Hello MS-talkers,
John, you're making some excellent points here. Let me tune in to try takin=
g away some
part of the mythical aura of MS..
Although the way the recording setup works remains a bit magical (how can =
that ever
become a good stereo-signal?), the decoding process to L-R is very simple. =
That's why you
can do it with just 3 tracks and a polarity-inversion. (How to set it up ha=
s been described
many times here so I won't do that again).
Here's my point: The MS to LR decoding can VERY EASILY be reversed, you don=
't need a
special mambo-jumbo plugin for that! Why? Because the setup for the convers=
ion "MS to
LR" is exactly the same as "LR to MS", except that you loose 6 dB of gain i=
n the latter. Just
try it. Take an MS recording, insert a standard MS-decoder, insert a second=
one just
behind it and boost the level 6 dB. You will end up with exactly the same s=
ignal that you
started out with (except the lowest bits, I know, but if you record at 24 b=
its that's
somewhere around -100 dBFS which should be irrelevant if it's a proper reco=
rding. It's so
much more important to make a good recording!)
greets,
Max
--- In "John Lundsten" <=
> wrote:
>
> From: Rob Danielson
> Hi Andy,
> Yes, several of the MS plugs including +matrix have the math ability
> to reverse the process. I believe we determined in an earlier
> discussion on this list, however, that one cannot reclaim the exact
> same mid and side signals/tracks by this means. So, save your field
> M-S original files; they are unique.
>
> Not true, The process is 100% accurate, 100% reversible (if your doing t=
his
> digitally that is - kinda close with analog electronics) My demo "party
> piece" to demonstrate this to my students is to take 2 signals; some musi=
c
> in mono and something nasty sounding like White noise or Timecode. Then S=
um
> & difference these (IE MS encode them) then decode back to 2 very separat=
e &
> clean signals. If you listen to either just the M or the S you get load=
s
> of noise and barely audible music I tend to crank up the noise to emphasi=
se
> how effective this all works.
>
> BTW, Personally I tend to keep every generation, so I do save my MS
> originals.
>
> John Hartog Wrote
> "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? "
>
> The S chan is a record of what is DIFFERENT between the Left & Right.
> If you mono any stereo recording any diffeence is lost (its Mono yeh)
> In the case of MS this results in all the S info going, leaving you with=
> just a mic (the M) pointing on axis at the subject just as you would do i=
f
> you if you had originally made a mono recording.
> But
> In the case of XY, ORTF etc the sum of L&R will be from 2 mics that can=
> never be tottally coincident, hense there will be some comb filtering
> cancellantion because there will be some time delay of the same sound tha=
t
> is picked up by 2 mics spaced apart.
>
> "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?"
>
> No the M picks up ALL the sound (it's just there is no info as to what
> direction(s) the sounds came from.
> The S only picks up what is DIFFERENT between L&R. A Fig 8 mic in a MS ri=
g,
> does a rather good job of not hearing sounds from straight ahead in the
> middle. IE for a sound that arrives at the same time & at the same level =
in
> both channels there clearly is no Difference, hence it doesn't get record=
ed.
> But the S does record sound other than from straight ahead, the more they=
> get to either the extreme Left or Right the louder will be their
> contribution to the S signal.
> hope that helps
> regards
> JL
>
|