Can MSpectral Dynamics "EQ-match" a track against another track?

[sirmonkey]

I have used MAutodynamic to EQ one track to resemble another track's EQ curve, and also to differentiate it. But from a comment on another thread, it seemed like the author was saying that MSpectral Dynamics could do something similar. Here's a cut and paste of the comment:

The best of all: it can flatten the spectrum, make transparent sidechain ducking, shape the white noise, dynamically "equalize", compress or expand with incredible precision, match or differentiate spectra and much more....

(Underline and italics added by me).
I took some time going through the manual. And I didn't find any such function. I loaded the plugin into a track in my DAW, and don't see this as a function, nor how to craft such a thing.
So, is EQ spectrum matching possible with MSpectral Dynamics? I'm guessing not, but it would be cool if I'm wrong!

[Bullfrog001]

In my experience if a question starts with "Can MSpectralDynamics..." the answer is yes.

You'll want to use the CAPTURE function on whatever your source is. Then apply that curve to your target.

[XComposer]

Well, I was that "author" on the other thread. I was not speaking of classical "match EQ", you need MAutoDynamicEQ for that (which is also dynamic, in addition).
I was rather meaning something like vocoder-like effects (when I was saying "match spectra") and spectral ducking (when I was saying "differentiate spectra").
Both things can actually be achieved with MSpectralDynamic and both require to activate a sidechain.

As for the vocoder-like effects: in this moment, I have a tamtam (untuned gong) sound on one track, and a vocal track on another.
I put MSpectralDynamics on the tamtam track and choose the vocal track as the sidechain.
With the settings that you can see in the attached picture (the "Edit" interface is activated), I can hear a wonderful vocoder-like effect (the tamtam has acquired a very clear vocal character and sounds like a spectral hybrid between the two tracks). Playing with the Detector Input settings (and with the Quality, Resolution, Smoothness and Naturality settings) can produce very interesting variants of the effect.

As for the spectral ducking, you should simply try the "Ducking (side-chain)" preset on the simplified user interface (I mean, the one that appears when "Edit" is deactivated).

[vectorwarrior]

The short answer is no.

What spec dyn can do is analyse file A and find its average freq response. You can then use that freq response with file B, so that when the B signal goes above/below you can turn it up/down. It cannot MATCH as it doesn't do a comparison of A and B, just a straight volume adjustment using the transfer curve and the freq response.

I say ask this because I've been asking for features like this for a long time. Spec dynamics is amazing but it can't do everything.

What I've been truly hoping for is essentially a spectral MPhatik.

[XComposer]

Anyway, the effect achieved with the technique described by Bullfrog001 with the CAPTURE function is striking, that function may give really interesting and useful results! I am testing the demo in these days and I am quite impressed by MSpectralDynamics. (Yes, I think I'll buy it when I can. Together with MAutoDynamicEQ, MMorph and MVocoder it will give me an impressive flexibility for a very wide range of use cases.)

[sirmonkey]

Thanks guys! Great answers, especially from different perspectives.
I'm pretty sure that the answer to my question is "Not exactly, but sort of."
I don't happen to be looking for anything to do with vocoder stuff, but that sure is interesting. Yet another thing that I might dabble with!
Anyway, to simulate MAutodynamic's "match A to B" funtion, I plan to:
Put MSpectral Dynamics on a reference track, and use capture. Then copy the result to the track that I want to sound like the reference. Just like Bullfrog said.
I'm pretty sure that a great result can be had by experimenting with the threshold and ratio parameters.

This brings me to another question: Is processor 2 an exact clone of processor 1, in series? It seems to be like another instance of MSpectral Dynamics, put just after a first instance. Is that fairly accurate?

[XComposer]

Not another instance of the whole plug-in, just of the processor, which is only a part of it. Processors 1 and 2 seem really identical to me and I cannot see why they shouldn't, but this is a technical question that perhaps only Vojtech can answer.

[jmg8]

Processors 1 and 2 are not really series or parallel. Rather they both change the shape of the processing curve. The resulting curve is how the signal will be processed.

[sirmonkey]

Processors 1 and 2 are not really series or parallel. Rather they both change the shape of the processing curve. The resulting curve is how the signal will be processed.

But I would assume processor 1, if enabled, would change the shape of the curve first, and then processor 2 would change the the shape of the resulting curve (after processor 1 did its thing).
Thus, a series chain. But if that's not how it works, then it's parallel.
How could it be neither?
* Maybe it's semantics....And I do appreciate your input. Because we love fancy tools!

[sirmonkey]

Not another instance of the whole plug-in, just of the processor, which is only a part of it. Processors 1 and 2 seem really identical to me and I cannot see why they shouldn't, but this is a technical question that perhaps only Vojtech can answer.

Correct. I could have phrased things a bit different.
I would say that processor 2 gives a secondary level of compression, without having to use a second instance of the plugin. Hopefully I'm getting that right, but I tend to be pretty darn fallible sometimes.
But only sometimes! The rest of the time...

[jmg8]

Processors 1 and 2 are not really series or parallel. Rather they both change the shape of the processing curve. The resulting curve is how the signal will be processed.

But I would assume processor 1, if enabled, would change the shape of the curve first, and then processor 2 would change the the shape of the resulting curve (after processor 1 did its thing).
Thus, a series chain. But if that's not how it works, then it's parallel.
How could it be neither?
* Maybe it's semantics....And I do appreciate your input. Because we love fancy tools!

I understand parallel to be processing two signals one for processor 1 and another for processor 2, then the two signals are mixed back together.
Series would be to process the signal with the settings from processor 1 and then it will be processed a second time with the setting from processor 2.

It is neither of these two.
Rather the signal is only processed once using the processing shape.
The processing shape is made from the settings in both processor 1 and 2 combined. They both have an equal influence on the shape.

[vectorwarrior]

Yeah, what jmg8 said. The two processors aren't really processors, they're more curve shapers on a single process.

[sirmonkey]

Oh, so Processor 2 is like tweaking the shape of the curve of Processor 1. Now that is an interesting and useful thing to know. Knowing that can only help me know what to expect Processor 2 to do. I had tried using Processor 2 a few times, and I really didn't the results I expected. So I opted to just use Processor 1. But now, time to play with Processor 2 again.
Thanks for the explanations guys!

[MeldaProduction]

The processors in a way work together - they merely control the shape of the transfer curve.