View Single Post
Old 11th January 2009 | Show parent
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 
Verified Member
3 Reviews written
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering ➡️
Thanks bob. I'm not sure if you misunderstood my question though. Let me rephrase:

Assuming that I will use an analog loop in a session and I want to use all analog gear in M/S, is there a significant advantage of using an analog M/S matrix within the analog loop, instead of using a digital M/S encoder pre and a M/S decoder post the analog loop?

I.e. is there any quality concern to this question (I have seen this written in ads for the Dangerous M/S, I think, but with no explanation given) or would it be purely down to personal work flow preferences? I can think of only one concern with the digital option (usually greater level difference between M and S, thus potentially "wasting" converter resolution), and I'm wondering whether this is what was hinted at in the argument pro analog M/S matrixing.
I have both digital and analog M/S matrixes available to me. I find the analog matrix definitely has more cross talk than the digital version - so it's less transparent - but I've found often the sound it imparts (a default very subtle widening of the image) is desirable. The reason I use one over the other is entirely due to work flow. Having an analog matrix allows me to do M/S on just a single or a few processors in the analog chain, and to be able to encode and decode at any point in the chain.

If I use digital processors to both encode and decode when sending to the analog process chain then every processor used is working with M/S. It's something I've done in the past without a problem - but if this is your only option it can be limiting (and it also requires some finessing with your monitoring controller to be able to listen to the original source as L/R).

Best regards,
Steve Berson