Thanks Lou and Bruce.
I think I get it now: the fundamental concern in "mono-compatibility"
is avoiding disturbing distortions like reverberation or comb filtering. =
What I brought up was a secondary way a recording might have
dissimilar content whether in stereo or mixed to mono. For example
when recording in MS and considering mono-compatibility, placing the
main subject on axis with the M mic might yield a better mono mix than
if the subject were placed to either side.
John Hartog
--- In Lou Judson <> wrote:
>
> I don't expect to be the only response to this, but - since the side is
> bidirectional, it cancels completely in mono, so there are no phase
> cancellations at all in the remaining signal. Yes, you lose the side
> information, but it is debatable if that is a "majority" of the
> information - the mid mic does catch it, just attenuated depending on
> the width of the pattern. In my uses, that attentuation is desirable.
> YMMV of course!
>
> <L>
>
> Lou Judson =95 Intuitive Audio
> 415-883-2689
>
> On Mar 11, 2007, at 11:41 AM, John Hartog wrote:
>
> > 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
>
|