I think you overlooked the two meters that help you tell when the Bias and the Brightness controls are in their most neutral/transparent setting. The little meter on the left shows you the “ideal” setting for Bias, and the little meter in the center bottom shows the “ideal” setting for Brightness. When those meter bars are as small as possible and staying near their center point, Gullfoss is at its most transparent compared to the original timbre.
I have gullfoss. I use it on the 2 bus. I hadn't tried it on tracks. I put it on the bus stems of a "finished" song and wow, you're not kiddin. Like a veil was removed!
@@mixbustv If I add this EQ on a flat pink noise will it subtract or boost the frequencies equally? 🤔 Just want to know what type of calculations the eq is doing.
Thank you David, for using good quality, natural examples. These really helped me hear what was happening. This is both a powerful and dangerous tool! I have to tell you that I really quite disliked the results on all the individual tracks. One can hear the natural qualities of the sounds being removed. Watch the plugin catch and reduce the resonant frequencies. I wouldn't want to do that on perfectly well-recorded tracks. I think you're in the honeymoon period with this plug-in. It reminds me of when everyone began using the Aphex Aural Exciter. After a while people began to understand that it wasn't an instant magic wand for everything. As a quick fix for a bad mix though, it seems very powerful indeed! I think it might be a great tool to recover a badly-recorded source, but be careful. Where will individuality be if we all use these products to get a "perfect" mix? I would recommend it to experienced engineers only. Use it at your peril!
Very good! For a hobby musician like me quite expensive. But as I just came to know yesterday, I’ll have to wait for a Black Friday somewhen at the end of the year. Of course, this is a very good demonstration of the plugin too.
Thanks for your review on Gullfoss, David. I would not have been able to trust the claims from this plugin, which are pretty lofty, or even my own ears (not enough experience mixing, yet), completely, without your insights and validation. Right now I’m struggling to achieve clarity in the final mixes of my own productions, so I’m looking foreword to trying Gullfoss out.
I was living under a rock yes. This plugin is crazy good. Are there similar ones for dynamics and other non EQ processes? I respect the art of mixing but I do not share the love, so many times I didn't release a track because I lack patience for mixing, it's not for everyone
I got the trial and tried it out on a few records (full mix). I didn't find it did as spectacular on hip-hop. Especially dynamic mixes (mastered for streaming with no limiter) or with heavy fader ride. It seems to mitigate dynamics in the low mids and upper bass. However, it works really, really well on pop, rock, and most genres. I got a lot of mileage out of it for modernizing some older masters. It's generally a must-have tool
I use it on Hip Hop all the time. But I use it towards the end of my vocal chain. Using only about 22%. I allow it to catch anything I might of missed.
what I don't like about neutron 3 is that he want to know from you which type of instrument you want to eq. so it means it is working on some generic eq curves that are already programmed...and most of the time this curves are completely wrong from the genre you are producing...
Very impressive on the solo signals. Every instrument seems to sound even better than before ( and it sounded damn good already!) BUT what I'm asking myself... I'd gooderize even single signal in every track, then "print it". Afterwards I'd go and carve it to the needs of the song ( low cut, high cut, mid scoop, whatever)... or what do you all think?!
Wow, when you pressed in and out of bypass on the acoustic guitar, I didn't expect that result. You're absolutely right: that's how you want a acoustic guitar to sound like! So, all other EQ's is now obsolete? Why use anything else than this?
Because you're not using EQ to make each track sound great individually. You should be making decisions that make each instrument fit with the rest of the track.
I suspect it's removing resonances that are frequency band specific and using some form of a tilt eq that integrates fletcher Munson curves. Just guessing though.
Fortiori it would sound terrible, lol. I overused it when I first got it and quickly realized it is best used sparingly. It has an underlying target curve that it aims toward, so in the same way that you wouldn’t process every track with the same eq curve, you can’t really run every track through Gullfoss and expect magic. I typically use it on the mix bus and on select instruments that need more clarity. If you’d use a multiband compressor on something to even it out, Gullfoss is worth trying out on the source to see what you get with it.
