MDynamicEq and MAutoDynamicEq released with riddiculous introductory prices! - LAST CHANCE!

[lingyai]

My own specific complaint, by the way, is not about needing a detailed guide -- it's about not being able to find the preanalysed songs for use with the AutoEQ feature, which were prominently cited on his site and in his promotional video. Asking that these be made easy to find is hardly asking too much.

hm,I ve never found useful any preanalyzed songs for my EQing...but you should definitely contact Vojtech directly via e-mail for this

I've never used it either but am curious to try; if nothing else as a way to get starting points / "happy accidents" for further tweaking. I'd assumed that as Vojtech has posted here he's read my comment; but again, he might not have logged on since then, so you're right, I'll contact him directly

[DarkStar]

Some interesting background reading here:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan00/a ... hancer.htm

[Liero]

bmanic: I'm getting a very strange sense of ear fatigue from listening to the demos you posted, both the original and the melda enhanced one. I find it very difficult to pinpoint the reason, there is something about the hihats but also something in the upper mids that makes me feel relieved when I press stop. Very strange...

[MeldaProduction]

Not necessarily each band, though here you can decide "which" band work on what end (L/R, M/S, just mid, just side, you get the idea). I was thinking of a general setting which declares at what the EQ works in. But then again, you're right. This still doesn't clear in "which lane" the band will work in.

Yes, this setting is there. But for some cases it could really be useful to have it set for each separate band. I'm on it .

[MeldaProduction]

Re the auto-eq feature:

On the Melda site it says that "when you need to master your recording, you typically get some professional recording to compare it to. We have analyzed more than 80 well-known songs for you. So if you don't know or do not want to bother searching for some particular tune, just select an analysis of a song and let your recording sound like it! "

Um... I don't see any of these preanalysed 80 songs. Under the "Analyse source" menu , when I click "Load" I get a dialogue box which is empty except for the word "Root" and an invitation for me to type in a file path. Nothing happens when I click "Root". When I click "File" I get a standard directory browser. Don't know where to browse because I don't know where these 80 analyses are. They are not evident under C:\Program Files\MeldaProduction\MAutoDynamicEq 5. No guidance in the manual either.

Can anyone advise? I just sampled some sneezing and other visecral noises and need it to sound like Comfortably Numb

Aaaaha, whoops, this looks like a bug, will be solved. Please try to install MAutoEqualizer as well, it has the comparisons definitely working and both plugins share them.

[lingyai]

Re the auto-eq feature:

On the Melda site it says that "when you need to master your recording, you typically get some professional recording to compare it to. We have analyzed more than 80 well-known songs for you. So if you don't know or do not want to bother searching for some particular tune, just select an analysis of a song and let your recording sound like it! "

Um... I don't see any of these preanalysed 80 songs. Under the "Analyse source" menu , when I click "Load" I get a dialogue box which is empty except for the word "Root" and an invitation for me to type in a file path. Nothing happens when I click "Root". When I click "File" I get a standard directory browser. Don't know where to browse because I don't know where these 80 analyses are. They are not evident under C:\Program Files\MeldaProduction\MAutoDynamicEq 5. No guidance in the manual either.

Can anyone advise? I just sampled some sneezing and other visecral noises and need it to sound like Comfortably Numb

Aaaaha, whoops, this looks like a bug, will be solved. Please try to install MAutoEqualizer as well, it has the comparisons definitely working and both plugins share them.

Thanks Vojtech. Though will this work ok if I only install the demo of MAutoEqualizer? Will MAutoDynamicEq "know" where to look?

To be honest I won't have time to play around with it for at least 3-5 days. If you think the bug will be fixed by then, perhaps it would be easier for me to download the fixed version of MAutoDynamicEq? (Am not rushing you, would just like to know when you think it might be fixed). I'd prefer not to use one version of MAutoDynamicEq in a project and then risk probelms when I install a new version...

