The use of the term,"X-Y" is confusing me. Do we
mean "L/R" where L is Mid and Right is Side?
"X-Y" is a type of stereo array.
I agree with Dan it makes a lot of sense in
respect to work-flow to be able to record and
save the recording as playable stereo. In the
past, popular wisdom on this list was to NOT
encode MS in the field (just monitor in M-S when
possible) but we didn't talk about this practice
leading to duplicate "originals" (discrete and
encoded versions) that must be clearly labeled
and ID'd to avoid confusion for future uses. The
chances for confusion become really large if one
records with several different stereo arrays over
time.
The main reasons we suggested to not encode in
the field was the ability to fine tune the stereo
image and adjust the mid and side channels for
separate EQ treatment in post.
As Marianos seems to be suggesting, we can ask,
"Would it be possible to encode the M-S in the
field, and use a mathematically precise plugin
like +Matrix to obtain the Mid and Side discrete
channels _exactly_ as they would be had they not
been encoded?"
The answer appears to be YES if we assume that
the M-S encoding the plug-in "+Matrix" does is
exactly the same as that done by the recorder.
Here's how I got this answer:
A. I made an M-S recording on a 744T without
encoding it (Left=3DMid; Right=3DSide).
B. I made a simple copy of A at Unity.
C. I made another simple copy of A at Unity
adding +Matrix L/R->MS encoding (simulating
recorder M-S encoding)
D. I made a simple copy of "C" at Unity adding
+Matrix MS->L/R decoding (simulating what would
be done to a recorder-encoded file in post to
restore the Mid and Side channels)
E. I placed B and D in a timeline lined-up sample
by sample and they cancelled each other perfectly
with the phase inverted.
I'd say its highly likely that its safe to encode
MS in the field if your recorder can do it and
then use +Matrix MS->L/R decoding in your sound
editor to access the Mid and Side mics/files
followed by another +Matrix plug in L/R to M-S
mode to adjust stereo image. If you want more
control, you can add an EQ plug between the two
+Matrix plugs in the chain and use the left
channel controls for EQing middle of the stereo
field and the right channel controls for EQing
both sides of the stereo field. Rob D.
At 7:41 PM +0300 8/16/10, Marinos Koutsomichalis wrote:
>
>
>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 format, 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 miss here, but in
>theory it' s really easy to jump again from X/Y
>into M/S, adjust 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 =C3=89=C3=BC=C3=89"=C3=89=C2=A1 2010, at 6:53 =C3=89 .=C3=89 ., Dan =
Dugan wrote:
>
>> > If you need to monitor you can use the
>>matrix in a device to hear how it's going to
>>sound, but if you record that matrix and not
>>each mic independently 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 and 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 and it won't be
>>decoded properly. No problem with an
>>organization like the BBC that uses MS as its
>>normal workflow, but otherwise many, perhaps
>>most, audio people don't understand it.
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
|