Stereo to mono plugin wanted

[Harry_HH]

Where can I find plugin which changes the stereo file
to a mono file but preserves also the side-information of the
stereo track (i.e. converts the side to mono and adds this to the mid)?
All the plugins I've found, e.g. the Ableton mono utility
just seem to produce the mid-signal of the stereo file. Harry

[Aloysius]

http://www.mathewlane.com/DrMS.html

Preset 025 No Loss Mono Fold Down

[Harry_HH]

http://www.mathewlane.com/DrMS.html

Preset 025 No Loss Mono Fold Down

Thank you for the hint. Just a couple of drawbacks: iLok and the price.
Any alternatives? H.
btw - I wonder if the Live's audio export "convert to mono" preserves the
stereo file side information?

[Aloysius]

The 32-bit only DrMS v3.3, available from the Download page, comes with a 14-day license free trial period and supports Challenge/Response.

I guess someone who fully understands the science of m/s processing can suggest a simple chain of fx etc.

[gavriloP]

You can use Voxengo's free MSED plugin and set it to encode mode. This way it puts mid signal to left and side signal to right (or vice versa, don't remember exactly). After that you can use any plugin that sums L and R to mono.

[BertKoor]

If you require this, it means you have material with 180 degs phase difference you still want to hear when collapsed back to mono. Correct?

[mabian]

You can try Melda production MUtility. If you set it to only process Stereo part and collapse panorama to mono, maybe you can get what you're after...

- Mario

[Harry_HH]

You can use Voxengo's free MSED plugin and set it to encode mode. This way it puts mid signal to left and side signal to right (or vice versa, don't remember exactly). After that you can use any plugin that sums L and R to mono.

This really seems to work, great advice! Can someone also explaine technically, why,after this setup, the volume level of the track decreases considerably? This really sums up the mid+side to the mono but with lower level. Is this because different phases (L/R) when summed eliminate (partly) each other? H.

[gavriloP]

This really seems to work, great advice! Can someone also explaine technically, why,after this setup, the volume level of the track decreases considerably? This really sums up the mid+side to the mono but with lower level. Is this because different phases (L/R) when summed eliminate (partly) each other? H.

This is material dependant, I'd say. Normally the mono is always achieved by summing L+R (mid channel is the classic "mono"). I personally just use L+R but like you said, this works too. And if for example most of the "dry" sounds are panned in the middle and there is only ambience on the sides, then it could be benefical to add that side info to mono version. BTW you can alter the MID and SIDE levels in MSED and try find the best compromise.

I'd presume that normally you always get some phase "problems" by combining mid and side to mono. But of course if it sounds good, it is!

[Harry_HH]

This really seems to work, great advice! Can someone also explaine technically, why,after this setup, the volume level of the track decreases considerably? This really sums up the mid+side to the mono but with lower level. Is this because different phases (L/R) when summed eliminate (partly) each other? H.

This is material dependant, I'd say. Normally the mono is always achieved by summing L+R (mid channel is the classic "mono"). I personally just use L+R but like you said, this works too. And if for example most of the "dry" sounds are panned in the middle and there is only ambience on the sides, then it could be benefical to add that side info to mono version. BTW you can alter the MID and SIDE levels in MSED and try find the best compromise.

I'd presume that normally you always get some phase "problems" by combining mid and side to mono. But of course if it sounds good, it is!

Yes, this thread started by the advice I've read (e.g. Computer Music august issue) concerning the mixing and enhancing the stereo picture. One comment
handled the use of stereo vs. mono files, and general recommendation concering all typically low frequency, mid panned material (typically "dry" material as you say) was that all material under 200 Hz is better to keep/convert mono, this makes the center of the mix more stable and "punchy".
This leads to the fact that many of these e.g. bass or synth samples are in stereo and if you convert those in mono, you want to keep all the information, i.e. the traditional mid-mono conversion is not always suitable.
I wonder if this whole isse very relevant, have people put much effort solving this kind of problems?
And, how is the case in typical DAW bounching/exporting conversion stereo to mono? E.g. does the Ableton live export conversion preserve all the side-information? H.