[MeldaProduction]

Thanks Vojtech. Though will this work ok if I only install the demo of MAutoEqualizer? Will MAutoDynamicEq "know" where to look?

To be honest I won't have time to play around with it for at least 3-5 days. If you think the bug will be fixed by then, perhaps it would be easier for me to download the fixed version of MAutoDynamicEq? (Am not rushing you, would just like to know when you think it might be fixed). I'd prefer not to use one version of MAutoDynamicEq in a project and then risk probelms when I install a new version...

Sure! Just the demo! It's just a quick "invention" to fix the problem.
Anyway I wanted to do the Mac64 before next release, but this small bug could maybe been fixed earlier, will see.

[lingyai]

Cheers Vojtech.

Just another point/ question about the auto eq function, which some have said they have no use for... I realise that that you can't just extract the EQ curve from something complex like "A Day in the Life" and apply it to something else equally complex, and expect the two to sound the same.

But I can imagine more realistic uses. For example, I recorded something on a PC which is now dead. I have the wav midown. I don't remember what EQ or settings I used for the vocal, but it sounds really great to me. What I imagine -- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, anyone -- is that if I extract the "curve" or whatever from an isolated portion of the vocal from my mixdown, I should get the same sound when applied to a new vocal of mine, yes?

[MeldaProduction]

Ok folks, thank you and thank you for your comments!
We have a traditional thing - some people want more feature and some want less . So first, a
few advices "not to overuse it" :

1) Don't use the dynamics unless needed!
Every time you change the dynamic gain, it's like adding a compress/expander. Pretty easy way to mess things up if you do that "just for fun". Though if you apply just a small dynamic gain, I think you should be fine, at least from my experiments...

2) The "M16" - I think what you are implying is that the bands are moving too quickly when you drag them. Well, the software has lots of shortcuts. In this case it is good to remember "ctrl" . It works with sliders, bands... Just hold ctrl and everything will move slower. Personally I prefer the quick moving, because this way you first place the bands "approximately", and when it sounds pretty good, you just tweak the details.

3) Use it as a normal equalizer!
When you look at it and compare to other eqs you mentioned, it's pretty similar. It has the band editor, then list of the bands below (some don't have it though). Pretty useful parameters on the top. And the rest you can ignore if you want. The idea is to make this an ordinary eq, but when you get comfortable with it, you have lots of more stuff to deal with afterwards.
Well, personally I cannot live without the sonogram and dynamics anymore, and I'm sure lots of you will get to the same state .

4) Well, don't use 7 bands just because they are there . Also don't mess with advanced settings just because they are there .

I'll try to prepare some tutorials when time allows.

Now to the suggestions .

I've now used MdynamicEQ quite a bit today and I have to say that overall it is a great but very scary (almost too powerful!) plugin.

Yes, but most of the "power" is hidden .

MeldaProductions keep mentioning user interface and usability as top priority, which is great, but there are still quite a lot of things that feel severely "unpolished" making the actual user experience a bit of a let down. So, here are my suggestions for usability improvements:

- oversampling value should be stored with preset (as it affects the overall sound)

Absolutely not! Think of it this way - you work in 44kHz, right? Well, many people work in 96kHz. Do they need oversampling? No they don't!
Right now, you set 4x oversampling and then browse the presets and the "quality" stays the same.

- ability to right click the numbers in the list (just like in the graph view)

Why? What would it do? I mean, no problem, but I don't think it is a good idea, since many people here say "it already has too much", now that would be another clickable something .

- the ability to create a default setup that loads with every new instance of the plugin! This is a must for such a complex plugin. It's quite tedious to always have to open the preset menu just to load my personal favourite as a starting point.

Well, it's certainly possible, not sure how "must" it is. I mean, it's 2 clicks far away. What do other people think of this?

- input options (left/right, m/s etc) should definitely be on the main screen somewhere! Not deep in the settings menu!

