Airwindows Monitoring: Mac/Windows/Linux AU/VST

[ohwell]

Chris, would you recommend either of the Cans algorithms to make old stereo records (eg with lots of hard panned parts) more headphone friendly? (I mean for listening purposes. Instead of, eg, using Wider to narrow the whole stereo field.)

Interesting question so I tried it on a track that has some hard panning that annoyed me. Cans A didn't seem to help enough, so I tried Cans B which was better but still not quite what I was hoping for so I tried an instance of Cans A followed by an instance of Cans B which did the trick for me. However double dithering is a no no so it would be nice if Cans A and B could be released as individual plugs for such situations.

Tried them too. Agree with your observations. I wonder if a touch of narrowing with Wider before Cans might hit the sweet spot for me better than cascading Cans into Cans.

I’m becoming very curious about whether Chris would tweak the Cans algorithms differently for the purposes of headphone listening to finished records (rather than mixing.) Or is either Cans A or B the approach he likes best for that.

Regardless this is just fantastic!!!

[jinxtigr]

I cannot ( ) make Cans 'undo' hard panning that you don't want there. That's not the point: it's there to take the sound source off the surface of your eardrum and give it just enough dimensionality to resemble stereo speaker mixing of a mix whose panning you still hate if it becomes a remix, it ruins what I'm trying to accomplish. (though you could indeed use Wider to get rid of some of the stereo width if that helps, which is more consistent with trying to remix the audio because the mixing choices were too horrible)

That said, it's only NJAD, a Benford Realness calculation determining which way to dither. Since Cans is a monitoring thing and at 24 bit dither already, and since it won't be causing sound problems even double-dithering at 16 bit which you're not using, and since your wanting to double up Cans is already doing 'sonic damage' by intent WAAAY bigger than any 24 bit dither could ever be, I'd say if doubling Cans works for you, use it in good faith. In this instance (or really, any 24 bit dither situation), double dithering will never ever hurt you. It's just too faint to be a problem, and since you're choosing to do something a bit unusual anyway, you should go right ahead. I assume with non-badly-mixed stuff you don't feel as much of a need to double it? The levels are factors of BitShiftGain and not really up for fine tweaking: I'm using what I can use that makes gain changes lossless, because it's a monitoring plugin and fidelity is most important.

If I was headphone listening I'd be using Cans A, not B. Unless I wanted to make it like the music was coming off a stage, rather than listening to something 'accurate'. If I really wanted an audio microscope I'd use neither, but I know I'd be getting an unrepresentative mix by doing nothing in a headphone situation. It'd depend on my mood, I think.

[andymcbain]

LOVING Cans B. So clean! Thanks again Chris

[jinxtigr]

Definitely thinking of adding a Cans C. Which is delaying the update for the plugin, but such is life. Turns out I can still stick to the BitShiftGain constraint and do a REALLY powerful crossfeed and 6dB less of the 'continued ambience' and that ought to do the trick. So I guess in a way you 'can' undo hard panning, once I put the update out?

[s28]

Would be great if you could do a consolidation of some of your fx/distortion plugins like this one. I have reduced all of them in my folder a lot so I know what I use well... I see so many comments about how there are too many when first starting with them and whilst bundles will be nice, i think streamlining them into plugins like this would be a way better option. Having a saturation plugin with many of your algos in it would be so much faster to use and simpler to see what works.

I know it's not what you usually do but there's always room for change and this plugin here is amazingly useful because everything is in one place. Less thinking of what to choose and more doing, that is a big help when getting into it.

This is the only plugin on my master by default now. Having really good results with can A!

[andymcbain]

Definitely thinking of adding a Cans C. Which is delaying the update for the plugin, but such is life. Turns out I can still stick to the BitShiftGain constraint and do a REALLY powerful crossfeed and 6dB less of the 'continued ambience' and that ought to do the trick. So I guess in a way you 'can' undo hard panning, once I put the update out?

Cans C would be awesome. Happy to wait

[jinxtigr]

Would be great if you could do a consolidation of some of your fx/distortion plugins like this one. I have reduced all of them in my folder a lot so I know what I use well... I see so many comments about how there are too many when first starting with them and whilst bundles will be nice, i think streamlining them into plugins like this would be a way better option. Having a saturation plugin with many of your algos in it would be so much faster to use and simpler to see what works.

I know it's not what you usually do but there's always room for change and this plugin here is amazingly useful because everything is in one place. Less thinking of what to choose and more doing, that is a big help when getting into it.

This is the only plugin on my master by default now. Having really good results with can A!

That does make sense. When I'm making this stuff up the ideas generally come one at a time and I will always value the ability to offer just the minimal version of the thing… and I can't half-ass it… but once I have a big collection of something (like Monitoring!) it really does make sense to assemble a 'combined' one that covers all the bases. So long as it's approachable, which a distortion one would be. You'd basically have a common drive control, and a whole bunch of different saturation algos (note that ADClip also counts as a distortion!) and then output trim and dry/wet. I think the highpassing I do is also helpful for saturations, which is why it's in Drive and Density both, so there'd be some provision for that, I think.

