Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
[quote author=”Leif”]Actually I’m starting to think that adding any new tweakability at all will be a can of worms, because if I add one thing, then a few people will be happy, while many others will say "since you were adding only one thing, why didn’t you add THIS one much more important thing instead"…
I may do it in the future, but right now I’m not sure I have time for the serious headache I know it’d bring.[/quote]
Okay – how about this – simpler yet…
Just add a plugin insert point between the multiband and final limiting / clipping stages? That would at lease save from having to run multiple copies just to do post-multiband adjustment with a plugin.
I know I’m being a persitent pest
I just can’t suggest to my boss that we invest $1600 (BPP and good rack mount hardware) for of my stations without SOME ability to tweak tonal balance for STL’s, market "flavor", signature, etc.[quote author=”Lee XS”]Did you even read my link?[/quote]
Yes I did. My reference to pre-multiband EQ was directed at the end of that thread where Leif had suggested it. Per-band drive has it’s uses, such as when a band is consistently inactive, or you want one band to be more heavily processed.
The middle of the thread where a chain of Live->EQ Plugin->Broadcast was discussed is, as Leif said, a valid setup. However, installing THREE pieces of software when just exposing existing hidden controls on ONE would solve the problem is a bit counter intuitive, especially when trying to keep things simple and minimize latencies.
I agree that allowing attack / release tweaking should not be included in BBP, because once you allow that, a host of other controls would need to be exposed to compensate and tune for the changed timing. Pushing for this will only harden Leif’s reluctance to add ANY further control to the software.
+/- 3 dB per band output mix control is a relatively small and harmless capability. It would be difficult to really bugger up the product with JUST that amount of control. And if you did, just reset the controls to 0. For that matter, you could add a hidden interaction that takes the sum of the band mix changes and adjusts the final stage drive to compensate. If you increase the band 3 output mix +3, cut the limiter drive a tad (+3 dB / number of bands?) so that the limiter GR depth is relatively unchanged.
As for using pre-multiband EQ, I stand by my assertion that, while an okay workaround, it is not nearly as effective or consistent as the multiband mix would be.
The energy per band will vary greatly pre-multiband due to differences in source material. The multiband sections job is to reduce or eliminate (depending on ratio and timing) these spectral differences between sources. If you were to use pre-multiband EQ or drive to boost the bass for example, on bass-heavy source material, you will end up making that band work much harder with respect to the rest – being driven much more deeply into GR, causing more bass density and an unnatural character of the affected bands.
If you let the multiband do it’s work to make each band consistent, then tweak the balance of that consistent output, you are going to more easily get that same balance cut-to-cut.
[quote author=”camclone”]flat ..is good. 🙂
flat …is loud with…all music kinds..[/quote]Well, if that’s what you want, I’m glad you like it that way!
Some of us love many of the presets, but might like just a bit more or less in a band or two to really make it fit our needs and tastes perfectly.
[quote author=”sgeirk”]However, if I were Leif, I’d be working mostly on a box.[/quote]
Which he is. I’d just like a tiny bit more tweakability in the lower cost software as well. I’m sure "The Box" will be at a different price point, and BBP should still be the low cost solution.
That said, maybe Leif could let us know if we should consider BBP "feature complete" now – i.e. no new functionality other than new presets will be developed?
