Hi James--
It worked, sample for sample using your E and C
chords/files. Here is the Reaper Session I used
with +Matrix plugs and with all the file
mentioned below:
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/type/public/media/James_MS_TEST.zip (8mb)
I took your E chord and made that Mid
I took your C chord and made that Side
I made a stereo file with Left=3DMid and Right =3D Side
I decoded the above file as a recorder would and
created this file: MS_Decoded.wav
I sent that through MS ->L/R Processing (at
unity) and then L/R ->MS Processing (at unity)
and produced this file: MS-LR-MS.wav
MS_Decoded.wav and MS-LR-MS.wav are the same.
Rob D.
=3D =3D =3D =3D
At 11:59 AM -0700 8/22/10, James Shatto wrote:
>
>
>It's a bash script. That runs sox a lot of
>times. AKA borne again shell and sound
>exchange. I've uploaded the generated 30 second
>wave files. For those without technical prowess
>to run the script. My former ISPs webspace
>limit is 10MB which these files exceed. Not
>including the individual pitches since those
>triple the archive size.
>
><http://www.sendspace.com/file/yfn71i>http://www.sendspace.com/file/yfn71i
>
>- James
>
>--- On Sun, 8/22/10, Rob Danielson
><<type%40uwm.edu>> wrote:
>
>From: Rob Danielson <<type%40uwm.edu>>
>Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] M/S recording setup
>To:
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=
m
>Date: Sunday, August 22, 2010, 10:35 AM
>
>
>
>At 1:16 AM -0700 8/22/10, James Shatto wrote:
>
>>I guess it depends on how you do the math. Not
>
>>a real world test by any means, but I
>
>>synthesized some stuff to better clarify my line
>
>>of thinking. Not that you'll have conditions
>
>>where M and S have matching phase + amp +
>
>>frequency (much) in practical applications.
>
>>But...
>
>>
>
>><<http://home.earthlink.net/~shadow_7/MS_TEST.sh>http://home.earthlink.ne=
t/~shadow_7/MS_TEST.sh><http://home.earthlink.net/~shadow_7/MS_TEST.sh>http=
://home.earthlink.net/~shadow_7/MS_TEST.sh
>
>incomplete extension on the uploaded file. .sh?
>
>>
>
>>It uses bash and sox to synth some pitches
>
>>across a broad range. Kept the root and 5th of
>
>>a chord unique to M and S. Mixed a common tone
>
>>(the third of a chord) between the two tracks
>
>>and the results were interesting. -S for the
>
>>right channel completely cancels out the 3rd of
>
>>the chord on the right channel. When going from
>
>>M and S to L and R.
>
>>
>
>>Going from the generated L and R back to M and
>
>>S. And +S and -S don't cancel each other out
>
>>anymore. And to make matters worse the 5th
>
>>which was unique to M (and NOT S) is the result
>
>>of trying to cancel S out. Not that it's a real
>
>>world practical test. And I probably didn't get
>
>>the math just right. But it seems a bit
>
>>interesting to me. Assuming that it's not some
>
>>software quirk with sox or my math.
>
>Hi James--
>
>Should work with any two, single channel sound
>
>files. Seems like your patch has issues.
>
>Has anyone done this experiment with a PC
>
>compatible plug-in in that is simple (e.g. having
>
>only mid and side gain adjustments with a unity
>
>position) like "+Matrix" is for Mac?
>
>Maybe try the experiment using the suggested simple MS matrix plug-in? Rob=
D.
>
>>
>
>>I was only expecting to find some minute
>
>>differences in the waveforms of the derived
>
>>versus original tracks when I started out. And
>
>>maybe some loss of frequencies in the upper
>
>>bands. Needless to say that the quirks I found
>
>>were VERY audible. The timing and other
>
>>variances of actual M/S would likely not yeild
>
>>the same results. Especially if M and S are NOT
>
>>mixed at unity gain. But it should lend some
>
>>credibility to recording the M and S tracks and
>
>>not the L and R tracks in the field. If you
>
>>intend on doing any editing IMO.
>
>>
>
>>- James
>
>>
>
>>--- On Fri, 8/20/10, Marinos Koutsomichalis
>
>><<marinos%40agxivatein.com><marinos%40agxivatein.com>marino=
>
>
>>wrote:
>
>>
>
>>From: Marinos Koutsomichalis
>
>><<marinos%40agxivatein.com><marinos%40agxivatein.com>marino=
>
>
>>Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] M/S recording setup
>
>>To:
>
>><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com><naturerecordists%40yah=
oogroups.com>
>
>>Date: Friday, August 20, 2010, 2:04 AM
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>I still think that if the maths are done
>
>>correctly there will be no loss at all.. some
>
>>plugins may have 'strange' algorithms for doing
>
>>this, but if you find the right one, or better
>
>>if you program this yourself in some platform
>
>>then it should be totally transparent..
>
>>
>
>>m
>
>>
>
>>On 20 =C9=FC=C9"=C9=A1 2010, at 7:09 1=8E4.=C9 ., Dan Dugan wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> > Yes the sample rate remains the same. Yes
>
>>>the file size probably remains the same. And
>
>>>yes the duration of the recording stays the
>
>>>same. But I find it hard to believe that a
>
>>>twice edited digital file (L/R -> M/S -> L/R)
>
>>>is a bit for bit exact copy of the
>
>>>original(even if you exclude the headers from
>
>>>the comparison).
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>> I wouldn't expect it would be, but the
>
>>>"generation loss" would be down in the noise
>
>>>bits and insignificant. MS equalization is
>
>>>quite commonly done in mastering suites, where
>
>>>you find the best monitors and ears in the
>
>>>business.
>
>>
>
>
>>
>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>--
>
>
>
>
--
|