Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ronny]

Patrik T wrote on Thu, 20 April 2006 11:29

jfrigo wrote on Thu, 20 April 2006 15:36 snip ...Even with the settings, there are too many variables to actually make it work well. snip Yes, but since there are the same variables and bands regarding the compression part as well as the expansion part of a MB, does it really make a difference if it is compressing or doing expansion? It will mess up the audio either direction, won't it? I was not aiming the expansion-thing towards saving overcompressed material, but instead uncompressed material. If we compress the low end with a MB it will affect a kick, the bass, some low end on some guitars and a bit of the singers voice, where each and individual instrument might have had different settings on their possible dynamic processing thingies. I don't understand why expansion should be worse than compressing as long as we're talking about a full mix and a multiband compressor. They're both a pain in the butt.

It's not if it's the first dynamic process and not used in an attempt to restore lost dynamics from a result of over compressing. Expansion is beneficial to add clarity to high noise floor material. By reversing the compression to where low signals are lowered even more, dynamic range increases, the louder keeper material remains unaffected above the threshold, the noise floor is expanded down. The result is a cleaner sound.

What Jay is talking about is using expansion to reverse hypercompression or very heavy compressed material. It will expand the signal down and increase dynamic range, but it's only effective for a couple of dB's before the cure is worse than the disease. My experience mirrors his, you can improve some material slightly, but it's no cigar as the dynamics are destroyed when they the dynamic range is taken away by the heavy compression. IOW, using an expander to get back some dynamics from hypercompressed material, will only affect the audio below the threshold, above the threshold the material is still hypercompressed. The waveform will look like it's restored some as a little bit of crest factor returns, but it's on the RMS level not the peak level and it's the loudest sections that degrade the most during hypercompression.  

[MASSIVE Mastering]

Pingu wrote on Thu, 20 April 2006 12:53

I find that plug too damn tweaky so ive sorta not bithered buying it, but i think i could be missing out on something.

I've used it for de-essing...  But I tend to drift towards the SpitFish also for that.  

But for guitar "thwumpies" (think Metallica's "And Justice For All") and other frequency spikes, Soniformer is definitely is a pretty unique piece.  

[jazzius]

From the Voxengo site about Soniformer:

"The main idea behind Soniformer is a spectral balance.  A perfectly balanced mix can be seen on a spectrum analyzer as a smooth spectral curve with minimal number of peaks and notches.  There can be some deviations from this rule, but generally it always applies"

   

[Jerry Tubb]

Tonight I tried using Waves LPMB and/or L3 on a project.

No Sir... just didn't like it!  Turned the mixes into mush.

So I went back to my tried & true "secret" analog methods.

Cheers JT

[MASSIVE Mastering]

jazzius wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 00:14

From the Voxengo site about Soniformer: "The main idea behind Soniformer is a spectral balance.  A perfectly balanced mix can be seen on a spectrum analyzer as a smooth spectral curve with minimal number of peaks and notches.  There can be some deviations from this rule, but generally it always applies"

I hate it when they take a perfectly decent tool and then water it down by saying stuff like that about it...  

[Ronny]

Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 03:11

Tonight I tried using Waves LPMB and/or L3 on a project. No Sir... just didn't like it!  Turned the mixes into mush. So I went back to my tried & true "secret" analog methods. Cheers JT

It took me about a month messing with the LPEQ to get where I liked it. Don't know if it's the linear phase that was giving me a problem, but the curves are not the same as other digital eq's and nothing like analog eq, anyway once I got used to it, I started using it more and more.

I did some tests when the L3 came out and could mirror the sound pretty close with an LPMB chained before the L2. I think that's pretty much what the L3 is, an LPMB and the L2 in one plug-in. That's in Multi-mode, the Ultra mode isn't much different than the L2 software plug to my ears and same control functions. If you already have an LPMB and an L2, not much sense in spending the bucks for the L3, IMHO.  

[Pingu]

Ronny wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 23:47

Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 03:11 Tonight I tried using Waves LPMB and/or L3 on a project. No Sir... just didn't like it!  Turned the mixes into mush. So I went back to my tried & true "secret" analog methods. Cheers JT It took me about a month messing with the LPEQ to get where I liked it. Don't know if it's the linear phase that was giving me a problem, but the curves are not the same as other digital eq's and nothing like analog eq, anyway once I got used to it, I started using it more and more. I did some tests when the L3 came out and could mirror the sound pretty close with an LPMB chained before the L2. I think that's pretty much what the L3 is, an LPMB and the L2 in one plug-in. That's in Multi-mode, the Ultra mode isn't much different than the L2 software plug to my ears and same control functions. If you already have an LPMB and an L2, not much sense in spending the bucks for the L3, IMHO.

Do you use the L3 much Ronny?

[jazzius]

MASSIVE Mastering wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 14:49

I hate it when they take a perfectly decent tool and then water it down by saying stuff like that about it...

Yup, found that a bit scarry.....actually i never heard the plugin and i don't think Pinglish is his first language so let's give him the benefit of the doubt!?......Darius

[TotalSonic]

I definitely only use a multiband comp when "forced" to - to me it should only ever be used to deal with a specific problem as already detailed in prior posts on this thread - but for some reason a lot of mixes I've gotten recently seem to have some severe "poky" areas in just the mids - and a lot of cases I've found having just a single selected band on the multiband comp to deal with this seems to get things sitting a little better than just broadband compression.  

