Distressor and Fatso - is there a sw like this?

[;-)]

It is to consider, that the Fatso had the original high resolution track. The software had to live with the decoded mp3 file from JMH.

So the highs cannot really be judged.

.

[martian]

fair point.

btw i just edited my post to reply to a quote from you, about volume not being a concern.

[bmanic]

tbh its all too subtle for me to care which i prefer, it would depend on what i heard first and got used to (like so many things im realising). But the fatso's highs are a winner for me, although couldnt that be achieved with a 15k eq boost, hydratone?

easy,

Dunno why everybody thinks the fatso boosts highs?? I thought it does the exact opposite! It seemed to reduce them in a nice way and makes a mix less spiky (even with that de-esser kind of thing disabled).

Anyways, I agree with the comments that it's maybe not that usefull on 2bus (though I did see a fatso in the mastering studio rack! I'll take some pictures tomorrow, or the day after, once I go back there and finish the mastering). It should rather be treated as 'just another whacky effect/compressor/de-esser' and it really does work wonders on drum overheads with that weird semi-de-essing it does. It's weird "smack" compressor (which apparently is modelled on the SSL consoles talkback output compressor!!) works very well on all kinds of percussive sounds. If I'd have unlimited resources then for sure I'd have a rack full of fatsos.

Cheers!
bManic

[jmh]

I believe even, you can do many tricks with some freeware that way...

Hmm... suggest me something I seriously haven't found anything that would do saturation to a satisfactory level... and I tend to try out everything that's available Ozone, VintageWarmer, Voxengo TabeBus (though Kingston is saying this should be excluded from this list, it's that good! ), Analog Modeling Suite in Samplitude, BlockFish, THD, TBT plugins... you get my drift That Intubator is something I'm not familiar though.

And by the way, you wouldn't need 3 hours to tweak them to get a pleasant result for your song, but instantly! You had not even to fight with all the setup and connections in a mastering studio then ...

If you tweaked really that long this machine with your song and finally got out that result above (which is like a 1:1 copy of the original but quieter), then I very much doubt any "magic" of this tool at all.

We didn't spend 3 hours on this track, just enough time to try out all the different combinations of Fatso settings... like I said, it's a work-in-progress track

Or is it finally soo "subtile", that nobody is able to hear any difference at all?
.

Didn't you mention noticing the subtle effects before? The keyword being SUBTLE after all - I also said already that you're correct, this isn't that good a demo for Fatso processing after all

I doubt very much, that the mp3 encoding could ever remove all that "drastic" results and "big difference" from the mix. That's simply impossible.

There isn't a big difference to begin with - it's that SUBTLE thing

But could it be possible, that JMH has placed wrong files?

Nope... but I've explained it already - and earlier you said you noticed the subtle thing Fatso does... ? Here's the big revelation, just recalled something: Fatso was working with the original in MP3 format. Didn't have any tracks in unpacked format with me at that session

Otherwise this entire topic has to be moved to the "hardware superstition corner" (again). HiHi

Well, like I said, "you have to try out the hardware yourself" - nobody on a forum can demonstrate it sufficiently, except if one of the guys here who owns it records a ton of material and lets you hear them in multiple variations with different settings - I doubt he feels like trying to convince anyone and doing such a tedious job...

All in all, it's the age old hardware versus software thing again, apparently. Seriously, the only way to form opinions is to gain access to the hardware... I can respect that you're not "convinced" by my crappy little tune - which I've said several times already not to be a good example - but please, don't form an opinion based on my MP3, and PLEASE, don't make it yet another KVR debate about a topic where the doubtful party is making assumptions about something he/she/they have no personal experience with I'm not trying to knock you down, just trying to say that the only way to compare things is to compare them a/b, not by using my crappy MP3

I'm not trying to say Fatso is a magic solution, almost the opposite - it doesn't sound good on everything (didn't I say that before? ) but what I am trying to say is that stuff like VintageWarmer is far from being it either. There's been a few discussions recently about it where people commented something akin to "I took VW 'mastered' tracks to a mastering facility and they asked me to remove the distortion before doing their work".

Regards,

JMH

[;-)]

"There's been a few discussions recently about it where people commented something akin to "I took VW 'mastered' tracks to a mastering facility and they asked me to remove the distortion before doing their work"."

Who does "VW mastered tracks" to a mastering studio? Only a beginner. Because everybody knows, that those studios always want mixes without any mastering attempts applied if possible ...

I mean, Vintage Warner can be used totally wrong (like quite any mastering tool).

By the way. Nobody forces you to comment all my nonsense. But bmanic claimed, that the audition result in the studio was kinda drastical.


I don't think so, because nobody (the consumers of your music (having mostly average audition equipment on mp3 basis) will hear what that Fatso does finally.

But they will be probably able to hear, what I do with Ozone or a VintageWarmer.

If I read for instance a comment on a "manufacturers" website (making alias "state of the art" mastering plugins), who wrote himselfes a kinda FAQ on that website :
" Q: Why I can't hear the effect the plugin produces?
A: It is because the effect is such subtile that you merely will discover it with deep analysis" (then showing some FFT analysis displays on a sine wave ...

... then it says quite all about the current situation related to marketing hype and superstition in puncto "analog" mastering.


Finally a track has to sound good. And it is possible to produce that without any shopisticated mythic hardware. For sure.


You did say, that it was not easy to find the right editings for your songs with the hardware ("all is still in progress")... Are you then actually sure, that you did the "tests" with the available software right? Maybe there was the same problem for you ...

I mean, then you definately also cannot say for sure, that there is nothing in software that ever could deliver results of same quality.
But on the other side I very much believe (knowing you a little bit) that you quasy force yourself to find anything "magic" with hardware for some reasons. There *must* be any magic inside. Software cannot do that what I am looking for. Never. ...

