M/S Eqing

[ONDRAY]

Is it common to eq the sides in a manner that brings out more of the air in a track and eq the mid more for substance, the meat of the track (bass/mid)

Lately I’m finding that if I’m adding any hi eq on the sides (>7Khz) that trimming the mid HIghs sounds a little fluffier. Is this the norm 'per say'? Just getting into m/s more, any thoughts on m/s EQing in general?

[lasso]

Originally Posted by ONDRAY

Is it common to eq the sides in a manner that brings out more of the air in a track and eq the mid more for substance, the meat of the track (bass/mid)

Lately I’m finding that if I’m adding any hi eq on the sides (>7Khz) that trimming the mid HIghs sounds a little fluffier. Is this the norm 'per say'? Just getting into m/s more, any thoughts on m/s EQing in general?

I don't now if you could call it "normal" like it is normal to compress, eq and limit in general, but it is definitely something that's done from time to time.

I'd say it's more a rescue feature than common practice.

It can work very well though.

[inlinenl]

Hi Ondray,

different tracks , different M/S ...
most off the times the sides have more off a high-end roll-off and just a little bit less bass/low-freq .. but the volume can be pushed a bit higher then the M-channel. Sometimes like you say ... when the mix can handle it .. the S sides have more > 10 Khz ....

last saturday I was seeing rich/solarstone live in a big club here in holland and heard some tracks I did with M/S on that perfect club-system ... they sounded very spectacular and wide ... which was totally no problem on that sound-system, they don't play in mono .. stereo is a tool you can use ..

I start to think in dance/electronic it's a tool for effect and a tool for corrective .. you can go to some more extreme values if you dare ..
I'm not talking about vocal music .. there again you can use it different.
but for all ... use your ears ... your the judge .. or otherwise the client tells you to stop drinking while mastering.

[PatrikT]

It is better to treat L and R as one.

Including the "air".


Patrik

[AndreH]

You do have to be careful about mono compatibility with this technique; things can sounds bright and airy in stereo, but flat and dull in mono.

Plus, you can destroy the sense of space because reverbs lose their l/c/r coherence.


André

[Darius van H]

I use M/S eq a lot - powerful and important mastering technique. When someone says they want the (hard panned) guitars a bit more agressive in a rock track, how are you gonna do it, other then with M/S?

Another trick is to eq different freq's in the M & S to make a track wider - or add distortion just to the sides, sub only to the middle, etc

[finetuner]

Originally Posted by ONDRAY

Is it common to eq the sides in a manner that brings out more of the air in a track and eq the mid more for substance, the meat of the track (bass/mid)..

Not per sé. Only when needed, in a corrective manner.
What will be common is that you probably never add LF to the sides.

Originally Posted by AndreH

You do have to be careful about mono compatibility with this technique; things can sounds bright and airy in stereo, but flat and dull in mono.
Plus, you can destroy the sense of space because reverbs lose their l/c/r coherence.
André

Exactly.
With all these so called magic techniques, one has to keep in mind that mastering is primarily about correcting and bringing out the best in a mix.

Once you try to push things in mastering, there will most likely be a trade-off.
F.i. stereo width vs. midfield punch. All you can really do is help find the right balance for that specific mix.

[24-96 Mastering]

Whenever I am tempted to use a filter on the mid or the sides only, it seems that in most cases, something is lost when comparing with a L/R boost. If what's lost is of lesser importance than the benefits gained, M/S is the way to go. If not, it's not. That may sound somewhat daft, but this is, I think, what makes so many people say that they potentially only use it on problem mixes. Sounds restrictive, but just means that when there's no problem to begin with, a LR boost/cut usually sounds better. I think it's not so much dogma but rather consequence of trial & error.
The possibilities of M/S are a life saver, but ime there's always a price to pay. And I can only speak for myself, but I know that I didn't recognise or weigh the downsides as strongly a couple of years ago. I do use M/S quite frequently myself, but I would encourage to always try and match the general effect of an S or an M filter with an L/R one (adjusting boost/cut to appear similar in overall effect) and compare. In each single case, for each filter that's set.

