<> wrote:
>
> As I wrote previously the Frog / pond /narrator example is by no
means a
> proper MS recording. Interesting yes, proper MS no way.
Greg Simmons wrote
With nomenclature being an issue here, can you please elaborate on
your definition of 'proper MS'?
It is recorded with a proper MS rig, in this case using a cardioid
and bidirectional coincident pair, with the cardioid facing forwards
and the bidirectional facing 90 degrees to the left of centre.
JL} Yes that is a proper MS recording in my books. What previously made me=
confident it was not, was you saying "the forest ambience disappears
altogether". Now in my experience (I've done well over a thousand MS
recordings) this can't happen with a coincident rig so I assumed wrongly,
sorry, you must have spaced the M & the S.
So I'm having difficulty knowing what effect you are referring to. After
all the M being a cardioid will pick up all the sound it is pointing at, Eg=
0deg maximum or ref level 45deg to L&R -3db & 90deg 6dB down. And this will=
be essentially the same for XY too.
Ok as to "proper" MS
Ideally MS is a pure Sum & Difference of L&R
If one took a normal LR stereo mix (could be from XY, a mix console,
whatever)
added L to R =3D Sum =3D M
subtract LfromR =3D diff =3D S
That is absolutely perfect MS (if done digitally, good analog can come V
close)
IE the L contained within the M is identical in phase & Eq to the L
contained within the S
So if the M & the S are added one gets a perfect reconstruction of L but
twice as loud.
Using mics will never be quite this good, particularly if one chooses to us=
e
mics with very dissimilar frequency responses but I suggest with a knowledg=
e
of exactly what minor or major compromises are being made from the ideal
very good results are to be had.
John L
|