MogwaiBoy wrote: ↑
Wed Jun 30, 2021 7:02 pm
Here's a piece of the description on the KVR shop page:
This plug-in is really overbearing and will attempt to not only affect width in an overbearing way but it will also use auto makeup to enforce that the volume stays vanilla, like before you employed stereo width.
Can you further explain this statement? How is this truly new and different? So you can hard pan without the volume reduction in mono? I don't get it - that's impossible. For $4 maybe I will give you the benefit of the doubt and test it for the sake of curiosity. If it's just a stereo comb filter though.....
I fully understand. I am very different as a mathematician because I do not apply the normal procedures.
Often, there are methods like a comb filter
applied for instance to decide a tilt from left to right, being that it is a trick to lessen the effect of mids and bass.
That is what a comb filter does, but the way it was first designed was with summed L+R, or in other words mono. So, with that knowledge in mind you and I both realize, why in the heck was someone using a comb filter to do that.
The answer is plain, it's merely a way to avoid harmonic distortion from causing too much phase cancellation when making a technique like H. Lauridsen's mono to stereo (thankyou to a good friend Spogg for making this clear.).
So, to be clear this is not a mono to stereo to effect so it would not require a comb filter, and instead what it is doing is making sure that phase cancellation can exist when you have selected split stereo (+1) and that true mono will exist when specifying mono.
Why do I say true mono? It is because that regardless of what the math is supposed to do, there are effects which can be applied like pan which veto the effect of the math commonly applied for stereo width. So, even if you did that you might see levels for L & R like this:
And yet, they should be the same. The problem is that the math is not object orientated. That means that the math does not consider the given volume also at any given of the original signal as well as the total after the math is applied.
Why I call this unruly however, is the understanding that such an idea is basically fake gain; and it's only a subtractive way that this effect is comfortable for things with legato like vocals which have a certain complexity. Anything beyond a seemingly natural flow of volume becomes dissonance after-all.
It's an imperfect solution, a humble; even incomplete offering but in a bind I feel it will be very helpful for an audio engineer.
Take this into account for instance ( a scenario)
You're using haas and mono to define what is at the forefront and what is at the background. And well, it is only what is in the background that will be to one side or the other. So with this in mind, how is the conventional stereo width helping? Mono in this case would be what is the closest and most intimate (and even if using split stereo a correlation of +0.4, if still at a distance from the theoretical "Master" microphone).
It's really only through the eyes of an audio engineer employing the exact science who begins to realize that the technologies that we use day to day have limitations. My math for instance would greatly benefit from a less clunky; more perfected auto-makeup which would be seemingly natural after the fact.
Though I'm close; I'm not 100% satisfied and there's room for improvement. I'm merely trying to improve the science so we as Audio Engineers and Mix Engineers can move forward, and our centering and balancing workflow is more straightforward.
I've felt passionate about being part of the solution constructively for a long time. One of My other goals is to use LUFs to gauge volume above the ceiling of 0 dBFS by way of keep-alive and decay. With those factors it's reasonable to assume that using a measurement of loudness, that one could create a dynamic measurement with which the mathematics of dBSPL can be applied. "But" only assuming that the measurement of time where the volume is over 0 can also be measured. After being limited; it would be less possible to accurately gauge without very intuitive mathematics used to predict and analyze the algorithm.
Mind Riot wrote: ↑
Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:58 pm
whyterabbyt wrote: ↑
Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:25 am
kingozrecords wrote: ↑
Wed Jun 23, 2021 5:59 am
adly though, My math does use the original math and merely adds some math
I know that, eventually I will have to create My own math to do the same thing
The people have spoken. The overlords may yet recant.