>> suggested I could convert my recordings from mono to sterio
Scott Fraser wrote:
> It can't be done, for the simple reason that true stereo contains informa=
tion,
>in the form of timing and/or amplitude differences between the 2 channels,=
which
>define positions within the left-right panorama, which do not exist at all=
in a
>singular mono track
That's certainly true, insofar as it goes.=C2=A0 Information has been lost,=
or more
properly, was never recorded, that would have described the spatial
characteristics of the recording venue.=C2=A0 But one could approximate wha=
t has been
lost.=C2=A0 There are various artificial reverberation programs, but that's=
not what
I'm referring to here.
What could be done, instead, is to approximate the venue and to apply an im=
pulse
response from the approximate venue.=C2=A0 As an example, suppose I were to=
=C2=A0go to
Venezuela and make a series of recordings in the jungle, only to find out w=
hen I
returned home that I had acquired only one channel from my stereo pair.=C2=
=A0 I might
then go in to the woods locally, record a stereo=C2=A0impulse response in a=
n area
that is similarly wooded to the original venue.=C2=A0=C2=A0I would then app=
ly that impulse
response via convolution.=C2=A0 That would give me a 'stereo' version of th=
e original
mono recording.=C2=A0
It certainly wouldn't be the same as a stereo recording from the original
venue.=C2=A0 Most particularly, if there were more than one direct source i=
n the
original venue then both sources would appear to come from the same place.=
=C2=A0 But
at least the reverberation would be natural sounding, and appropriate to th=
e
site.
I've been meaning to try this for years but just haven't got to it.=C2=A0 M=
aybe my
problem is that I never made any mono nature recordings...
Eric Benjamin
|