[gavriloP]

Yes, this thread started by the advice I've read (e.g. Computer Music august issue) concerning the mixing and enhancing the stereo picture. One comment
handled the use of stereo vs. mono files, and general recommendation concering all typically low frequency, mid panned material (typically "dry" material as you say) was that all material under 200 Hz is better to keep/convert mono, this makes the center of the mix more stable and "punchy".
This leads to the fact that many of these e.g. bass or synth samples are in stereo and if you convert those in mono, you want to keep all the information, i.e. the traditional mid-mono conversion is not always suitable.
I wonder if this whole isse very relevant, have people put much effort solving this kind of problems?
And, how is the case in typical DAW bounching/exporting conversion stereo to mono? E.g. does the Ableton live export conversion preserve all the side-information? H.

It is my understanding that every DAW and audio editor sums left and right when they convert stereo to mono. Well, some editors allows you to use only left or right but L+R definitely is the default way.

That trick to keep bass frequencies mono and in the middle comes from the past. With vinyl LPs it was essential that they were mastered that way. You can manage this also with simple mid side EQ on master bus or on individual tracks. Just highpass side channel and perhaps boost bass in the mids. You can also boost some side highs to widen the track.

I don't know how it is with your DAW but I use REAPER and it is very flexible with routing. In REAPER it is easy to use any plugins for MS processing, as long as you have that MSED. The idea is that first you encode LR data to MS with MSED, then you process each channel individually and put another MSED after that, in decode mode. But for this it is essential that you can process L and R channels individually. If your DAW don't allow this then you have to use EQ that can have separate settings for L and R.

[Harry_HH]

That trick to keep bass frequencies mono and in the middle comes from the past. With vinyl LPs it was essential that they were mastered that way. You can manage this also with simple mid side EQ on master bus or on individual tracks. Just highpass side channel and perhaps boost bass in the mids. You can also boost some side highs to widen the track.

I know that the mastering challenge and frequency management was (is) different with vinyls, including engraving etc. But this advice, as said, was given by the contemporary practioners by the digital era, i.e. there must be sense even today. What comes to the fraquencey and mid-side based processing in mastering, I do it already and those comments you gave a most relevant.
I just wonder why the real stereo-to-mono -plugins are that rare and most of those just skip the side which is totally wrong. H.

[BertKoor]

That trick to keep bass frequencies mono and in the middle comes from the past.

Nope, it's not. Anyone using a subwoofer will thank you if you do.

I just wonder why the real stereo-to-mono -plugins are that rare and most of those just skip the side which is totally wrong. H.

Just summing L+R is the right thing to do.
Anything panned in the middle: you hear it.
Anything panned hard left or right: you hear it.
The only thing that gets lost this way is whatever is in anti-phase, read: artificially enhanced stereo. It's a well-known side effect. I'm allergic to it, can't stand it, and many people with me.

Especially in frequencies below 200Hz, this should not be happening. Because of the above mentionned subwoofers. They just use the sum of both channels below whatever is their cross-over frequency.

[docdued]

By definition, mid = L+R and side = (L-R) times some factor which can be 1, but also 0.5, depending on the implementation. So summing mid and side would yield L*(1+f)+R*(1-f). I doubt that this is really what you want to achieve...

[Harry_HH]

By definition, mid = L+R and side = (L-R) times some factor which can be 1, but also 0.5, depending on the implementation. So summing mid and side would yield L*(1+f)+R*(1-f). I doubt that this is really what you want to achieve...

I tried to find "white paper" for these but couldn't - therefore my dilentant question:
is the "mid" really defined mid = L+R, I believed mid is the information which is common to L and R (so called section of L/R). Is this the same as defined above (L+R), I think mathematically not. And "side" is accordingly (L+R) - mid. Am I right? H.