Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > Recording Technologies and Techniques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-24-2015, 10:18 AM   #41
Magicbuss
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,668
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
You know how a compressor works.
You hear something poking out here and there that you want to turn down. So you set the threshold for the 'turn it down above here' point. Set your attack for how quick it turns it down. Set your release for how gradually it lets the volume back up.

But... what if the thing you want to automate turning down is in a specific frequency band? And further what if there are things in other frequency bands that are often louder than the 'turn it down above here' point for the thing you are after? (The volume automation would hit wrong - based on the other loud thing - is what.)

So...
Let's split the frequency range into bands and put a compressor on each individual band! The multiband compressor is born.

A dynamic EQ is simply a single band of a multiband compressor.

You only use these tools when you specifically need to do surgery that way.

This is not a device for giving your mix a 'sound' or 'vibe'.
I understand how they work I was just questioning where you would apply them. I mean these tools didnt even exist in the glory days of vinyl but they still managed to make great records.

I guess I'm not advanced enough yet to listen to a vocal or an acoustic guitar and say "hmm I need a little less 3k but only on this word or phrase". Thats pretty damn specific. If theres an obvious resonance I'll notch it out but I dont automate that.

To me MB comps and dynamic EQ's seem like mastering tools. You guys are heavily using them in mixing?
Magicbuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2015, 10:29 AM   #42
sostenuto
Human being with feelings
 
sostenuto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: St George, UT _ USA
Posts: 2,660
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magicbuss View Post
I understand how they work I was just questioning where you would apply them. I mean these tools didnt even exist in the glory days of vinyl but they still managed to make great records.

I guess I'm not advanced enough yet to listen to a vocal or an acoustic guitar and say "hmm I need a little less 3k but only on this word or phrase". Thats pretty damn specific. If theres an obvious resonance I'll notch it out but I dont automate that.

To me MB comps and dynamic EQ's seem like mastering tools. You guys are heavily using them in mixing?
I'm too much of a whimp to have posted this... but can't wait for some responses !!

ALSO ... noted ALL of above VST references, but now a bit confused to 'categorize' them per initial TB_FIX comments plus the quoted Post.

Thom B

Last edited by sostenuto; 11-05-2015 at 04:56 PM.
sostenuto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2015, 11:07 AM   #43
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magicbuss View Post
I understand how they work I was just questioning where you would apply them. I mean these tools didnt even exist in the glory days of vinyl but they still managed to make great records.

I guess I'm not advanced enough yet to listen to a vocal or an acoustic guitar and say "hmm I need a little less 3k but only on this word or phrase". Thats pretty damn specific. If theres an obvious resonance I'll notch it out but I dont automate that.

To me MB comps and dynamic EQ's seem like mastering tools. You guys are heavily using them in mixing?
Restoration tools.

A good example might be a 2 track board recording of a live concert where no multitracks exist or were ever recorded. Said mix will be missing elements from the various live sound sources on stage. That is, the PA is used to fill in the missing pieces (unamplified voices, etc). Together with the live sound coming off the drums and loud guitar amps, you have a good balance in the venue.

And the board tape is all vox and kick drum with everything else way back in the mix because these were the quietest things.

A board tape. You've heard them.

A multiband comp gives you another angle to take apart and re-balance the thing.

Restoration tools.


You might come across a track with issues to fix this way in a multitrack. A deesser is an example of a single band of a multiband comp - a dynamic eq that is. This is a popular way to automate knocking back ssssssssss that ended up recorded too hot.
serr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2015, 11:12 AM   #44
Joaquins Void
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magicbuss View Post
I understand how they work I was just questioning where you would apply them. I mean these tools didnt even exist in the glory days of vinyl but they still managed to make great records.

I guess I'm not advanced enough yet to listen to a vocal or an acoustic guitar and say "hmm I need a little less 3k but only on this word or phrase". Thats pretty damn specific. If theres an obvious resonance I'll notch it out but I dont automate that...
There is more need for these tools now a days though. When things get compressed to the extent we usually do today, the tendency for a particular sound to jump out and become troublesome is much greater. If you work with natural dynamics you don't need this stuff at all, or so I imagine.

A common case will be during solos. The instrument needs to be upfront in the mix, but after it's been squished in the master it sounds painful every time the instrument hits a certain note. Notching with regular EQ is certainly possible, but if the effect is strong you end up altering the rest of the mix.
Joaquins Void is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2015, 11:26 AM   #45
SmajjL
Human being with feelings
 
SmajjL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,934
Default

One little thing observation thingie thought.
It's also sometimes little confusing comparing the methods\needs of 'acoustic mastering\mixing\dudes, that is, recording vs those who are 100% digital.
One example for the digital side:
Hey, don't spend more time on that EQ'ing and stuff, just change the sound, it's a little more expensive to swap out a real guitarr etc.
Got a fealing Reaper has many guitarrists.

