Synaspse GQ7 For Mid /Side Processing

[Blast]

Hi all.I am trying to use The synapse GQ7 For mid/side processing but I cant get it to work,is there a special way that I have to hook it up for it work? Thanks.

[selig]

There is a button under the meters that you use to select the mode. Hope that helps!

[Blast]

Oh I get it now,but I did not know that i had to use two EQs in order to make it work.

[riemac]

Oh I get it now,but I did not know that i had to use two EQs in order to make it work.

Yes, I wish mid side could be used in one instance

[selig]

Oh I get it now,but I did not know that i had to use two EQs in order to make it work.

Only if you need to EQ BOTH Mid and Side - curious how often do you use mid/side EQ, and how often do you need to EQ both the mid AND side?

[Blast]

Oh I get it now,but I did not know that i had to use two EQs in order to make it work.

Only if you need to EQ BOTH Mid and Side - curious how often do you use mid/side EQ, and how often do you need to EQ both the mid AND side?

I saw it has the option, so I wanted to find out how it is done, in case there is a need for it.Like maybe if i am trying to master my own track, however I am Still learning the trade. 'Selig' some advice will be greatly appreciated.

[selig]

I'll just say that I've been aware of mid/side processing my entire professional life, and the only way it was used (until recently) was by mastering engineers who had no other choice when faced with crappy mixes. That being said, it makes sense that IF you can address the issues in the mix, you don't need M/S.

I WILL say that there ARE creative uses of m/s for synthetic sounds where destroying the center image isn't an issue, such as widening a synth. But remember that there are no "free lunches" and using M/S ALWAYS has trade offs.

[pjeudy]

Oh I get it now,but I did not know that i had to use two EQs in order to make it work.

Yea..it's a downer!
Gq7 is the only Eq I use besides the SSl one. PRO Q2 allows M/S in one instance! I freaking love that about it!

[selig]

It is more complex to have two complete sets of controls in a single EQ. Doable, but it's GOT to be worth the extra effort/clutter/etc. In my work, M/S EQ is as common as separate L/R EQ, which is to say I never need/want/use it. But I'm really curious how often folks actually use this feature - there are plenty of features that folks "insist" are important but when you ask them how often they use them they say "only once in a while". If M/S is one of these features that only a small number of folks use on a regular basis, then the GQ7 approach is fine IMO.

[pjeudy]

It is more complex to have two complete sets of controls in a single EQ. Doable, but it's GOT to be worth the extra effort/clutter/etc. In my work, M/S EQ is as common as separate L/R EQ, which is to say I never need/want/use it. But I'm really curious how often folks actually use this feature - there are plenty of features that folks "insist" are important but when you ask them how often they use them they say "only once in a while". If M/S is one of these features that only a small number of folks use on a regular basis, then the GQ7 approach is fine IMO.

That's a tough question. I used M/S anything I think needs it, not sure I would classify it as most important but it's a tool to be used when one feels the track or sound needs it.
When I look at the features of PRO Q vs GQ7 ..the Synapse EQ stands it's ground very well...!
I wrote a post comparing them.... I would say that besides a few other features. ...the fact that you can do most EQ work within one instance. ..is freaking awesome, the work flow is seem less and Mid Side can work and wonderfully.

REASON Rack Extension will always be compared Vst plugin technology and that's a good thing mostly!

[selig]

It is more complex to have two complete sets of controls in a single EQ. Doable, but it's GOT to be worth the extra effort/clutter/etc. In my work, M/S EQ is as common as separate L/R EQ, which is to say I never need/want/use it. But I'm really curious how often folks actually use this feature - there are plenty of features that folks "insist" are important but when you ask them how often they use them they say "only once in a while". If M/S is one of these features that only a small number of folks use on a regular basis, then the GQ7 approach is fine IMO.

That's a tough question. I used M/S anything I think needs it, not sure I would classify it as most important but it's a tool to be used when one feels the track or sound needs it.
When I look at the features of PRO Q vs GQ7 ..the Synapse EQ stands it's ground very well...!
I wrote a post comparing them.... I would say that besides a few other features. ...the fact that you can do most EQ work within one instance. ..is freaking awesome, the work flow is seem less and Mid Side can work and wonderfully.

REASON Rack Extension will always be compared Vst plugin technology and that's a good thing mostly!

Can you (if you have a moment) give examples of what types of sources you use M/S EQ on, and the reasons you use it (as well as the results you feel you get)?