Hmmm, that actually shouldn't be such a problem. Will add to to-do list.
Though I'm not sure how useful this would be, if there will be separate m/s for each band.

- an invert option. This would invert all gain and dynamics settings of every band while keeping Q, frequency and all other values as they were. This is not a must but would be a nice little additional usability feature.

Hmmm, what is that for?
I mean, no problem with that, but it would need to be burried in some shortcut or something, because personally I think it is completely useless .

- the ability to select multiple EQ points and move them all as a group (move, change gain, Q and Dynamics, all at the same time. If they have different values they should change relative to their own values). Here Pro-Q and the Voxengo EQs have a clear advantage (though neither seems to work with relative value changes, which is a bummer).

Well, this will be a problem - usually rectangles are used for selection, but when you click in the field, you have the auto-listen feature here, which I actually think is very useful, though it wasn't my idea, damn .

- dual-mono input option. This is a must for mastering. Currently the left+right option seems to sum the tracks before the envelope follower. We need a 100% unlinked option, aka dual-mono. In a dynamic EQ like this, it works extremely well and is a great way to create a huge and beautiful stereo image.

Good point, added to to-do list.

- sidechain from another band (i know there is the bandpass thing in the advanced menu but it's not at all the same) (this could also be added as a modulation source for the MautodynEQ plugin). This would be an extremely useful and creative feature. This could be awesome for ducking certain frequencies when another band "triggers". The clap could duck the mids, thus accenting the clap without having to boost the area of the clap at all.

Hmmm, interesting. I'll think about it .

- look-a-head for each dynamic band! This would be extremely useful in serious mastering tasks. Especially when using fast attack and release times. Together with a corresponding 'hold' time (to make sure release doesn't happen too early) it could work extremely well. It's also a great way of creating "stability" in hectic mixes. Slowish attack times could have a bit of look-a-head to start the ramp up a bit early. It's a clever little psychoacoustic way of making things sound more transparent.

Ok, I'll think about it .

Anyhow.. that's it. Great plugin!

Cheers!
bManic

Thanks

[MeldaProduction]

Cheers Vojtech.

Just another point/ question about the auto eq function, which some have said they have no use for... I realise that that you can't just extract the EQ curve from something complex like "A Day in the Life" and apply it to something else equally complex, and expect the two to sound the same.

But I can imagine more realistic uses. For example, I recorded something on a PC which is now dead. I have the wav midown. I don't remember what EQ or settings I used for the vocal, but it sounds really great to me. What I imagine -- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, anyone -- is that if I extract the "curve" or whatever from an isolated portion of the vocal from my mixdown, I should get the same sound when applied to a new vocal of mine, yes?

First, you can, even from complex material, what you'll get is some "averaged" spectral proportions. I generally use it make a mix sound "better" without tweaking it too much. Just for the starter. When you mix something, you get fooled by getting used to it too much, so this helps your ears adjust.

And with the other idea - sure .

[bmanic]

bmanic: I'm getting a very strange sense of ear fatigue from listening to the demos you posted, both the original and the melda enhanced one. I find it very difficult to pinpoint the reason, there is something about the hihats but also something in the upper mids that makes me feel relieved when I press stop. Very strange...

Probably because the little test clip pushed really hard into the limiter?

I agree, it is fatiguing as hell! Could be the motown trick I used as well.. basically squashing an distorting a scooped version of the master and then mixing it into the original track in parallel. There are a million places where this could go severely wrong, causing all kinds of distortion and phase anomalies.

I made that little clip a few weeks ago on my laptop using cheap crappy in-ear headphones that I had available so it is very possible that there are massive problems in the high frequencies. Though I suspect it is just pretty distorted as it's rather loud and compressed.

Cheers!
bManic

[Compyfox]

- an invert option. This would invert all gain and dynamics settings of every band while keeping Q, frequency and all other values as they were. This is not a must but would be a nice little additional usability feature.

