M/s devices are nice but...

A place to talk about whatever Scope music/gear related stuff you want.

Moderators: valis, garyb

JoPo
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: VRRAAaaooOôOooommmh
Contact:

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by JoPo »

Thanks, Dante.. It's very interesting. I allready work with busses in the way of the article, sometimes. STM 4896 is really excellent, I just hope some improvment in Scope 6, such as stereo aux, Xite optimization (I know it's already done but maybe assigning chosen dsp to its insert devices), midi timing : the midi controlers data timing is really not accurate and midi controler assignation kept with project file... With all those improvments, STM 4896 will be unbeatable !

I was absolutely not convinced about garyb's monomaker suggestion but I just made a try.. And by lowering the monomaker frequency, I get a good pan replacement. It's weird cause I tried with a rythmic guitar which is pretty high pitch and the monomaker was at 125hz. Maybe the monomaker filter slope is not much steep but I'm happy to get this result.
I'll be more care about monomaker in the future.... :D

Thanks a lot, garyb !
:)
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- Musica --> here ! ---< < < < < < < < < < < <
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23364
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by garyb »

:)
Music Manic
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:00 pm
Contact:

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by Music Manic »

Here's a test file:

https://www.sendspace.com/file/irp4ml

There is a duplicate stereo ouput from the mixer,

1-one feeds the M/S plugin which goes to Wolf's switch
2-the other goes to channel 2 of Wolf's switch.

The first 8 bars is M/S not panned
the second 8 is direct out not panned(you can hear the switch)
the next 16 bars is the direct out panned each side then back to
M/S panned (the signal reverts to stereo and loses the pan information).

These means Brainworx hasn't decoded the ouput.

Monomaker was set to off.

You were right!!
JoPo
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: VRRAAaaooOôOooommmh
Contact:

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by JoPo »

Ah !! Glad to see someone has the same [not good] result !

But I must say that this issue seems to happen with some other m/s devices such as Peter's red m/s eq...

I don't think it's a Brainworx problem but an m/s problem. Please have a try with another m/s device...!
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- Musica --> here ! ---< < < < < < < < < < < <
Music Manic
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:00 pm
Contact:

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by Music Manic »

I think it's to do with the encoding and decoding stages.

I've just emailed Brainworx and asked them how the signal is encoded etc.

I will post when I get a reply.

Thanks for pointing it out because I felt that putting the whole mix through it made it fall apart sometimes. Very interesting.
Will test it more today and see if we can work it out.
Music Manic
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:00 pm
Contact:

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by Music Manic »

Just got this reply form Brainworx

"Hi,
you have a very old version of the plugin. I think it`s the BX_Digital?
Please checkout our newest installer from Plugin Alliance. You can check
out 14-Days for free.

Best wishes, the Plugin Alliance Support Team (Germany)."

Well! Is that a way of saying it's broken or saying spend money? No reference to the Scope platform.
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23364
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by garyb »

my response is if you don't like it, don't use it.
Brainworx no longer makes Scope plugins and i'm sure they just want you to use the vsts that they are currently making.

i use the BX and i have music charting from the USA to South Africa. it's fine, but there's no reason for everyone to use it, or for it to be useful for everyone. it works properly. there are many ways that panning can be affected with the BX including the monomaker and by changing the gain on mid and side components. maybe it's just not a good eq for your purposes.

by the way, Brainworx didn't do the encode/decode for the BX, DAS did, or that's the version of the story that i heard.
Music Manic
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:00 pm
Contact:

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by Music Manic »

Ok It's all working ok but I have to work out how it's decoded.

I've just played with it and have fed it a stereo track which is split to left and right and panned that way. I soloed each side of the track and couldn't get the true pan information unless I switched off the EQ button and had Solo and Mono deactivated. As soon as you activate one of these switches the audio signal path changes and you'll hear the signal come out of the left and right reardless, instead of just left or right. This happens even if the plugin is being fed just the left or right channel. So the decoding is placing the separate inputs and summing them without relating to the pan. That's the way it is and I guess that's why it's for mastering not mixing.
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23364
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by garyb »

yes, exactly.

they really are two different processes.

no, m/s isn't a great process for everything. when it's used in the right place, it's magical. when it's used for a job it's not suited for, it's a disappointment. i think even hammers work so. :lol:
User avatar
dante
Posts: 5044
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by dante »

You've nailed it ! :lol: :lol:
JoPo
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: VRRAAaaooOôOooommmh
Contact:

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by JoPo »

fra77 m-s module allowed me to understand why stereo field is altered with m/s devices !

Put fra77's module at the output of a ping pong delay, just put an amp gain on 'm' and another one on 's'. You think, hum... At least i (me, poor half-witted) thought I was going to increase the stereo field feeling by adding gain on 's' ... Have a try ! The field becomes thinner. Because additions & substractions need to keep the same value to rebuild the signal correctly, I guess. Thus it's quiet normal that by changing gain frequency (like in an eq) only on side or only mid, the stereo data are lost... Am I right ?