[Blast]

I tried M/S Processing on a mix using the GQ7 and I must say I found it to be interesting.

[Loque]

I like GQs LP and HP filters - very good to enclose the frequency for tracks. The same goes for M/S, where i normally cut low frequencies on the side, because they are pretty useless in stereo field. In the same step i enhance the higher frequencies on the side. this is like using stereo imager to make mono below a low frequency). I use this on tracks and in the mastering.

More EQing on the side i see only for special widening and similar effects (bandsplitted stereo imaging).

GQ is a very good and clean EQ to correct and filter sounds, not good for coloring, boosting or attenuation. The backpanel CVs or within a Combinator its gonna be a vety good dynamic EQ. A must-have imo.

[pjeudy]

It is more complex to have two complete sets of controls in a single EQ. Doable, but it's GOT to be worth the extra effort/clutter/etc. In my work, M/S EQ is as common as separate L/R EQ, which is to say I never need/want/use it. But I'm really curious how often folks actually use this feature - there are plenty of features that folks "insist" are important but when you ask them how often they use them they say "only once in a while". If M/S is one of these features that only a small number of folks use on a regular basis, then the GQ7 approach is fine IMO.

That's a tough question. I used M/S anything I think needs it, not sure I would classify it as most important but it's a tool to be used when one feels the track or sound needs it.
When I look at the features of PRO Q vs GQ7 ..the Synapse EQ stands it's ground very well...!
I wrote a post comparing them.... I would say that besides a few other features. ...the fact that you can do most EQ work within one instance. ..is freaking awesome, the work flow is seem less and Mid Side can work and wonderfully.

REASON Rack Extension will always be compared Vst plugin technology and that's a good thing mostly!

Can you (if you have a moment) give examples of what types of sources you use M/S EQ on, and the reasons you use it (as well as the results you feel you get)?

Not a problem... Also we all should keep in mind that for any given effect one can find a work around that doesn't require a M/S EQ. For an example the a lot can be done with Quadelectra stereo RE

On a Hole Mix. I find that i can do my best to remove Mud and make space or allow a track to breath...then I think to my self,ok, it sounds good like it is. Then, I decide to try remove some specific Mid only Frequency's using GQ7..and that make the track sound even clearer with more space and not as heavy. Now that could be 100% lack of skill on my part, it's probably is that...but using the GQ7 and removing some targeted Mids..sounds good to my ears
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m31t4mak30m41 ... e.wav?dl=0

I also use it to remove the Mid Freq of a lead sound to make room for another element to take the lead..but still keep the first lead with a little more stereo presence!
Again not a holly grail at all..But In modern computer technology times...if an EQ like Synapse and Proq 2 can allow for M/S then why not!? It's just that the fact that PRO Q2 allows you to stay within one interface is wayyy cool... to do the same with GQ7 you would need multiple(s) of instances *that more then 2 instances of GQ7*

Oh..while you are here Selig ...I requested it before >>ARC<< for Leveler, pretty please! would make it like WAVES C4

[selig]

Two things come to mind with your post - one is that best I can tell in your examples you are only EQ'ing the mid OR the side, something the GQ7 can easily do. The second is that it appears you are "fixing" issues with the mix that IMO may be easier and better done at the individual track level. The one possible exception is your example of the synth lead, which of course assumes the sound is "stereo" from the start to begin with - I more often keep leads mono with light stereo FX on the sends. It also assumes your stereo field is uncluttered to begin with, meaning that there is room to allow the "sides" to remain more intense as you cut from the mid. Also remember EQ'ing the "MID" is actually EQ'ing EVERYTHING - the mid signal is a mono version of the entire stereo signal after all…

As to adding ARC to the Leveler - what is not working with Leveler as it is? I find it to be more transparent than other dynamics devices as is and have never felt that ARC would make much of a difference. You can try it for yourself by using CV to control Recovery time from the built in Peak Detect CV output if you're curious.

[Dante]

Oh I get it now,but I did not know that i had to use two EQs in order to make it work.

Yes, I wish mid side could be used in one instance[/quote]

+1 This was my gripe when I first discovered it only did one or the other.

Only if you need to EQ BOTH Mid and Side - curious how often do you use mid/side EQ, and how often do you need to EQ both the mid AND side?

When do I use both ? Ever since I started using mid-side on DSP in my mastering chain - about 6 years ago

http://www.hitfoundry.com/issue_03/masterit.htm Note the 'EDIT' mode, which controls whether you are modifying mid or side, but that the EQ dials show both mid and side in a ringed config.

