omichalis
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:41 am ((PDT))
You can go from X/Y to M/S any time just by doing the necessary math..
that' s of course a matter of taste, but I would prefer my files in X/Y for=
mat, just because I don' t like extra post production work..
I don' t have experience on this - so not sure if there are any point I mis=
s here, but in theory it' s really easy to jump again from X/Y into M/S, ad=
just the balance and then re-decode into X/Y...I think that most processing=
plug-ins like the one Dan mentions operate this way..
m
On 16 =CE=91=CF=85=CE=B3 2010, at 6:53 =CE=BC.=CE=BC., Dan Dugan wrote:
> > If you need to monitor you can use the matrix in a device to hear how i=
t's going to sound, but if you record that matrix and not each mic independ=
ently you loose any post control as you'll just be recording stereo.
>
> Stereo from a one-point source, which means that an image-processing plug=
-in like Waves S1 can adjust the width just as well as having separate M an=
d S. My argument against laying down MS files is that in the future when a =
technician accesses your files, it's quite likely they won't know it's MS a=
nd it won't be decoded properly. No problem with an organization like the B=
BC that uses MS as its normal workflow, but otherwise many, perhaps most, a=
udio people don't understand it.
>
> -Dan
>
>
|