Re: X-Y -> M-S

Subject:	Re: X-Y -> M-S
From:	"John Hartog" hartogj
Date:	Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:42 am ((PDT))

I'm glad the MS topic has come up again, and now I have questions.

How is MS considered mono compatible, if when you sum the stereo L&R
you are left with only the information from the original M channel? Is
that really true?
Seems like the S channel that gets lost would normally contain a
majority of the information (like 2/3 or something considering a
cardioid M) of the original L&R mix (talk about phase cancellations!).
 If so that would not really be mono compatible at all, would it?

John Hartog

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
X-Y -> M-S, Andy Wilson Re: X-Y -> M-S, John Lundsten Re: X-Y -> M-S, Wild Sanctuary Re: X-Y -> M-S, John Hartog <= Re: X-Y -> M-S, Rob Danielson Re: X-Y -> M-S, Bruce Wilson Re: X-Y -> M-S, Lou Judson Re: X-Y -> M-S, John Lundsten Re: X-Y -> M-S, John Hartog Re: X-Y -> M-S, Lou Judson Re: X-Y -> M-S, Ed Anson Re: X-Y -> M-S, Rob Danielson Re: X-Y -> M-S, John Lundsten Re: X-Y -> M-S, Rob Danielson

Previous by Date:	Re: X-Y -> M-S, Wild Sanctuary
Next by Date:	Re: X-Y -> M-S, Rob Danielson
Previous by Thread:	Re: X-Y -> M-S, Wild Sanctuary
Next by Thread:	Re: X-Y -> M-S, Rob Danielson
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]

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