The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Spl M/S - Master Analog Processors (HW)
Old 1st January 2011
  #31
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellotron View Post
Bumping this to the top to point out one other recently introduced off the shelf M/S matrix that hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet: the Avenson Audio M/S - Avenson Audio

Besides encoding/decoding it provides inserts for mid and side, width control, and an optional high pass filter for the side, in a half rack space size with balanced i/o via 1/4" TRS. At $600 street price it could offer a relatively affordable option for those in need of a stand alone M/S matrix.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Steve, I'm listening to the processed clips Rich (narcoman) provided - what a great guy!. His comments about the Portico and SPL are spot on; he's got a good ear.

I'll check out the Avenson too. Thanks!
Old 1st January 2011
  #32
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

I'll be checking on that unit. Looks simple but possibly right on the nose for what most are looking for.
Old 20th March 2012
  #33
Lives for gear
 
Alécio Costa's Avatar
 

Verified Member
One year later

What is the veredict?

I wished the Avenson Box had XLR connectors.
Still curious about the SPL MS Unit!
Old 21st March 2012
  #34
Gear Addict
 
Joelistics's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alécio Costa View Post
What is the veredict?

I wished the Avenson Box had XLR connectors.
Still curious about the SPL MS Unit!
Exactly what I thought.
Old 22nd March 2012
  #35
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joelistics View Post
Exactly what I thought.
There's functionally no difference between a TRS and an XLR connector except the TRS takes me a couple minutes or so longer to solder than the XLR.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 22nd March 2012
  #36
Lives for gear
 
Alécio Costa's Avatar
 

Verified Member
saving

But they charge U$600+.. why not put at least two pairs of XLRs? Save rack space?
Old 22nd March 2012
  #37
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alécio Costa View Post
But they charge U$600+.. why not put at least two pairs of XLRs? Save rack space?
Yup - they'd have to make it a full 1RU unit if they wanted XLR's instead TRS. Which means bigger chassis as well. Probably would raise the cost of the unit up. They sell a matching half rack "Blend" auxiliary send/return module to enable parallel processing as well - Blend - so if you want both as they are now you can have them in only a single rack space as they are designed now.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 22nd March 2012
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Alécio Costa's Avatar
 

Verified Member
sure!
Old 23rd March 2012
  #39
Gear Maniac
 
bassfuzz's Avatar
I ended up selling my SPL MS Master as although I really tried to like it, it always seemed to push the center image back some, not a loudness thing as didn't matter if I made it louder. The center was always more stable and upfront bypassed... As always YMMV
Old 23rd March 2012
  #40
Lives for gear
 
Virtalahde's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassfuzz View Post
I ended up selling my SPL MS Master as although I really tried to like it, it always seemed to push the center image back some, not a loudness thing as didn't matter if I made it louder. The center was always more stable and upfront bypassed... As always YMMV
That would be my observation in everything (analogue) M/S I've tried.

Granted, I've only encoded/decoded digitally and just ran stuff through the chain in various combinations for testing, but every time L/R wins for me, hands down. M suffers and something in the top doesn't sound right to me.

If I have a problem that needs M/S EQ, I do it digitally. Was going to include a matrix in my chain, but not anymore.
Old 23rd March 2012
  #41
Lives for gear
 
da goose's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virtalahde View Post
That would be my observation in everything (analogue) M/S I've tried.

Granted, I've only encoded/decoded digitally and just ran stuff through the chain in various combinations for testing, but every time L/R wins for me, hands down. M suffers and something in the top doesn't sound right to me.

If I have a problem that needs M/S EQ, I do it digitally. Was going to include a matrix in my chain, but not anymore.
Strange, i never have that problem with analog MS.
Have you tried the MS board/schem from Wayne Kirkwood? you should, i love it!
Old 23rd March 2012
  #42
Lives for gear
 
Virtalahde's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by da goose View Post
Strange, i never have that problem with analog MS.
Have you tried the MS board/schem from Wayne Kirkwood? you should, i love it!
Have them, haven't built them.

The difference is very tiny, but it exists to me. Digital matrixing should be as perfect as it comes.

I must be old fashioned, because each time I try M/S EQ for sonic sculpting, I go back to L/R.
Old 23rd March 2012
  #43
Lives for gear
 
da goose's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virtalahde View Post
Have them, haven't built them.

The difference is very tiny, but it exists to me. Digital matrixing should be as perfect as it comes.

I must be old fashioned, because each time I try M/S EQ for sonic sculpting, I go back to L/R.
You really should try it, it's really good (and you have something to build for your DIY addict )
I must say that i mostly use it for making the low end more mono/centered, not really for widening or things like that. It will sound a bit unnatural and takes away the centre focus quite fast.
But recently i had someone that wanted a bit overwide sound to shape a track and it worked great to boost the S in the highs more then the M.
Old 23rd March 2012
  #44
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Well in contrast to Jaako's observations - I very rarely make any gain changes in Mid/Side balance - and the times I do I more often do it digitally - but via my Manley Backbone's M/S matrix I've been getting tons of mileage from running my Sontec MEP250EX and Empirical Lab DerrEssers in M/S mode - in fact if these are in line then I have them in M/S mode way more than L/R. As always - ommv, byob, bbq, wtf and ftw!

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 23rd March 2012
  #45
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virtalahde View Post

The difference is very tiny, but it exists to me. Digital matrixing should be as perfect as it comes.
Yup - digital matrixing as long as it is coded correctly definitely has way less cross talk than even the best analog matrixes do. But if you want to just have part of your analog process chain in M/S instead of having to have all or none - then having an analog M/S matrix as an extra option is a definite plus to work flow for me.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 23rd March 2012
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Alécio Costa's Avatar
 

Verified Member
When working in analog, I imagine M/S is the first process in your chain, right?

