Just a little further -
On principle M-S processing is most effective and predictable on
phase-coherent / single point stereo, as is produced by Mid-Side, Blumlein,
or XY. With the two mic capsules separated and thus less phase-cohrerent -
as in Binaural, Spaced Omni, and somewhat ORTF and SASS, there's less of a
clear "oh yes this is what it does." Thus its use becomes more an aestheti=
c
choice, or a choice particular to a given recording and what sort of image
you're going for.
There's great info in the Waves S1 manual (I can send PDF if anyone's
interested, ping me off-list.)
Just re-reading it, and the description of Shuffling is informative.
-jeremiah
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Klas Strandberg <> wrote=
:
>
>
> jeremiah,
>
> Do you think it would be productive to encode binaural sound into MS
> and do the kind of manipulations you describe?
> Then back again?
>
> Klas.
>
>
> At 00:44 2009-12-16, you wrote:
> >regarding MS processing:
> >
> >Izotope's Ozone mastering plug-in contains internal MS dematrix/matrix, =
so
> >you can EQ mid and side separately, a-la Rob's technique.
> >
> >I've been using it here for some other tasks. It's a powerful EQ with bo=
th
> >FIR and "normal" modes, and a matching function which builds a FIR filte=
r
> to
> >match one sound's spectrum to another's. Also includes a limiter,
> >compressor, and multiband dynamics all in the same plugin instance.
> >
> >Downsides: relative to other EQs it's processor hungry (I can run maybe
> two
> >instances on my dual-2ghz mac G5, many more on an Intel mac). Also the
> >interface in general is somewhat complex, especially the presets load/sa=
ve
> >area. To be expected with so many features I suppose.
> >
> >It's US$200 which for a professional plug-in is quite reasonable, though
> >it's obviously MUCH more than using the free Soundhack MS plugs.
> >
> >Anyway, it's been a valuable addition here and for anyone heavily into M=
S
> >processing it may be worth a look.
> >
> >(no affiliation with izotope - just an end user.)
> >
> >-jeremiah
> >
> >
> >
> >On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Rob Danielson <<type%40uwm=
.edu>>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > At 4:45 PM +0100 12/15/09, Klas Strandberg wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >The hole is a consequence of the two mikes, boosting HF sideways and
> > > >can only (...?) be heard (in a bothersome
> > > >way..?) when you record awidespread "sparkle all
> > > >around" as when the grain snow hit the frozen
> > > >leaves in this almost panorama way.
> > > >
> > > >A more "common" stereo picture is at the the ending of
> > > ><http://www.telinga.com/gallery/tripple_birdfeed.mp3>
> > > http://www.telinga.com/gallery/tripple_birdfeed.mp3
> > > >where you don=B4t
> > > >clearly hear the hole, as there are no audible HF getting boosted
> > > >from the sides. Birds are flying between the feeder and a tree at th=
e
> > > >left, and I don't hear any bothersome change of wing sounds over the
> area.
> > > >I have tried out a prototype where the mic capsules point forward,
> > > >not to "shade" themselves, but then I loose some of the "crispiness"
> > > >that I like and that so easily can be filtered, then also reducing
> > > >some of the mic self noise.
> > >
> > > Of course, all stereo arrays have draw-backs and
> > > one's preference can depend on what one considers
> > > to be more natural, more striking, more accurate,
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > Some listeners prefer the additional HF contrast
> > > between the LEFT and RIGHT speakers because it
> > > gives a sense that the sound horizon has more
> > > spread. However, even omni mic capsules are
> > > slightly treble-centric-- the "center" of their
> > > polar pattern is more sensitive to HF than the
> > > sides (usually). When the mic capsules are
> > > directed out or (opposing) towards the sides, the
> > > LEFT speaker and RIGHT speaker contrast is
> > > heightened. In directing both capsules straight
> > > forward, (oriented perpendicular to a flat
> > > boundary or tangential to a spherical or curved
> > > one), the center of the field is rendered with
> > > more HF emphasis. Moving the capsule diaphragm
> > > out of the pressure zone tends to simplify the
> > > "cues" as the capsule is no longer in the
> > > "pressure zone" that comes with mounting the
> > > capsule with the diaphragm flush to the boundary.
> > > There are many opinions about the plusses and
> > > minus's of capsule orientation. I personally
> > > feel, given the effects of the options, that
> > > front-facing capsule orientation is more
> > > "natural" in that it establishes a "front stage"
> > > where sounds become symmetrically darker as they
> > > move towards the sides. The head-spacing/timing
> > > differences are preserved and there is plenty of
> > > LEFT - RIGHT contrast and horizontal spread. (One
> > > stereo array with flush-mounted capsules that
> > > seems to be an exception is the SASS. I've never
> > > been able to do side-by side comparisons with
> > > one.)
> > >
> > > Creating a HF boost in the center of the stereo
> > > field has other advantages. Traditional EQ
> > > affects center and side tonality _at the same
> > > time_. If one uses standard parametric EQ to
> > > reduce extra crispness at 4K Hz from hard left
> > > and hard right, the crispness/tonality of the
> > > center is also lessened. I think better overall
> > > side-to-center tonal balance after EQ can be
> > > achieved with forward-facing capsule orientation.
> > >
> > >
> > > >If "State of the Art" measurements + a good middle is required, only
> > > >the best M/S system will do and then we enter into another world, yo=
u
> > > know.
> > > >Still, I must say, - I have heard professional M/S recordings which
> > > >have been less "alive" than from binaural and semi-binaural set-up's=
,
> > > >some M/S has even been "flat".
> > >
> > > Some listeners prefer a very EVEN stereo field
> > > where the sounds are more closely positioned
> > > across the middle. Coincident stereo arrays like
> > > X-Y and M-S can do this (though the later needs
> > > to be carefully adjusted). These arrays tend* to
> > > have less left-right contrast and with the X-Y
> > > array, sounds can feel bunched together in the
> > > center. With M-S and X-Y there is no timing
> > > difference analogous to the spread of the ears
> > > and no baffle or boundary cues produced as with
> > > our heads. *Note many recordists that use M-S
> > > rigs tend to lower the level of the center mic to
> > > create more left right contrast.
> > >
> > > There's another way, in post, to adjust the
> > > tonality of the Center and the Sides of the
> > > stereo field separately. It involves using "plug
> > > ins" in the mixing chain. We first discussed
> > > this technique in this list a year or so ago.
> > > Here's a screen shot of the chain I've been using:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/public/media/MixingChain_EQBetweenM-SPlu=
gs.jpg
> > >
> > > I've been mixing material generated by a number
> > > of stereo arrays over the past few weeks and
> > > sometime this technique works very well and other
> > > times not. I'm looking for patterns. Rob D.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Best wishes from Klas and a snowy Sweden.
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
>
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> >jeremiah moore | SOUND | <jmoore%40northstation.n=
et>
> >http://www.jeremiahmoore.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
>
> >
> >"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> >sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
> S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
> Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
> email: <telinga%40bahnhof.se>
> website: www.telinga.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
jeremiah moore | SOUND |
http://www.jeremiahmoore.com/
|