New Waves plug in Andrew Scheps " Parallel Particles"

[KevWind]

So while doing the perusing I have been able to do (being away from the studio for and extended period of time)
I came upon this very interesting new plugin developed by Waves with Andrew Scheps.

For any who have been curious about EQ and compression but have not ventured there or given up trying to use these extremely valuable tools, because of the complexity and time involved in learning and using them effectively. This plugin potentially offers an alternative . While certainly not a reason to not eventually learn the ins and outs of using compression and EQ, but rather a means to begin to use and understand the effects in a much simpler "easy to use and hear" focused type of format.

It seems like Parallel Particles may be a way into the world of beginning to understand the concept from a hearing the effect standpoint of arguably the two most misunderstood and consequently often maligned or simply rejected mixing techniques

Because it is so different looking and is a different entire approach than most of the plugins I am used to.
I have to admit if it didn't have Mr Scheps involvement I would undoubtedly write if off as just another gimmick'y plug.
But because I admire Mr Scheps and really like and can understand the way he explains what he is doing and why. So I went ahead and watched some video's about it and became more more intrigued. If I were to ever decide to cough up the money to do a Mix With The Masters work shop it would be with Andrew Scheps

It is basically using some parallel compression and parallel syntheses of highs and lows. But in a different way. I think I will be adding it to my plug in list



If your still interested Here is a video of Mr Scheps using it on an actual mix

[KevWind]

Guess I have finally left all you's guys speechless. My work here is done.

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Guess I have finally left all you's guys speechless. My work here is done.

I use both parallel compression and parallel aural exciters all the time. I find Ozone's exciter and it's maximizer extremely useful when used that way. I've used the old Aphex exciter in parallel as well. The Aphex is much more economiconimical cpu-wise than Ozone but Ozone clearly a better sounding plug. It (parallel compression) works really well on some guitar tracks as well and I've even used parallel maximizing on the main outs. I read somewhere that John Mayer's acoustic tracks (which I usually thin sound really good) are often some form of that technique although I believe that's accomplished with Charter Oaks hardware boxes.

Although I think the simplicity of this plug in is really cool you certainly don't need it to setup various tests with the idea itself.

Parallel routing is a great tool to have!

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

I use both parallel compression and parallel aural exciters all the time. I find Ozone's exciter and it's maximizer extremely useful when used that way. I've used the old Aphex exciter in parallel as well. The Aphex is much more economiconimical cpu-wise than Ozone but Ozone clearly a better sounding plug. It (parallel compression) works really well on some guitar tracks as well and I've even used parallel maximizing on the main outs. I read somewhere that John Mayer's acoustic tracks (which I usually thin sound really good) are often some form of that technique although I believe that's accomplished with Charter Oaks hardware boxes.

Although I think the simplicity of this plug in is really cool you certainly don't need it to setup various tests with the idea itself.

Parallel routing is a great tool to have!

Yes in fact Scheps mentions that the plugin was based on several parallel FX chains that he typically used.
What I found interesting was (if I understood correctly) is that with this plugin you place it directly on the track you wish to effect, as opposed to on an additional Aux track, but it is still letting the unprocessed signal through in addition to the processed signal ( how that is actually being done is well beyond my pay grade )

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Yes in fact Scheps mentions that the plugin was based on several parallel FX chains that he typically used.
What I found interesting was (if I understood correctly) is that with this plugin you place it directly on the track you wish to effect, as opposed to on an additional Aux track, but it is still letting the unprocessed signal through in addition to the processed signal ( how that is actually being done is well beyond my pay grade )

Not uncommon, for example wet versus dry on a plugin reverb.

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Yes in fact Scheps mentions that the plugin was based on several parallel FX chains that he typically used.
What I found interesting was (if I understood correctly) is that with this plugin you place it directly on the track you wish to effect, as opposed to on an additional Aux track, but it is still letting the unprocessed signal through in addition to the processed signal ( how that is actually being done is well beyond my pay grade )

Well....there are absolutely some recent compressor plug-ins that have a mixer section internal to the plug-in itself. Stephen Massy's new compressor has that. At that point your essentially doing parallel compression processing at the track level. I guess it's how much you trust the internal algorithm of the plug-in's mixer section. I just find the technique works best however with a separate track dedicated to the compression (or exciter). I usually set the parallel compression track to MAJOR squash and gentle feed it into the non-compressed track until I get a blend. I've found it to be very successful on drum and rhythm tracks as well as instruments.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Not uncommon, for example wet versus dry on a plugin reverb.

Except of course simply putting a verb directly on a track and using the wet/dry knob is not parallel processing, it is serial processing.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

Well....there are absolutely some recent compressor plug-ins that have a mixer section internal to the plug-in itself. Stephen Massy's new compressor has that. At that point your essentially doing parallel compression processing at the track level. I guess it's how much you trust the internal algorithm of the plug-in's mixer section. I just find the technique works best however with a separate track dedicated to the compression (or exciter). I usually set the parallel compression track to MAJOR squash and gentle feed it into the non-compressed track until I get a blend. I've found it to be very successful on drum and rhythm tracks as well as instruments.

