It is the most optimal in a sense that unless the original track is really out of phase it contains the most data. Adding side data diminishes it. But like I said, that might sound better, in some cases. Signal gets weaker when you combine mid and side.hvz wrote:I don't agree. In many songs there are stereo effects that you don't want to loose when going back to mono. Think of reverb on voices for example.gavriloP wrote:Problem is, that L+R is the most optimal mono.
For normal recordings of - say - rock bands, there's very little difference between a normal (L+R) change to mono and one that keeps all sounds. But things are very different if you play for example (electronic) trance music. Changing that to mono by just averaging the channels causes a huge loss in audio - the result sounds very 'thin' - basically you keep the bass and highs but loose most of the mids.
By the way, IF you use my algorithm on music with little phase problems, there is no noticeable difference with the L+R method. It only does different things when there are problems in the first place, so that's why I would say it's 'more optimal' than simply using L+R.
But yes, when it comes to trance etc. with those phasy supersaws, they're bound to get smaller with L+R
So it would make sense perhaps to try and find the best compromise by adding some of the side to mid. Still it's a trade-off between those supersaws and lowend... also in electronic music, the phasiness doesn't sound as weird as it sounds in more traditional music.What you lose in reverb is the side or difference but don't forget that reverbs still mostly has plenty of mid channel unless they are unnaturally widened.
That MSED plugin is nice to analyze what goes on in mid or side channels. If you listen to music through it (in encode mode) and switch channels on and off, you'll hear that there really isn't much stuff that is only heard in side channel.
