Waves Vocal Rider ($69) vs. MAutoVolume

[alexis1]

Vocal Rider has fader automation, a feature removed in MAutoVolume. Black Friday prices!

I have MAutoVolume - I wonder if I should pick up Vocal Rider. Any thoughts, any users here?

Thanks!

[steve2KVR]

...I have both and a few others...waves has trial installs, maybe do a quick check and see what you think...once I became familiar with MAV all the others floated into the distant past...as I recall, they all "worked ok" but were nowhere near as flexible/adaptable/dynamic...as always ymmv .../s~

[alexis1]

...I have both and a few others...waves has trial installs, maybe do a quick check and see what you think...once I became familiar with MAV all the others floated into the distant past...as I recall, they all "worked ok" but were nowhere near as flexible/adaptable/dynamic...as always ymmv .../s~

Thank you, steve2KVR!

I guess since you didn't mention it, you didn't notice any difference in audio quality between MAutoVolume and Waves Vocal Rider?

[steve2KVR]

...can't say there was any "audio quality" differences if you mean change of hz envelope/distortion/etc...the "difference" was really in workflow/functionality. For me there was a learning curve, mostly because MAV could/does offer way more options/controls than any of the others and it took me awhile to work that out. And, fwiw, I use MAV at least as often on acoustic instruments as on vocals...and don't forget V! has his stuff on sales as well...
difference being no dongle/web lock, no subscription, and lifetime updates
(disclosure: not a fan of waves stuff so much any more )...hth.../s~

[alexis1]

Hi steve2KVR - Just to clarify, I already own MAutoVolume! I like it and use it. What I miss is the automation that was removed in v10 or so. Actually I haven't used it for many versions, ever since V. said it was not functional and removed it.

So, I like the *idea* of automating the autovolume! It's probably that alone that makes me consider dropping $65 for the Waves plug-in (I've got an iLok already for other Waves products).

Thanks for your help with this thread!

[steve2KVR]

...well, there is a difference between automating MAL to respond to some automation input, than having the auto-volume plugin "write" automation back to the DAW to be used later...having the autovolume-plugin write automation back to the DAW never really worked for me, didn't matter who's it was, including Melda...I always ended up with an automation lane that looked like a topographic map of a mountain range, and I'd spend a mountain ofr time cleaning that up...so that feature was a non-starter (for me)...it worked out to be much better to get the "settings correctly set" for the situation at hand and let'er rip all on it's own...btjm...hth.../s~

[alexis1]

...well, there is a difference between automating MAL to respond to some automation input, than having the auto-volume plugin "write" automation back to the DAW to be used later...having the autovolume-plugin write automation back to the DAW never really worked for me, didn't matter who's it was, including Melda...I always ended up with an automation lane that looked like a topographic map of a mountain range, and I'd spend a mountain ofr time cleaning that up...so that feature was a non-starter (for me)...it worked out to be much better to get the "settings correctly set" for the situation at hand and let'er rip all on it's own...btjm...hth.../s~

I had the same experience with MAutoVolume's automation, indeed I think V. said it was unusable and thus removed it. Interesting that you felt the same way about the Waves product's automation, thanks for sharing that.

[pumafred]

Perhaps I can use this post to ask a question: since I would rather remove this plugin to leave space for others once it has done its work, my question is, can I simply "render" the track (in my Cubase, Render in Place), or should I do it in real time and import the adjusted track?

Testing, it would seem MAV can handle the Render because the new track is different, but I am not sure if it can do its whole work when everything happens so fast.

[steve2KVR]

...well, like always, that depends...IMHO, MAV is really for "real time" really, so a "bounce in place" would "fix" it's response to whatever was present in that "mix moment"...soooooo....don't change anything and you're all set...probably not what you want...not sure about needing "extra space" though.../s~

[MeldaProduction]

Personally I think people sort of associated what the plugin does to actual fader movements, like they would do that by hand. But it's not the same thing, the plugin can be much faster and more accurate (or not, depends on what you want), so looking at the curve it generates is usually pointless. So I believe people should think about it the same way they think about compressors - they also do some dynamics processing, but nobody ever thought about recording the gain reduction as automation, because it would be pointless, the compressor just can be much faster than the automation can handle, same thing for MAutoVolume.

And as always - you can always automate say output gain, but at least this restricts you to use your ears instead of trying to look at the "topographic map of mountain range" (I love that! ) and try to do something from there visually.

[pumafred]

Steve,
What you say is correct if you're trying to keep a certain balance between the signal and another one in the sidechain.
But, I believe, there is also the use of MAV without external sidechain. This balances excessive volume swings of, say, a vocalist. Here I use MAV ("slow") to do the hard work, when necessary, and leave a lighter job for a compressor. It is in this case that I would like to render the MAV'ed vocal.
Perhaps this workflow does not make sense?

[steve2KVR]

...true that pumafred...a technique I use frequently as well, guitars/vocals...it really just depends on what is driving the "sensor circuit"...labeling could be a little clearer (sigh).../s~

[alexis1]

Personally I think people sort of associated what the plugin does to actual fader movements, like they would do that by hand. But it's not the same thing, the plugin can be much faster and more accurate (or not, depends on what you want), so looking at the curve it generates is usually pointless. So I believe people should think about it the same way they think about compressors - they also do some dynamics processing, but nobody ever thought about recording the gain reduction as automation, because it would be pointless, the compressor just can be much faster than the automation can handle, same thing for MAutoVolume.

And as always - you can always automate say output gain, but at least this restricts you to use your ears instead of trying to look at the "topographic map of mountain range" (I love that! ) and try to do something from there visually.

I would like to propose a use case where the automation curves are something I find very helpful:

1) If I find I "disagree" with the leveling done by MAutoVolume (for example, maybe I *want* a vocal word to stand out louder than its neighbors), with automation points staring at me I could just lasso/drag a few points and the job is done in a matter of moments. The alternatives (i.e., without automation points to grab) take much longer - adjusting clip gains, redoing the MAutoVolume run, etc.

I would dearly love if automation points could be re-added to MAutoVolume, along the lines of Waves Vocal Rider (or Quiet Arts Wave Rider).

Thank you!

[steve2KVR]

...mmmm...for me, the solution to "picking words," which, for me, comes late in mixing/pre-mastering phase is to bounce the MAV'd track down and then automate the points that really need attention...the automated level track, melda/whatever/gotmostofthem, just never really worked for me...hth.../s~

[pumafred]

Alexis,
As I recall, Vojtech did not remove that feature out of a whim, but because it did not work well. He explained it somewhere in this forum.