- This topic has 18 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I had an email exchange with Leif about BBP and his upcoming full-hardware box.
I had asked about the full control version of BBP he had promised in the past and he said he had dropped that idea due to piracy – very understandable.
My request of him, and I ask your opinions on this, was to just give us basic +/- 3 dB per band control over the multiband section output mix (into the subsequent limiter / clipper stage) to allow us to perfectly dial in the tonal quality for our particular situations and tastes. The center (0 dbB) points on the controls would be the presets default mix, i.e. what the presets sound like now.
The band outputs are where the tweaks would have the most effect – if you adjust the band drives, the band gain control will just counter your move.
The presets would all be the same and perform the same, but this would give us a bit of flexibility. This would in little to no way affect the saleability of Leif’s hardware processor, IMHO.
What do you think?
I agree. Not full control, but a little more control. I’d like to see a final mix adjustment of a few db here or there. Perhaps be able to make limited changes to the attack/release controls of each band within a preset.
However, if I were Leif, I’d be working mostly on a box. There’s money to be made there. Furthermore, folks will take the whole product line much more seriously if there’s a flagship "box", I’m afraid. The IP/STL integration makes the prospect even more juicy.
It could seriously alter the audio processing game…I, for one, find it fascinating.
[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?
[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.
I’m not sure personally about allowing for attack/release controls, that would be opening a whole can of worms.
But a final mix output would be very useful to personalize your sound.
In the meantime, I have a temporary solution to your problem, something I thought of a while back….
http://www.claessonedwards.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=306
🙂 🙂 🙂
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.
He might have thought you were referring only to the first post in that thread (perhaps not noticing that the first post was not you).
I concur with both TBacker and Lee XS that the pre-multiband EQ is ineffective. I tried it several months ago and was surprised to discover that even with enormous boosts or cuts, it accomplishes almost nothing. (Which is good, actually. Breakaway doing a nice job on crazy source material.)
I too would re-iterate my previous request for the ability to adjust the final outmix levels.
[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.
Ok cool, we all agree that pre-multiband EQ is ineffective then.
It’s down to Leif to decide if he wants to add the "Final Band Output Gain Adjuster" or not.
😉
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.
I want to add features to BBP, but I also want to create brand new projects, so I have to be careful not to dive too deep into one project, or I may never surface long enough to look at all the other things that need doing.
Maybe it’s time I start looking into getting some help 🙂.
///Leif
I’d suggest only two things in future BBP releases [if possible, of course]:
1) The capability of shutting down the GUI bars/scopes in order to save some CPU time and
2) A L-R meter to aid balancing inputs, like the 8100s have – helpful to achieve proper L-R null with mono material…Other than that.. BBP is great. Can’t wait to check on the HW version with the composite clippers 8)
Ricardo
BrazilRicardo,
1) That’s been in there from the start. If you make the window small enough that the scopes and meters go away, they will no longer be calculated or drawn. You can see this in the CPU usage in task manager.
2) A L-R flower scope would be really nice, and it’s on my list of things I want to do when I have time.. When that is, is another question, but it’s a feature I want to add at some point.
By the way have you tried the autobalance plug-in?
///Leif
[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.
- The forum ‘Breakaway Professional Products – [discontinued]’ is closed to new topics and replies.