Limiting & Compression on Master Bus?

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I've been experimenting with the SplitEQ on solo guitar, and it's interesting, and seems more useful than I thought it would be.

Please tell us more.
What does SplitEQ do for guitar that Oaksound and Fab do not?

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

I believe my FabFiler Q3 does have Dynamic Eq, but I have not yet used it. As I am still learning the basics of Equalization.

In reference to what you said...about using Static EQ for basic sound and then applying Dynamic EQ..

I believe you can use dynamic and static at the same time on Q3?.
But would it be better to use it at the same time?
...OR set up Two Q3's = on top of each other. The first using Static and the second using Dyanmic? Keeping the functions of static and dynamic separate.
Would there be any difference using it one way or another?

I don't know Q3 but I use F6 from Waves and you can run dynamic only, static only, or combined operation on any band based upon that band's setting, so yes you can do it at the same time. There are six bands to go around on F6. Really, the only difference with using two plugs is eating up more processes on the computer's processor.

Bob

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

Please tell us more.
What does SplitEQ do for guitar that Oaksound and Fab do not?

I think the main difference is that plugins like SplitEQ and Physion separate the transients from the rest of the notes so that you can work on the transients region specifically and work on the fundamental (if that's the correct term for the rest of the note) separately.

Imagine it this way... you have a NOTE. The note is divided into two sections, the transient and the fundamental:
NOTE=TRANSIENT+FUNDAMENTAL

Typically, an eq works on the entire NOTE. With SplitEQ and Physion you don't have to apply changes to the entire NOTE. You can apply changes to the TRANSIENTS by themselves, to the FUNDAMENTALS by themselves, or to the entire NOTE.

I've never done what Bob has suggesting using a dynamic eq. Bob certainly has a helluva lot more mixing experience than I do so I'll take his word that he can accomplish the same with a dynamic eq but to my thinking, so far as workflow is concerned, something like SplitEQ and Physion is going to get me there faster and easier.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

I use F6 from Waves and you can run dynamic only, static only, or combined operation on any band based upon that band's setting,

Bob

Seems like the F6 might be doing something that others are not? Floating EQ that moves up or down with magnitude of the signal?

[Gordon Currie]

Originally Posted by Chipotle

I hope I don't sidetrack the whole thread with a question, but isn't it true that compressors don't actually make things louder? A compressor can only make things quieter... but with make-up gain, you can raise the volume of the softer parts, while the louder parts are quieter, so overall the whole thing is louder. Is that correct?

Because I always seem to hear people talking about "compressing something to make it louder". And if that's how you understand a compressor, no wonder they get misused.

I saw no one responded. Compressors do not make anything louder, they alter the BALANCE (ratio) between loud and soft. Said another way, they reduce dynamic range, albeit in a specific area of that range, and with specific characteristics. The make the signal more CONSISTENT.

A later addition to compressors (when they were all hardware) is 'make-up gain.' This shifts the dynamic range upwards - making it ACTUALLY louder.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

Seems like the F6 might be doing something that others are not? Floating EQ that moves up or down with magnitude of the signal?

Besides the usual frequency, Q, and gain settings you have a range, threshold, attack, and release for each band. You can set static EQ and dynamic separately. For instance, lets say you've got a dread guitar that needs some high end, has a bulge at 1k that is disturbing, and was recorded in a room with a standing wave problem that made it react intermittently to any bottom end with a sympathetic ring at 100hz. You can use static EQ to handle the need for high end and the need to take out the bulge, and then find the location of the standing wave and set your threshold, attack, release, and range to suck up the intermittent low-end rings but back out again whent he ring is gone so that you can't hear a change in the low end of the guitar. Whoops, darn sexy technology.

The opposite end of the frequency spectrum would be dealing with a recording of a player who does the currently-vogue strum-slap-strum-slap thing. The slap is done with the strings muted so there isnt' much low end. If his slaps are too loud, dial in a band's dynamic section to catch the upper-mid to upper-end slap and control it so that it doesn't limit how loud you can make the guitar.

Bob

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by Gordon Currie

I saw no one responded. Compressors do not make anything louder, they alter the BALANCE (ratio) between loud and soft. Said another way, they reduce dynamic range, albeit in a specific area of that range, and with specific characteristics. The make the signal more CONSISTENT.

A later addition to compressors (when they were all hardware) is 'make-up gain.' This shifts the dynamic range upwards - making it ACTUALLY louder.

I struggle all the time with terms and phrases when used in descriptions of functions. Oh my sometimes It will take me 30 minutes of research to find out what someone was actually trying to say. It is right there before me, but because I am not in that field, it comes out meaning something else to me.

