Let's talk about Barricade 4 input modelling

VST, AU, etc. plug-in Virtual Effects discussion
User avatar
Mr. Spock
KVRist
113 posts since 4 May, 2016

Post Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:17 am

Recently I have been trying the input saturation modes more and would like to hear which ones you guys like to use and why. I noticed that the soft clipper starts working, no matter how I set the threshold. It works way before the input signal touches the threshold. I know soft clipping has a soft knee and the input would slowly slide into the threshold but even 8dB difference (input below the threshold level) affects the saturation, which is surprising to me.

The manual doesn't explain the input models in detail either.

Observations from regular users?

User avatar
Vortifex
KVRian
1157 posts since 1 Sep, 2016

Re: Let's talk about Barricade 4 input modelling

Post Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:23 am

I like Barricade but I don't really use the input models on the master bus, it needs a wet/dry control for them in that situation. The analog console model is the most pleasing one IMO. I tend to use them on buses or single tracks.

Bouroki
KVRist
290 posts since 16 Jun, 2013 from Morocco

Re: Let's talk about Barricade 4 input modelling

Post Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:39 am

Yeah most of them are too "soft" and the threshold control is not that meaningful. Best is to just set it by ear. I begin by setting the comp & limiter in the ballpark, then audition the input sat moving the slider around until it hits the sweet spot of just about smoothing out what the comp/limiter are doing. Usually turns out great this way.

User avatar
Mr. Spock
KVRist
113 posts since 4 May, 2016

Re: Let's talk about Barricade 4 input modelling

Post Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:40 pm

Analog Console sounds pretty "obvious" to me and mostly too much if used on a full mix. Bass and Mild Sat are the only ones I find subtle enough for gentle 2buss enhancements. What really wonders me is that the threshold doesn't let me fine-tune things enough. When set to "0", I'd expect it to do less than it actually does, especially when the input is nowhere near 0dB.

It's just recently that I have been experimenting with the function in general, while working on a track with too much peaks and hitting the limiter way too much to get it decent loud, so the input model option can be a great helper to tame peaks before hitting the limiter stage.

User avatar
DMG68
KVRist
53 posts since 2 Sep, 2012

Re: Let's talk about Barricade 4 input modelling

Post Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:14 pm

I find they all sound obvious, and if I have the mix sounding the way I want then I can’t make use of the input modelling for mastering. It seems like the input models would work better on the master buss of the mix and mix into them. Which can be done and not use the limiter at that stage. All depends on the mix you are mastering, I suppose.

Winstontaneous
KVRAF
1507 posts since 15 Feb, 2006 from Berkeley, CA

Re: Let's talk about Barricade 4 input modelling

Post Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:24 pm

DMG68 wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:14 pm
I find they all sound obvious, and if I have the mix sounding the way I want then I can’t make use of the input modelling for mastering. It seems like the input models would work better on the master buss of the mix and mix into them. Which can be done and not use the limiter at that stage. All depends on the mix you are mastering, I suppose.
That's how I used Barricade 4 on an album I recently completed (mixing into it from warmth/glue with minimal limiting), the Tape Saturation mode was a revelation for me.
OLOKUN - Survival Kit - now on iTunes, CDBaby, and Spotify

Videos: The Beat | Crossing to Safety

andrewklimek
KVRer
26 posts since 27 Jun, 2016 from Cleveland

Re: Let's talk about Barricade 4 input modelling

Post Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:45 am

I've found the mild saturation to work very nicely to reduce peaks by ~1db before the limiter if I set the threshold between 0 and -5. At that level I haven't actually heard the saturation. I have a bunch of saturation plugs, but none of them seem to reduce peaks that much without hearing obvious distortion... open to suggestions on that.

I agree Bass and Mild Saturation are the only subtle ones... they Bass saturation is less subtle in my experience and I would definitely mix into it. They both compress the lows a bit, and have the effect of slightly widening the track because the highs sound a touch louder... it can be nice if you account for it.