Ps, Yep, my english is under construction.
__________________
:)
SmajjL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2015, 11:38 AM   #46
citizenkeith
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joaquins Void View Post
There is more need for these tools now a days though. When things get compressed to the extent we usually do today, the tendency for a particular sound to jump out and become troublesome is much greater. If you work with natural dynamics you don't need this stuff at all, or so I imagine.

A common case will be during solos. The instrument needs to be upfront in the mix, but after it's been squished in the master it sounds painful every time the instrument hits a certain note. Notching with regular EQ is certainly possible, but if the effect is strong you end up altering the rest of the mix.
Interesting, and you raise a great point. I feel that we need to return to the tradition of mixing/mastering music with dynamics intact instead of jumping through all these hoops just so we can have a "competitive" loud master. Why not just work with natural dynamics?

Love your JS effects, btw!

Last edited by citizenkeith; 07-24-2015 at 12:37 PM.
citizenkeith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2015, 12:23 PM   #47
G-Sun
Human being with feelings
 
G-Sun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Norway
Posts: 7,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace404 View Post
Your gain reduction (the parameter modulation) is based on the whole frequency range instead of the problem region (the region you want to eq)
Nope.
The first Eq feeds the sidechain for the band in question.
__________________
Reaper x64, win 8.1
G-Sun.no - Music Blog - My music
G-Sun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2015, 03:21 PM   #48
Mind Riot
Human being with feelings
 
Mind Riot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magicbuss View Post
I understand how they work I was just questioning where you would apply them. I mean these tools didnt even exist in the glory days of vinyl but they still managed to make great records.
Oh God, don't be that guy.

Of course you can make great records with more limited tools, it's just harder and more limiting and there's less creative possibilities. The recording and mixing process has become more of a creative end in and of itself over time, for better or for worse, which is why we call it production and not documentation.

A huge part of what makes a dynamic EQ exciting is the same thing that makes some people not like them: they really do represent some uncharted territory. While they allow you to do some things more easily or efficiently or with more precision than traditional methods, they also allow manipulation of the spectrum that would have required such ludicrously complex chains of specific effects that it's extremely unlikely that anyone has ever done it before. You can use them as a ducker, or an expander, or a multiband compressor, but you can also start experimenting and do things nobody has done before.

But why would anybody want to do that? That's undoubtedly what somebody said when the first compressor was being tested. Artificially manipulate the beautiful, natural dynamic range of an instrument? Why the hell would anyone want to do that?

Nobody's going to force anyone to use them if they don't want to, and they don't seem to be exactly exploding in popularity, but personally I'm not just interested in them as problem solvers for mixing but for the totally new creative sound shaping possibilities they offer. Their usefulness is still being defined because we're not just using them to fix specific problems but experimenting with them and what they can do, and they're incredibly powerful.

It might seem a bit unfamiliar to some to experiment with mixing tools, because most of the time we're trying to achieve a specific goal, but I think it's exciting.

But like I said, nobody has to use them. There's certainly no shortage of tools for everyone to get what they're after in whatever way they want to.
__________________
"Mah blahkinned sole izz daw-kaw thawn thah blahkissed nye-eeeet!!!"
SQUONK SQUONK SQUEE!!! SQUIDONK SQUIDONK DONK SQUEE!!!
"Thah daaahhhk of thah nye-eeeet izz lye-eeek my-eee sole-aaah!!!"
Mind Riot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2015, 06:50 PM   #49
kindafishy
Human being with feelings
 
kindafishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thequietroom View Post
It seems like glisseq is sort of simplified variety.. I don't see anything about attack or release etc.. its just sort of got a couple dynamic modes..

probably good for me so I don't have to think too much


You just had to do this didn't you...

I better not. I'm still on spending freeze from getting an axefx

but i could use my paypal credit i think..

damnit KF... see what you did!
LOL, sorry man. Hopefully you end up feeling like it was a good thing

The dynamic EQ here simply has a dial to set the strength of the dynamics in %. I guess that means that it is always active, but it reacts to the level of the frequency range it covers in a very smooth and natural sounding way. It is very simple to use.
kindafishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2015, 07:26 PM   #50
grinder
Human being with feelings
 
grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,998
Default

I happen to own the Melda Dynamic EQ and while I have not ploughed the depths with it yet as far as dynamics go that said I can in all honesty let you know that as an eq it is first in my lineup. I was astounded by it's quality I have a large number of supposedly quality plugins etc and well they all take a back seat now.

