Dan,
nice statement about the "legs" ! I very much agree with you on recording a=
stereo-image
that is natural and meaningful, so whoever uses it later gets a good impres=
sion by just
listening to the raw material.
Just for the record: I didn't really ASK that question but only referred to=
it in my post (it
was discussed earlier by other people) to point out the flexibility of an M=
S-stereo
recording (geez, I love it so much... 8-)
greets,
Max
--- In Dan Dugan <> wrote:
>
> Max, you wrote,
>
> >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?
>
> A matter of personal style. I argue that the best original MS
> recording is one that decodes into a realistic stereo image without
> adjustment. Of course that means that the meter for the side channel
> will read lower when you're recording a frontal sound, but that's the
> way it should be! Same thing for surround channels--pre-mix a
> reasonable balance in the field, tweak later.
>
> Think about this. When you are recording stereo, and the main sound
> source is mainly on the right side, should you turn up the left
> channel so the meters read the same? I don't think so.
>
> My rationale for that is to give my recordings "legs," so that people
> can make use of my archives after I'm dead and gone. If somebody
> pulls up one of my MS recordings a hundred years from now, I want
> them to be able to hear it the way I think it ought to sound in
> stereo without adjustment.
>
> In the field this means monitoring through a decoder, and setting the
> m/s ratio so the width sounds right. It can always be adjusted later,
> but in my opinion a natural balance is the starting point.
>
> -Dan Dugan
>
|