I've never been ever really all that happy with any of the Waves multibands (either LPMB or C4) - as Jerry pointed out it just seem to turn things into mush too much - and the TC Finalizer left a lot to be desired to my ear too.   But the Sonoris Multiband comp definitely has been one of the best recent aquisistions I've done - I think somehow with the Linkwitz-Riley crossovers and the 64bit integer math for its calculation it ends up with much more useable and much less veiled results than the other stuff I've tried.

I've never gotten to use the dbx Quantum or TC6000 or the Tubetec stuff though - I'd be interested in hearing these in comparison to the Sonoris.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[IainDearg]

jazzius wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 11:52

MASSIVE Mastering wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 14:49 I hate it when they take a perfectly decent tool and then water it down by saying stuff like that about it...   Yup, found that a bit scarry.....actually i never heard the plugin and i don't think Pinglish is his first language so let's give him the benefit of the doubt!?......Darius

The developer (Aleksey) is Russian. The quality of his manuals and descriptions is the subject of, er, debate even among the afficianados of his plugs. He's promised to think about getting a technical author, or some such, on board. The GUIs are an acquired taste, too. But he sure can program. I'm a fan.

[Pingu]

IainDearg wrote on Sat, 22 April 2006 04:31

jazzius wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 11:52 MASSIVE Mastering wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 14:49 I hate it when they take a perfectly decent tool and then water it down by saying stuff like that about it...   Yup, found that a bit scarry.....actually i never heard the plugin and i don't think Pinglish is his first language so let's give him the benefit of the doubt!?......Darius The developer (Aleksey) is Russian. The quality of his manuals and descriptions is the subject of, er, debate even among the afficianados of his plugs. He's promised to think about getting a technical author, or some such, on board. The GUIs are an acquired taste, too. But he sure can program. I'm a fan.

Got to agree with ya on that.


Some great plugs.

Soniformer is one of the most complex plugs i have come across and the manual in not helpful at all.

Of coarse it would be very nice to have a pdf manual fully explaining the plugin/s and its features.

One cant complain as the prices are very very modest and the quality is awesome.

[Ronny]

Pingu wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 12:29

Ronny wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 23:47 Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 03:11 Tonight I tried using Waves LPMB and/or L3 on a project. No Sir... just didn't like it!  Turned the mixes into mush. So I went back to my tried & true "secret" analog methods. Cheers JT It took me about a month messing with the LPEQ to get where I liked it. Don't know if it's the linear phase that was giving me a problem, but the curves are not the same as other digital eq's and nothing like analog eq, anyway once I got used to it, I started using it more and more. I did some tests when the L3 came out and could mirror the sound pretty close with an LPMB chained before the L2. I think that's pretty much what the L3 is, an LPMB and the L2 in one plug-in. That's in Multi-mode, the Ultra mode isn't much different than the L2 software plug to my ears and same control functions. If you already have an LPMB and an L2, not much sense in spending the bucks for the L3, IMHO.   Do you use the L3 much Ronny?

No, actually it's seldom that I use it. Also very rare that I use multi-band compression. I find that a good transparent eq and no compression at all until final limiting, is all most of the quality mixes need. ITR, I'm in Steve's camp, I view multi-band comp as a fix it tool and not a go to default process. Project a couple of weeks ago had one tune that was mixed differently than the rest, I wasn't getting good results with the L2 and used the L3 on it and ran the other tunes through the L2. I haven't used the L3 on a project as a total replacement for the L2 on all songs, not yet anyway.

[Pingu]

Ronny wrote on Sun, 23 April 2006 01:28

Pingu wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 12:29 Ronny wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 23:47 Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 03:11 Tonight I tried using Waves LPMB and/or L3 on a project. No Sir... just didn't like it!  Turned the mixes into mush. So I went back to my tried & true "secret" analog methods. Cheers JT It took me about a month messing with the LPEQ to get where I liked it. Don't know if it's the linear phase that was giving me a problem, but the curves are not the same as other digital eq's and nothing like analog eq, anyway once I got used to it, I started using it more and more. I did some tests when the L3 came out and could mirror the sound pretty close with an LPMB chained before the L2. I think that's pretty much what the L3 is, an LPMB and the L2 in one plug-in. That's in Multi-mode, the Ultra mode isn't much different than the L2 software plug to my ears and same control functions. If you already have an LPMB and an L2, not much sense in spending the bucks for the L3, IMHO.   Do you use the L3 much Ronny? No, actually it's seldom that I use it. Also very rare that I use multi-band compression. I find that a good transparent eq and no compression at all until final limiting, is all most of the quality mixes need. ITR, I'm in Steve's camp, I view multi-band comp as a fix it tool and not a go to default process. Project a couple of weeks ago had one tune that was mixed differently than the rest, I wasn't getting good results with the L2 and used the L3 on it and ran the other tunes through the L2. I haven't used the L3 on a project as a total replacement for the L2 on all songs, not yet anyway.

Have you tried elephant Ronny.

I find it an awesome limiter.

Very versatile and gives many different options like stereo link, up sampling, different release characteristics.......
dithering and dc offset removal.

[Ronny]

No, haven't tried it, but have been hearing some good things about it.

[zetterstroem]

jazzius wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 07:14

From the Voxengo site about Soniformer: "The main idea behind Soniformer is a spectral balance.  A perfectly balanced mix can be seen on a spectrum analyzer as a smooth spectral curve with minimal number of peaks and notches.  There can be some deviations from this rule, but generally it always applies"

this is reason enough to never use anything from that company........