I'm realizing that in fact, it's very difficult to process mid & side in different way and get a nice stereo result ! I think that to keep the stereo image in a m/s device, some much more complicated processing is needed !! Brainworx BX, for instance, must have much more processing things than a simple m/s device like fra77 one's and a simple eq for mid signal & another one for side... And the stereo placement is drastically affected anyway.

Merci de votre attention. :D
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- Musica --> here ! ---< < < < < < < < < < < <
User avatar
astroman
Posts: 8446
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by astroman »

correct - that's what Dirk (?) from Brainworx always pointed out...
there is a special extra in their devices - but he didn't say what exactly :P

cheers, Tom
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23364
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by garyb »

Eric from DAS's work...
User avatar
dante
Posts: 5044
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by dante »

garyb wrote:Eric from DAS's work...

...except the bit that makes MasterIT so good...
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23364
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by garyb »

the M/S circuit is the same in both devices.
User avatar
RA
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:00 pm
Contact:

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by RA »

Just some notes on this "older" discussion:

With MS techniques you can do all kinds of processing....and do it very well!
The thing is....IT IS ABSOLUTELY NEEDED TO KEEP THE PHASE OF M AND S ABSOLUTELY THE SAME.
With this in mind, you can EQ and more....dNa-CompANY-XT and dNa-Stereo Equaliser are MS capable devices
for which i created with own MS encoders / decoders, and i put a lot of time in the phase guarantee!
(also the dNa-Summer-of-82 has MS processing on ALL the stereo input channels, giving lots of control
in placement. Dante did some nice testing on that, and has pointed that feature out of the summer)
Because processing can cause sample-delays through a not-so-well designed plugin, resulting
in very weird results. (caused by dsp-placements etc)

Simple:
M is created by adding L and R together
S is created by substracting L and R from eachother.

In math:
M=L+R
S=L-R

So...how do you make it back to L/R mix?....basically:
L=(M+S)/2
R=(M-S)/2

That is basically the trick... ;-) It is no magic, just simple math, and a good judgement ear ;-)

If you put a encoder and decoder in series on a stereomix, it should be ABSOLUTELY THE SAME!!!!! If not....something is very wrong.
This is why you cannot take an MS encoder, chop in some EQ or comp, or seperate processing on one of the channels, and mangle it back together with the decoder....there is the delay. A good MS device is designed "as is"...like for example the dNa-Stereo Equaliser....all is in the device, and i can guarantee
phase-alignment is stable, no matter what scope-system you load it on, or when you reload your project (which can cause different dsp placements)
which will cause a horrible soundfield.
- We're freaks about gearz and methods -
More on dNa: http://dnamusic.nl
JoPo
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: VRRAAaaooOôOooommmh
Contact:

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by JoPo »

:) Brilliant, RA ! Thanks for explaination. That's what I undestood by experimenting with fra77 ms device. And I guessed it's a phase / latency problem which gave me this bad result. But you put math on what was just an intuition for me.

So what do you think about this way to do (mainly how L/R mix is build back) ?
M_S_calcul.PNG
M_S_calcul.PNG (27.73 KiB) Viewed 1994 times
I don't see any M+S/2 function to build back the stereo signal...But gain function is the same, isn't it ? And also, how would you advice me to check phase - latency in each part of processing ? I must tell you that I don't use SDK, if I try to make some "personnal" m-s processing, it's only with Modular or Scope -> with mathematical BCmodular or CWmodular modules, it's already possible but as you explained, I need to mesure / control perfectly latency everywhere to get a satisfactory result...

Thanks a lot !
:)
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- Musica --> here ! ---< < < < < < < < < < < <
User avatar
RA
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:00 pm
Contact:

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by RA »

Hi JoPo,

i think in this the first gain adjust does the job for the /2 (it is because else the summed signals could clip.
If the level is exactly the same as unprocessed, the setup is correct.

The thing here with your setup....you don't know, and cannot control where the seperate modules are placed,
thus you can't predict what the latency will be.

The BEST way to test for correct phase: add a signal with the inverted signal.
In math ;-)

(signal a) - (signal a) = 0


So....
take L from the input, and take L from the output and invert the phase on the output....add those and
the result should be NO sound. (with processing the signals in /out are different, and then
a sample delay on the input could help for aligning the phase for maximum cancelation...
If you once heard what those phase issues sound like, it is easily recognisable.

Hope this helps, but it is a hassle in your setup / modular, cause when you find the correct delay, it could
be the next time you load your project or setup, the delay could be different.

regards,
ray
- We're freaks about gearz and methods -
More on dNa: http://dnamusic.nl
JoPo
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: VRRAAaaooOôOooommmh
Contact:

Re: M/s devices are nice but...

Post by JoPo »

Many thanks, RA ! I understand everything ! And it's hapiness !

I still don't have the desire to go at SDK level yet.. I needed 7 or 8 years to get acceptable result with modular, so I can't imagine how many time I would need with SDK ! But advices like yours and many other people's on Z satisfie me.

The m-s jpg was given to me by someone here some years ago but I cant remember who.... I thank him anyway ! :D
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- Musica --> here ! ---< < < < < < < < < < < <
Post Reply