MeldaProduction

MeldaProduction · Post by **MeldaProduction** » Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:16 pm

I'm afraid no idea

. I'm actually waiting to mix some of my projects for it, well, I'm waiting for a year already

astramistil · Post by **astramistil** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:32 pm

MeldaProduction wrote:Hehe vectorwarrior got one thing right, out of many . So much about how to make people intrigued

('Mouse-drawing skill' apart, I hope I'll deserve a clapping hand too if I get this right

) :

A mixing revolution would also be *a linguistic one*, with terms like 'presence', 'body' etc.

here's what I think would work for an 'easy view', then of course by right-clicking parameter we can access ''under the hood'' (like filter type, a more comprehensive analyzer, specific mspectraldynamics settings, etc.):

1-You put an instance of MMixingRevolution on lets say a guitar, and one on bass
2-It recognizes it as a guitar and bass, and you can at anytime on the left choose which instruments to compare (no time wasted in mixer opening and closing instances you want to adjust)
3-with 'Q' adjust the range that sidechain input will cover
4-Then you choose amount of 'sidechain input' from the other compared track to resolve conflict, or amount 'gain' to cut from specific track (of course 'MSpectralDynamics' would be under the hood: 'Sidechain' making a 'reverse eq' like in Izotope, 'Gain' adjusting the "Threshold" parameter in MSpectral at the specific band)

-conflict zone would be colored from green-to-red (not from grey-to-black!!), and 'yellow-to-red knobs' would indicate suggestions + 'tips' for each suggestions (like: things to consider from a specific *and* overall point of view, tips on most common mixing habits depending on which *paradigm* you use to mix (so there would be 'analysis presets' if you want to sounds more '70's soul', 90's grunge, EDM, etc.) ('users community' could be of great help here)

-'tabs' would make easy to switch between 'individual track' strip (which would ressemble MXXX, *WITH 3rd PARTY PLUGINS AVAILABLE SLOTS!!!*

(sorry, but I think alot of us cant live without Soundtoys' Decapitator)

"2-tracks" (as in my first drawing) = like Izotope "masking view" + "reverse eq" on same window;
"overall" (or full mix): which would would be a monitoring tab that could look like this:

Green would suggest what is considered as 'good masking'
*of course again, these suggestions would be made considering the full mix, not only 2-tracks per 2-tracks

What do you think?

steve2KVR · Post by **steve2KVR** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:47 pm

...yup...could I get that later 2day?

...could really use something like that now

...how'bout now?

...

.../s~

vectorwarrior · Post by **vectorwarrior** » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:16 am

astramistil wrote:
A mixing revolution would also be *a linguistic one*, with terms like 'presence', 'body' etc.

Sorry, I really don't like this approach. For one thing, terms like 'presence' and 'body' mean different things to different people. I prefer technical terms that cannot be misinterpreted and are clearer in their function. Generally melda products use technical terms and I vastly prefer this approach. Other companies take the more 'friendly' hand-holding approach and I'd rather leave it to them. Also, terms like that are very 'music' focused, which leaves other audio fields out in the cold. As a sound designer working on something like dialog, weapons or footsteps, what is 'body' supposed to me? It's way too abstract.

Hope you can understand my perspective

steve2KVR · Post by **steve2KVR** » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:49 am

...to me, jmho, all that "poetic/metaphor" talk sounds more like wine/burbon/scotch/cigar talk than anything else...just what is a "brown" sound anyway?...ya ya ya, I have a "feel" for it, but is your "brown" my "brown"?...I am a player with a math/physics/linguistics education and I "dance" on the edge of that "sword"...I've made a living being able to "dance" on both sides to the benefit of both (I hope

)...hth

.../s~

astramistil · Post by **astramistil** » Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:19 am

vectorwarrior wrote:
astramistil wrote:
A mixing revolution would also be *a linguistic one*, with terms like 'presence', 'body' etc.

Sorry, I really don't like this approach. For one thing, terms like 'presence' and 'body' mean different things to different people. I prefer technical terms that cannot be misinterpreted and are clearer in their function. Generally melda products use technical terms and I vastly prefer this approach. Other companies take the more 'friendly' hand-holding approach and I'd rather leave it to them. Also, terms like that are very 'music' focused, which leaves other audio fields out in the cold. As a sound designer working on something like dialog, weapons or footsteps, what is 'body' supposed to me? It's way too abstract.

Hope you can understand my perspective

I agree with you, and thats why I said later in my post:
'' tips on most common mixing habits depending on which *paradigm* you use to mix (so there would be 'analysis presets' if you want to sounds more '70's soul', 90's grunge, EDM, etc.) ('users community' could be of great help here)''

I mean, there are common practice among great mixing egineer, which should help with *suggestion*, not absolute!

Svama · Post by **Svama** » Fri Dec 16, 2016 7:35 am

Cool would be a feature of automatically eliminating resonances and fill the gaps with a new calculated signal. Like in image editing software.
And naturally a synchronise feature for all kind of audio signal with the best algorithm of the world

alexis1 · Post by **alexis1** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:11 am

I have MAutoDynamicEQ (among others).