Grinder
Oh I am not affiliated with any supplier at all my thoughts are those of my own mind!

https://soundcloud.com/steve-maitland-1
grinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 02:01 AM   #51
Joaquins Void
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkeith View Post
Interesting, and you raise a great point. I feel that we need to return to the tradition of mixing/mastering music with dynamics intact instead of jumping through all these hoops just so we can have a "competitive" loud master. Why not just work with natural dynamics?
Because people don't want to, or have the equipment to hear it. Recording natural dynamics is one thing. Playing it back with any fidelity is another. People don't have huge hifi systems anymore. Except audiophiles.

So I am afraid that ship has sailed as far as the general public is concerned.


Quote:
Love your JS effects, btw!
Thanks!
Joaquins Void is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 03:55 AM   #52
SmajjL
Human being with feelings
 
SmajjL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,934
Default

May I ask again, Is there anything wrong or broken stuff going on with ReaEQ & Co or anything else with-in Reaper that would justify a bug report, I just don't see it.
I am 100% straight on 44.100 though.
Mythbusters, l'ill help to clarify.
How do I recreate The 'problem on purpose even so that it would be noticable and more clear so I can go ahh! i see! etc
Just that it's not the first time ive read something that would imply something wrong so.
Feel free to utilize any superior fancy words, any equipment and straight me out will ya.
__________________
:)

Last edited by SmajjL; 07-25-2015 at 04:05 AM.
SmajjL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 05:29 AM   #53
bladerunner
Human being with feelings
 
bladerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 4,671
Default

There's talk of loudness, squishing, 'painful' sound in this thread - I guess this goes with the territory as regards working with dynamics over a whole stereo mixdown. The fact is - if things are sounding so squashed that they're 'painful' that's just a bad mix/bad master - that's not the tools fault.

The purpose of multiband comps/dynamic eq's is almost entirely to 'fix' things - not to creatively change the sound of a mix. You can of course use them how you want but that is how most engineers use them.
bladerunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 06:15 AM   #54
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joaquins Void View Post
Because people don't want to, or have the equipment to hear it. Recording natural dynamics is one thing. Playing it back with any fidelity is another. People don't have huge hifi systems anymore. Except audiophiles.

So I am afraid that ship has sailed as far as the general public is concerned.



Thanks!
That's just not true. There's no reason to be depressed about anything audio-wise like that these days. Quite the opposite. We live in the age of the 'flying cars' of audio now!

There have always been casual listeners that only listen in passing. The AM radio through a dashboard speaker has simply been replaced by the iThing and mp3. Remember the cheap malfunctioning turntables in the all-in-one thingies? Some people don't like to admit this but the lowly mp3 sounds better than that garbage! Even the bottom end of things has improved.

We have 24 bit HD sample rate digital pristineness now and we can deliver it directly to the end consumer bit for bit exact with no compression or encoding. And that extends to 5.1 surround sound now too.

And you can buy yourself a nice DA converter unit for a few hundred $$ these days to hear it in VERY high fidelity whereas you had to spend well over $5000 on a turntable in the past - and then the good pressings that could actually justify the thing were few and far between. So there are more people listening to audiophile quality now than in the past too.


Sure there are a lot of things released that sound poor. There have always been lo budget productions. Take that as an opportunity to stand above that with your work.

Back to restoration tools...

There will always be flawed recording happening somewhere for one reason or another. Sometimes the fact they were captured at all is a miracle and it's worth a little effort to try fixing things.

Enjoy the tools we have to do this stuff today and don't pay any attention to the naysayers. Make your recordings sound good and the squashed CD and mp3 reductions will sound as good as they sound (much like squished FM radio sounded as good as it sounded). Think of the CD and mp3 as a calling card for the full quality album if that helps. Yes, the actual music buying audience is smaller than the mainstream casual listener. Always has been.

Actually, I'm pretty sure there are more surround sound systems in homes now than in the '70s too.
serr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 06:46 AM   #55
SmajjL
Human being with feelings
 
SmajjL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,934
Default

Blade:
What you described was the obvious non technical that anyone should be able to react to by ear, I was more about the phase issues for example, stuff like that that might not be obvious, or that using this or that plugin had a better crossover, non tweakable within reapers arsenal of utils?.
Or simply, is there anything wrong at all with the ReaPlugs, yes\no will due, a yes would require a longer answer though.

As for using these tools or any tool for sounddesign, I am a happy utilizer of these methods and I shall continue with it.
If I can stimulate anything in a mix to make things interesting, I would use what ever I feel like as long as it does not make things worse simply.

I am not a pro as in, I don't have the pressure of time with a client waiting, so I can play with any method I like and experiment with new and old until I pass out, happy about this.
Also, one should use the mixer more and the EQ's volume and start with lots of headroom, if one is the producer that is.
The problem issues you speak of is a little lol if, one can not fix that or even know why though, if that is even possible to say humby nice, right Blade?

