--- In Scott Fraser
<> wrote:
> This is an interesting example, & may illustrate why there might
be a
> nomenclature issue at play in this discussion.
Right. It is very important to keep terms clarified as much as
possible. This is what I was getting at when questioning the concept
of 'mono compatible' - it depends on your definition or expectations
of what 'mono compatible' actually is. The phrase itself needs
clarifying when using it, to define whether one means 'sums to mono
with no comb filtering' or 'sums to mono without losing any of the
stereo information', or both.
> 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.
Well... that depends on your definition of 'mono compatible'! The
narrator example will sum to mono with no comb filtering problems,
so in that respect it *is* perfectly mono compatible. But it will
not contain all of the same information as the stereo version, so in
that respect it is perfectly *not* mono compatible.
- Greg Simmons
|