Yes that is how I have always done it (additional separate parallel FX track with the FX set 100 % wet) and then reducing the output of that FX track to taste.
I had not perviously seen or realized it was a plugin with the "internal mixer section" you mention but that makes sense..
I'll have to check the Massy one. I do think that his 2007 limiter is top notch .

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Except of course simply putting a verb directly on a track and using the wet/dry knob is not parallel processing, it is serial processing.

Incorrect. It is parallel processing within the reverb software - signal is split, reverb effect on one, dry on the other, then added back together. As far and percentage of wet to dry, not positive method used but could well be simply adjusting the volume (amplitude) of each signal prior to being added back together.

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Incorrect. It is parallel processing within the reverb software - signal is split, reverb effect on one, dry on the other, then added back together. As far and percentage of wet to dry, not positive method used but could well be simply adjusting the volume (amplitude) of each signal prior to being added back together.

Well... yes and no The idea of parallel compression, eq and parallel aural exciters have certainly and historically never been possible (with some rare exceptions) on a plug-in designed to be an in series device inserted on a channel. The idea of wet/dry on a compressor or eq or exciter is a fairly recent development in software plug-ins. Again with some rare exceptions. It was certainly unheard of back in the hardware days.

It also was (and quite frankly still is) a matter of the age old issue of just how much math is a plug-in compressor willing to devote to mixing and compressing vs just compressing.

Until recently compression, bit-depth maximizing, aural exciting and eq were always considered a series device and aux send and returns were always set aside for time based, parallel processing.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

Well... yes and no The idea of parallel compression, eq and parallel aural exciters have certainly and historically never been possible (with some rare exceptions) on a plug-in designed to be an in series device inserted on a channel. The idea of wet/dry on a compressor or eq or exciter is a fairly recent development in software plug-ins. Again with some rare exceptions. It was certainly unheard of back in the hardware days.

It also was (and quite frankly still is) a matter of the age old issue of just how much math is a plug-in compressor willing to devote to mixing and compressing vs just compressing.

Until recently compression, bit-depth maximizing, aural exciting and eq were always considered a series device and aux send and returns were always set aside for time based, parallel processing.

Yes, times have changed. In this thread the OP was referring to a plugin, not external hardware. Setting up things for "in the DAW" plugin effects processing has more flexibility and capability than the use of external hardware. Of course what has a better sound outcome is arguable.


The wet/dry control in DAW reverb plugins is a pretty simple concept. The wet/dry control is present on all the plugin reverbs I have seen. Also some of my plugin compressors have it, etc..
Split the input signal. No computer processing power needed on the dry part (except for a volume adjustment) so it is not stressing the computer CPU more just because there is parallel processing.

The Parallel Particles plugin does the same input splitting but into more separate paths for its additional parallel processing options.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Incorrect. It is parallel processing within the reverb software - signal is split, reverb effect on one, dry on the other, then added back together. As far and percentage of wet to dry, not positive method used but could well be simply adjusting the volume (amplitude) of each signal prior to being added back together.

We have been over this before and you are still mistaken, it is serial processing not parallel. There is no 100 % unprocessed signal hitting the mix bus with a wet/dry plugin inserted on the track it is processing, unless you set it to 100 % dry.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by KevWind

We have been over this before and you are still mistaken, it is serial processing not parallel. There is no 100 % unprocessed signal hitting the mix bus with a wet/dry plugin inserted on the track it is processing, unless you set it to 100 % dry.

Seems you are saying this plugin sends to the bus two data streams, one data stream that it has processed with various effects, and one data stream of the original, untouched, data stream that entered the plugin. If that is the case, you are mistaken about how this plugin works, and even if it did do that the result would have no value (the data would be immediately combined on the bus).

This plugin performs its parallel processes within the plugin's internal software (by mixing in the raw data back in with the data is has already processed). The output is that mixed result. No separate raw data stream is output.

The plugin internally parallel processes, but the output is a single data stream of the summed result of process data with the original data. It is the same case with, for example, the reverb wet/dry plugins.

If this plugin is in line with other data manipulation (other plugins, external hardware) the plugin's output is part of a serial data manipulation chain (just like reverbs, etc. are).

[ukejon]

Can you all put some of this into plain English for us non-techies and maybe explain how it might apply (or not) to a solo acoustic recording with two mics? Thanks.

Seems somewhat similar in overall aural effect to what the BBE Sonic Stomp does to my live signal (typically a K&K Pure Mini into an AER 60/2 amp) although I realize that it is rather different processes being applied.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by ukejon

Can you all put some of this into plain English for us non-techies and maybe explain how it might apply (or not) to a solo acoustic recording with two mics? Thanks.

Seems somewhat similar in overall aural effect to what the BBE Sonic Stomp does to my live signal (typically a K&K Pure Mini into an AER 60/2 amp) although I realize that it is rather different processes being applied.

The inner workings don't matter to the end user. Get a demo of the plugin and try it out. Right now it costs only $59 if you end up liking it.