> So the result of MS stereo summed to mono won't "...be identical to
> summed XY"
I think it will.
> and won't "...contain all the side information collapsed to
> the center".
Correct.
> That is the main difference between MS and XY.
They're interchangeable, theoretically. XY can be matrixed to MS and
vice-versa. But the real issue of off-axis mic responses makes real-
world recordings not so interchangeable.
> It is also
> one of the reasons why some film/television audio people have moved
> away from MS and towards XY (to bring us back to the catalyst behind
> this messy fruit salad).
Solves the problem of post people not knowing what to do with MS,
probably a significant issue. At the expense of slightly lower
quality, probably not an issue.
> You can create just about any XY equivalent with MS by choice of M
> capsule polar response and M:S ratio, but it will behave differently
> to the XY equivalent when summed to mono because the S will always
> cancel out completely. When it comes to summing to mono, MS and XY are
> as different as apples and oranges.
Doesn't summing XY give you the equivalent of a cardioid mic facing
forward? (But not as good as a real cardioid because it's only perfect
in the horizontal plane, and the response is degraded to the mics' 45-
degree off-axis response.)
-Dan Dugan
|