If we are speaking mastering stage realms then i saw a great tip at Grahams place with only focusing on the 'mids' with a multi and he got that tip from someone so, i can't credit properly other then, check it out.

I must Ps that I mean no dissrespect, I just talk like this, can't help it, ok?
Thank you for helping Blade.
__________________
:)

Last edited by SmajjL; 07-25-2015 at 06:58 AM. Reason: I shall spell somethin correct before 2020.. :)
SmajjL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 06:50 AM   #56
Joaquins Void
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
That's just not true[...]
Delivery hasn't been a problem since the CD, assuming they are properly made.
And I am hardly depressed about it. I'm not into audiophile recording myself, though I listen to a lot of classical music, which is often recorded under similar conditions.

My point was just that the loudness war happened for a reason, and to me it seem to line up with the decline of big hifi and rise of the omnipresent earbud.
Joaquins Void is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 06:55 AM   #57
citizenkeith
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joaquins Void View Post
Because people don't want to, or have the equipment to hear it. Recording natural dynamics is one thing. Playing it back with any fidelity is another. People don't have huge hifi systems anymore. Except audiophiles.

So I am afraid that ship has sailed as far as the general public is concerned.
It really depends on the style of music. There are still plenty of great jazz and folk-oriented records that have a good dynamic range.

I firmly believe that the loudness wars are pretty useless at this point. YouTube, Spotify, iTunes... they are normalizing the audio now, not unlike Replaygain. So a lot of the reasons to make less dynamic masters are no longer applicable.

I live in hope that the trends will change, and I have conversations with my clients about it. In the very least, I try to steer them towards sensible mixes and leave the volume to the mastering stage.
citizenkeith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 07:04 AM   #58
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joaquins Void View Post
My point was just that the loudness war happened for a reason
A direct result of the early 16 bit digital format (CD) not doing so well with the dynamic range we had come to be used to in the nicer analog releases.

Then it escalated into the volume war in and of itself.

Not everyone played along with this either. And there's a reason music is sold on bluray and DVDA disc now (and HD downloads).

Yep, there are some really squashed, really portable-only quality recordings out there. Seems to me it's an opportunity just handed to those of us who strive to do our best work. My glass is well over half full on this one!
serr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 07:18 AM   #59
Joaquins Void
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 206
Default

Serr & citizenkeith: Not getting in to a point by point here. But taking a step backwards, let me just clarify that by natural dynamics, I meant no compression. In other words, the questions can be rephrased as, why are we using compression.
And ok, sure you don't have to. There are people out there who can still appreciate the recording. I just don't believe they are, proportionally, very many.
Joaquins Void is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 07:57 AM   #60
SmajjL
Human being with feelings
 
SmajjL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,934
Default

The One thing that i'm sure many of you got 'Right'er that would be My big flaw is my room acoustics, and nothing will happen until i move either.
Rather have That part Right and work with an ugly EQ than the other way abolutelly.
Hope I made someone feel good. D
__________________
:)

Last edited by SmajjL; 07-25-2015 at 08:00 AM. Reason: That error was funny, so let's keep it :D
SmajjL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 08:03 AM   #61
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,967
Default

Which brings us back to:

A good mix should sound right on both cheap garbage and a top end system!

Really truly.

Unless you are making soundscapes that absolutely have to sound like real life and can only be appreciated on a full fidelity system.

The midrange bits should be in good focus in the mix so it works on everything.
serr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 08:05 AM   #62
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmajjL View Post
The One thing that i'm sure many of you got 'Right'er that would be My big flaw is my room acoustics, and nothing will happen until i move either.
Rather have That part Right and work with an ugly EQ than the other way abolutelly.
Hope I made someone feel good. D
Oh, you mean like we do with a graphic eq literally every time we run live sound in a room? Yep.
serr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 08:26 AM   #63
SmajjL
Human being with feelings
 
SmajjL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,934
Default

Well, put it this way, even listening to 'mastered music could be better in my room so, I don't trust it or even wanna get used to it although one does automatically i'm sure.
Specially the low end, it's not that it's an echo in here, just pushing my luck with what one is suppose to do by standard measures.

So, I am 100% headphones instead when i'm producing and mixing, Sennheiser HD595 open ones.
I am also using some cheap buds including my flat TV speakers to have as extra info on how things sounds, would do that anyway because, i can, and of course, the monitors that lives in a bad enviroment.
So if you have any tip for the headphones people, I would try it out asap!
100% digital here also btw.

Edit: And also, it's a flat TV! so there is no such thing ('saying') as, if one can make it sound good on a flat!TV then you are bloody good?
Hmm, not sure if i was kidding or not, anyway.. can't wait for the reply, if any. oh great, now eeeeveryone will use a flat-TV.. secret is out.