Is it possible to reproduce the unmasking behavior demonstrated in this Neutron vid using MADEQ (using the "Make not like" button, for example)? Or, if not, with some other Melda plugs?

If the answer is yes to either question ... I've noticed the spectrum analyzer in MADEQ can be set to a resolution that nicely shows how the vocal harmonics change as the sung vocal fundamental changes. That got me wondering, could Melda's attenuating/masking EQ nodes be made to move up and down the frequency range in a similar fashion, tracking the conflicting guitar harmonies? It doesn't look like Neutron can do that, because their masking frequency display is more of a wide smear than individual notes.

I'd like to set something up like that. Not looking to purchase now, just trying to get my head around all this cool stuff.

Thanks for any thoughts!

Nspace · Post by **Nspace** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 3:38 pm

astramistil wrote: here's what I think would work for an 'easy view', then of course by right-clicking parameter we can access ''under the hood'' (like filter type, a more comprehensive analyzer, specific mspectraldynamics settings, etc.):

1-You put an instance of MMixingRevolution on lets say a guitar, and one on bass
2-It recognizes it as a guitar and bass, and you can at anytime on the left choose which instruments to compare (no time wasted in mixer opening and closing instances you want to adjust)
3-with 'Q' adjust the range that sidechain input will cover
4-Then you choose amount of 'sidechain input' from the other compared track to resolve conflict, or amount 'gain' to cut from specific track (of course 'MSpectralDynamics' would be under the hood: 'Sidechain' making a 'reverse eq' like in Izotope, 'Gain' adjusting the "Threshold" parameter in MSpectral at the specific band)

-conflict zone would be colored from green-to-red (not from grey-to-black!!), and 'yellow-to-red knobs' would indicate suggestions + 'tips' for each suggestions (like: things to consider from a specific *and* overall point of view, tips on most common mixing habits depending on which *paradigm* you use to mix (so there would be 'analysis presets' if you want to sounds more '70's soul', 90's grunge, EDM, etc.) ('users community' could be of great help here)

-'tabs' would make easy to switch between 'individual track' strip (which would resemble MXXX, *WITH 3rd PARTY PLUGINS AVAILABLE SLOTS!!!* (sorry, but I think alot of us cant live without Soundtoys' Decapitator)

"2-tracks" (as in my first drawing) = like Izotope "masking view" + "reverse eq" on same window;
"overall" (or full mix): which would would be a monitoring tab that could look like this:

Green would suggest what is considered as 'good masking'
*of course again, these suggestions would be made considering the full mix, not only 2-tracks per 2-tracks

What do you think?

Funny, parts of your reasoning are similar to the way I process complexities sometimes.
So what do I think? It looks great!
Leaving linguistics aside, the process tab connected with the 'monitoring tab' with same coloring codes is a brilliant way of addressing what is being done. Something that nowadays widescreens simply allow to monitor at once.
///If anything, I would be still missing the Spectral side of the possibilities, plus more matrices at several steps.
Edit1; what if the monitoring tab has a switch to a spectral view? or else plainly do the monitoring tab in the spectral way. That way it will deal with the time horizontally, and then the option could be the spectral aggregate view (with some way to outline the tracks). Color will have to be carefully designed...
(These are intended as generative ideas, more to call for new views, rather than to quench the extra questions that might have generated).

MeldaProduction · Post by **MeldaProduction** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:09 pm

Hehe brainstorming huh?

Well, I'd actually like the software to do automatically as much as possible. And all this should imho be dynamic. I have already things quite thought out.

alexis1 · Post by **alexis1** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:46 pm

Bumping, if I may.

Any thoughts on how I can best approximate the Neutron automatic masking function (in the vid 3 posts up) using Melda plugs currently available?

Thanks -

pumafred · Post by **pumafred** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 1:11 pm

Re. this last point, it may be worth keeping in mind that, as I understand it, not all spectral collisions constitute "masking". If so, I guess Melda's reporting of spectral collisions should be supplemented by "ears".
Neutron says they signal "masking" (the little bar charts at the top), according to their theory of what it is.

Boone777 · Post by **Boone777** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 1:33 pm

alexis1 wrote:Bumping, if I may.

Any thoughts on how I can best approximate the Neutron automatic masking function (in the vid 3 posts up) using Melda plugs currently available?

Thanks -

Watch tutorials here: https://www.meldaproduction.com/MAutoDynamicEq

alexis1 · Post by **alexis1** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:34 pm

Boone777 wrote:
alexis1 wrote:Bumping, if I may.

Any thoughts on how I can best approximate the Neutron automatic masking function (in the vid 3 posts up) using Melda plugs currently available?

Thanks -
Watch tutorials here: https://www.meldaproduction.com/MAutoDynamicEq

Thanks Boone777!

Yes, I have MADEQ, and have tried the "separate" function as I mentioned in the earlier post. I just wasn't sure if that was the best currently available in the Melda Suite to match the Neutron masking function in the vid a few posts up.

Thanks!

jmg8 · Post by **jmg8** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:22 pm

I have a video I can share with you that I made. It shows the best way to do it (in my opinion)
Link to follow shortly when I get home.

MeldaProduction

KVR Audio

Revolutionising mixing: Izotope goes first, but MeldaProduction later and better?