R/E/P > Brad Blackwood
What's with all the fuss about M/S?
Viitalahde:
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.
masterhse:
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.
Waltz Mastering:
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.
lowland:
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.
mastertone:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version