Ps, no worries, all will be fixed after moving, into something like mr.gremlin has it. (no lava lamp!!)
__________________
:)

Last edited by SmajjL; 07-25-2015 at 10:10 AM. Reason: Found a bug. :)
SmajjL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 10:00 AM   #64
The Telenator
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oud West, NL
Posts: 2,335
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firedance View Post
How so? If it makes the sound too funky just disable/remove it.

I don't understand the "can't be fixed" reference.

Good point; however, I'm assuming we are talking about someone without much experience in general, so ... he makes a mistake, overdoes it with the plugin, then DOESN't CATCH the mistake, proceeds later to mixdown, decides to have someone master for him and turns in the mixes. Can't be repaired at this point (unless he was smart enough to keep all primary tracks in original shape, AND he goes back to Square One and starts all over. Whew, hard enough to explain the scenario; worse to have to live it!
The Telenator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 10:24 AM   #65
bladerunner
Human being with feelings
 
bladerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 4,671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmajjL View Post
Blade:
What you described was the obvious non technical that anyone should be able to react to by ear, I was more about the phase issues for example, stuff like that that might not be obvious, or that using this or that plugin had a better crossover, non tweakable within reapers arsenal of utils?.
Or simply, is there anything wrong at all with the ReaPlugs, yes\no will due, a yes would require a longer answer though.
Well, (significantly to this thread) I don't personally like Reaxcomp - I find that it always sounds disagreeable at crossover points and I'm just not a fan of the way it sounds when it compresses - not saying it's bad I just don't like it. But, in general, there is nothing wrong with reaplugs - I just prefer other tools (well, I don't really use Reap any more for mixing/mastering so I haven't actually used any reaplugs for almost a year now).

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmajjL View Post
As for using these tools or any tool for sounddesign, I am a happy utilizer of these methods and I shall continue with it.
If I can stimulate anything in a mix to make things interesting, I would use what ever I feel like as long as it does not make things worse simply.
There are no rules but I think it's important to have firm understanding of the concepts behind your tools before breaking the rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmajjL View Post
If we are speaking mastering stage realms then i saw a great tip at Grahams place with only focusing on the 'mids' with a multi and he got that tip from someone so, i can't credit properly other then, check it out.
All these 'tips' picked up here and there are, at best, dubious to me. Again, this implies that all mixes coming in to mastering studios have problems in the mids. None of these 'tubers seem to concentrate on the importance of listening. If a mix did have problems in the mids I would probably only turn to a multiband comp if A: the artist had no way of going back to the mix and changing things there... or B: Eq wasn't really working. Multiband comps are usually a last resort.
bladerunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 10:29 AM   #66
bladerunner
Human being with feelings
 
bladerunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 4,671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joaquins Void View Post
Serr & citizenkeith: Not getting in to a point by point here. But taking a step backwards, let me just clarify that by natural dynamics, I meant no compression. In other words, the questions can be rephrased as, why are we using compression.
And ok, sure you don't have to. There are people out there who can still appreciate the recording. I just don't believe they are, proportionally, very many.
Why are we using compression? 'Cause it sounds great Compression is arguably the most 'musical' of all tools. Of course, if you abuse it, it can sound crap ie. if you can noticeably HEAR the compression then it's probably been abused somewhat. And, of course, there are genres which don't benefit from compression.
bladerunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 10:43 AM   #67
beingmf
Human being with feelings
 
beingmf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Jazz City
Posts: 3,905
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joaquins Void View Post
But taking a step backwards, let me just clarify that by natural dynamics, I meant no compression. In other words, the questions can be rephrased as, why are we using compression.
Because you take the room and the recording tools out of the equation. a) an instrument in a room will always sound "natural" because your ears adapt to the reflection (call it the "ambience") of the location. b) a microphone, even an omni, imprints its directivity character onto the recorded source. In order to make it at least "feel" natural, a compressor is a logical part of the chain. Same goes for EQ (ok, maybe apart from a pair of Schoeps or DPA in a stellar room). You have to compensate, no?

And it's the microphone that created the need for a deesser in the first place! Without microphone = no capsule/basket resonance = no "Ssssssss"
__________________
Windows 7x64 SP1 | NVidia Quadro2000, 10.18.13.6191 | Marian Seraph AD2, 4.0.2.1
Experience the Blunzeworscht!
beingmf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 10:58 AM   #68
SmajjL
Human being with feelings
 