@@jefftravilla well said! However, Gullfoss does not have a target curve. It is source agnostic and simply tries to maximize the amount of information contained in the source. As you correctly noted, it is not intended to replace traditional EQ and mixing topologies. But once you become more familiar with the capabilities of Gullfoss, it can migrate outside of the 2buss for other creative uses :)
Eddie Ruff thanks for the clarification. That’s super interesting about the target curve thing cause it always felt like it was reaching for a little more 12K-ish and a couple hot spots. It just “felt” like a target curve. Sorry for my incorrect description, and thanks for the correction. I absolutely love Gullfoss :)
Looks to me like you have to be really mindful of the "Recover" control...you can muddy things up pretty damn quick with it if you're too aggressive...
I don't get it. I tried Gullfoss Master on some recent tracks, and whilst it did make a dramatic difference to the sound I couldn't honestly say it was better, although for a couple of hours I was convinced it was! Then I listened closer and what I could hear was a kind of dislocation between many of the elements I had carefully, painstakingly assembled. It didn't strike me as being particularly musical, since it managed to destroy a few of the relationships that I thought were quite important.
But the question is: why did you use it? What did the mix need? What problems you had in the mix that you were sent to master you were trying to fix? Or you just put it there just cause and expect it to.. do what exactly?
@@mixbustv Looking at all the effusive waxings lyrical in the comments here and in many YT videos, I think I was expecting a sprinkle of magic, technology driven fairy dust. There was nothing wrong with my mixes (did you look yet? the invite still stands! lol), but you know how it is when you work for months on something and come to the finishing gate. You try to squeeze every last drop of audio wonderment out of what you've done. Plus, I don't want to miss out if someone really has invented something good. In the end I got the result I wanted (and expected) from a very basic mid range lift in Ozone 9.
They're very very different, in short SmartEQ2 gets more use for me, I use it on single tracks quite a bit, main use for this one for me would be mastering
AND... what I'm also wondering about... let's imagine... we gooderize a track with gullfoss and render it... AND THEN we repeat this procedure... would gullfoss still find something to gooderize and -if so- what would happen if we repeated this procedure over and over again?
Like any other tool, it's up to the user how well you use it. Wouldn't be the same with any other plugin? You can run your track into an exciter or a compressor or an eq, it's better the first time, if you want to try again it might be better or worse, up to you to decide. That's why people pays people like me to mix, not because I have more hardware or plugins, but because I know what where and how much. A gun can protect you if you get assaulted or you can start shooting yourself on the foot.
Is it me or does it sound that the bass is thinner after using Gullfloss? Seems like it definitely cleans up a track or mix, but the bass thins out as a result on every one I've heard. Not trying to diss it, but that's just what I hear so far. Wondering if I'm the only one.....
I'll also point out that if you use Gullfoss on the entire mix, if your mix has some significant spectral balance (tonal balance) issues, Gullfoss can actually make the mix sound worse. Gullfoss can polish a diamond in the rough and make it shine. But it can make a significantly imbalanced mix sound worse! You have to feed a mix that is already "in the ballpark" into Gullfoss for it to work its magic. I mean, even running an awkward mix through something like smart:EQ2 first _before_ feeding it into Gullfoss can make a huge difference. (Because smart:EQ2 is actually a pretty magical mix-fixer.) Then there's the matter of not going too extreme with the Recovery and Tame settings on full mixes, and also understanding where to set the Bias and Brightness controls for a full mix. You can get much more extreme and play the Bias and Brightness wherever you want them on individual sounds/tracks, but for a full mix it's better to stay somewhat near the "ideal" settings for Bias and Brightness. There are two tiny white lines on the left side of Gullfoss. The leftmost of the two helps you set the Bias. When that line stays very near the center point, that's the most "neutral/transparent" interaction of Tame and Recover on that mix. Then there's a tiny white line in the bottom center of Gullfoss. That one helps you set the Brightness. When that line stays very near the center point, that's the most "neutral/transparent" Brightness setting on that mix. After you get Bias and Brightness set up at that neutral position, you can test other Brightness and Boost values to brighten and warm up the track to your personal taste.
I do. It’s a constant on my stereo bus, but with really mild settings. I find that with its aim towards a target curve, it adds a little “glue” to the overall tonality of a mix.
Sculptor is very different. It’s meant for applying spectral adjustments to help the sound sit the way it should in a crowded mix. For example, the Piano presets for Sculptor will really help a piano sit in just the right spot in a busy mix.
@@Baphometrix If you take the "instrument bus" preset of scultor it will be the same than gullfoss. At the end gullfoss makes all your track have the same spectral balance and u have to manually change stuff depending on the instrument. Scultor on the other hand offers presets for variable instruments at the beginning of the process. I can t see why Gullfoss is "the most advanced equalizer" there is a lot to talk about the competition
John Helios We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point. 🙂 I have Neutron 3 and use the Sculptor plugin quite a bit. It’s great for prepping individual tracks to have the right spectral balance to fit together into a mix. It’s often easier/faster than doing manual EQ slotting with Abbey Road bandpass shaping to help each sound occupy its own space in the spectrum. But I also have Gullfoss and use it extensively, especially on my group busses and my 2 bus for the entire mix. When Neutron 3 first came out one of the first things I did was test Sculptor’s mix bus presets against Gullfoss on full project mixdowns. I think if you try the same thing you’ll see that it’s Apples and Oranges, and Sculptor does NOT “unveil and open up” a mix in any manner like Gullfoss does.
Listening in my Beyerdynamic mixing headphones: it's significantly affecting the mid/side relationship and/or stereo spread. Pushing things to the sides, increasing transients, etc. Philosophical question: isn't it a bit like cheating? Let's say everyone believes they can just throw this onto a mix and have something great without putting the effort into learning how to really mix, aren't you out of a job? I would love to hear someone speak to that issue. How does someone know when this isn't giving them the best possible mix? Thanks for all the great examples. : )
Thank you for your comment Lisa. The effect on the stereo field you are hearing is a result of revealing information to your brain, allowing it to receive more spatial cues and get a clearer image of the sound stage. We do not actually change the mid/side relationship or widen the stereo image. In fact, both stereo channels are treated equally at all times. Regarding your question about the impact on mixing, allow me to clearly state that our goal is not to replace the sound engineer, but to make his job easier any also to allow amateurs to realise the vision they have without losing the focus of their music. We want everyone to have their hands free for their creativity by getting the hard technical and frustrating things out of their way. If you ask me, there has never been a better time for being an audio engineer.
@@atellsoundtheory8774 to-ma-to to-mah-to the only way to reveal new information to my brain is to manipulate the audio signal entering through my ears. clearly, your product is doing something, I was just describing what I what I was hearing. it doesn't matter what's under the hood.
You like to hear me talking too because you're here watching and took the time out of your day to post a useless comment (that makes me money so keep coming)
I think you overlooked the two meters that help you tell when the Bias and the Brightness controls are in their most neutral/transparent setting. The little meter on the left shows you the “ideal” setting for Bias, and the little meter in the center bottom shows the “ideal” setting for Brightness. When those meter bars are as small as possible and staying near their center point, Gullfoss is at its most transparent compared to the original timbre.
Never noticed that, good to know
@@mixbustv Please do!
@@mixbustv You should totally include the meters part
@@mixbustv share it, brother
thank you!!!!!!!!
This would be very beneficial for live performances.
They just released a version with low latency for live applications
I have gullfoss. I use it on the 2 bus. I hadn't tried it on tracks. I put it on the bus stems of a "finished" song and wow, you're not kiddin. Like a veil was removed!