I do it digitally for a while, after signal returns to daw ( first process after a/d).

I have not tried doing the M/S before d/a.
Old 21st October 2012
  #47
Lives for gear
 
Alécio Costa's Avatar
 

Verified Member
7 months passed

Anyone else?
Old 29th October 2012
  #48
Gear Nut
 

Any updates??
Old 29th October 2012
  #49
Gear Maniac
 

We just build a new product witch is a triple MS matrix on a 1U piece of gear.
You can convert LR > MS >LR and also MS > LR > MS and preserve the headroom of your inserts.

It's practical when you have for example a dangerous master or a dangerous liaison or both...
You can link the inserts you need on this matrix and if you have 2 or 3 inserts chained on a mastering console, if you engage MS conversion on these 2 or 3 inserts it could be great if they are EQs... but you should not want to have the comp in MS...

So you can convert MS signal in LR for the comp and go out of it to reconvert it in MS.
Really practical, I use it like that regularly.

Difficult to explain here

Really great headroom for an MS matrix: 27dB.
Clip indication on each insert.
And really really high end, no compromise about components. Really transparent.

More infos soon.
Old 29th October 2012
  #50
Gear Nut
 

Get what you are saying about comp. Will your M/S matrix be available commercially? +7db above SPL. Some nice features in structure of image in desk. Currently looking for one ms master suits my needs, 1u unit and no fuss.
Old 30th October 2012
  #51
Gear Maniac
 

it will be available commercially we are working on.

We are in the "traditional hand made" way of life so we are thinking about decline this one in 3, 2 or 1 insert.

And possibility of making ourself the dB25 cables (really high class ones for the 2 or 3 inserts version)

We wait for a last thing to have it finish properly but it worked

If you can't wait to know more you can PM me if you want
Old 30th October 2012
  #52
Lives for gear
 
Andrew Kinsey's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alécio Costa View Post
But they charge U$600+.. why not put at least two pairs of XLRs? Save rack space?
The Avenson Mid-Side is fully loaded with TRS connections at the back and there would be no room for XLR's. Although I agree TRS is not standard when it comes to mastering equipment, it does in no way make any difference to the quality of the connection.

Old 31st October 2012
  #53
Here for the gear
 

Haven't heard "it" but the M/S technique has been around for a while. It's helpful if you want to apply certain processes to the center or sides of a mix. I'd really only use this in a must-need situation...because it can really ruin a mix if you don't really know what you're doing.
Old 31st October 2012
  #54
Lives for gear
 
Apostolos Siopis's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by petermontg View Post
+7db above SPL.
what does this mean?
Old 13th November 2012
  #55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayo View Post
M/S via software, just seems so convenient and accurate, that doing it via hardware just seems like an extra superfluous step, I need not take..Especially, M/S incorporated in so many of the newer EQ and Dynamic plugs etc.

Saying that though, every time I’ve tried a process, which I thought was sufficient in software has always turned out better in its hardware counterpart. Was hoping M/S would stay better in software, due to the intricacies of the process etc.. and I’ve never heard a hardware version of M/S yet..


KAyo
IMHO every time I've tried any MS work in a plugin it sounds nothing like a good analog circuit. Not to say you can't get something different and unique or fix a small issue somewhere, but you don't get the same clarity in the stereo field.
Old 13th November 2012
  #56
Lives for gear
 
William Bowden's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I think both analogue and digital MS have their place. For instance I actually find it easier to get that slightly 'phasey' delineation (which seems so popular) in digital rather than analogue - certainly in terms of straight eq anyway. Compression though I really favour analogue for so many reasons - I wish I didn't though as plug ins are so quick and easy.

King Willy
Old 13th November 2012
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Alécio Costa's Avatar
 

Verified Member
time for M/S

So my question remains:
do you guys regularly do M/s? where?

a) Inside the daw, Before d/a - first digital process ?
b) Inside the daw, after analog path,-as first digital process (after a/d of course)
c) as the first process, in analog;
d) as the last processor, in analog chain.

I have been doing ITB after a/d, as a first process.
I use Neon HR. Never felt the phase problems comment here.
I am considering trying Brainworkx via software and/or M/Sing at the analog chain picking an SPL mastrix + second Ibis eq.


Thanks for any inputs.
Old 13th November 2012
  #58
Lives for gear
 
Waltz Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alécio Costa View Post
So my question remains:
do you guys regularly do M/s? where?
I don't use m/s processing all that much, but when I do it's inside the daw, before d/a.
Old 13th November 2012
  #59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odeon-Mastering View Post
what does this mean?
I think he's saying that his box has 7dB more headroom than the SPL M/S? MS circuits tend to distort easily because of the matrix adding 6dB naturally with the process. Some circuits deal with this increase in volume different ways.
Old 13th November 2012
  #60
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin Leonard View Post
I think he's saying that his box has 7dB more headroom than the SPL M/S? MS circuits tend to distort easily because of the matrix adding 6dB naturally with the process. Some circuits deal with this increase in volume different ways.
Exactly SPL headroom is 20db. I went and ordered the SPL in the end. Shall post back my experiences.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
passacagliamusic / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
5
Barbary Ape / Product Alerts older than 2 months
1
juicylime / Low End Theory
4
nhaerdtner / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
3

Forum Jump
Forum Jump