naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

6. Re: Decca Tree?

Subject: 6. Re: Decca Tree?
From: "John Lundsten" lundsten_john
Date: Wed Sep 3, 2008 3:31 pm ((PDT))
As I wrote previously the Frog / pond /narrator example is by no means a
proper MS recording. Interesting yes, proper MS no way.

Simple algebra is for sure a great way of explaining MS
Eg
Add M&S =3D Left (twice as loud)
Subtract S from M =3D Right (twice as loud)

The idea that Left + Left  =3D 2Left very much assumes both mics "hear" the=

Left {or Right} in the same way.

Ideally both mics should have the same frequency response (this is unlikely=

to be true unless one uses a matched pair of Fig8's) but much much more
importantly the mics need to be as Coincident as possible for this L+L=3D2L=
 to
work!

Ok. that's "proper" MS

But it's quite possible to do some interesting & useful things using MS lik=
e
techniques but one must understand the fact that the "S" channel whether
"proper" or otherwise will be lost - cancelled - gone if heard in mono.

An example of what I call phoney MS.

A camera is looking in profile at  a couple of actors, driver & front seat=

passenger in a car. There are small omni mics hidden on the "artists" that=

are mixed to mono - the mix will have clear dialogue a few dB's higher than=

the car noise. A 3rd mic is placed in the car such that it  picks up mostly=

car noise (& a V little dialogue). We "pretend" the mix is M & the 3rd mic=

is S.
The result heard in stereo is the dialogue  stays central, (there is
insufficient dialogue level in the "S" to shift it) but the relatively smal=
l
amount of car noise in the M will interact with the near pure car noise of=

the S to create a distinctly stereo sounding but ultimately directionless
stereo effect. Now if heard in mono all the extra noise from the S goes &
one is left with the dialogue at a subjectively sensible level above the ca=
r
noise. So the mix works for mono & stereo listeners.
John L

Scott Fraser
| <<let's say the
| narrator(or whatever subject of interest - a close-up frog at the
| edge of a pond full of croaking frogs in a field of chirring
| crickets?) is 12 inches in front of the M mic, and the S mic is
| capturing the forest sounds to provide the ambience to go with it.
| The M mic signal will have very little of the forest ambience
| relative to the narrator's voice, the majority of the forest
| ambience will be in the S mic signal. When summed to mono, the S
| signal disappears and takes most of the forest ambience with it,
| while the M mic signal doubles in amplitude. This creates a
| significant difference between the stereo and mono versions of the
| same recording, so in that respect it is reasonable to question the
| validity of claims that MS is mono compatible because it depends on
| what you mean by 'mono compatible'.>>
|
| This is an interesting example, & may illustrate why there might be a
| nomenclature issue at play in this discussion. I think this example
| shows that the Mid & Side elements will contain distinctly different
| information, leading to a sum not containing the width component,
| therefore not fitting the description of mono compatible. In my
| opinion, the proximity of the array to the narrator, & the distance
| between the narrator & any ambient sources, means this constitutes in
| effect a multitrack recording, not a true stereo field. Since the
| narrator is not integrated into the ambience & each mic is picking up
| distinct information, we have something closer to two mono sources
| rather than stereo. It's a very clever implementation of mic
| technique to achieve a legitimate effect, but when the subject exists
| solely in the Mid channel & is entirely in the null of the Side, I
| don't feel we can refer to that as stereo. Then again, properly
| decoding such an MS signal will be largely a matter of opinion
| anyway, since levels will be quite different & the material will not
| be coherent.
| Since this subject has somehow become highly charged & vaguely
| personal, I will reiterate that this is opinion about what
| constitutes "stereo" & not scientific fact concerning sum &
| difference math. And I also feel that true stereo, i.e. audio
| reproduction which mimics the ear/brain's sense of aural emplacement
| in three dimensional space, includes depth information in addition to
| width. The example of the narrator miked in MS at a distance of 12"
| will not convey depth nor width for the narrator.
|
| Scott Fraser
|
|
|


---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.15/1649 - Release Date: 9/3/2008
7:15 AM





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU