time and other factors that vary from mic-to-mic can cause the effect to break down.
There's certainly potential for using different mics, but a true beginner should aim to start with matched mics.

I'll write that up more formally & in-depth and get it to you later.

But hey, thanks for the inclusion.

-Jeremy

So should I make a picture using two figure-8 mics?

I did a little research about figure-8 mics and put up an entry:

http://www.wikirecording.org/index.php? ... 8&rcid=230

But I'm still a little confused about what microphones in general are figure 8 microphones. The only thing I picked up was that some ribbon microphones are figure-8 microphones.

If anyone could expand my figure-8 entry, that would be fantastic!

[Professor]

No, not two fig-8 microphones but two large diaphragm mics.
You did a nice job redrawing that photo of the AT-4051 & AKG C-414 from the U-Audio page, but a better drawing would be a pair of C-414s, with one in profile and one looking straight on. That's kind of the difficulty of drawing it in a diagram. I'll see if i can scrounge up a drawing of the two polar patterns overlaid.
It just shouldn't an SDC cardioid with an LDC fig-8 at least not for a 'text book' style example.

-Jeremy

[John Jeffers]

I seem to be doing most of the work over there. I know that there are people smarter than me on this board who could be contributing.

[cdbabel]

I seem to be doing most of the work over there. I know that there are people smarter than me on this board who could be contributing.

Amen!

And btw, your contributions have been awesome. You really making this site come alive.

[cdbabel]

I just sent an email to Music Thing telling them about WikiRecording.

If those of you who like WikiRecording could visit the blog (its really quite awesome) and send them an email saying how much you like the site, it would probably help.

Here's the site: http://musicthing.blogspot.com/

Thanks for your support!

[seaneldon]

i'll write up a few things for it. cool idea.

[FailedSitcom]

I just sent an email to Music Thing telling them about WikiRecording.

If those of you who like WikiRecording could visit the blog (its really quite awesome) and send them an email saying how much you like the site, it would probably help.

Here's the site: http://musicthing.blogspot.com/

Thanks for your support!

Although I'm not sure about flooding them with e-mails, you might consider contacting MatrixSynth as well.

Brilliant idea by the way!

[cdbabel]

I just sent an email to Music Thing telling them about WikiRecording.

If those of you who like WikiRecording could visit the blog (its really quite awesome) and send them an email saying how much you like the site, it would probably help.

Here's the site: http://musicthing.blogspot.com/

Thanks for your support!

Although I'm not sure about flooding them with e-mails, you might consider contacting MatrixSynth as well.

Brilliant idea by the way!

Wasn't quite hoping for a flood, but just one or two would probably help. I'll check out matricsynth.

[cdbabel]

Ok, I don't chime in very often, but this one really spiked my interest... I think it's a great concept! I have a few ideas that I thought I would present and you can do with them what you will (or will not)....

One major issue I see is that of terminology used in articles. I bring this up because, as we all know - recording/live sound/broadcasting/audio equipment/etc... All have their own esoteric gibberish and for the large part everyone has a different name for the same concept or peice of equipment. I'm just wondering if it might be worth getting a small group of the "pros" (Jeremy, et al) and trying to reach a consensus on some terminology, if nothing else. For instance, will the "wiki standard" for *placing a microphone to transduce the sound generated by a source* be micing, miking, mic'ing, or something else all together. Or will we say DI, Direct Box, Direct Injection Box, etc?

I realize that this is all somewhat subjective and forcing everyone to use the same terminology (especially if they disagree with it) seems closed minded and kind of "hoaky," but lets look at the advantages to the concept.... We could solve one of the problems that has plagued this and other recording forums since their inception by allowing the word *micing* (in example) to like to a dictionary like definition of that term, or for the word *condenser* in an article about am *sm-81* to lead to an article about condensers....

I'll rap this up, but another idea would be that if you were to go this route, perhaps there would be a way to display the list of already standardized terms on screen when one is in the "article editor" window so that they can simply click the word and have it show up where the cursor is in the window, or even if the terms were plain text so that one could select the word and drag it into an article.......

I apologize for the length of this post, but I hope that it might be worth something to somebody....

It seems I've found a solution to this issue, at-least for now. I've been going into every article and standardizing the terms. I decided on microphone for mic in general, micing (or more often "To record, place the microphone..." cause it sounds cleaner). This is strangely fun for me, because i get to read every article in depth checking for such things. I've learned a boatload already!

[Professor]

Must have missed that post when trekky first wrote it (sorry) but it's a good idea.
The AES Journal lists all of their standard abbreviations at the end of every issue, and you can see the list at the bottom of the 2nd page. I thought it included something about abbreviating "microphone" as well, but I may be thinking of something else. I know I've seen that in print somewhere, but it's easy enough to define a standard for the site. You could start from the AES standards and add in some obvious omissions like "high frequency = HF" and "low frequency = LF" and similar things we see written all the time.
From what I remember from wherever I read it, the standard for microphone is:
microphone, mic, mics, micing, miced - with an apostrophe optional such as mic'ed but never with a 'k'.
I think the apostrophe is silly because it's not the shortened form of "microphoned" as a past-tense verb. Nobody within our industry uses "microphone" as a verb, but "mic" has developed into a verb meaning 'to place a microphone before a sound source' or 'to capture sound with a microphone'. I'm not sure if this has made it to current dictionaries yet, but it is in printed usage enough now that it should be added just like "fax" or other words that have worked their way into common usage.
Other areas that could probably stand some defining might include terms like "desk" and "console" as piece of furniture vs. the British usage of "desk" to mean "mixing console". And while I will occasionally say "board", I usually try to differentiate that as either a casual term or as a reference to a small-format "mixer" or "mixing board" vs. a larger "console" or better still "mixing console" and sometimes "recordinng console". But I do hate seeing "sound board" because that is the resonating spruce panel inside a piano, and "mixer board", well that just sounds silly because mixer doesn't act as an adjective that way.
Oh, and I suppose something for speaker is important. I usually go with "speaker" or "loudspeaker" as the complete system made up from a set of "driver" with (or without) a "crossover" but certainly inside a "cabinet", all of which are "components" within the system.

-Jeremy

[Randy]

The American Heritage Dictionary says:
_______________________________________________
mike (mik) Informal
n. also mic (mik)
A microphone.

tr.v. miked, mik?ing, mikes
To supply with or transmit through a microphone.
_______________________________________________

This makes sense to me because "miced" seems like it needs to be pronounced with a soft "c." As if it had been ruined by mice.

[Professor]

Yeah, it certainly makes sense from an English teacher perspective, but in common usage it is mic, miced, micing in every trade publication. I think it's great that American Heritage dictionary has an entry at all, but I would disagree with the spelling because it doesn't match the spelling used in nearly every book or magazine I've ever read.
And ironically it is not the job of a dictionary to "define" a usage or spelling but to "record" the usage including the spelling of colloquial uses. Certainly this was done in the past and the best example is Noah Webster creating the first "American" dictionary which forever changed the spelling between American and British English words such as 'color' and 'colour'. In it's modern role, the dictionary should record the contemporary word usage. The computer industry, for example, decided to use the word "byte" for a multiple of "bits" and the dictionary writers shouldn't 'correct' their spelling to "bite" but simply record it as used in the technical literature. No more than they should change the spelling of "Iraq" to "Iraque" or "Irack" to observe spelling conventions.
So I'd suggest we go with the standards used within our industry and petition the dictionary company to adjust their entry.

-Jeremy