Back on topic:

As for air / high boost on the side band: I sometimes do that, but I set that much more often to try it out for a couple of minutes than I actually leave it in. It's a bit like pancakes. All exciting at first, and when you're halfway done, you're sick of em (quote Mitch Hedberg). The benefits are often sweet, but one of the negative side effects is, to my ears, that it can introduce nervousness, busy'ness... an "always there" kinda thing, taking focus off the main attraction and placing focus on the in-betweens... can be quite fatuiging to listen to.
Just watch out for that when evaluating a side boost, especially one in the highs.

[Trakworx]

Does anyone hear a difference in sound between EQing the S and M the same vs. EQing the L & R the same?

[ONDRAY]

Definitely notice a toss up between keeping presence in L/R mode and creating a wider master in M/S. The wide sounds pleasing at first, but like pancakes I ended up taking it done a few notches until a similar presence was achieved.

Lot’s of fun to be had with M/S, but I‘ve noticed I can get carried away, wrecks things fast.

[ONDRAY]

Originally Posted by jdub

Does anyone hear a difference in sound between EQing the S and M the same vs. EQing the L & R the same?

Totally, I notice it spatially wise, M/S adds and fixes things in almost a 3D aspect. For example if I'm cutting some low-mids in L/R mode, in M/S i won't cut as much at that same freq. in mids, there's no need. However if I'm adding a LP filter on L/R mode, when I do it on the Side in M/S mode I'll have to cut more to hear the same effect.

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by ONDRAY

Totally, I notice it spatially wise, M/S adds and fixes things in almost a 3D aspect. For example if I'm cutting some low-mids in L/R mode, in M/S i won't cut as much at that same freq. in mids, there's no need. However if I'm adding a LP filter on L/R mode, when I do it on the Side in M/S mode I'll have to cut more to hear the same effect.

Thanks. To clarify my question, are you saying that if you set 2 channels of EQ the same as each other and routed the S and M through them it will sound different than running the L and R through those 2 channels of EQ with those same settings?

I'm going to test this myself, but I wonder what you MEs know about it.

[Darius van H]

Originally Posted by jdub

Thanks. To clarify my question, are you saying that if you set 2 channels of EQ the same as each other and routed the S and M through them it will sound different than running the L and R through those 2 channels of EQ with those same settings?

I'm going to test this myself, but I wonder what you MEs know about it.

My Lundahl transformer box has it's own "sound", so it's hard to answer that question.

One advantage of M/S is that you can use an un-detented EQ and do finer ajustments like 0.2dB without worrying about your L/R balance going wonky.

I have to say that i don't agree that M/S eq'ing messes up things mono-compatibility-wise.....i think you'd have to do some pretty exteme M/S EQ'ing to have that effect.............the mix / tracking stages is really where that particular battle is won or lost.

I'm probabaly more of a plugin user then most 'round here, but M/S eqing is one area where i find analog EQ'ing much more powerful...........i've not yet been able to re-produce similar result ITB compared to the outboard route.

[PatrikT]

Do dogs decode into M/S?

Humans?

[jdg]

they dont "decode" in stereo either. our ears/brain are not that simple

[PatrikT]

So basically what only is interesting is the total mass of what is audible...

[jdg]

i can feel that

[StephenMarsh]

I'm inclined to agree with Darius here - you'd have to get pretty dramatic with your M/S tweaks in mastering to get into trouble mono-compatibility wise and quite frankly - in the headphone/ITB/no meters generation - I rarely get mixes that are very mono-compatible to begin with (which I'm now just gonna call M-C cause it's too blasted long of a word!)

When confronted with the prospect of remixing - few have chosen to take it on simply for greater M-C. I did have one fellow this year that was writing specifically for TV and I basically forced him to make his mixes as M-C as possible.....but that's another thread for sure.

long story longer but more to the topic - I find the more I work in M/S - the more I work in M/S

[Edward_Vinatea]

Originally Posted by jdub

Does anyone hear a difference in sound between EQing the S and M the same vs. EQing the L & R the same?

This maybe OT so sorry, but if a problem is for example = a loud cymbal ride on the left channel - you can insert eq to the L channel and with a parametric eq {ITB} filter some of that out . Quick way to replace M/S eq'ing IMO. Oh yeh - no difference.

Regards,