Hi Dave,

I am so happy I found your website.
I am doing a lot of studio work lately , and I find all this information priceles.

Thank you for sharing.

Geni

Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad you enjoy the site. I had a ball preparing the material!

Best regards,

Dave

Fantastic web site and products Dave. I've learned a lot from them and I thank you for sharing your knowledge.

This is a great website, Dave. It's rich with content and well organized. I'm impressed! And, indeed, your Grammy tale was a classic.

Thanks,

Karen

You're very welcome. I had fun developing all this material, and am very pleased when people find it useful and illuminating.

Enjoy!

Best regards,

Dave

Hi Dave, just wanted to say thanks for the great information and insight on here.

Hi Dave,

It's been a long time -- since my Berklee graduation in 1991.

I work in location film/tv sound. A cable network's in-house audio post supervisor confused me recently and I have a two-part question.

I often deliver stereo wild sound for 5.1 mixes sourced from MS stereo mics (Senn MKH 30/40 or 50 and Neumann RSM 191). I have learned my lesson sending unmatrixed MS to American television audio people. The vast majority either never want or know to matrix it. So I deliver it matrixed; like tv dinners, just heat and serve.

This particular engineer insisted he doesn't want MS stereo, he wants XY. I told him the MS is matrixed into XY. He said right, XY, no MS. I said it is MS, but matrixed into XY. He says no, only XY. Blah blah blah.....

I ask if he means a coincident pair of cardioids instead of a mid/side configuration? He says yes, but sounds unsure.

OK. My questions.

Is it proper language to refer to matrixed MS as XY?

Aren't matrixed MS and coincident pairs, under controlled conditions, electrically equivalent?

Finally, I've heard from more than one post engineer that MS doesn't work well in 5.1, especially in LS/RS. Apparently it sounds mono to many ears in the rear speakers.

Here's where I overthink it. I have, on more than one occasion, walked in to post and heard my unmatrixed MS being played as LF/RF. They didn't like how it sounded, but used it. I couldn't convince them to matrix it. One of the two clients has not used me since (in the UK, tv engineers know how to matrix MS). Since this, I always deliver matrixed MS, except to BBC.

Is it possible that some engineers used unmatrixed MS mistakenly as XY in rear speakers and, rightfully, thought it sounded like crap? Or is there a legitimate complaint with the psychoacoustics of matrixed MS in rear speakers?

I have a few terrabytes of MS stereo wildlife recordings. It represents a decade of recording in endangered habitats across 3 dozen countries. Is this stuff near worthless? Is MS out of style in the world of dedicated 6-channel audio where mono-compatibility will never again see the light of day?

Mono-compatibility seems a very low priority nowadays. I now tell post-supervisors that MS offers the ability to sum the matrixed signals to mono and get a clean mid-mic on-axis mono effect. I sell MS as one-stop shopping for all your effects, (minus the dearth of low-frequency material for the point-one channel).

TV post people love clean little tidbits they can throw around in the LF/RF-LS/RS soundstage. If a great blue turaco squawks in front of me (an oddly common thing in my life), post production can sum the matrixed MS to mono and eliminate all the extra ambience of crickets, tree frogs and blowing leaves provided by the figure-eight. The few tv engineers that understand MS, like its flexibility.

But most tv engineers seem baffled by the nuts and bolts of MS. Am I not using terminology correctly with them? Can you offer some insights?

Cheers

Wow...what an awesome website...full of knowledge. May God bless this website. Keep it HOT and FRESH!!!.
Best of luck for all of you. Peace!.

Hi Dave, Please tell me that "fig 1" and "fig 2" in "Another Can of Audio Worms" got transposed. The spiderweb of "Fig 1" is, "...simple...", and the simple one to one straight lines of "fig 2" are, "..beginning of chaos." If only my life could be this kind of chaotic. Thanks, Kery white

Dear Mr. Dave,

Just finished reading "Another Can Of Worms". Forgive the pun but your article pretty much "sums" up the problem. Fixing it is probably next to impossible Broadcast audio is no longer an art it's just another commodity.

Having been in the audio business since Ampex made their three track recorders I've witnessed pretty much of what your speak.

I don't know about you but at this point I would like to watch at TV program and not have to grab the gain control when commercials happen. Commercial post production is the business we're in and I'm tired of getting all the blame for "those damn loud spots". Naturally we pack as much level on our spots as we can but it's really up to the broadcaster to make it fit with the rest of the program, after they have the last fader in the audio chain.

Broadcasting would do well in firing all the cost containment people and use some of that money and hire a true audio professional.

Upmixing and downmixing, just the thought of it scares me to death.

Great writing, keep up the good work.

Many Thanks,


Mike King

Hey Dave,

i would love to take you up on your offer to our acoustics class (i.e. loudspeakers) Please let me know a good time to swing by and say hi.

-Joe Cardoza

Thanks Dave for such a wealth of information, is it copyright? Can I use it when teaching my new students in September on a new media technologies course?