.

[;-)]

[double]

[omo]

You have some good points, 000, but there's one but. Fatso does something what plugs don't and that's what some tube gear does and also tape - softening highs and mid tones (the most obvious effect). It is often called smering. You won't atchieve the same kind of or similar, close effect with vsts just yet. If you do I take my hat off, really. I'm unable. And it is not very subtle, I must say. Software seems to get there to some extent but it is harsh where Fatso is very smooth and pleasing. That's the main difference between sw and hw to me - harshness in high mids and highs in sw and beauty of those in good hw and tape. Your examples don't come close, imho, there's that annoying ringing some would call "digital". What things like Fatso, Distressor, or Hedd, tape, some tube gear, etc are good at is exactly that smoothing effect which PSP strugled to atchieve with VW, but didn't get it close enough. Also, that kind of music isn't really a good test for this kind of gear. Get some nice guitars, bass with beautifully captured resonance, breathing sax or something and real drums transients still alive and you'll hear the magic clearly. I respect your search for sabstitude, but you´'re not there yet if I could judge by the samples posted.

[jmh]

000 I do all my music on software, that's a bit I can emphasize enough

I don't believe in any hardware per se, it's all about getting experience with them, that's all... I believe firmly in having "as good" or "better" software one day, I just haven't encountered that many really excellent software equivalents for certain hardware yet.

But... I've tested things like VintageWarmer extensively, and yes, it gives "instant" results easily, something everybody can hear. I just don't really like what it does, except when used tastefully on individual tracks - I'd never use it on a master bus.

Saturation, along with distortion and overdrive are things I still haven't found good software solutions for. Something just sounds "wrong" to me, especially since I use these effects on instruments and sounds not normally associated with them - and most guitar folks are even more critical about distortion/overdrive plugins than I am =)

As for your other points, naturally I agree. One does surely not need expensive hardware to make a track sound good. And yes, most people would probably not notice a difference whether I mastered my material with Fatso instead of say Voxengo's excellent TapeBus - but I do, sometimes, when it sounds good

I wouldn't easily hand over the money for a Fatso, I don't see the price/performance ratio that sensible (I find it weird in fact that people praise endlessly some high end gear when the difference to the average prosume stuff soundwise isn't that big ). For my needs, a software solution is more than good enough.

I really don't get that comment though about my need to find "magic" in hardware boxes - I have occasionally commented on particular pieces hardware, sure, but if you did actually know me a little bit, you'd know already that I'm all software and for software Software that could still be better. (A good example is the trusty old 909 - the analog circuitry introduces minute details in the sounds, you won't necessarily spot it in a mixed track, but when I compose, I notice the diffence in the kick drum when compared to a single sample from the same 909 triggered in the software with my eyes closed... and I believe it's entirely possible to model that behavior!)

That said, if you have any suggestions for plugins that do nice saturation, I'm open to suggestions I've mentioned some I've tried so far, and as good as they are, I'm still on the lookout for something even better.

Regards,

JMH

[jmh]

omo Agreed, this particular piece isn't that good an example after all, especially since Fatso is used so mildly in it... but listening to it with a pair of decent headphones at least tells a little about what's happening - and there isn't a lot happening as concluded already.

I hope some Fatso owner has the time to process a few short clips with different settings and post the results.

Regards,

JMH

[JonnySun 2.0]

Me too

[bmanic]

y forces you to comment all my nonsense. But bmanic claimed, that the audition result in the studio was kinda drastical

One man's drastic is another man's subtle. What the sonalksis eq does to a track simply when inserted, all bands bypassed, is what I call semi-subtle. Go from there.

- bManic

[Jaeson Merrill]

fact is, when someone has knobs to turn and a nice shiny panel to look at, and spent 4 digits on it, it was invariably ALWAYS sound ALOT better than software that costs 2 or 3 digits and you have to move a mouse around for

[omo]

y forces you to comment all my nonsense. But bmanic claimed, that the audition result in the studio was kinda drastical

One man's drastic is another man's subtle. What the sonalksis eq does to a track simply when inserted, all bands bypassed, is what I call semi-subtle. Go from there.

- bManic

very true. it actually does a lot to overall ballance in mode 1

[urosh]

I dont know why people get so emotional and
philosophical on these subjects. Also terminology might
be a problem. Asume u have to mix project somebody else
tracked. If all tracks sound good one can asume that
AE who tracked it and producer wanted it to sound that
way. So when u mix that material u need mixing tool that
will help tracks sit better in mix without changing
sound drastially. Thats where "subtle" comes in. Its
not "so subtle u cant hear it" , rather " its subtle
so it doesnt change subjective perception of sound
too much". That warmth function, when it works on
particular sound, is exactly that. It doesnt make
hihat sound like different hihat, which EQ usually has
as sideeffect. Ofcourse, you might want drastic processing,
but that is effect, not unobtrusive mix
tool, which u need to use from time to time. Analogy:
if u have great mono synth sound that u want to make
"wider" u would use Roland Dimension D or TC 1210, rather
than Eventide Instant Flanger, right? And using
word "better" in audio is bad manner . I rather use phrase
"this is usefull on doing that job". And people like
J.J. Puig and Lord-Alge brothers dont give a shit how
much something cost cus they get six figures per session. So that
I-paid-my-blood-earned-1000$-so-it-must-be-great logic doesnt work.
And everybody on this planet use 100$ SM57 and nobody
said its POS. And again, I would like to own five fatsos, but
i dont have 10000$ for toys. So if anybody has seen some piece of
code that could be usefull at softening highs without being
drastic, me and bunch of other people would be very thankfull.

urosh

[JonnySun 2.0]

Question: How would it be sound if you only enhance the transients of a signal? I mean, not adding attack or so. Just eq it or enhance it.