Which also links to another blog discussing uses for M/S and hence the usefullnes of doing both in one.

https://kimlajoie.wordpress.com/2010/04 ... idside-eq/

eg Mono Bass, Top End Dimension, Focused Vocals and Giant Lower Mids can all be done simultaneously with a single processor if it does both at the same time.

Effects traditionally used to fix bad things which should have been addressed earlier can also be used for creative effect.

[pjeudy]

Two things come to mind with your post - one is that best I can tell in your examples you are only EQ'ing the mid OR the side, something the GQ7 can easily do. The second is that it appears you are "fixing" issues with the mix that IMO may be easier and better done at the individual track level. The one possible exception is your example of the synth lead, which of course assumes the sound is "stereo" from the start to begin with - I more often keep leads mono with light stereo FX on the sends. It also assumes your stereo field is uncluttered to begin with, meaning that there is room to allow the "sides" to remain more intense as you cut from the mid. Also remember EQ'ing the "MID" is actually EQ'ing EVERYTHING - the mid signal is a mono version of the entire stereo signal after all…

As to adding ARC to the Leveler - what is not working with Leveler as it is? I find it to be more transparent than other dynamics devices as is and have never felt that ARC would make much of a difference. You can try it for yourself by using CV to control Recovery time from the built in Peak Detect CV output if you're curious.

This example with the M/S as I said ..there are other ways it could be worked around with standard EQ's on individual channels or even using a device like Mclass Stereo expender or Quadelectra's device. But also there are times when the results can be quicker using an EQ with M/S.

Creative usage:
Distorting the Mids only on a lead sound,Compressing the sides only, say you have a track and no access to the stems and you feel that you want to add some ambiance to the track...you can easily add a Room reverb to the SIDEs only to help give it that space.
I stated before also if you have a Lead sound in stereo...but then introduce say a vocal but you still want to retain some of that lead sound Side presence, then simply cutting some of the Mid FREQ can allow that effect to happen.

M/S is very useful tool...that should be added to Computer based EQ's, Just like a spectrum display isn't necessary to EQ a sound (use your ears)
M/S may not be a do or die feature. But should be in your tolls box in the 21 century.

[pjeudy]

As to adding ARC to the Leveler - what is not working with Leveler as it is? You can try it for yourself by using CV to control Recovery time from the built in Peak Detect CV output if you're curious.

Ok...will compare this method!

[selig]

Two things come to mind with your post - one is that best I can tell in your examples you are only EQ'ing the mid OR the side, something the GQ7 can easily do. The second is that it appears you are "fixing" issues with the mix that IMO may be easier and better done at the individual track level. The one possible exception is your example of the synth lead, which of course assumes the sound is "stereo" from the start to begin with - I more often keep leads mono with light stereo FX on the sends. It also assumes your stereo field is uncluttered to begin with, meaning that there is room to allow the "sides" to remain more intense as you cut from the mid. Also remember EQ'ing the "MID" is actually EQ'ing EVERYTHING - the mid signal is a mono version of the entire stereo signal after all…

As to adding ARC to the Leveler - what is not working with Leveler as it is? I find it to be more transparent than other dynamics devices as is and have never felt that ARC would make much of a difference. You can try it for yourself by using CV to control Recovery time from the built in Peak Detect CV output if you're curious.

This example with the M/S as I said ..there are other ways it could be worked around with standard EQ's on individual channels or even using a device like Mclass Stereo expender or Quadelectra's device. But also there are times when the results can be quicker using an EQ with M/S.

Creative usage:
Distorting the Mids only on a lead sound,Compressing the sides only, say you have a track and no access to the stems and you feel that you want to add some ambiance to the track...you can easily add a Room reverb to the SIDEs only to help give it that space.
I stated before also if you have a Lead sound in stereo...but then introduce say a vocal but you still want to retain some of that lead sound Side presence, then simply cutting some of the Mid FREQ can allow that effect to happen.

M/S is very useful tool...that should be added to Computer based EQ's, Just like a spectrum display isn't necessary to EQ a sound (use your ears)
M/S may not be a do or die feature. But should be in your tolls box in the 21 century.

As you have noted, and I have mentioned in the past, the most common use for M/S is to correct mix issues when there's no access to the original mix. In all other cases I've found the losses incurred by using M/S are better avoided if you have access to the original mix. But it is a "fix" and there are tradeoffs that one should be well aware of IMO.
[edit: I'm ignoring creative applications in the above statement.]