SmajjL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,934
Default

Blade: I appreciate your response with honest directness and I am satisfied in how you reason in your own way, and I shall continue my way in more peace now, thanks.
I must add though that Graham from TheRecordingRevolution ('youtuber') has not really given me reason for me to chose to ignore his tips.
Tips are just tips, not an universal solution, neither is pre-made 'patches', nope, agree.
I enjoy the learning ride so much hope it never stops and all you people say in here, good & 'bad' can trigger a thought that inspires me..
__________________
:)
SmajjL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 12:41 PM   #69
citizenkeith
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joaquins Void View Post
Serr & citizenkeith: Not getting in to a point by point here. But taking a step backwards, let me just clarify that by natural dynamics, I meant no compression. In other words, the questions can be rephrased as, why are we using compression.
And ok, sure you don't have to. There are people out there who can still appreciate the recording. I just don't believe they are, proportionally, very many.
Gotcha. I absolutely use compression during mixing... and today I printed vocals running through an 1176 compressor. Your original comment was that the Dynamic EQ can help when the mixes/masters are extremely compressed/limited, so that's how I got to this part of the conversation.

And I'm fine with it, I just feel that modern mastering/mixing has gone too far, and the pendulum will swing back at some point. I remember the late 80s, when everything was going through massive digital reverb units, records were mixed bright and many utilized drum triggers to have a perfect hit every time. Things changed a little in the early 90s, and we started hearing records that sounded realistic. So I think the same thing will happen with dynamic range, or at least I hope so.
citizenkeith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 01:20 PM   #70
The Telenator
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oud West, NL
Posts: 2,335
Default

citizenkeith: "I just feel that modern mastering/mixing has gone too far ..."

Just like nations that have huge stockpiles of military weapons, there is usually a deep underlying need or desire to rationalise excuses for using the toys that we have. We are drowning in a sea of free, cheap and otherwise very affordable plugins. If these dynamic EQs all cost roughly $5k like some hardware EQs and compressors do, we likely wouldn't even be having this conversation (because almost no one would own the implement of destruction in question). Ozone 6 Advanced, loudly promoted with its own Dynamic EQ setup, and at about $1000, is mere peanuts compared to hardware and considering all else that is included in its bundle.

Again, as I said in my first thread post here, there shouldn't be much cause to use a dynamic EQ, IF you are doing your job correctly from the start.

In an effort to avoid being hypocritical, I'll confess that I own two good dynamic EQs, the other being the Toneboosters plugin(s). Moreover, I dropped a true pile of cash into some great software in the last year or so. But aside from the confidence of knowing I have the very best tools at hand should I ever need them, my overarching goal is actually to NOT have to employ them in the first place. This may sound a bit strange, but there it is.

What I see going on currently is that, once again, the wonderful things we have created to make our lives so much easier have turned on us and enslaved us. This enslavement is all around us everywhere lately, and it is seen in the over-cooking of so much of the newest music, particularly at the hands of amateurs (who make up the majority of the membership at DAW forums).

Just like so many people today who can't go 5 minutes without fiddling with their smartphones, it has become routine to read in our sorts of threads of users who have plugin chains of a dozen or more VSTs per track. Not much different is the user in another thread who is trying to work with (and sync together) 50 instances of some synth in a project. I'm all for creativity and new ideas, but at some point one has to call insanity by its real name.

Last edited by The Telenator; 07-25-2015 at 01:34 PM.
The Telenator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 06:17 PM   #71
Mind Riot
Human being with feelings
 
Mind Riot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 838
Default

Indeed, in light of the last several comments I feel like perhaps I should clarify my stance somewhat. While I'm not exactly retracting anything I've said, when I've referred to using dynamic EQs to fix squashed mixes I'm only referring to personal usage in making commercial records more listenable, not as a band aid tool for poor mixing in one's own productions. That's a rather narrow use, but I was just excited to discover it since I also only recently discovered plugs that helped undo some of the damage of the loudness wars.

I'm approaching this discussion from the perspective of someone who's been recording and mixing since the mid '90's, and who always aims to use the least plugs to get what I need done rather than the most.

So while I'm excited about the potential of dynamic EQs beyond current uses, I'm not advocating they be used without skill or discretion.
__________________
"Mah blahkinned sole izz daw-kaw thawn thah blahkissed nye-eeeet!!!"
SQUONK SQUONK SQUEE!!! SQUIDONK SQUIDONK DONK SQUEE!!!
"Thah daaahhhk of thah nye-eeeet izz lye-eeek my-eee sole-aaah!!!"
Mind Riot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 10:59 PM   #72
The Telenator
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oud West, NL
Posts: 2,335
Default

And I, for one, was not suggesting that dynamic EQs -- in the context of this thread -- are or were being used unwisely. In fact, one of the usage examples I read above was a perfect call for this tool, the one in which there were two instruments, each on its own track I suppose, competing for the same frequency bands. Leave a situation like that untreated at your own peril. There, a dynamic EQ can fix the issue quickly.

Even though that one is a clear case, even begging its use, I should probably point out at this point that there are two schools concerning dynamic EQs and its 'parent', the multi-band compressor. Some are all for their use at one's own discretion and whenever. Both of these tools are relatively new inventions in the timeline of audio recording.

