Thanks for the clarifications, Max. Even with 24
bit files, bit depth saturation in quiet
locations often drops under 1%, so, having the
discrete original would be a high priority for
me. Then, the stereo files I export can go into
my library without special tagging because the
file number traces to the Mid & Side
originals/session for re-mixing needs.
Stacked LR>MS MS>LR plugs might be especially
useful for a person whose M-S mic doesn't have
the option to create discrete files, like a Sony
MS957? Rob D.
At 11:07 AM +0000 7/9/06, maxfrick78 wrote:
>--- 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 t=
o
>> >> 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 have to use MS-
>encoders/decoders only if I really needed it for
>the scene (if we're talking 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-mastering; 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 would 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 decoded 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 something like
>that.
>cheers,
>Max
>
>
--
Rob Danielson
Peck School of the Arts
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/
|