Nova Feature Request - Mid/Side Per Band

[cpsmusic]

Hi,

I've been using Nova GE a lot recently and it's an excellent plug-in. I like to use on the mixbus for tasks like compressing the Mid Low End and expanding the Side High End. At the moment I have to use two instances of the plug-in for something like this. Would it be possible to have the ability to set each EQ band to Mid/Side/Left/Right/Linked?

Cheers,

Chris

[heavymetalmixer]

For mastering this is one of the reason I've seen some engineers preffer other dynamic EQs or even static EQs over NOVA. Fast workflow is very important to make everything fast.

[senseiprod]

For mastering this is one of the reason I've seen some engineers preffer other dynamic EQs or even static EQs over NOVA. Fast workflow is very important to make everything fast.

what is wrong with using 2 tdr nova instances? one for sum, another for difference, or one for left, another for right?
Thanks

[heavymetalmixer]

For mastering this is one of the reason I've seen some engineers preffer other dynamic EQs or even static EQs over NOVA. Fast workflow is very important to make everything fast.

what is wrong with using 2 tdr nova instances? one for sum, another for difference, or one for left, another for right?
Thanks

It's not bad when it comes to the sound but it's a hassle when it comes to workflow. Would you preffer to use 3 different EQs (Mid, Side and Stereo in this example) on the screen for a single track? Or a single EQ for the same job?

[senseiprod]

i agree that it can get cumbersome, but then again, i was never in need for such a drastical audio overhaul. I agree that it would be awesome to have like 3 instances of nova, but perhaps one should have ability to control all instances.. via api (sorry, i'm not an dsp engineer).
It would be cool to have tdr nova on every channel, and one instance in which you can toggle/switch every instance, hence it would more easier.. but it's a philosophy.. i'm not a designer, nor an engineer.. but it's a small hint from me. Cheers!

[Hermetech Mastering]

SlickEQ M can do it, but then you lose the dynamic ability.

[imrae]

It's rather confusing/ambiguous to show visual feedback for all these different dimensions. Nova uses a shaded region to show GR, while SlickEQ M uses shaded regions to show the difference between mid and side. It works well.

[attention ♥]

For individual mid/side processing I like linear filters best, so you avoid the phase difference. I think this is pretty much how SlickEQ M handles it, except with what CraveEQ calls "transparent phase."

[AYM Music]

heavymetalmixer wrote: "It's not bad when it comes to the sound but it's a hassle when it comes to workflow. Would you preffer to use 3 different EQs (Mid, Side and Stereo in this example) on the screen for a single track? Or a single EQ for the same job?"

Completely agree. Another vote for this feature request.

[imrae]

How would the visual feedback work?

[PleaseAdvise]

Visual feedback would be a plus but not even needed for me.

And I agree in general that this option of midside per band would be much needed.
I just compared EQs for days. I love Nova and I'm infinitey grateful for the free version, but at the same time, when you have a limited budget, you want the best option, and Nova just lacks this one spec compared to some of the competition.
Sure, you can make instances for sum and diff, but then it's plugins eating on CPU instead of one, and it's also less easy to read one page.
That being said I might overthink my needs in mid-side. I'm a beginner and just discovered this, but in the end, it might not be something I use all the time on all tracks. So maybe Nova GE is just fine as is.

[FabienTDR]

It simply makes no sense for us to dynamically manipulate stereo widening. L/R independence or M/S independence asks to enormously complicate the UI with at least a half dozen more curves, double the amount of handles and labels that have to be shown on display. Double the amount of controls, double the amount of parameters as a whole.
It asks us to explain the user that dynamically changing the stereo width is a silly idea, despite our product giving the impression that it does!

Nova's strength is the dynamic aspect. It goes clearly beyond what most of the competition does in this area.
For precise stereo manipulation, use SlickEQ M, this one too does unique things you won't find elsewhere.

Now if we'd mix both concepts, you'd get the worst of both. You'd get less of it all, and some free confusion on top. A worst of both sides, too many parameters and dead angles appearing (usability and accessibility wise).

We don't do stuff just because we can, it has to produce a greater sum for the concept. IMO in this case, it would just frankenstein the product. The multi-tool pocketknifes manufactured by Victorinox have long feature lists, but no feature working really well.

[experimental.crow]

It simply makes no sense for us to dynamically manipulate stereo widening. L/R independence or M/S independence asks to enormously complicate the UI with at least a half dozen more curves, double the amount of handles and labels that have to be shown on display. Double the amount of controls, double the amount of parameters as a whole.
It asks us to explain the user that dynamically changing the stereo width is a silly idea, despite our product giving the impression that it does!

Nova's strength is the dynamic aspect. It goes clearly beyond what most of the competition does in this area.
For precise stereo manipulation, use SlickEQ M, this one too does unique things you won't find elsewhere.

Now if we'd mix both concepts, you'd get the worst of both. You'd get less of it all, and some free confusion on top. A worst of both sides, too many parameters and dead angles appearing (usability and accessibility wise).

We don't do stuff just because we can, it has to produce a greater sum for the concept. IMO in this case, it would just frankenstein the product. The multi-tool pocketknifes manufactured by Victorinox have long feature lists, but no feature working really well.