The other school is rather solidly against the use of either, at the very least they are against any regular day-to-day use. Their contention is that they unnatural skew the overall sound and can cause other troubles as well. I think some of their criticisms are accurate; however, I don't belong to this group. I think tools are only tools and no matter which ones, they need to be used well. It's the person mixing, after all, and not the tools themselves that make the biggest difference.

We're at such a strange spot right now in digital audio recording and production. We are blessed with all of these affordable and extremely powerful tools and workstations, but these very same things also have the ability to choke the life out of our music. Seems a little like having the atom bomb: it can deter war through the assurance of mutual destruction, but one wrong move, one tiny mistake, and it's over for you and everyone else.

Does that analogy seem like too much of a stretch? I wonder. Having these powerful multi-core computers means we can load and use a gazillion plugins and any powerful plug, of which these dynamic EQs can be quite CPU hungry on full tilt, but I think some of us forget that having that power doesn't necessarily means we should.
The Telenator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 11:39 PM   #73
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 13,170
Default

I am excited to try the drum leveler thing from the same guys who make surf eq
__________________
REAPER Shirts are Back! - https://shop.spreadshirt.com/pipelineaudio/
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 11:59 PM   #74
Mind Riot
Human being with feelings
 
Mind Riot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Telenator View Post
And I, for one, was not suggesting that dynamic EQs -- in the context of this thread -- are or were being used unwisely. In fact, one of the usage examples I read above was a perfect call for this tool, the one in which there were two instruments, each on its own track I suppose, competing for the same frequency bands. Leave a situation like that untreated at your own peril. There, a dynamic EQ can fix the issue quickly.

Even though that one is a clear case, even begging its use, I should probably point out at this point that there are two schools concerning dynamic EQs and its 'parent', the multi-band compressor. Some are all for their use at one's own discretion and whenever. Both of these tools are relatively new inventions in the timeline of audio recording.

The other school is rather solidly against the use of either, at the very least they are against any regular day-to-day use. Their contention is that they unnatural skew the overall sound and can cause other troubles as well. I think some of their criticisms are accurate; however, I don't belong to this group. I think tools are only tools and no matter which ones, they need to be used well. It's the person mixing, after all, and not the tools themselves that make the biggest difference.

We're at such a strange spot right now in digital audio recording and production. We are blessed with all of these affordable and extremely powerful tools and workstations, but these very same things also have the ability to choke the life out of our music. Seems a little like having the atom bomb: it can deter war through the assurance of mutual destruction, but one wrong move, one tiny mistake, and it's over for you and everyone else.

Does that analogy seem like too much of a stretch? I wonder. Having these powerful multi-core computers means we can load and use a gazillion plugins and any powerful plug, of which these dynamic EQs can be quite CPU hungry on full tilt, but I think some of us forget that having that power doesn't necessarily means we should.
No, actually, I think that's quite apt. And it goes along with my original excitement in starting the thread: as someone who started with such basic things in the DIY days of twenty years ago, the tools we have now are thrilling to me. But at the same time, I have to remember that I really don't know what it's like to come to the party from anywhere else.

I started with really crappy low end stuff that usually didn't make anything sound any better regardless of setting so I just didn't use it most of the time, and thus my use of effects in general, from EQ to compression to anything else, has always been as sparing as possible. I'm always trying to get it right at the source, because I spent many years having little other option.

Now free or very affordable plugs are quite remarkable in what they can do to me, because I spent so long in the path from nothing to crap to mediocre to decent to now. So I get excited when I can get something like Melda's dynamic EQ for $38 and see what it can do; I couldn't get a crappy OD pedal for that back in the day.

But I don't know what it's like to just be starting out on a PC and have two hundred plugs staring back at you and not know whether you're supposed to use one or five or all of them and where and when. I imagine that's got to be overwhelming, and I wouldn't want to be in that position. I've probably collected around three hundred plugs by now, but I probably only use about fifty of them total.
__________________
"Mah blahkinned sole izz daw-kaw thawn thah blahkissed nye-eeeet!!!"
SQUONK SQUONK SQUEE!!! SQUIDONK SQUIDONK DONK SQUEE!!!
"Thah daaahhhk of thah nye-eeeet izz lye-eeek my-eee sole-aaah!!!"
Mind Riot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2015, 12:48 AM   #75
The Telenator
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oud West, NL
Posts: 2,335
Default