Nigel

Thank you very much for providing such vital information in this format. I have one question: which medium does cover the subject of stereo/mixing/imaging better, the Total Recording Book or the Golden Ears course (I have a working knowledge of all hard- and software ) I prefer a hands on approach with examples.
Thanks and keep up the good work,

Frans

Hello Dave,

Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I became the audio engineer for the band simply because in practice I wound up standing by the mixer. For a garage band even the simplest 8 track has been a quantum leap of quality over our old cassette recorder. So I mix an mix and get a decent product but I am awe of what it takes to master and make it a product worth listening to. Thanks for the education, I will send out my product to master and focus on scales before the arthritis gets any worse!

To: Dave Moulton
Re: http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Inside-Audio/index.shtml, 'Inside Audio: Dave Moulton'

I, too, am annoyed with the audio level discrepancies found on supposedly high-tech rebroadcast systems.
I read your disertations on tvtechnology.com/features/Inside-Audio/index.shtml, 'Inside Audio: Dave Moulton', with much interest. I inadvertantly discovered the site ia a Birthday celebration of the VTR machine. As you note, I found there to be wild differences between the same broadcaster's air signal and ExpressVu's version as well.
ExpressVu said it was the broadcaster's fault. They even tried to sell me an upgraded set top box. What a hoot. The broadcaster says their product is just fine and that is confirmed with my antenna. I was about to set up and record the two comparison audio streams on my laptop for lab tests to determine the actual delta but realized there was no point to it.
The actual problems are that ExpressVu's personnel no longer have the education, training, expertize or motivation to understand and operate the technology. ExpressVu isn't interested in changing any of that either. I'm pretty sure they now no longer know where their head ends are located nor how to actually adjust them if they ever did find them. The folks they employ only know how to unpack a box and plug it in like most folks do with the wireless router they just bought at the supermarket. The programming and level setting procedures got tossed out along with the box.
My communications to the CRTC, Bell and others produced no results.
I am a radio systems specialist with over 45 years experience in analogue voice and data wireless transmissions systems. I'm especially proud of the performance of receiver voting systems I've set up. No one could ever tell from which of 26 receivers anyone was coming through on the largest one or the one with just two. This in spite of poor telco circuits, radio links, co-located receivers or microwave/fibre paths. It is simply a matter of utilizing published procedures, proper test gear and, above all, an understanding of how things work.
I am disheartened to see low pay getting low education/capabilities, the assumption that everything works right out of the box (plug & play?), that if the sales rep says it's so, it must be...
Sorry, starting to rant. But, I'm sure you get the idea.
I've attached a copy of some of my correspondance for your amusement. The canned paragraphs are especially interesting:

I believe you neglected to take into account the contractual obligations you have to provide me with a satisfactory product as well as that of your supplier of programming to provide you with a satisfactory product.
Does "I pay you and you pay them" not ring any bells with you?

Thanks for a great website Dave. It's like a true oasis in a desert of confusion and obfuscation. Many thanks. PRB

Thanks for the informative article in TV Technology.
Sadly, the CCTA has just ceased operations. They claim they can no longer fullfill their mandate. Just when we need them most to help through the transitions you describe!

Hey Dave! whats the word on the new A8 are they going to give you one or what!? haha let me know if they do because you have to give me a ride! haha!! Hope all is well
Best of luck
-Chris

Dang it, I just wanted to send an email to you, but guess I'm left with the guest log and just hope you find it someday.
I searched and scoured the sites I and II, looking for your input on frequencies and bits.. I found both subjects, however none touched on what I was looking for, and it seems no one is touching on it. Even when I tried to touch on it with a tech at M-AUDIO, I got pushed aside as a "whatever" canidate. I'm not running for relection for "whatever", but I would like to see some topics on the following subject matter regarding digital audio.
I have worked in analog, and anyone who has, knows that aside from the "device" recording the event,, there is tape quality and speed variables to consider.. Generally faster tape, begets higher frequencies, because it captures more time, it has a higher resolution..
Now,, to digital, in relation,, if you take a 32bit recording event at 48khz,, I can record the exact same event, at 16 bits, and have more information and higher fidelity = resolution.. by recording at 192khz
-- also,, I can achieve a higher quality mixdown, by remaining in 16bit realm,, and avoiding someone's mathmatical algorithym or dithering process which does random splash data removal to make it sound "similar" to the original recording. But, 16 bit math, within it's own common denominator will divide data evenly, quickly and with better results and true=er math.. You can do the same process with jpg's, bmp's, or image files to "see" the results of dithering and other mathmatical approximities..
EXAMPLE: Take a digital camera that has 3MP against a camera with 1MP and reduce them to a common small size, and the 3MP looks more vivid, has more detail and retains more information in greater detail, than the one captured at the lower resolution, the exact same is true with digital audio.
If you listen to a 16bit/192khz recording of a train panning left to right, and compare it to the exact same recording using 32bit/48khz,, you will hear the difference.. You WILL hear it.
It's like using a prestine metal choromium top of the line grain analog tape, and recording at a slower speed, you won't get the quality,, without the speed.. and 192khz is faster than 48khz... also,, 16 bits is fine enough grain and easier to process, and mathmatically easier for a cpu to toss back at you... That's all I wanted to say,, except, that I wish I had a job like you.. Not meaning to sound envious or jealous, but it's unavoidable.. I am..
But God bless you and your website.. And good luck to all who read this and understand it.. a Tech at M-Audio who provides support for sound cards, doesn't agree with me,, which is well, I won't go there. Peace...