Hi Greg,
First I widened the overall stereo image a little bit (-5% from the Mid) us=
ing the built-in Channel Mixer feature on Adobe Audition 1.5.
Then with apQualizr in MS mode centered a highpass filter at 1200 Hz on the=
Mid only to bring the apparently exaggerated Mid frequencies to more or le=
ss line up with the curve for the Side frequencies. This curve affected fre=
quencies up to about 5k.
Then I used a low shelf on both M and S, approximately opposite to the high=
pass curve to add some LF back. The resultant audio still has less overall =
LF than the original, and the the frequencies below 100Hz are now somewhat =
Side exaggerated, where in a typical stereo recording those would be Mid ex=
aggerated.
Anyway that was the process.
Thanks for the input.
John Hartog
rockscallop.org
--- In Gregory O'Drobinak <=
.> wrote:
>
> John:
>
> Interesting. But when listening to this with cans on, the second part sou=
nded
> like it was pulling down hard on my ears!
> It was a very strange sensation, with a very curious spectral shift. Not =
at all
> pleasant.
>
> I've been thinking about some ways to 'spread out' a narrower stereo imag=
e, but
> it may be very tricky with M-S processing. Perhaps having a wider sound s=
tage
> like the SASS-type rigs is not at all possible with closely-spaced capsul=
es, no
> matter what the method. Seems like you can't put in the proper inter-aura=
l
> delays that one would have with a natural spacing of the mic elements ex =
post
> facto, but I could be wrong. I'd like to see if anyone can really pull th=
is off
> effectively.
>
> What exactly was your process?
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: rock_scallop <>
> To:
> Sent: Tue, July 17, 2012 10:39:01 PM
> Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: Olympus LS5, LS7 and Sony M10 internal m=
ics
> comparison.
>
>
> For the sake of understanding values or risks of Mid-Side processing.
> Here is a URL to a bit of my urban backyard test with the pcm-m10.
> The first part has no added EQ, the second part has Mid-Side processing t=
o
> correct the stereo image.
>
>
> http://soundcloud.com/john-hartog/jh-test20127017-pcmm10-ms/s-TnZrf
>
> Any comments are welcome.
>
> John Hartog
> rockscallop.org
>
> --- In "rock_scallop" <john_hartog@> wr=
ote:
> >
> > Hi Robin,
> > It is always nice when post-processing is not needed, but show me an ex=
ternal
> >array for nature recording that will not benefit from some post EQ most =
of the
> >time.
> >
> >
> > Of course one must be careful not to over do it.
> >
> > What do you mean by "skew your phase and introduce other distortions." =
If it
> >sounds good, is it not good?
> >
> > John Hartog
> > rockscallop.org
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In "robin_parmar_sound" <robin@> =
wrote:
> > >
> > > John wrote:
> > >
> > > > On the other hand, the advantage of the lower noise mics in the M10=
is the
> >potential for an extended acoustic horizon in quieter settings, and for =
those
> >capable of making MS adjustments in post that might make a difference.
> > >
> > > Of course the best thing to do is use external mics when low noise is=
of
> >paramount importance. Then you can control the recording topology exactl=
y,
> >without resorting to post-processing that will skew your phase and intro=
duce
> >other distortions.
> > >
> > > -- Robin Parmar
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
|