DeathByGuitar
KVRist
57 posts since 4 Feb, 2006

Re: Let's talk about Barricade 4 input modelling

Post Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:32 pm

Yeah Mild Saturation is the only one I ever use. Most of the other ones are too heavy handed for my tastes.

acousticglue
KVRian
536 posts since 27 May, 2008

Re: Let's talk about Barricade 4 input modelling

Post Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:28 pm

Barricade was confusing interface to me. Had to go. Same with Reelbus

DeathByGuitar
KVRist
57 posts since 4 Feb, 2006

Re: Let's talk about Barricade 4 input modelling

Post Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:30 pm

acousticglue wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:28 pm
Barricade was confusing interface to me. Had to go. Same with Reelbus
Yeah, ToneBoosters V4 plugins are a bit weird, IMO. Especially EQ4 with it's overlay that covers the screen just like FabFilter's does, the lack of grid lines and crosshairs when pointing to frequencies and such...I just feel like it's a huge step back from EQ3 which was nearly flawless IMO.

Butwug
KVRist
118 posts since 26 Oct, 2018

Re: Let's talk about Barricade 4 input modelling

Post Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:52 pm

acousticglue wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:28 pm
Barricade was confusing interface to me. Had to go. Same with Reelbus
I can understand Barricade taking a bit to get used to, but Reelbus seems straightforward :shrug: ....well fairly straight forward :lol: . Still wondering what the difference between saturation and compression does, as I thought saturation came from compression? lol
DeathByGuitar wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:30 pm
acousticglue wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:28 pm
Barricade was confusing interface to me. Had to go. Same with Reelbus
Yeah, ToneBoosters V4 plugins are a bit weird, IMO. Especially EQ4 with it's overlay that covers the screen just like FabFilter's does, the lack of grid lines and crosshairs when pointing to frequencies and such...I just feel like it's a huge step back from EQ3 which was nearly flawless IMO.
If they put crosshairs on EQ4 that would be great; it'll make identifying frequencies much easier. I stick to my Daw's EQ for tracks and less CPU usage. I throw toneboosters EQ4 mainly on Master or when I need steep high/low pass. But to be honest I rarely use the cursor to place points on EQ anymore. I just use the frequency/gain/Q, chart to quickly move points. Faster and more accurate for me, regardless of which EQ I use. Started doing this when I would need precise points for taking out resonances and stuck to it since then.

But I do recall getting annoyed at the floating overlay and erased the demo. Demo'd it again, after a few months, and wasn't bothered by it anymore. Not sure if they made it smaller or I just got used to it. Having the overlay off the spectrum analyzer would probably lead to more people picking this up tho.
Last edited by Butwug on Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr. Spock
KVRist
113 posts since 4 May, 2016

Re: Let's talk about Barricade 4 input modelling

Post Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:40 am

I agree, Mild saturation is the only "more-or-less-transparent" of the bunch, which just shaves of some peaks without coloring too much and not as DMG68 said "they all sound very obvious". Mild and Tape are worlds apart. Also the hard clipper works as intended: Only clipping beyond the threshold but I much prefer StandardCLIP for clipping.

BTW, I used clean most of the time but recently discovered that I most prefer Barricade3 algorhythm, especially when I compared to Acon Digital Limiter (in the mastering bundle) which I demo at the moment and found superior to Barricade in most tests. Especially the low end and natural sound was better than Barricade (which sounded more processed in comparison).

Barricade 3 algo came closest to Acon's limiter.

I hope Jeroen reads this thread and eventually considers adjusting the whole threshold approach in Barricade4. The saturation should not be working as much when threshold is set to 0 and the input is at -6dB. Finding a sweet spot could be more "generous" IMO.

jens
KVRAF
19141 posts since 12 Jul, 2003 from West Caprazumia

Re: Let's talk about Barricade 4 input modelling

Post Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:49 am

Butwug wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:52 pm
Still wondering what the difference between saturation and compression does, as I thought saturation came from compression? lol
Huh?
" It is a measurable fact. Not my opinion. And not even subtle. If you can't hear difference in tail between Valhalla and VSR reverb tail then again change your job dude." kmonkey

Butwug
KVRist
118 posts since 26 Oct, 2018

Re: Let's talk about Barricade 4 input modelling

Post Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:35 pm

jens wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:49 am
Butwug wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:52 pm
Still wondering what the difference between saturation and compression does, as I thought saturation came from compression? lol
Huh?
From my understanding saturation is essentially mild compression. Thats why it confused me why theres both on there. I just use the saturator then a dedicated compressor for slight db gain. Barricade gets used more for ceiling limiter and lufs readout.
Last edited by Butwug on Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Butwug
KVRist
118 posts since 26 Oct, 2018

Re: Let's talk about Barricade 4 input modelling

Post Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:50 pm

Double post
Last edited by Butwug on Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:12 am, edited 3 times in total.

Return to “Effects”