If I may add to your excellent description Gordon, Just to further clarify Chipotie's question.

When music has too high of a peak, in relation to its Valleys, it limits how loud you can turn it up. Think of it similar to a knife blade that is cutting into your ear. The Dynamic range is so high that if you turn it up loud enough to hear the high dynamics becomes hurtful to your ears.
You don't go Ouch! ha ha The music is hurting my ears! ha ha...but your unconscious might direct you to turn your stereo off.

There lots of high Fi stereo tests done in the last century(especially in the late 80's when innovative home speaker design blossomed ) Suddenly there were speakers that were bright and sizzly that attracted many customers. Problem was long term listening it disturbed them. In the case of speakers it was unbalanced EQ, not the dynamic range. But in many ways it is similar.

In the first example I used in my original post, in regards to Radio stations: If Decibel difference between your peaks and your lows is too great, the further cities will only hear the peaks and not the lows. Thus they lost out on those further cities advertising dollars.

As Gordon Said, Compression balances the Highs and Lows. Some people use the term Squash, because it is ...pushing down the higher dynamics. You signal thus becomes more balanced.

And when it is more balanced, you can Turn Up the Overall Signal Louder, without causing irritation to the ears( or in the case of old time radio stations, reach out further). In direct regards to the recording itself compression might help all of the instruments to be heard better....As the soft parts are now on a slightly more equal basis with the lead instruments.

I hope I explained things in a manner that was of some help and did not confuse the issue. There is a lot more to it, of which I still have to learn.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

You can set static EQ and dynamic separately. For instance, lets say you've got a dread guitar that needs some high end, has a bulge at 1k that is disturbing, and was recorded in a room with a standing wave problem that made it react intermittently to any bottom end with a sympathetic ring at 100hz. You can use static EQ to handle the need for high end and the need to take out the bulge, and then find the location of the standing wave and set your threshold, attack, release, and range to suck up the intermittent low-end rings but back out again whent he ring is gone so that you can't hear a change in the low end of the guitar. Whoops, darn sexy technology.

This is what I end up doing most of the time these days with solo guitar and FabFilter. The cool thing is that you can combine them. Say I have a boomy low note that pops up now and then (I just grabbed a track and did some screen shots - so this isn't "real", just for illustration). I find the frequency, add a cut and find that I need maybe 6db to eliminate that boom. Like so:



Screen Shot 2023-02-28 at 11.40.51 AM.jpg

Great, but now I've lost my low end even when that boomy note isn't hitting. So I convert that EQ point to dynamic. Now I can change the fixed cut to around .5 db, but make the dynamic cut even deeper, if I want, like this:

Screen Shot 2023-02-28 at 11.41.23 AM.jpg

So now, I'm only doing a deep cut when the note really triggers. And there's lots of adjustments you can make to this.

In fact, I could even *boost* that bass frequency, while still cutting it when it exceeds some threashold:

Screen Shot 2023-02-28 at 11.53.51 AM.jpg

Or add another eq point - I think this is what Bob was describing - to add a broad overall low end boost, while still having the dynamic cut for that one note only when it's a problem:
Screen Shot 2023-02-28 at 12.01.17 PM.jpg

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

I have always loved the smoothness you get on your Vocals, Kev. Super smooth! So I will take your kind of dangerous anytime.

"Moderation" has always been the hardest for me to master. I am a full B out kind of guy. However after many years of going all out, I have come to the realization, that this is not the way. Control, yields precision results. I am trying to learn Moderation, but not easy for an old guy who gets overly enthused sometimes.

Can you send a link to the Online courses that you took from Berklee.

Well the courses I took were three 12 week semesters in Advanced Music Production in Pro Tools ........

But be aware cost wise it is like a collage

Second if I remember correctly you use Logic ? so for example a 12 week course in Producing Music with Logic will run you $1,265 for non credit tuition

https://online.berklee.edu/courses/p...sic-with-logic

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I think the main difference is that plugins like SplitEQ and Physion separate the transients from the rest of the notes so that you can work on the transients region specifically and work on the fundamental (if that's the correct term for the rest of the note) separately.

Yep, it's a fairly different approach, and I'm still learning. But basically Soothe appears to just be a dynamic EQ/many-band compressor that autodetects peaks and tries to compress them with a fine granularity. You guide it by telling it what region to focus on and how aggressive to be, but you don't manipulate the specific peaks like you can with dynamic EQ.

