Synaspse GQ7 For Mid /Side Processing

Want to talk about music hardware or software that doesn't include Reason?
User avatar
pjeudy
Posts: 1559
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

24 Jan 2016

selig wrote: 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.
:)
I can't spend to much on that point, only because I don't know the mind of the speaker....But in my mind that's not what he meant! What I took from it is that you can get a *sense* of a wider stereo effect by reducing the Mid in portion to the sides.....loosely speaking he is right but technically there a better explanation of the effect which you posted.

On the demo track I uploaded when M/S was activated on the GQ7 the track felt or sounded wider, by reducing a few Mid freq bands. That's what I think he was getting at!
My opinion is that Propellerhead REASON needs a complete rewrite!
P.S: people should stop saying "No it won't happen" when referring to a complete rewrite of REASON. I have 3 letters for ya....VST
Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:53 pm

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

24 Jan 2016

pjeudy wrote:
selig wrote: 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.
:)
I can't spend to much on that point, only because I don't know the mind of the speaker....But in my mind that's not what he meant! What I took from it is that you can get a *sense* of a wider stereo effect by reducing the Mid in portion to the sides.....loosely speaking he is right but technically there a better explanation of the effect which you posted.

On the demo track I uploaded when M/S was activated on the GQ7 the track felt or sounded wider, by reducing a few Mid freq bands. That's what I think he was getting at!
I agree with all you're saying. :)

My point was that @1:50 or so he comments that you can use the M/S "pan ring" control as a "stereo width" controller, which is only true for the left half of that control. He says that turning the control to the right "widens the stereo image", which as we both seem to agree is not correct. There ARE effects that can achieve an actual widening of the stereo image to some degree, but what M/S does is to create a partial illusion of width - if you have a true stereo image such as recorded by a pair of microphones, you do not widen the image because you actually LOOSE stereo information as you do this (as I have previously mentioned).

Yes, he could have worded it MUCH better - I'll put it down to "marketing hype". But these are the types of things engineers talk about when we get together, things that probably don't bother many folks - but with a little more effort he could have been far more educational and less mis-leading IMO. I've always enjoyed the user guides and product videos that not only demonstrate the product but also educate the user, so consider that when reading my "picky" comments… ;)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
pjeudy
Posts: 1559
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

24 Jan 2016

selig wrote: Yes, he could have worded it MUCH better - I'll put it down to "marketing hype".
Agreed ... :puf_smile: ..I thought of that on my second watch!
My opinion is that Propellerhead REASON needs a complete rewrite!
P.S: people should stop saying "No it won't happen" when referring to a complete rewrite of REASON. I have 3 letters for ya....VST
Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:53 pm

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

25 Jan 2016

After watching that first video I realized/remembered where M/S EQ can be most useful IMO, and that is on synthetic "stereo" instruments like synths that you want to appear wider. By boosting mid/high end on the "sides" of these tracks you can achieve that effect as well as any other option out there.

Unless you're cutting vinyl I still don't see any reason to make low frequencies "mono", unless you simply prefer the sound. One of the most exciting things about moving from vinyl to CDs back in the 80s was the chance to have stereo bass effects if wanted.

Anyway, after professing to never using M/S processing, I'm discovering that M/S EQ is the one area worth exploring for my work. :)
Selig Audio, LLC

Ostermilk
Posts: 1535
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

25 Jan 2016

selig wrote:

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.
I'd say pretty much ALL of the M/S processing that happens these days comes under special FX where anything goes, unless it's being used for stuff recorded using the M/S technique...

http://www.uaudio.com/blog/mid-side-mic-recording/

...which in itself also contains elements of creative license to reproduce the final 'stereo' impression at the end result.

Even more historically it was a better bet for the transmission of stereo signals in that any degradation of either the M or S signal had less of an impact on the percieved quality than the same signal broadcast as L and R signals as it wouldn't be prone to weird channel dropouts and panning artifacts which would have a greater effect on the listener.

As you mention it is key to remember when working with M/S that the mid signal is the SUM and the Side signal contains the difference used to re-calculate the stereo image. A greater understanding of that fact does indeed lead to better predictions on the results of any M/S processing.

I'm also reluctant to use M/S processes on the final mix but I don't mind on tracks/groups where it can help. I particularly find it very useful occasionally on hard panned guitar parts that get supplied where the separation is sounding a bit unreal in the finished mix for example.

Ostermilk
Posts: 1535
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

25 Jan 2016

riemac wrote:
Blast wrote: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
I'll put in another way to how Giles has already tried to.

If you are doing any M/S EQing all that needs to happen is to change the relationship between the two signals which is usually acheived by changing one signal in relation to the other rather than having to affect both signals.

For example if you just reduced the level of the side signal the relationship would change, if however you then reduced the mid signal by the same amount the relationship would be restored albeit at a lower overall level.

IOW generally with M/S processing it is important to realise how you are changing the relationship between the M and S signals rather thinking that you necessarily need to change BOTH signals.

You, like I once did, and many others I observe still do, will save yourself a lot of fruitless knob twiddling and setting up complex device chains simply to arrive at the exact place you started out at by getting the importance of the fact you are aiming to change the RELATIONSHIP between the two signals as opposed to trying to change both signals when using M/S techniques.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

25 Jan 2016

There is one difference between M/S processing and M/S recording worth noting, which has to do with the center microphone choice. When a cardioid pattern is used for the mid microphone you are not getting as much of a "sum" of the entire sound stage as you get with M/S processing - you are getting more of a true "center" image since the cardioid pattern tends to reject the sides. So when you reduce the side signals of such a recording you do indeed hear more of ONLY the center information, unlike with M/S processing.

When omni is used for the mid signal (less common but still "ok") of course it's more like M/S processing, since that pattern will record the entire sound stage on one microphone. It is for this reason that an omni mic would be a better choice for mono compatibility, since it's all you will hear if/when the mix is collapsed to mono. But you get more "mid/side" control when using a cardioid pattern for the mid mic, making it a better choice when future control of the m/s balance is desired.
:)
Selig Audio, LLC

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests