ZYNAPTIQ Intensity

[martinjuenke]

Will this be the only opportunity that I can buy intensity at $149?

Seems so...

[Sampleconstruct]

Of course, reviewers getting a free evaluation copy have fun playing with the plugin.

Just in case you were referring to me: I have not received a free evaluation copy and I haven't bought Intensity yet and most probably won't.

Nooooo, no, please! No offense intended. I did not even suggest that the free copy was influencing evaluations. I meant to say that Intensity might be fun as a free plugin, but not worthwhile as a paid tool.
Again, nothing against you at all. Apologies if I suggested otherwise.

No offense taken, I just wanted to make it clear as rumors about “paid positive opinions“ spread fast over the Internet.

[pumafred]

Of course, reviewers getting a free evaluation copy have fun playing with the plugin.

Just in case you were referring to me: I have not received a free evaluation copy and I haven't bought Intensity yet and most probably won't.

Nooooo, no, please! No offense intended. I did not even suggest that the free copy was influencing evaluations. I meant to say that Intensity might be fun as a free plugin, but not worthwhile as a paid tool.
Again, nothing against you at all. Apologies if I suggested otherwise.

No offense taken, I just wanted to make it clear as rumors about “paid positive opinions“ spread fast over the Internet.

I am relieved. Strictly speaking, you did not even post an opinion. You used it on your music and let us judge.

[Sampleconstruct]

Of course, reviewers getting a free evaluation copy have fun playing with the plugin.

Just in case you were referring to me: I have not received a free evaluation copy and I haven't bought Intensity yet and most probably won't.

Nooooo, no, please! No offense intended. I did not even suggest that the free copy was influencing evaluations. I meant to say that Intensity might be fun as a free plugin, but not worthwhile as a paid tool.
Again, nothing against you at all. Apologies if I suggested otherwise.

No offense taken, I just wanted to make it clear as rumors about “paid positive opinions“ spread fast over the Internet.

I am relieved. Strictly speaking, you did not even post an opinion. You used it on your music and let us judge.

True, and I haven't even come to any real opinion yet to be honest...

[KenjiDeVries]

I like Intensity but I had to wrap my head around it first. Was not easy to figure out the right source material Anyways knowing when and how to apply it gives interesting results.

And btw a good indicator for having a great product is when the Meldaproduction forum is already discussing about it MIntensity incoming...

[pumafred]

I like Intensity but I had to wrap my head around it first. Was not easy to figure out the right source material Anyways knowing when and how to apply it gives interesting results.

And btw a good indicator for having a great product is when the Meldaproduction forum is already discussing about it MIntensity incoming...

I started that discussion, actually
The conclusion of such discussions is usually that somebody more knowledgeable explains how the "new" effect can be produced with a combination of Melda´s already existing powerful plugins. Most unlikely that you will see an MIntensity coming. But certainly an avoidance of a black box approach to processing.

[Fleer]

I know this may seem of less importance, but I really dig the GUI in Zynaptiq’s latest offerings, like Adaptiverb, Wormhole and Intensity. Those two giant orbs amidst clever information screens turn these plugins into actual instruments, in line with FabFilter’s ingenuity. Creativity abound from companies to cherish.

[euanek]

and now here is a plugin that cannot, or should not

Exactly, the plugin's level change can not be predicted precisely as what it does depends on the signal. How so?

The plugin separates the signal into broad strokes and detail signal components, then changes the balance between the two. As a result, the output level depends on what actually makes up your signal. Less details, less resulting output level increase. More details, more change. Even the definition of what makes "broad strokes" and what makes "details" depends on the signal. It's relative to what you throw at it.

As such, there are three possible routes to pursue in terms of level or loudness compensation:

1) continuously track the input-versus output and then adaptively adjust; this would potentially suck as the levels would potentially change dynamically, especially with mixed signals or synthesized ones.

2) Use a LEARN function that you trigger manually, that measures input vs output and then sets one, static compensation value. Similar to how the long term integration for EBU metering works. Pro: actually WORKS. Con: it's a separate step that doesn't automatically update per se. No real improvement over manually adjusting the gain. You COULD reset the and auto-trigger on every parameter change, but the fact that it integrates over time would still cost time and may be confusing.

3) Use statistics. Basically, hammer a gazillion files through every possible setting and find the average delta and use that as an approximation. Pros: doesn't have the disadvantages in #1 or #2. Cons: the average will in many cases not be sufficiently close to what a specific file needs in terms of compensation; may actually be WAY off.

Currently, we're using variation on #3, with the added restriction that it only applies to using the main function, INTENSITY – and not bias, dry/wet, or saturation. This way, we were able to get a reasonable corridor where the statistics based compensation curve actually approximates what needs to be done rather well.

Meaning that with 100% wet, no bias, and no saturation (and obviously no gain change in the output stage...), an input that is in a "reasonable" range, a certain part of the INTENSITY control's range is compensated for; of that range, the first part is pretty much LUFS-constant as well as peak level consistent, then it transitions to peak-level consistent. I say "consistent" as again, it is an approximation.

I qualify this as "a certain range" as the range of the control is huge and – AGAIN - the process is extremely signal dependent (which it has to be to work with all sorts of stuff without adjusting all sorts of parameters). In practice, we've generally found that for our test signals, after about 50% of the knob range the likeliness for a deviation in terms of the compensation amount goes up. (edit: and as said, the range we end up using for most signals is around 5-20%...)

As I also said on gearslutz, we do get the point why people want a more comprehensive volume compensation option, and we'll see what we can do about that, but due to the nature of the beast, there's no obvious solution. Unless a LEARN based compensation is kool for you guys (I'd personally NOT be a big fan of that).

Have you looked at the autogain feature DMG implemented in their TrackComp? It's the best I've seen so far. Very usable and generally accurate. I think it could work in this situation.

[pumafred]

and now here is a plugin that cannot, or should not

Exactly, the plugin's level change can not be predicted precisely as what it does depends on the signal. How so?

The plugin separates the signal into broad strokes and detail signal components, then changes the balance between the two. As a result, the output level depends on what actually makes up your signal. Less details, less resulting output level increase. More details, more change. Even the definition of what makes "broad strokes" and what makes "details" depends on the signal. It's relative to what you throw at it.

As such, there are three possible routes to pursue in terms of level or loudness compensation:

1) continuously track the input-versus output and then adaptively adjust; this would potentially suck as the levels would potentially change dynamically, especially with mixed signals or synthesized ones.

2) Use a LEARN function that you trigger manually, that measures input vs output and then sets one, static compensation value. Similar to how the long term integration for EBU metering works. Pro: actually WORKS. Con: it's a separate step that doesn't automatically update per se. No real improvement over manually adjusting the gain. You COULD reset the and auto-trigger on every parameter change, but the fact that it integrates over time would still cost time and may be confusing.

3) Use statistics. Basically, hammer a gazillion files through every possible setting and find the average delta and use that as an approximation. Pros: doesn't have the disadvantages in #1 or #2. Cons: the average will in many cases not be sufficiently close to what a specific file needs in terms of compensation; may actually be WAY off.

Currently, we're using variation on #3, with the added restriction that it only applies to using the main function, INTENSITY – and not bias, dry/wet, or saturation. This way, we were able to get a reasonable corridor where the statistics based compensation curve actually approximates what needs to be done rather well.

Meaning that with 100% wet, no bias, and no saturation (and obviously no gain change in the output stage...), an input that is in a "reasonable" range, a certain part of the INTENSITY control's range is compensated for; of that range, the first part is pretty much LUFS-constant as well as peak level consistent, then it transitions to peak-level consistent. I say "consistent" as again, it is an approximation.

I qualify this as "a certain range" as the range of the control is huge and – AGAIN - the process is extremely signal dependent (which it has to be to work with all sorts of stuff without adjusting all sorts of parameters). In practice, we've generally found that for our test signals, after about 50% of the knob range the likeliness for a deviation in terms of the compensation amount goes up. (edit: and as said, the range we end up using for most signals is around 5-20%...)

As I also said on gearslutz, we do get the point why people want a more comprehensive volume compensation option, and we'll see what we can do about that, but due to the nature of the beast, there's no obvious solution. Unless a LEARN based compensation is kool for you guys (I'd personally NOT be a big fan of that).

Late, but I forgot to thank you for your detailed response, and to apologise if my tone was slightly brusque. It was passion, not arrogance. I have great regard for developers such as you, who engage with interested forum members. And, of course, once in a while we can respectfully disagree. That’s the fun in discussing! Sorry for this OT.

[Bromigo]

I find this concept very useful and interesting, however, I am curious as to why this was presented as a compressor-like device with regards to increasing loudness instead of a generalized mixing tool for enhancing contrast and clarity.

It seems that—with the ability to separate and control the levels of “broad strokes” and “details”, it would perhaps be useful to have the ability to reduce detail (I.e. increase the level of “broad strokes”). While with many things, the more detail you have, the better, some elements sound better when simplified and tucked back in a way that provides a good background to the detailed parts. For instance, in the “wall of sound” technique, many layers are combined in a way where no individual layer stands out over the others, giving a strong foundation for vocals and percussion to sit on top of. Using INTENSITY in its current form wouldn’t be very useful in this style, as it would bring up the small details that distract from the most interesting parts of the mix.

I feel this is where many of people’s complaints are stemming from. This plugin is able to bring up details to a point where a mix simply becomes too busy. If we had individual control over “details” and “broad strokes”, we could bring up broad strokes/reduce detail on chords/strings/synths we want to stay in the background, and bring up the detail on stuff like vocals and percussion we want to sit in the foreground. This goes hand-in-hand with a previous debate on this plugin regarding sharpness/contrast.

[sircuit]

This plugin is able to bring up details to a point where a mix simply becomes too busy.

It took me few days to figure out this, but Intensity uses the entire scale (aka it doesnt have a sweet spot) and will benefit of an even finer tuning for the first 5% of the scale. So: dial down intensity (on full wet if you want to apply the bias eq to the full signal or reduce the wet if you don't) to the point that the extra details fit the context: a full mix will benefit for just a little (3-5 %) whereas individual tracks can carry extreme settings.

As for the wall of sound thingy, it's bollocks. Even without intensity, if you layer 6 supersaw sylenths, including noise, spanning over 3 octaves and you parallel compress it and clip it, you will still need to properly EQ-it to fit the mix as at this point it takes the entire spectrum. So it makes very little sense to assume that density is why you can't fit things together.

One last thing: I'd be natural to assume that "broad strokes" in a sound are the transients so if you want broad strokes, just use a transient designer. On the same logic, if you want to hear the details, split the track in two, one way with flipped phase (and also try with a transient designer), the other one with intensity on it and normal phase, the result should be what's added to the sound. Most of the times it's not pleasant by itself (even though in context the result is a positive one) so probably that's why the dev didn't bother to offer an actual blend of the two.

[Sampleconstruct]

I just purchased Intensity, it was just too good to pass on. The download link in the confirmation e-mail are linked to version 1.10 though, I thought this had been updated to version 1.20, no?

[Sampleconstruct]

I just purchased Intensity, it was just too good to pass on. The download link in the confirmation e-mail are linked to version 1.10 though, I thought this had been updated to version 1.20, no?

And hitting the “contact us“ button on the website leads to a “page not found“, maybe this website needs an update?

[Sampleconstruct]

Oh dear, installation is a mess, when trying to activate the iLok license I'm getting the error message “The code redemption limit has been reached. Please enter a different code“, but this is the code I just received in the order confirmation. Probably a conflict with the former demo version? Also Logic 10.4.1 can't validate the plug-in and asks for a newer version. So let's try to reach support....

[martinjuenke]

What a pity! It works for me (iMac & Logic 10.4.1] just perfectly...