Hmmm, what is that for?
I mean, no problem with that, but it would need to be burried in some shortcut or something, because personally I think it is completely useless .

I think I can backup bmanic on that end.

An invert feature would be great for those people that sweep for frequencies with a steep Q and high gain to find the appropriate frequency, then instead of simply dropping the gain: invert the band.

Or... if you found out that the boost on a particular band doesn't work out for you, add an invert button.


Granted, a shortcut but it's "common" on most plugins nowadays. I can be totally wrong of course, but still.



Oh and... I'd really love to have a Q for the LP/HP, even though they seem to be tuned already so that there is no resonance bump going on. BUt then again, that's just me.

Still deciding on whether or not I go for the 7band or 5band version. I rarely use dynamic EQ's and I still have other EQs at my disposal. Even for mastering. So yes, I don't see your creation as "normal EQ" alone. And not using the "auto" mode at all, or the modulation, would be a waste of money for me. (2cents!)

[MeldaProduction]

An invert feature would be great for those people that sweep for frequencies with a steep Q and high gain to find the appropriate frequency, then instead of simply dropping the gain: invert the band.

Or... if you found out that the boost on a particular band doesn't work out for you, add an invert button.

I'm afraid I have to say no this. If you want to find the precise frequency, you can just use auto-listen, in fact one of the 2 auto-listens available - just click somewhere, or activate autolisten and move the band.

And if a boost doesn't work, I think it's much more appropriate to control the gain directly and just getting inverse of it as this is kinda like randomizing .

Oh and... I'd really love to have a Q for the LP/HP, even though they seem to be tuned already so that there is no resonance bump going on. BUt then again, that's just me.

Well, I'm afraid I have to say no this as well. The LP/HPs are tuned to be perfectly nonresonant and Q would make things only worse (it's also kind of technically impossible, as the filters now don't really have a Q, so I would just "simulate" something).

[bmanic]

2) The "M16" - I think what you are implying is that the bands are moving too quickly when you drag them.

No. I meant MdynamicEQ can be as dangerous as an M16 assault rifle. It requires extreme care from the user or serious damage will be caused.

MeldaProductions keep mentioning user interface and usability as top priority, which is great, but there are still quite a lot of things that feel severely "unpolished" making the actual user experience a bit of a let down. So, here are my suggestions for usability improvements:

- oversampling value should be stored with preset (as it affects the overall sound)

Absolutely not! Think of it this way - you work in 44kHz, right? Well, many people work in 96kHz. Do they need oversampling? No they don't!
Right now, you set 4x oversampling and then browse the presets and the "quality" stays the same.

Indeed you are correct. That was a bad idea.

I still think it's extremely annoying to have to turn off the high quality oversampling option in the settings every time I open a new plugin.

- ability to right click the numbers in the list (just like in the graph view)

Why? What would it do? I mean, no problem, but I don't think it is a good idea, since many people here say "it already has too much", now that would be another clickable something .

No. In this case I think you are wrong or just didn't understand what I mean. Common GUI elements should always act in the same way! These numbered "rings" in the list are identical to the rings in the graph. They represent the exact same thing. They should act the same. Besides, you can right click the filter type toggle. It would simply streamline the interface. Having multiple ways of doing the same thing is never too much, especially if it is hidden like it is here.

- the ability to create a default setup that loads with every new instance of the plugin! This is a must for such a complex plugin. It's quite tedious to always have to open the preset menu just to load my personal favourite as a starting point.

Well, it's certainly possible, not sure how "must" it is. I mean, it's 2 clicks far away. What do other people think of this?

Well of course it's not a "must" but you do advertise quite aggressively on your website; Extremely advanced and easy-to-use user interface. So I assumed that further optimizing and streamlining was a high priority for you (hence all the suggestions).

At the moment I feel like it's not exactly as streamlined or thought out as it could be as your interfaces are missing some relatively basic features, like this "default" preset thing (Voxengo, FabFilter, iZotope, Waves, BlueCatAudio and probably many more, have this very feature).

Of course you could say of almost all usability features that they are not a "must" but for somebody who works with DAWs, mixing, mastering and audio in general, almost 10 hours per day, these small things become extremely important. It's not a coincidence why FabFilter Pro-Q so quickly became a bestseller even though it is just another digital EQ.

- an invert option. This would invert all gain and dynamics settings of every band while keeping Q, frequency and all other values as they were. This is not a must but would be a nice little additional usability feature.

Hmmm, what is that for?
I mean, no problem with that, but it would need to be burried in some shortcut or something, because personally I think it is completely useless .

I use an EQ invert function for setting up a pre and post emphasis system. It's a rather forgotten technique where you first boost/cut audio material before it hits a dynamic processor (compressor, guitar amp, tape, vinyl lathe, tube gear, etc) and then compensate it after the processor. Your EQ is ideal for this task as it seems to have identical curves for each filter which means you can basically cancel out a boost with an identical cut.

Pre and post emphasis is a very effective way of forcing a dynamic processor (this includes all distortion devices as well, basically compressors with zero attack and release) to react more to the area of focus. For instance you could EQ a vocal with a +12dB boost at 1kHz before you drive it into a tape plugin and then compensate with an identical -12dB cut after the tape plugin. Thus you have changed the way the tape distortion affects the vocal.

This way you can also control how a compressor, without a sidechain or internal filters, behaves. Does it compress too much on each bass note? No problem, just use a -20dB shelf to cut out massive amounts of bass, then insert the compressor, then compensate with an identical +20dB shelf.

The invert button is not really that important but it is handy as it saves a bit of time when setting up a pre/post emphasis thing.

- the ability to select multiple EQ points and move them all as a group (move, change gain, Q and Dynamics, all at the same time. If they have different values they should change relative to their own values). Here Pro-Q and the Voxengo EQs have a clear advantage (though neither seems to work with relative value changes, which is a bummer).

Well, this will be a problem - usually rectangles are used for selection, but when you click in the field, you have the auto-listen feature here, which I actually think is very useful, though it wasn't my idea, damn .

Well, you could make the rectangle using RIGHT click + drag. I checked, that is not in use yet.

Cheers!
bManic

[MeldaProduction]

No. In this case I think you are wrong or just didn't understand what I mean. Common GUI elements should always act in the same way! These numbered "rings" in the list are identical to the rings in the graph. They represent the exact same thing. They should act the same. Besides, you can right click the filter type toggle. It would simply streamline the interface. Having multiple ways of doing the same thing is never too much, especially if it is hidden like it is here.

Aaah, you see, now it makes sense .

I use an EQ invert function for setting up a pre and post emphasis system. It's a rather forgotten technique where you first boost/cut audio material before it hits a dynamic processor (compressor, guitar amp, tape, vinyl lathe, tube gear, etc) and then compensate it after the processor. Your EQ is ideal for this task as it seems to have identical curves for each filter which means you can basically cancel out a boost with an identical cut.

Pre and post emphasis is a very effective way of forcing a dynamic processor (this includes all distortion devices as well, basically compressors with zero attack and release) to react more to the area of focus. For instance you could EQ a vocal with a +12dB boost at 1kHz before you drive it into a tape plugin and then compensate with an identical -12dB cut after the tape plugin. Thus you have changed the way the tape distortion affects the vocal.

This way you can also control how a compressor, without a sidechain or internal filters, behaves. Does it compress too much on each bass note? No problem, just use a -20dB shelf to cut out massive amounts of bass, then insert the compressor, then compensate with an identical +20dB shelf.

The invert button is not really that important but it is handy as it saves a bit of time when setting up a pre/post emphasis thing.

Hmmm, yes, not superbly important, but I guess it could get handy once in a while.