Posted by: "maxfrick78"
> Rob,
> yeah, the math here is based on unity settings.. that's why it only works=
in that case.
> (Thanks Umashankar).
Note that the pretty math formulas are not the only way you can do M/S.
They are a simplification of the full range of possible M/S settings.
> Why do you care so much about the 'original' field files? Earlier in this=
thread the relative
> volume of the side-channel was discussed, should it be recorded to make a=
'natural'
> stereo-image, or should it be recorded louder to achieve best saturation =
of the medium?
I've done it both ways. When I first started recording M/S, I asked
around and the advice I got from experienced users of M/S was to record
each channel at optimum record settings and worry about the relative
levels between the two channels later when processing the decode. I've
found I get consistently the best results when I do this.
I don't monitor the stereo image in the field, but just monitor the mid
only. I can judge directionality just fine doing that. Both channels are
set to the same headroom on the metering, which nearly always means
applying more gain to the S mic. Monitoring the undecoded M/S will lead
to aiming errors, and monitoring the decoded stereo will lead to a
weakly recorded S channel most of the time.
> This discussion shows that there no such thing as an 'absolutely correct =
width' of the
> stereo image during the recording stage. The adjustability of the width i=
s even one of the
> nicest features of MS-recording. So just adjust it to taste and need and =
enjoy... ?
You can vary the width within limits and that is one of the advantages
of M/S. If you push too far for extra width the overall quality of the
stereo field will suffer. You certainly don't have to be a slave to one
setting for your M/S decoding.
Walt
|