[Top] [All Lists]

Re: M/S decoding help

Subject: Re: M/S decoding help
From: "maxfrick78" maxfrick78
Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 4:20 am (PDT)
--- In  Rob Danielson <> wrote:
> At 11:45 AM +0000 7/8/06, maxfrick78 wrote:
> >  > M-S  can be recorded as "encoded" or as discrete M and S channels. I
> >>  prefer the later because  there are more options when creating the
> >>  stereo image in post using speakers or whatever monitoring I want to
> >>  emulate.=A0
> >
> >
> >Hi everybody,
> >many people have expressed the preference of
> >recording MS-mics to discrete mid and side
> >tracks. I would prefer the opposite since if you
> >record a decoded "normal stereo" signal
> >you can much easier audition and handle your
> >material because it's just like using any
> >other stereo file.
> Hi Max--
> [An aside: M-S stereo image monitoring in the
> field isn't a high priority for me. Because its a
> fixed jig, I usually position my M-S rig in a
> setting with my ears/hand claps and referring to
> vegetation, land-forms, relief etc. I do refer to
> headphone monitoring with my adjustable ORTF rig.
> My monitoring needs are quite different from
> recording a specific species with a shotgun mic!
> :-) ]
> My question is, when you save your field
> recordings in your library, do you use a system
> to identify the stereo files that you recorded
> with an M-S array?

Hey Rob,
I would call the files "FileName MS-ST.aif" (for MS-Stereo). Then "FileName=
 MS.aif" would
be a discrete MS-recording.
Unfortunatly the decent MS-setup I would like to own is out of my budget so=
 far, so I can't
record my own sounds in MS but I regularely use MS-recordings of ambiences =
(made by
others) in my job (film post). And yes, they always record it as discrete M=
 and S channels,
that's why got a bit annoyed by it.. ;-)
It would be simpler for me if they had decoded it to stereo and I would hav=
e to use MS-
encoders/decoders only if I really needed it for the scene (if we're talkin=
g about sound in
film-post). But maybe it's just me..

> >  ...the conversion LR -> MS -> LR is fairly
> >simple and doesn't change a thing in the actual
> >source material.
> Have you tested this by chance? I've been
> thinking it might be prudent to confirm that an
> identical pair could be re-created if needed. Rob
> D.

You can easily try it yourself using two MS-decoders in a row and boosting =
the signal
+6dB in the end. You'll end up with what you started. I have to admit that =
I haven't done
any really heavy testing on this but it is a technique used in music-master=
ing; encoding +
decoding complete mixes to alter the mid-channel only, for example.
And yes, Ed is right, as in any processing in the digital domain there woul=
d be some
changes if you dive deep enough. 24 bit files are a great plus here.
My point was that nobody should be afraid of storing their MS-recordings de=
coded to
stereo because you can alway turn it back to MS. It's just a bit of summing=
 and phase-
swapping, nothing more. No magical "messing with your stereo-image" or some=
thing like

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU