R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => Brad Blackwood => Topic started by: Viitalahde on April 27, 2010, 09:32:15 am

Title: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Viitalahde on April 27, 2010, 09:32:15 am
Maybe I haven't done enough M/S processing to fall in love with it, but right now it feels like it mostly does more harm than good.

I've used digital M/S EQ with good success to effectively fix a few things that needed to be fixed, and in my new console I'm going to include a selectable active matrix that wraps around one of the inserts.

With future analog domain M/S processing in mind, I've been testing things, running digitally encoded signal through various pieces (with no processing applied, just in-line), including a pair of WE 111C transformers, and decoding back in digital. Just about in every case I've preferred the the L/R process to the M/S. It seems like the more coloured you go, the more you loose coherency and things get just increasingly left-center-right.

I can see the creative uses for the process, but all the fuss makes me feel like it's hip in mastering to alter the S beyond recognition. If it's "stereo enhancement" we want, I think I'll stick with plain, skilled L/R EQ.

End of rant. The M/S codec will be implemented in my new console, but I don't think I'll be running in M/S all the time. De-essing in M/S might be interesting.

Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: masterhse on April 27, 2010, 10:02:37 am
I look at M/S processing as a way around some of the compromises that might have to be made with strictly stereo processing. For example addressing an issue with a kick or vocal (assuming that they are centered). It's also a way of remixing to a small degree.

If the mix is consistent in its internal balance, and not congested in the middle, I see very few other reasons to use it.

OTOH when you do have those issues it can be indispensible unless a remix is possible.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Waltz Mastering on April 27, 2010, 10:04:54 am
Viitalahde wrote on Tue, 27 April 2010 09:32


I can see the creative uses for the process, but all the fuss makes me feel like it's hip in mastering to alter the S beyond recognition. If it's "stereo enhancement" we want, I think I'll stick with plain, skilled L/R EQ.

To me M/S processing is just another tool to have in the arsenal when needed, but like you, I find that for the large majority of work, L/R processing works perfectly.

I think the internet  contributes to a lot of the hype associated with m/s, parallel or  other forms of un-convential processing....  In reality, although m/s might be used on the regular by some successful ME's, to me it's just anther option to consider  rather than a default method to work.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: lowland on April 27, 2010, 10:29:24 am
Viitalahde wrote on Tue, 27 April 2010 14:32

De-essing in M/S might be interesting.


That's how I work most of the time, in my case with the TC 6000 - it's the one M/S  technique I'd be reluctant to part with.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: mastertone on April 27, 2010, 11:19:03 am
Viitalahde wrote on Tue, 27 April 2010 15:32


De-essing in M/S might be interesting.



Yes! Works great when used right, I´m still on spitfish, but the sonnox supresser looks so nice i think i "have" to get it.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: TotalSonic on April 27, 2010, 11:38:37 am
M/S is never a go to for me - but depending on the mix it can be a great problem solver.  

I have my Sontec MEP250EX and my DerrEsser's both switchable to working as M/S via a single button push via my Manley Backbone - and this has helped work flow immensely (especially versus my old analog M/S matrix which I would have to patch in when I wanted to use it).

Using M/S with these processors worked great recently for an album of singer/songwriter material I did where the mixes for the most part had vox straight up the center and guitars panned hard left/right.  I needed to pull each element in slightly different directions to get the requested sparkle on the guitar, while dealing with large amounts of sibilance on the vox.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Darius van H on April 27, 2010, 01:31:18 pm
I use M/S all the time, both in the analog domain and ITB.

It's one of the most powerful tools we have. IMO it's not only for fixing problems (problem fixing is overrated in mastering IMO), it's also for sprinkling on some extra fairy dust.

Whether gear passes audio more transparently via normal stereo or M/S is really irrelevent for me. If you approach everything from that point of view, you might as well just stay in bed in the morning.

Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Viitalahde on April 27, 2010, 04:03:10 pm
Darius, I suppose it's about what your customers want. I go creative myself from time to time, throwing in everything I got, and I can see myself using more M/S in the analog domain for this purpose, too. The point of my rant is that just like any radical process, I do not think M/S should be the default.

I believe knowing your chain throughout is vital. This is why I explore and run things in L/R and M/S modes and listen what comes out. If the process adds unwanted width (even if the rest/other aspects of the process sounds good) and need to be tamed with more processing which leads to more processing.. Doesn't fit my philosophy.

After I went on a processing diet and really explored how simple a chain you can use was the date my masters got a lot better sounding and the business went up like there is no tomorrow.

So I won't stay in the bed in the morning, even if I sometimes wanted to.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Patrik T on April 27, 2010, 04:03:28 pm
It's pretty obvious that a well balanced mix has a well laid out width in itself.

That math works very well in L/R mode, so there I am, every time.


Regards
Patrik
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: compasspnt on April 27, 2010, 08:19:44 pm
I might use M/S 1% of the time.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: dcollins on April 27, 2010, 09:46:19 pm
compasspnt wrote on Tue, 27 April 2010 17:19

I might use M/S 1% of the time.



Ok, 5%.  Just to be trendy.


DC
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: masterhse on April 27, 2010, 11:00:41 pm
I'm tied into a variable percentage rate.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: bigaudioblowhard on April 27, 2010, 11:39:20 pm
Jaakko, are you terminating the 111C's with 600 ohm resistors?

I read somewhere on the net where a guy was using a 3300 ohm resistor claiming less ringing?

bab
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Viitalahde on April 28, 2010, 12:44:46 am
Mark, indeed I am. Or I think the tests were done with 680ohms, but they were still flat from 10hz to 20kHz with just some 0,2dB drooping at 20k. Gotta try out that 3300ohm resistor, but it does sound odd to me.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: dcollins on April 28, 2010, 02:26:06 am
Viitalahde wrote on Tue, 27 April 2010 21:44

Mark, indeed I am. Or I think the tests were done with 680ohms, but they were still flat from 10hz to 20kHz with just some 0,2dB drooping at 20k. Gotta try out that 3300ohm resistor, but it does sound odd to me.


It would make more overshoot/ringing, not less.


DC
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: dave-G on April 28, 2010, 06:05:33 am
Once familiar with listening to the results, I don't think a good mastering engineer is any more likely to overuse or damage a mix with MS processing than to damage it by overuse of any other available process.

Sometimes it can be a way to address something more subtly than LR.

-dave
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: philip on April 28, 2010, 03:29:03 pm
M/S is not a tool. It is a way to decode music to work with it as music is  perceived.

eg three channels. left middle and right.

If you can't handle to work with music decoded to three channels instead of two you need to work on it. It is nothing esoteric with it, just another approach.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: bigaudioblowhard on April 28, 2010, 03:30:52 pm
Jaakko

I looked and looked but could not find the post from the guy who used the 3.3k ohm
resistor as termination. I'll take DC's word for it, and stick to 680.

Other hunting around the net I found that some Japanese Audiophiles use 111C's on the output of a CD Player, apparently to add some mojo, but I've never found any evidence that they are terminating. If they're feeding 600 ohm devices, like Altec tube amps, I guess its okay.

If I were feeding an unbalanced input from a 111C, would I just drop the Pin3 after termination?

bab
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Gold on April 28, 2010, 03:40:27 pm
bigaudioblowhard wrote on Tue, 27 April 2010 23:39

Jaakko, are you terminating the 111C's with 600 ohm resistors?




I run mine unterminated. I thought they sounded better. There is a slight HF rise but I live with it. I didn't try 3300 ohm though. I hardly ever use them anyway.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Gold on April 28, 2010, 03:43:17 pm
bigaudioblowhard wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 15:30



If I were feeding an unbalanced input from a 111C, would I just drop the Pin3 after termination?



One side of the secondary would go to signal + and the other to ground. Most likely don't connect pin 1.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Viitalahde on April 28, 2010, 04:27:09 pm
Good, I feel like I accidentally bumped on a bee's nest. I sort of intended to do that.

Of course M/S is just another tool at our arsenal, and a powerful one. A good ME will know when to use one. I just wanted to hear why I feel that it's a sort of a default thing to do these days and why I don't see the uses for everyday work.

111C's: Gotta try the terminations. They are an interesting sound, but definately not for everything. I was thinking of using them as M/S decoders, but I think I won't. But they will be around.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: bigaudioblowhard on April 28, 2010, 05:26:48 pm
I don't use mine much either.

I did do some AB'ing with them terminated vs. unterminated. You have to match the levels very closely to get the fairest comparison. IIRC, with the term. the level drops 3.1 dB. Ended up going with terminated, but can't remember why.

Heres a bad pic of my WE Passive EQ, HF only, you can see the 111C poking out the bottom.

sorry about the size, anyone know how to resize a cell phone pic so it doesn't take over the whole screen

index.php/fa/14742/0/


bab

(edited for pic size - bb)
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: masterhse on April 28, 2010, 08:02:04 pm
I don't know if you have seen this, but it may be of interest regarding 111C and 119C performance:

 http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/non-linear_transformer_be  havior.htm#Western_Electric_119C_Repeating_Coil_Frequency_Re sponse

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gRL99KeOmNI/SiSDYzZVnSI/AAAAAAAAAA4/z9RqSjDqcOQ/S700/3ke3m93p1ZZZZZZZZZ94te6c6913ce57d119c.jpg
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: dcollins on April 28, 2010, 08:17:55 pm
masterhse wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 17:02

I don't know if you have seen this, but it may be of interest regarding 111C and 119C performance:

 http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/non-linear_transformer_be  havior.htm#Western_Electric_119C_Repeating_Coil_Frequency_Re sponse


I don't know if there is a transformer today that is better than the 111c.  


DC
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Viitalahde on April 29, 2010, 10:37:27 am
OK, I took the load resistor out of my 111C's and to my surprise they do sound much better. Could be the driver that is working on an easier load, but this is not a small difference. I now even like them more as decoders.

The HF rise is very small, starts from 3kHz and is just 0,05 dB up at ~20kHz, where it seems to peak.

Offtopic, but interesting.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Gold on April 29, 2010, 11:22:19 am
Ha, vindication!  Yeah, I'm sure it has to do with drive capability. I know the Neumann RV75's cause the test equipment to display a giant blinking red SUCK light when this is tested.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Tubefreak on April 29, 2010, 03:59:37 pm
Funny, I use M/S all the time. Don't know if this says more about me or the average material I get, but I'm just used to it. Really know how to listen to the mix and EQ in M/S. Adding sparkle to the air in the music, without touching the vocals, removing out of phase rumble without touching the kick/bass, etc. I find it very, very useful especially for rock/metal, not so much with dance/techno.

Maarten
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: compasspnt on April 29, 2010, 05:41:35 pm
That's what I like about you Maarten, you admit it!

Ha, just kidding.

Whatever Works.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Gold on April 30, 2010, 07:23:47 pm
I have a feeling the best way to use the 111c's is with a 1 watt 600 ohm termination  resistor . Then make sure the resistor gets warm. I think they can take +36dBM with 1% THD @20hz. Insane. I'm too lazy to look it up.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: dcollins on April 30, 2010, 08:10:47 pm
Gold wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 16:23

I have a feeling the best way to use the 111c's is with a 1 watt 600 ohm termination  resistor . Then make sure the resistor gets warm. I think they can take +36dBM with 1% THD @20hz. Insane. I'm too lazy to look it up.


Even with the AP at full output, you don't get any significant distortion from them.   It's a remarkable design.


DC
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on May 01, 2010, 03:40:17 am
Studer list guys have told me that voltage matching _always_ works best for music signaling and precludes the need for tranny termination.   Ampex list guys have said always to terminate the tape machines with what they would have seen in a power matching setup (e.g., DC Ω (aka 600 Ohms)), regardless of load.

The A80 R manual has a lot of specificity about using 600 Ohm termination for NAB, and _200_Ohms_ for CCIR.  I have heard that the machine has a 0 Ohms output impedance.   But there is no mention I can see about using the machine outside of a power matching-esque context, actually, in spite of contemporary European studio practices circa 1970...


If you for some sinister purpose wanted to insert the ATR overbridge in the output path of the machine, and you were (balanced) signaling to a device that had a 100k input Z, should you still flip the 600 Ohm switch on the back of the ATR for best handshake?  Try it both ways and pick the winner?  Or forget the switch for modern studio signaling?  

Interestingly?, also, the ATR has no 200 Ohm switch, even though it _does_ do CCIR.




 




Thanks,
    Andrew
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: johnR on May 01, 2010, 09:18:22 am
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Sat, 01 May 2010 08:40

Studer list guys have told me that voltage matching _always_ works best for music signaling and precludes the need for tranny termination.   Ampex list guys have said always to terminate the tape machines with what they would have seen in a power matching setup (e.g., DC Ω (aka 600 Ohms)), regardless of load.

The A80 R manual has a lot of specificity about using 600 Ohm termination for NAB, and _200_Ohms_ for CCIR.  I have heard that the machine has a 0 Ohms output impedance.   But there is no mention I can see about using the machine outside of a power matching-esque context, actually, in spite of contemporary European studio practices circa 1970...


If you for some sinister purpose wanted to insert the ATR overbridge in the output path of the machine, and you were (balanced) signaling to a device that had a 100k input Z, should you still flip the 600 Ohm switch on the back of the ATR for best handshake?  Try it both ways and pick the winner?  Or forget the switch for modern studio signaling?  

Interestingly?, also, the ATR has no 200 Ohm switch, even though it _does_ do CCIR.


Transformer termination depends on the individual transformer design and there is no universal rule. Many high quality transformers have a strong high frequency resonance which needs to be damped by a suitable termination. Even if the resonance is well above the audible range it can still result in audible intermodulation products.

If in doubt, one way to test this is to run a 10kHz square wave through the (in circuit) transformer, look at the resulting waveform on an oscilloscope, and adjust the termination for the cleanest square wave. There is often some compromise necessary to accommodate a range of load impedances, cable capacitances etc. You might find that a transformer needs no additional termination in a particular use case, but leaving this to luck isn't a good way to guarantee optimum performance. (I've ignored the loading effects of termination on the circuitry driving the transformer, which is another issue).
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Jerry Tubb on May 01, 2010, 12:10:09 pm
compasspnt wrote on Tue, 27 April 2010 19:19

I might use M/S 1% of the time.



About the same here. Use M/S very sparingly.

This last week I used M/S on one song.

Pulled the Sides back a 1/2 dB to help a centered vocal pop out front more. That's it.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: dcollins on May 01, 2010, 02:48:56 pm
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Sat, 01 May 2010 00:40


The A80 R manual has a lot of specificity about using 600 Ohm termination for NAB, and _200_Ohms_ for CCIR.  I have heard that the machine has a 0 Ohms output impedance.   But there is no mention I can see about using the machine outside of a power matching-esque context, actually, in spite of contemporary European studio practices circa 1970...



All Transformers have a termination impedance that gives the lowest overshoot/flattest response.  This may or may not be the value that sounds the best.

I have no idea why the record curve would have anything to do with the transformer termination in the Studer, it doesn't make sense to me.


DC
Title: Overthinking 102... Was: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on May 01, 2010, 11:23:03 pm
I should have thought that the optimum sound quality would only truly be possible if the preferred sound was in agreement with a flat transfer, and with no aberrant behavior at the trafo (i.e., no overshoot...).  That one might prefer the mojo version to a dull, if pure, version is a familiar claim.  But the purer version which is also exciting would be superior to either of the other two.

You may recall that the A80 R meter bridge has termination switches on the front (similar to the ones on the rear of the ATR I/O module, except the Ampex ones are slide switches and the Studer's are flip switches†), and these seem to be 600 Ohms only, just like the ATR's...  

The Studer manual cites the maximum output with a 600 Ohm load.  Possibly this is just for reference, due to the historical place 600 Ohms has in studios, and possibly it may be in fact a specification that this load _must_ be used in order to achieve the maximum possible output for the 30 Ohms output, _without overshoot or re-eq.  

Again, it does say that the load seen by the A80 has to change if the eq standard changes.  

But through e-conversations with some heady techs (ex-CBS), and, evidently, DC seems to agree, I have gathered that the A80's compensation networks should already be buffered from load effects external to the machine's output connector by design.  So, why, indeed, would the manual ever say to feed a multimeter the output with a 200 ohm resistor in parallel, if measuring the CCIR performance - or a 600 Ohm one, if NAB?  How does it know?  If it's just a matter of level, can't that be adjusted adequately at the trimpots?

The ATR man does not mention a need for changing the load based on equalization.  But I believe that it _does_ indicate that when _not_ driving devices which are already 600 Ohms, to flip the switch, thereby rendering the net load, close enough to the 600 target (Rpt =

                   1
             _____________
             1/Rp1 + 1/Rp2).  


At least that's in the section for calibration of the I/O module.  

What to do with the ATR overbridge in Helsinki?  Besides throwing it in the Gulf.  (;   CCIR works better with modern formulae, according to Jay McKnight, btw.

Please vote:

1) Don't terminate the ATR (or A80, be specific, please, as they do, indeed, use different trafos - Thanks, JohnR) if voltage matching, and forget it?;

2) epoxy the termination switch in the On position?; or,

3) make two pairs of short, extension cables (labeled NAB and CCIR, respectively) which have the target loads soldered across the pins... always using them with the matching standard, unless the given load is already at the target Z?



Andrew      






† Does anybody know a good source for the little plastic sleeves that go over metal flip switch throws?   Such as on an electric guitar?  I'm looking for black, but I might be persuadable, if the color is good...   Mood sleeves?


* (are there any? ...like a working museum studio?   I know of one that is in a incubation phase right now, locally, but it hasn't reopened, yet)
Title: Re: Overthinking 102... Was: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: johnR on May 02, 2010, 06:54:46 am
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 04:23

I should have thought that the optimum sound quality would only truly be possible if the preferred sound was in agreement with a flat transfer, and with no aberrant behavior at the trafo (i.e., no overshoot...).


Unfortunately the only way to eliminate overshoot and have a flat, extended high frequency response is to avoid transformers altogether.

Choosing the correct termination is a trade-off between ringing/overshoot on one hand and reduced bandwidth on the other. Typically the best that can be achieved is a slight overshoot with a minimal amount of ringing.

Sometimes additional termination isn't necessary because the input impedance of the following device is sufficient to damp the HF resonance, but there's still the same trade-off.
Title: Re: Overthinking 102... Was: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on May 02, 2010, 11:30:45 pm
johnR wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 06:54

Andrew Hamilton wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 04:23

I should have thought that the optimum sound quality would only truly be possible if the preferred sound was in agreement with a flat transfer, and with no aberrant behavior at the trafo (i.e., no overshoot...).


Unfortunately the only way to eliminate overshoot and have a flat, extended high frequency response is to avoid transformers altogether.


So, Burgess was right not to use trafos, then.   And I recently saw an old Sontec MEP on eBay that was allegedly retro-fitted, by Inward Connections, with their own trafos.  

I too should like to be able to demonstrate to the client that when the measured distortions are at their lowest is also when the same settings produce the preferred sound.  How better to enjoy every little crevice of the funkily inharmonic strains of Hendrix's upside down guitar, than through a clean channel that doesn't, itself, distort, jah?


MDI have a comment on the page about the I/O modules they sell for ATRs that trafos are euphonically advantageous on mic pres, but not really beneficial at the line inputs of tape machines, or something to this effect.   Some will say that it's the program, stupid.  But if the program relies on the mojo of the machine it was recorded on, can a different trafo's mojo really net improve on that in a way that doesn't simultaneously step on the microtoes of any subfeatures of the sound?  I think yes and no.  No, it may not be better than the original machine's mojo, but it might still be better with _some_ iron in the chain if it sounds anemic or naked without it...  I guess it's a mastering call, at that point, rather than a strictly technical one.    Shocked
 

johnR wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 06:54


Choosing the correct termination is a trade-off between ringing/overshoot on one hand and reduced bandwidth on the other. Typically the best that can be achieved is a slight overshoot with a minimal amount of ringing.



And on the gripping hand...?

johnR wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 06:54


Sometimes additional termination isn't necessary because the input impedance of the following device is sufficient to damp the HF resonance, but there's still the same trade-off.


I believe I can read this as a vote for using the terminators in most voltage matching scenaria but _not_ using the terminators for feeding, say, the Variable Mu (which already looks like 600 Z), because the load would drop with each extra passively  paralleled 600.   This is how I've been doing it.   And I have firstly been auditioning the ATR without the overbridge when deciding on a transfer path.   When this way sounds best, there is no lingering doubt.  When the other way seems to sound better, I assure you that I at least start unpacking the Ouija board, smudge the room with Sage, and perform several basic asanas before re-evaluating the decision to proceed.   I reckon this is as cautious as it ever really needs to be (especially in light of the client-involved proofing rituals).   Or, would you like to say, if it needs any more color, rather than just correction, it should be remixed!



Thanks,
    Andrew
Title: Re: Overthinking 102... Was: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: dcollins on May 03, 2010, 12:51:23 am
johnR wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 03:54


Unfortunately the only way to eliminate overshoot and have a flat, extended high frequency response is to avoid transformers altogether.



It's possible to have ruler-flat response and vanishingly low distortion with transformers it's just unusual to see it done properly......



DC
Title: Re: Overthinking 102... Was: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Gold on May 03, 2010, 10:38:22 am
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 23:30


So, Burgess was right not to use trafos, then.  


Since they were mainly used for disk cutting, having low end phase shift and/or distortion is a bad thing. It will cause more vertical excursion.
Title: Re: Overthinking 102... Was: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: zmix on May 03, 2010, 11:57:05 am
Gold wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 10:38

Andrew Hamilton wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 23:30


So, Burgess was right not to use trafos, then.  


Since they were mainly used for disk cutting, having low end phase shift and/or distortion is a bad thing. It will cause more vertical excursion.




I call getting out of bed in the morning a vertical excursion...
Title: Re: Overthinking 102... Was: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Gold on May 03, 2010, 04:59:33 pm
zmix wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 11:57


I call getting out of bed in the morning a vertical excursion...



A single vertical excursion is fine. A double can be embarrassing.
Title: Re: Overthinking 102... Was: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: bblackwood on May 03, 2010, 05:25:28 pm
I dunno, I probably use M/S about 99% of the time.

Red cars, blue cars, I s'pose...
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Bob Boyd on May 03, 2010, 05:39:43 pm
I use M/S quite often here.

My Weiss DS1-MkIII lives in M/S and whenever I reach for my Massive Passive, 99.9% of the time, I dial it in as an M/S EQ via the Dangerous Master.  A killer combo- especially  for mid definition.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: masterhse on May 03, 2010, 10:18:43 pm
I guess that I should be used to it by now, but sometimes I'm amazed at the polarity of opinion among mastering engineers but the quality of work done by all concerned.

Yellow cars anyone?
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: compasspnt on May 04, 2010, 08:41:07 am
White.



Or silver.
Title: Re: Overthinking 102... Was: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on May 04, 2010, 10:05:30 am
Gold wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 10:38

Andrew Hamilton wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 23:30


So, Burgess was right not to use trafos, then.  


Since they were mainly used for disk cutting, having low end phase shift and/or distortion is a bad thing. It will cause more vertical excursion.





Aren't there trafos on most lathe inputs?  I heard about a trafo-less lathe, but was told it was a late development.  




Andrew
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: masterhse on May 04, 2010, 10:40:11 am
compasspnt wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 08:41

White.



Or silver.



I find silver to be a bit bright, possibly a 600 ohm termination could fix this. Though white or silver will still get me to the same destination if driven properly.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: dcollins on May 04, 2010, 06:13:37 pm
masterhse wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 07:40


I find silver to be a bit bright, possibly a 600 ohm termination could fix this. Though white or silver will still get me to the same destination if driven properly.


Yes, but do 99 out of 100 tracks benefit?


DC
Title: Re: Overthinking 102... Was: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: TotalSonic on May 04, 2010, 06:17:11 pm
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 10:05



Aren't there trafos on most lathe inputs?  I heard about a trafo-less lathe, but was told it was a late development.  




When was the transformerless SAL74B introduced?  About 1978?  Lots of folks did the conversion of their 74's to 74B's after that time.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Title: Re: Overthinking 102... Was: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: dcollins on May 04, 2010, 07:08:50 pm
TotalSonic wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 15:17


When was the transformerless SAL74B introduced?  About 1978?  Lots of folks did the conversion of their 74's to 74B's after that time.



I know Doug and Bernie's systems were transformerless, probably more common than transformer-coupled on the west coast.


DC
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: masterhse on May 04, 2010, 08:15:15 pm
dcollins wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 18:13


Yes, but do 99 out of 100 tracks benefit?
DC


Dave, I'm not sure if that was rhetorical but I'll answer anyway with another question.

Can you make a sweeping assumption about 100 tracks?

Best,
Tom
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: dcollins on May 04, 2010, 08:48:04 pm
masterhse wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 17:15

dcollins wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 18:13


Yes, but do 99 out of 100 tracks benefit?
DC


Dave, I'm not sure if that was rhetorical but I'll answer anyway with another question.

Can you make a sweeping assumption about 100 tracks?

Best,
Tom



I was just surprised that Brad runs M/S 99% of the time.  The only thing I do that often is hit record.


DC
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: bblackwood on May 04, 2010, 09:21:35 pm
dcollins wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 19:48

I was just surprised that Brad runs M/S 99% of the time.

Yah, I'm sure you're surprised...
Quote:

The only thing I do that often is hit record.

I'm betting you EQ 99% of the projects that come through your door.
Title: Re: Overthinking 102... Was: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on May 05, 2010, 03:20:43 am
TotalSonic wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 18:17

Andrew Hamilton wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 10:05



Aren't there trafos on most lathe inputs?  I heard about a trafo-less lathe, but was told it was a late development.  




When was the transformerless SAL74B introduced?  About 1978?  Lots of folks did the conversion of their 74's to 74B's after that time.

Best regards,
Steve Berson



Since this was just two years before CD was introduced, that was a late development, indeed...  

And the first discs they sneaked on us in large amounts (with DVD-A and SACD, too) were the remastered classics, which were coming from fluttery tape with plenty of iron.  Also, the L2 had not yet been invented.  (;


But every record, from Enrico Caruso's 78's ("...indistinguishable from live performance." [sic]) to all the Van Gelder classics, to all the Beatles (ALL THE BEATLES) lps, to most of Disco, Led Zeppelin, DSOTM (_D_S_O_T_M_!), every His Masters Voice RCA Victor, every Ray Charles hit, etc... managed to have this much staying power in spite of lathe trafos.  

Perhaps, with no trafos in the lacquer/U-Matic channels, we sensed that they had to be put back in the console gear.  But when they were in the lathe electronics, having them also in the eq and comp was probably already adequate "veil" and, since Aspen was the answer,* once the technology permitted, we abandoned as many trafos as we could.  



Andrew




* just checking if you're reading this far into the post
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: grantis on May 31, 2010, 11:07:25 pm
Hate to be a pest, but I'm cornfused.

I've done a bunch of reading on the 'net about the 111c, and i'm considering picking up a couple (I'm a mix guy, pardon my barging in on a mastering thread Wink).  

I've come across several wiring diagrams (in schematic form) which i have no idea how to interpret.  I've also come across several pictures of different wiring setups in/out of these bad boys....  

If I understand it correctly, I would want to wire them 1:1 (or 600ohm:600ohm in this case) for greatest headroom correct?  Has anybody configured their 111c's this way?  I'm thinking of inserting these last in my 'chain'.  I'm looking for a straight-forward explanation as to what-terminals-go-where and what's-hot-what's-ground-what's-cold.  Everything I've found on the 'net that looks to be useful is in Japanese....and google translate wasn't much help...haha.

Also, does anybody know if it's important to 'match' these for stereo operation?

thanks for any help!
Title: Re: Overthinking 102... Was: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: TotalSonic on May 31, 2010, 11:34:42 pm
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 03:20

TotalSonic wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 18:17

Andrew Hamilton wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 10:05



Aren't there trafos on most lathe inputs?  I heard about a trafo-less lathe, but was told it was a late development.  




When was the transformerless SAL74B introduced?  About 1978?  Lots of folks did the conversion of their 74's to 74B's after that time.

Best regards,
Steve Berson



Since this was just two years before CD was introduced, that was a late development, indeed...  


Dunno - it might have been earlier - which is why I had a question mark as I don't know the precise date it happened.  And there was a good 10 years after it was introduced before CD pushed out vinyl - and there was certainly lots of vinyl releases from that point until the present day as well.  My main point being that I have a feeling a lot of lacquers got cut without the signal going through transformers first.

fwiw - Europadisk's transfer console was run single ended.  I'm sure there were others doing similar as well.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Title: Re: Overthinking 102... Was: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on June 02, 2010, 07:22:45 am
Yes, many vinyl releases - and CD releases were made in the years after the advent of the transformerless lathe. How funny if they could have sounded better by sounding worse...  And now we read of those adding trafos back to the mastering console in order put sonic clothes back on otherwise naked modern music.   Not an exact rule, but possibly a trend.  I don't begrudge Sherwood Sax for wishing to minimize the number of trafos that a signal passes through on its way to the record.   After all, back then, most recording studios had already added too much iron, by force.   But once the technology permitted transformerless mic pres, and analog tape was also replaced by digital storage, the transients became like weapons.   "Naked truth wants clothing to look smart.  Let our ME's portray you in iron and germanium and various modes of self-erasure."




Andrew
Title: Re: Overthinking 102... Was: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Gold on June 02, 2010, 09:34:11 am
There were many more important elements to the SAL to SAL B upgrade. Most important was the redesign of the grounding system. FWIW I think the Haufe transformer input sounds better than the balancing board they made.
Title: Re: What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Post by: Garrett H on June 02, 2010, 10:13:37 am
masterhse wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 22:18

... I'm amazed at the polarity of opinion among mastering engineers but the quality of work done by all concerned.



+1
Well put, Tom.