SplitEQ separates the transients from the non-transient part. You can solo these and listen. The transients, solo'd, just sounds like something spitting... The non-transient part sounds like a note with not attack, kind of oozes in. But now, you can EQ - not compress - each separately, with a full multi-band parametric EQ. So if you have a guitar that's too clicky, but otherwise too bassy, you could cut the bass on the tonal part, or even boost the highs, while cutting the highs on the transients - the attack. You're not reducing the transient, just EQing it. So the attack can be made less bitey, while the guitar itself still has plenty of highs. Or if you want more attack, you could add presence to the attack - say boost around 3K on the transients - without affecting the overall tone of the guitar.

On my first stab at trying SplitEQ, it seemed a bit weird, and you can definitely make a mess of things easily, but I'm starting to find it useful in some cases.

Just different tools that may or may not be useful in any given case.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Well the courses I took were three 12 week semesters in Advanced Music Production in Pro Tools ........

But be aware cost wise it is like a collage

Second if I remember correctly you use Logic ? so for example a 12 week course in Producing Music with Logic will run you $1,265 for non credit tuition

https://online.berklee.edu/courses/p...sic-with-logic

You can also check your community college for courses. I took one a while back during covid, because a friend was taking it and wanted moral support :-) It was actually not great, my friend dropped out because the teacher was more than a tad wacky, but I finished it for amusement - lots of virtual instrument and loop stuff because the course didn't assume you could actually play anything. Since this isn't what I do, I learned lots of areas of Logic I'd never tried and will probably never use again :-) Anyway, it could have been a good course, probably not of the quality of Berkeley, but with a good instructor, it could have been fine, and was about 10% of Berkeley's cost. (But I'm sure Kev's 3-semesters was *way* beyond what the junior college could do, and was probably well worth it)

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

This is what I end up doing most of the time these days with solo guitar and FabFilter. :



Attachment 88287

Great, but now I've lost my low end even when that boomy note isn't hitting. So I convert that EQ point to dynamic. Now I can change the fixed cut to around .5 db, but make the dynamic cut even deeper, if I want, like this:

Attachment 88288

So now, I'm only doing a deep cut when the note really triggers. And there's lots of adjustments you can make to this.

From your description: "triggers" It sound like it is acting in a similar manner as the Waves F6? Using a ..Threshold level, to trigger-activate when the dynamic EQ is used? Or does the Waves F6 take an entirely different approach?

Split EQ sounds very interesting.
Compression is just reducing the peaks, leaving the initial attack of the note the same? But Split EQ Separates and adjusts the transients: Are there any tonal differences between the two? Does the initial note attack remain the same with either system? I guess the key question is what are the Outcome differences between SplitEQ and FabQ3?

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

From your description: "triggers" It sound like it is acting in a similar manner as the Waves F6? Using a ..Threshold level, to trigger-activate when the dynamic EQ is used? Or does the Waves F6 take an entirely different approach?

I've not used the Waves, but that's basically what dynamic EQ is. You can think of it as an EQ cut triggered by a side-chained compressor. So when the threshold is hit, you can trigger an EQ change (cut or boost). But it's all nicely wrapped up in an EQ-like interface. You have EQ-3, right? Give it a try, it's pretty easy to see what it's doing.

Are there any tonal differences between the two? Does the initial note attack remain the same with either system? I guess the key question is what are the Outcome differences between SplitEQ and FabQ3?

I'd say quite different approaches, with SplitEQ, you're EQing the transient or tonal part, not compressing. Sonically, you might achieve similar things with the right setting, I'm not sure. They're just different tools that if you know what they do, you might be able to use them when a specific problem occurs.

[Chipotle]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

A compressor CAN actually make things louder under certain circumstances. Background things. If you set the compressor so that it is compressing the whole mix when there is a foreground sound, it compresses the whole mix down, as would be expected. You add gain compensation to bring it back to its uncompressed state. However, when that foreground sound goes away, leaving a quieter background, the compressor relaxes and allows the level to come back up, thus raising the level of the background sounds.

I guess is comes down to semantics, then: Do you compress things, then raise up the overall level, or raise the level, then use the compressor to keep things quieter during certain parts?

In your example, I'd say that the compressor isn't raising the background level... it's keeping things quiet during the foreground sections, then simply allowing the background to come up to its normal level in between. But whichever way you decide to look at it, the effect is the same.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by Chipotle

I guess is comes down to semantics, then: Do you compress things, then raise up the overall level, or raise the level, then use the compressor to keep things quieter during certain parts?

In your example, I'd say that the compressor isn't raising the background level... it's keeping things quiet during the foreground sections, then simply allowing the background to come up to its normal level in between. But whichever way you decide to look at it, the effect is the same.

What was the name of that movie? "Don't raise the bridge, lower the water." Actually, with the gain makeup, the net effect is that the background is louder. Gain makeup has been a part of compression from the very start.

Bob