This adds everything that I hear in my head ... but have to use many tools to get ... the sound tickles ...wow
Been using this on almost everything since I got it. Some serious alchemy going on here!
Nice! Not only boost or cut freqs but knows for how long. That makes the sound so live.
I love Gullfoss and great people working there. Can’t wait to se what they do next.
@@mixbustv If I add this EQ on a flat pink noise will it subtract or boost the frequencies equally? 🤔
Just want to know what type of calculations the eq is doing.
Thank you David, for using good quality, natural examples. These really helped me hear what was happening.
This is both a powerful and dangerous tool!
I have to tell you that I really quite disliked the results on all the individual tracks. One can hear the natural qualities of the sounds being removed. Watch the plugin catch and reduce the resonant frequencies. I wouldn't want to do that on perfectly well-recorded tracks.
I think you're in the honeymoon period with this plug-in. It reminds me of when everyone began using the Aphex Aural Exciter. After a while people began to understand that it wasn't an instant magic wand for everything.
As a quick fix for a bad mix though, it seems very powerful indeed! I think it might be a great tool to recover a badly-recorded source, but be careful.
Where will individuality be if we all use these products to get a "perfect" mix?
I would recommend it to experienced engineers only. Use it at your peril!
I wonder if early engineers felt that way about compressors and equalizers. Some processors really are THAT amazing.
Great video! Always love to see how other people are using Gullfoss. Really enjoyed the examples in this video, very illustrative.
Can’t wait for that to go on sale.
I always wondered about this, a lot of people jumped on it right away, I like your reviews the best, you know your stuff
Wow, this is like cheating. I need it
I love this plug in. Got it with a discount code too. I use it on instrument busses and the master.
Thanks for providing a demo on a wide variety of material. It really provides a better idea of the capabilities of this awesome tech.
You do the best reviews on youtube!
We are getting our copy today! Thanks for the tip/information... Harvest Media Company
This is one of the best reviews of this. The TAME function is Voodoo.
Interesting plugin. Always love seeing new videos from you David!
Very good! For a hobby musician like me quite expensive. But as I just came to know yesterday, I’ll have to wait for a Black Friday somewhen at the end of the year. Of course, this is a very good demonstration of the plugin too.
I got the introductory offer :-) Best Plugin ever!!!
Thanks for your review on Gullfoss, David. I would not have been able to trust the claims from this plugin, which are pretty lofty, or even my own ears (not enough experience mixing, yet), completely, without your insights and validation. Right now I’m struggling to achieve clarity in the final mixes of my own productions, so I’m looking foreword to trying Gullfoss out.
Very impressive Mr. Gnozzi, thanks for share with us!!!
Wow, it´s really impressive how clear the sound pass through it. I had the impression that, compresses a bit on guitars?
I was living under a rock yes. This plugin is crazy good. Are there similar ones for dynamics and other non EQ processes? I respect the art of mixing but I do not share the love, so many times I didn't release a track because I lack patience for mixing, it's not for everyone
Gullfoss is a great plugin. I use it a lot
I held up getting this one until now, sold
I got the trial and tried it out on a few records (full mix). I didn't find it did as spectacular on hip-hop. Especially dynamic mixes (mastered for streaming with no limiter) or with heavy fader ride. It seems to mitigate dynamics in the low mids and upper bass.
However, it works really, really well on pop, rock, and most genres. I got a lot of mileage out of it for modernizing some older masters. It's generally a must-have tool
I use it on Hip Hop all the time. But I use it towards the end of my vocal chain. Using only about 22%. I allow it to catch anything I might of missed.
@@cahlajthepoetmc9746 I was referring to using it on the full mix only, not the vocal chain alone. But I'll definitely give that a shot, thanks.
I feel like the GullfoSs eq make the sound Alive
Sounds like an advert for Beats headphones.
This is one of the best reviews
Looks amazing! Thanks for the review. If your ever in Iceland. Gullfoss waterfall is a must see as well!
Looks?
Sounds amazing?
Neutron 3 basically copied this for their Sculptor module, I'd be interested in a video on which one sounds better!
what I don't like about neutron 3 is that he want to know from you which type of instrument you want to eq. so it means it is working on some generic eq curves that are already programmed...and most of the time this curves are completely wrong from the genre you are producing...
@@rikkardo1980 There's generic settings like polish or punch, but to be fair, Gulfoss only has one algorithm, seemingly... Sculptor has like 20.
@@RevCQ7 In result Gulfoss sounds much better that Neutron.
Very impressive on the solo signals. Every instrument seems to sound even better than before ( and it sounded damn good already!) BUT what I'm asking myself... I'd gooderize even single signal in every track, then "print it". Afterwards I'd go and carve it to the needs of the song ( low cut, high cut, mid scoop, whatever)... or what do you all think?!
you don't mix elements in solo
Holy %$#@ ... how can anyone ever not use this ...on sale tomorrow on black Friday...wow
Great review....very helpful!
Wow, when you pressed in and out of bypass on the acoustic guitar, I didn't expect that result. You're absolutely right: that's how you want a acoustic guitar to sound like!
So, all other EQ's is now obsolete? Why use anything else than this?
Because you're not using EQ to make each track sound great individually. You should be making decisions that make each instrument fit with the rest of the track.
The way technology is going mastering engineers in the future will be out of work
Doubt it
Not in our future
I suspect it's removing resonances that are frequency band specific and using some form of a tilt eq that integrates fletcher Munson curves. Just guessing though.
Impressive, thanks for the review.
It opens the sound like it takes you into the room with the instrument
i wonder what a whole mix would sound like using only this on everything instead of normal EQ.
Fortiori it would sound terrible, lol. I overused it when I first got it and quickly realized it is best used sparingly. It has an underlying target curve that it aims toward, so in the same way that you wouldn’t process every track with the same eq curve, you can’t really run every track through Gullfoss and expect magic. I typically use it on the mix bus and on select instruments that need more clarity. If you’d use a multiband compressor on something to even it out, Gullfoss is worth trying out on the source to see what you get with it.
@@jefftravilla well said! However, Gullfoss does not have a target curve. It is source agnostic and simply tries to maximize the amount of information contained in the source. As you correctly noted, it is not intended to replace traditional EQ and mixing topologies. But once you become more familiar with the capabilities of Gullfoss, it can migrate outside of the 2buss for other creative uses :)
Eddie Ruff thanks for the clarification. That’s super interesting about the target curve thing cause it always felt like it was reaching for a little more 12K-ish and a couple hot spots. It just “felt” like a target curve. Sorry for my incorrect description, and thanks for the correction. I absolutely love Gullfoss :)
It tends to sound really bright. Makes the low mids too small.
That’s certainly an opinion, but that’s why they have adjustable parameters for brightness and low end
Looks to me like you have to be really mindful of the "Recover" control...you can muddy things up pretty damn quick with it if you're too aggressive...
Thank David!
Wow!!! Impressive!!
Damn, just made me think I might get this instead of smart eq 2. Thing sounds awesome.
technology is so cool!
wow that is impressive i need this it would help so much!!!
Sold
Can it resolve the masking problem between Kick and Bass?
no, it might help it a bit if you only have the 2track and no way to reopen a mix
@@mixbustv so I can't use it as an equalizer on every track?
wow. this is great
It really does open up a mix. Would you say the effects of this rival the sound of analog summing?
Summing boxes are just a transformer.
It seems like this could be good on high mid groups crazy voodoo
Can you do a demo showing what you are doing with the controls and say what percentages bias you are using basically a tutorial. Thank you
i think hes just turning the knobs until it sounds right, and he read the manual so he knows whats going on
Opinions 3 years later?
Gullfoss is one of a kind, a little goes a long way and you wouldn't slap in on everything but it's a very impressive tool
Crazy!!
I don't get it. I tried Gullfoss Master on some recent tracks, and whilst it did make a dramatic difference to the sound I couldn't honestly say it was better, although for a couple of hours I was convinced it was! Then I listened closer and what I could hear was a kind of dislocation between many of the elements I had carefully, painstakingly assembled. It didn't strike me as being particularly musical, since it managed to destroy a few of the relationships that I thought were quite important.
But the question is: why did you use it? What did the mix need? What problems you had in the mix that you were sent to master you were trying to fix? Or you just put it there just cause and expect it to.. do what exactly?
@@mixbustv Looking at all the effusive waxings lyrical in the comments here and in many YT videos, I think I was expecting a sprinkle of magic, technology driven fairy dust. There was nothing wrong with my mixes (did you look yet? the invite still stands! lol), but you know how it is when you work for months on something and come to the finishing gate. You try to squeeze every last drop of audio wonderment out of what you've done. Plus, I don't want to miss out if someone really has invented something good.
In the end I got the result I wanted (and expected) from a very basic mid range lift in Ozone 9.
which one is better, this or SmartEQ2 ?
They're very very different, in short SmartEQ2 gets more use for me, I use it on single tracks quite a bit, main use for this one for me would be mastering
How does it behave with different parts of a mix? For example break vs drop. Does the sound remain homogeneous?
AND... what I'm also wondering about...
let's imagine...
we gooderize a track with gullfoss and render it...
AND THEN we repeat this procedure...
would gullfoss still find something to gooderize and -if so- what would happen if we repeated this procedure over and over again?
Like any other tool, it's up to the user how well you use it.
Wouldn't be the same with any other plugin? You can run your track into an exciter or a compressor or an eq, it's better the first time, if you want to try again it might be better or worse, up to you to decide. That's why people pays people like me to mix, not because I have more hardware or plugins, but because I know what where and how much. A gun can protect you if you get assaulted or you can start shooting yourself on the foot.
@@mixbustv I listen to what Johnny Cash sang... i don't take my guns to town ;-)
this looks a lot like soothe to me
Great test!!!! No discount code for this puppy?
@@mixbustv Yeah I've already asked my question.... fingers crossed!!!!
03:39 hahaha
its sound like spectral shaping
Can it be used on each channel, or would it be better on group/bus channels?? As ozone 8 is effective enough for the master output
@@mixbustv Okay. Thanks
How would you compare this to Soothe 2??
I don't, they are not even close to be the same thing
Is it me or does it sound that the bass is thinner after using Gullfloss? Seems like it definitely cleans up a track or mix, but the bass thins out as a result on every one I've heard. Not trying to diss it, but that's just what I hear so far. Wondering if I'm the only one.....
Yes on extreme settings it sounds like that, but you can apply a Hi pass in order to make it work on a certain fq range
I'll also point out that if you use Gullfoss on the entire mix, if your mix has some significant spectral balance (tonal balance) issues, Gullfoss can actually make the mix sound worse. Gullfoss can polish a diamond in the rough and make it shine. But it can make a significantly imbalanced mix sound worse! You have to feed a mix that is already "in the ballpark" into Gullfoss for it to work its magic. I mean, even running an awkward mix through something like smart:EQ2 first _before_ feeding it into Gullfoss can make a huge difference. (Because smart:EQ2 is actually a pretty magical mix-fixer.)
Then there's the matter of not going too extreme with the Recovery and Tame settings on full mixes, and also understanding where to set the Bias and Brightness controls for a full mix. You can get much more extreme and play the Bias and Brightness wherever you want them on individual sounds/tracks, but for a full mix it's better to stay somewhat near the "ideal" settings for Bias and Brightness. There are two tiny white lines on the left side of Gullfoss. The leftmost of the two helps you set the Bias. When that line stays very near the center point, that's the most "neutral/transparent" interaction of Tame and Recover on that mix. Then there's a tiny white line in the bottom center of Gullfoss. That one helps you set the Brightness. When that line stays very near the center point, that's the most "neutral/transparent" Brightness setting on that mix.
After you get Bias and Brightness set up at that neutral position, you can test other Brightness and Boost values to brighten and warm up the track to your personal taste.
After having bought this, now a year later, how often do you use it when mixing/mastering?
I tend to forget about it because I don't use it in my mixes, I do use it about 50% of the times when I master client's mixes tho
Ok so gullfoss, sculptor, soothe2 ?? 😅😅🤷🏻♂️
Would you mix into this on a two buss just like a compressor?
I do. It’s a constant on my stereo bus, but with really mild settings. I find that with its aim towards a target curve, it adds a little “glue” to the overall tonality of a mix.
Neutron 3 Scultor is kinda same Right ?
Sculptor is very different. It’s meant for applying spectral adjustments to help the sound sit the way it should in a crowded mix. For example, the Piano presets for Sculptor will really help a piano sit in just the right spot in a busy mix.
@@Baphometrix If you take the "instrument bus" preset of scultor it will be the same than gullfoss. At the end gullfoss makes all your track have the same spectral balance and u have to manually change stuff depending on the instrument. Scultor on the other hand offers presets for variable instruments at the beginning of the process.
I can t see why Gullfoss is "the most advanced equalizer" there is a lot to talk about the competition
John Helios We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point. 🙂 I have Neutron 3 and use the Sculptor plugin quite a bit. It’s great for prepping individual tracks to have the right spectral balance to fit together into a mix. It’s often easier/faster than doing manual EQ slotting with Abbey Road bandpass shaping to help each sound occupy its own space in the spectrum.
But I also have Gullfoss and use it extensively, especially on my group busses and my 2 bus for the entire mix. When Neutron 3 first came out one of the first things I did was test Sculptor’s mix bus presets against Gullfoss on full project mixdowns. I think if you try the same thing you’ll see that it’s Apples and Oranges, and Sculptor does NOT “unveil and open up” a mix in any manner like Gullfoss does.
@@Baphometrix Yup makes a lot of sense to use it on group busses and final touch, i ll give a try :)
Listening in my Beyerdynamic mixing headphones: it's significantly affecting the mid/side relationship and/or stereo spread. Pushing things to the sides, increasing transients, etc.
Philosophical question: isn't it a bit like cheating? Let's say everyone believes they can just throw this onto a mix and have something great without putting the effort into learning how to really mix, aren't you out of a job? I would love to hear someone speak to that issue. How does someone know when this isn't giving them the best possible mix? Thanks for all the great examples. : )
Thank you for your comment Lisa. The effect on the stereo field you are hearing is a result of revealing information to your brain, allowing it to receive more spatial cues and get a clearer image of the sound stage. We do not actually change the mid/side relationship or widen the stereo image. In fact, both stereo channels are treated equally at all times.
Regarding your question about the impact on mixing, allow me to clearly state that our goal is not to replace the sound engineer, but to make his job easier any also to allow amateurs to realise the vision they have without losing the focus of their music. We want everyone to have their hands free for their creativity by getting the hard technical and frustrating things out of their way. If you ask me, there has never been a better time for being an audio engineer.
@@atellsoundtheory8774 to-ma-to to-mah-to
the only way to reveal new information to my brain is to manipulate the audio signal entering through my ears. clearly, your product is doing something, I was just describing what I what I was hearing. it doesn't matter what's under the hood.
@@justlisa1599 ‘clearly your plug-in is doing something’ … ah what? You’d hope so.
WHAT THE...?!?!?!?
U like to hear urself talk.
You like to hear me talking too because you're here watching and took the time out of your day to post a useless comment (that makes me money so keep coming)
@@mixbustvI'm always glad to help the homeless ... lol
How does it know when enough is enough? If you put two instances in series does the second one calculate that the material is fine and remain flat?
@@mixbustv Isn't that the nature of scientific enquiry?
@@nosucherror the processing scales linearly. For example, one instance at 200% recover is the same as two instances with 100% recover.