naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: X-Y -> M-S

Subject: Re: X-Y -> M-S
From: "Bruce Wilson" bruceumba
Date: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:01 pm ((PDT))
XY, when done properly, is also mono-compatible, but ORTF isn't.

Imagine a single sound source in front of a pair of mics. If the wave peak=

from the source hits both mics at exactly the same moment you get a
mono-compatible signal, because when you add both signals together (to make=

the mono channel) there is only constructive interference between the two
recorded signals.

Now imagine the source to be to the side. Further, imagine that the XY setu=
p
is side-by-side, not one on top of the other. Now when the sound peak
arrives it will strike one mic before the other. If the spacing is just
right the X+Y signal will have a fully-canceled signal, so the source is no=
t
heard, only the out-of-phase reverberations.

XY can be mono-compatible, but it's very difficult to do for a wide
soundfield and mics larger than a bean. The side-by-side XY setup is prone=

to errors from sources that are to the side, and the above-below XY setup i=
s
prone to errors in sources above and below the mics. MS suffers the same
way, but by putting all the out of phase info in a single channel you at
lease get a clean mono channel out of it. A perfect solution might be three=

recorded channels--four if you want two mono channels at different levels,=

and two channels for the stereo. Now where was that Edirol catalog...?

Bruce Wilson KF7K
http://science.uvsc.edu/wilson



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

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