[pjeudy]

[edit: I'm ignoring creative applications in the above statement.]

I completely understand..Kids today and how they process Audio is not necessarily for everyone

[Blast]

Two things come to mind with your post - one is that best I can tell in your examples you are only EQ'ing the mid OR the side, something the GQ7 can easily do. The second is that it appears you are "fixing" issues with the mix that IMO may be easier and better done at the individual track level. The one possible exception is your example of the synth lead, which of course assumes the sound is "stereo" from the start to begin with - I more often keep leads mono with light stereo FX on the sends. It also assumes your stereo field is uncluttered to begin with, meaning that there is room to allow the "sides" to remain more intense as you cut from the mid. Also remember EQ'ing the "MID" is actually EQ'ing EVERYTHING - the mid signal is a mono version of the entire stereo signal after all…

As to adding ARC to the Leveler - what is not working with Leveler as it is? I find it to be more transparent than other dynamics devices as is and have never felt that ARC would make much of a difference. You can try it for yourself by using CV to control Recovery time from the built in Peak Detect CV output if you're curious.

This example with the M/S as I said ..there are other ways it could be worked around with standard EQ's on individual channels or even using a device like Mclass Stereo expender or Quadelectra's device. But also there are times when the results can be quicker using an EQ with M/S.

Creative usage:
Distorting the Mids only on a lead sound,Compressing the sides only, say you have a track and no access to the stems and you feel that you want to add some ambiance to the track...you can easily add a Room reverb to the SIDEs only to help give it that space.
I stated before also if you have a Lead sound in stereo...but then introduce say a vocal but you still want to retain some of that lead sound Side presence, then simply cutting some of the Mid FREQ can allow that effect to happen.

M/S is very useful tool...that should be added to Computer based EQ's, Just like a spectrum display isn't necessary to EQ a sound (use your ears)
M/S may not be a do or die feature. But should be in your tolls box in the 21 century.

As you have noted, and I have mentioned in the past, the most common use for M/S is to correct mix issues when there's no access to the original mix. In all other cases I've found the losses incurred by using M/S are better avoided if you have access to the original mix. But it is a "fix" and there are tradeoffs that one should be well aware of IMO.
[edit: I'm ignoring creative applications in the above statement.]

So you Are saying at most times M/S processing should be avoided, if possible?

[selig]

Two things come to mind with your post - one is that best I can tell in your examples you are only EQ'ing the mid OR the side, something the GQ7 can easily do. The second is that it appears you are "fixing" issues with the mix that IMO may be easier and better done at the individual track level. The one possible exception is your example of the synth lead, which of course assumes the sound is "stereo" from the start to begin with - I more often keep leads mono with light stereo FX on the sends. It also assumes your stereo field is uncluttered to begin with, meaning that there is room to allow the "sides" to remain more intense as you cut from the mid. Also remember EQ'ing the "MID" is actually EQ'ing EVERYTHING - the mid signal is a mono version of the entire stereo signal after all…

As to adding ARC to the Leveler - what is not working with Leveler as it is? I find it to be more transparent than other dynamics devices as is and have never felt that ARC would make much of a difference. You can try it for yourself by using CV to control Recovery time from the built in Peak Detect CV output if you're curious.

This example with the M/S as I said ..there are other ways it could be worked around with standard EQ's on individual channels or even using a device like Mclass Stereo expender or Quadelectra's device. But also there are times when the results can be quicker using an EQ with M/S.

Creative usage:
Distorting the Mids only on a lead sound,Compressing the sides only, say you have a track and no access to the stems and you feel that you want to add some ambiance to the track...you can easily add a Room reverb to the SIDEs only to help give it that space.
I stated before also if you have a Lead sound in stereo...but then introduce say a vocal but you still want to retain some of that lead sound Side presence, then simply cutting some of the Mid FREQ can allow that effect to happen.

M/S is very useful tool...that should be added to Computer based EQ's, Just like a spectrum display isn't necessary to EQ a sound (use your ears)
M/S may not be a do or die feature. But should be in your tolls box in the 21 century.

As you have noted, and I have mentioned in the past, the most common use for M/S is to correct mix issues when there's no access to the original mix. In all other cases I've found the losses incurred by using M/S are better avoided if you have access to the original mix. But it is a "fix" and there are tradeoffs that one should be well aware of IMO.
[edit: I'm ignoring creative applications in the above statement.]

So you Are saying at most times M/S processing should be avoided, if possible?

Every process as advantages and possible disadvantages: too little reverb can sound too dead but too much will swamp the mix; to little EQ may not adequately address a problem but too much will only make it worse; too little compression can make an instrument difficult to place in a mix, but too much will distort.crush it; etc.

For every process there's a "gotcha" IMO, and it's helpful to learn to recognize the possible gotchas for each process.

For M/S it really depends on the source. More mono sources won't benefit much at all from M/S processing, for example. "True" stereo sources can easily be messed up with M/S processing since it's ONLY when mid and side signals are combined at equal levels that the original sound stage is represented correctly. Artificial stereo signals (digital algorithmic reverbs, "stereo" chorus effects, etc.) work better with M/S IMO since they do not represent a traditional "sound stage" (independent panning of different elements). As such, messing with the mid/side balance on FX based "stereo" audio signals won't destroy the 'stereo' aspects of the signal since there isn't a true stereo signal to being with.

There is also a common misunderstanding about what M/S actually is. For example, many folks think the mid signal contains JUST the audio panned center, when in fact the mid signal is the ENTIRE stereo signal collapsed to mono. That is to say, the "sides" are ALSO in the "mid" signal! Using EQ as an example, EQ'ing the mid signal ALSO EQ's the side signal. Also, reducing the side signal just gives you mono, but reducing the mid signal gives you a very odd "out of phase" sounding signal. Remember the side signal is actually mono - it's ONLY when properly combined with the mid signal that the true L/R information is properly revealed/reconstructed. Remove the mid signal to any degree and you begin to remove the L/R relationship - remove the mid signal completely and you'll not hear the proper L/R panning of the original at all. Additionally, this "side" signal will disappear completely when collapsed to mono!

In general with all processing IMO, do as little as necessary to get the job done, with the exception of special FX where anything goes. Being aware of the extremes with any processing helps to train your ear to recognize when you've gone "too far". In the case of M/S, take some time to hear what just the mid and just the side signal sound like on their own so you can learn to recognize more quickly when you're doing more harm than good. For example, when increasing/EQ'ing sides (or decreasing mids) be sure to listen to the mid elements to make sure they are still present enough.

[pjeudy]

So you Are saying at most times M/S processing should be avoided, if possible?

I would say, it's a matter of being careful and using your ears and not to be scared to experiment and push the envelop on things/Techniques people tell you to be careful about!

Here's an example of a producer Using M/S!

Mid Side Demystified

Into The Lair #34 - Mid-Side EQ Technique

How to Mix Acoustic Music — Part 3: Mid-Side EQ

[selig]

So you Are saying at most times M/S processing should be avoided, if possible?

I would say, it's a matter of being careful and using your ears and not to be scared to experiment and push the envelop on things/Techniques people tell you to be careful about!

Not sure I would disagree with you, except to say that it's only when you are confident with your ability to hear exactly what you're doing that you can experiment without care. People say to be "careful" as a way of helping beginners avoid common pitfalls, so ignore their advice with caution if you are just getting started!!!

As for the videos, I noticed on the first that he only EQ'ed the sides, something you can do with GQ7 - you don't need separate M/S EQ bands for these techniques.

On the second I noted they claimed reducing the mid signal created a wider stereo signal, which of course is impossible because as you reduce the mid you are left with a mono signal with one channel 180° inverted from the other. You totally loose the stereo panning at this point! For example, a high hat panned hard left would now appear in both the left and right speakers with the mid signal removed, which is not at all "wider" as one might expect.

And again as I said earlier, some folks (the fourth video specifically) still believe the Mid channel contains only the "middle content" as he says, forgetting the mid is simply a mono version of the ENTIRE stereo signal! It is partly for this reason I would have to more agree with the first video, which only EQs the sides (to great effect IMO). Not to say that EQ'ing the mid is a bad idea, just to remember the mid signal is more than just the signals panned center!

[pjeudy]

Not sure I would disagree with you, except to say that it's only when you are confident with your ability to hear exactly what you're doing that you can experiment without care.

OH..No!...Not at all what I had in mind!
Experiment always any time! one never stops learning ever! and we can learn a lot by experimenting.

People say to be "careful" as a way of helping beginners avoid common pitfalls, so ignore their advice with caution if you are just getting started!!!

Right !
I do the same ..I read your point of view and many other on the web ect......then hold that In mind at the same time I try and see if I could either push it..or not! I never discard a heads up from someones experience!