Yes, the 'From Crapware to EcstacyPlugins' surely does apply. And no matter where anyone came from or what they started with, the wild increase in plugin quality in just the last 3 or 4 years is nearly mind-boggling. We've gone from, Wow, Pretty Darn Good plugins to Holy Crap, Look at All This Thing Does! in almost no time at all. I could understand people, particularly newer users, basically reeling from the latest changes and improvements. The increase in quality is almost freakish, isn't it?
The Telenator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2015, 01:18 AM   #76
Mind Riot
Human being with feelings
 
Mind Riot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Telenator View Post
Yes, the 'From Crapware to EcstacyPlugins' surely does apply. And no matter where anyone came from or what they started with, the wild increase in plugin quality in just the last 3 or 4 years is nearly mind-boggling. We've gone from, Wow, Pretty Darn Good plugins to Holy Crap, Look at All This Thing Does! in almost no time at all. I could understand people, particularly newer users, basically reeling from the latest changes and improvements. The increase in quality is almost freakish, isn't it?
I just do my own stuff so anything I buy is out of pocket, but I eventually did decide to buy a few specific things that I felt the freeware wasn't delivering as well and you really don't need to spend a lot to get some amazing capabilities.

Got a couple more from Melda, their multianalyzer that runs on multiple tracks and shows all the signals no matter which one you're looking at, freaking genius, that was like $25. Their multiband convolution plug is fantastic, that was something like $35. Stillwell's Bombardier, which is just an astonishing drum mix and buss compressor, I think was $50. Waves Tune, got on sale for $100, best tuning software for my preference. I use POD Farm for guitar tones that aren't recorded live, snagged a second hand license for $50. I use Addictive Drums for my drum samples, got AD1 on sale for $99 then just upgraded to AD2 for $80.

My biggest splurge is definitely my main EQ. DMG Audio's EQuality, which is just the most pristine, incredible sounding EQ I've ever come across. Got a second hand license for that for $95, it's normally $155 new.

And of course, the mother of all bargains, Reaper itself. Still makes me shake my head every time I think about how much other DAWs cost. They're all great in their own ways, but damn.

But this is to say nothing of all the astoundingly great freeware stuff there is. All the stuff I bought is to fill a role I couldn't fill with freeware, and I still use a lot of amazing freeware plugs, and a lot of ReaPlugs and JS stuff. Melda's free bundle, Bootsy's stuff, Variety of Sound, LePoulin, countless others, the freeware out there is unbelievable.

It's an embarrassment of riches, I say.
__________________
"Mah blahkinned sole izz daw-kaw thawn thah blahkissed nye-eeeet!!!"
SQUONK SQUONK SQUEE!!! SQUIDONK SQUIDONK DONK SQUEE!!!
"Thah daaahhhk of thah nye-eeeet izz lye-eeek my-eee sole-aaah!!!"
Mind Riot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2015, 05:59 AM   #77
SmajjL
Human being with feelings
 
SmajjL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,934
Default

I 'see you' pipe, also, I like Dan Worralls voice.
Hope I spelled that right, or he will kick my..
__________________
:)

Last edited by SmajjL; 07-27-2015 at 05:21 AM. Reason: He lives here, I think :P
SmajjL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2015, 02:15 PM   #78
insub
Human being with feelings
 
insub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Louisville, KY, USA
Posts: 1,030
Default

Hey all. Just discovered this thread and was about to ask about some of the options. On the last mix I was working on there were a couple circumstances where I thought dyanamic EQ would be awesome. Anyway, my question is:

I dl's Nova-67P, and I was wondering what makes it worth stepping up to a paid option?
For one, I don't see an option in Nova for oversampling (ReaXComp doesn't have an oversampling/AA option either). But, the prices range a lot.
TB FlX: $20
GlissEQ: $90
MDynamicEqualizer: $80
MAutoDynamicEQ: $112

And, a lot of other options seemingly costing exponentially more depending on the name-brand on the box.

Just curios what you all like of other options vs Nova.
__________________
Everything you need to know about samplerates and oversampling... maybe!
My Essential FREE 64bit VST Effects, ReaEQ Presets for Instruments
Windows 10 64 bit; MOTU 828 MKII, Audio Express, & 8PRE; Behringer ADA8000
insub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2015, 02:28 PM   #79
Sju
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 686
Default

The Tokyo Dawn Labs GE edition of Nova will be released shortly... based on the previous plugins from these guys, I'd suggest you just get that once it's released and all your dynamic EQ needs are covered.
Sju is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2015, 02:36 PM   #80
insub
Human being with feelings
 
insub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Louisville, KY, USA
Posts: 1,030
Default

Thanks, Sju.

I was wondering if they were still developing Nova. I am curious to see what the GE version will add.
__________________
Everything you need to know about samplerates and oversampling... maybe!
My Essential FREE 64bit VST Effects, ReaEQ Presets for Instruments
Windows 10 64 bit; MOTU 828 MKII, Audio Express, & 8PRE; Behringer ADA8000
insub is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.