Maybe I'm still thinking I have lots more distortion algos yet to do? honestly, if you include Density, Drive, ADClip, Spiral, Dyno and Mojo (all distinct forms of transfer function modifying, though ADClip does do context-related softening beyond what the others do) that's a pretty good collection. The important thing is not to clutter it up with extra… oh yeah, and OneCornerClip. You see, even I forget 'em Not to clutter it up with extra little controls specific to only some algorithms, where you have to know what they are. Maybe I can add a simple averaging to the output of everything that doesn't already have a Soften control, since ADClip and OneCornerClip have softness controls, effectively? So the others would just translate that control to 'simple minimal average on the output of the dist'? (edit: and the 'NuChannel' that's in Crystal, which has a 'hardness' control that could be flipped to be Soften, and which is another entirely distinct type of distortion)

[s28]

That does make sense. When I'm making this stuff up the ideas generally come one at a time and I will always value the ability to offer just the minimal version of the thing… and I can't half-ass it… but once I have a big collection of something (like Monitoring!) it really does make sense to assemble a 'combined' one that covers all the bases. So long as it's approachable, which a distortion one would be. You'd basically have a common drive control, and a whole bunch of different saturation algos (note that ADClip also counts as a distortion!) and then output trim and dry/wet. I think the highpassing I do is also helpful for saturations, which is why it's in Drive and Density both, so there'd be some provision for that, I think.

Maybe I'm still thinking I have lots more distortion algos yet to do? honestly, if you include Density, Drive, ADClip, Spiral, Dyno and Mojo (all distinct forms of transfer function modifying, though ADClip does do context-related softening beyond what the others do) that's a pretty good collection. The important thing is not to clutter it up with extra… oh yeah, and OneCornerClip. You see, even I forget 'em Not to clutter it up with extra little controls specific to only some algorithms, where you have to know what they are. Maybe I can add a simple averaging to the output of everything that doesn't already have a Soften control, since ADClip and OneCornerClip have softness controls, effectively? So the others would just translate that control to 'simple minimal average on the output of the dist'? (edit: and the 'NuChannel' that's in Crystal, which has a 'hardness' control that could be flipped to be Soften, and which is another entirely distinct type of distortion)

To make it the ultimate AW saturation device.... it would have the highpass feature from density and also a lowpass, for a fast way of beefing up the low mids or low end, or bandpassing a certain section to distort or gently colour.

That, a dry wet control and an output and I think you will have something as useful and accessible as Monitoring. It will be nice for those who have experience with your plugins and also those just getting into them.

Maybe I'm still thinking I have lots more distortion algos yet to do? honestly, if you include Density, Drive, ADClip, Spiral, Dyno and Mojo (all distinct forms of transfer function modifying, though ADClip does do context-related softening beyond what the others do) that's a pretty good collection.

Those would all be excellent, just further suggestions - one of the tape algorithms could make sense in there as well desk and high impact. I think this could end up being one of the most useful saturation tools available and would condense a lot of Airwindows folders out there no doubt!

[Decibelianix]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9F5dYO4qmw

TL;DW: Monitoring is your one-stop shop for final 2-buss work!

Monitoring.zip(412k)

…and then sometimes it's a Big Deal.

Hi Chris,

Indeed it is a Big Deal, this plugin is a great tool. Had loads of fun on a mix last night, checking for out-of-balance stuff with the different options (love SubsOnly to check if Kick and Bass are getting on well together).

I have a small request though: could we have the 2 dither options on a separate slider? I´d like to set the dither choice at the beginning of the mix, and then forget about it, and have it work even when using Cans A & B.

Is that a reasonable request?

Thank you!

[jinxtigr]

I have a small request though: could we have the 2 dither options on a separate slider? I´d like to set the dither choice at the beginning of the mix, and then forget about it, and have it work even when using Cans A & B.

Is that a reasonable request?

Thank you!

It is such a reasonable request that you already have it everything that isn't 16-bit dither is automatically 24-bit dither for monitoring purposes. There is only one dither choice which is the most current NJAD. You can indeed forget about it, have it work even when using Cans (or anything else) and then go back to explicitly setting it for mixdown.

[adl]

I have a small request though: could we have the 2 dither options on a separate slider? I´d like to set the dither choice at the beginning of the mix, and then forget about it, and have it work even when using Cans A & B.

Is that a reasonable request?

Thank you!

It is such a reasonable request that you already have it everything that isn't 16-bit dither is automatically 24-bit dither for monitoring purposes. There is only one dither choice which is the most current NJAD. You can indeed forget about it, have it work even when using Cans (or anything else) and then go back to explicitly setting it for mixdown.

Oh my God. This shows how much of a genius you are.

[s28]

Yeah dither and a clipper built in, such a great plugin. Unsure if this has been mentioned - is the clipper the same as cliponly?

[Decibelianix]

It is such a reasonable request that you already have it everything that isn't 16-bit dither is automatically 24-bit dither for monitoring purposes. There is only one dither choice which is the most current NJAD. You can indeed forget about it, have it work even when using Cans (or anything else) and then go back to explicitly setting it for mixdown.

Haha, great stuff! I never doubted your professionalism, it´s just that having the NJAD on the slider confused me. This little tool is now permanently sitting on my monitoring path, thank you very much for coming up with it!

[jinxtigr]

<keanu> no, how much of a genius YOU are! </keanu>

Dither yes, clipper no: there is no clipper built in, unless something (like one of the biquads) has internal clipping protection in there. I don't think those clip at 0dB, either. It certainly doesn't have ClipOnly (or any variation on the ADClip algorithm) built in. At this stage if I was to do a final buss type thing (like Righteous) it would have every stage BUT the final dither, since now I have Monitoring and feel like there's usefulness in decoupling those parts. Especially in the modern 'replay gain' era where CDs aren't a thing (much less 'CD changers' or radio play), Monitoring can help you stage mixes that naturally sit in a range with headroom and don't clip: PeaksOnly is all about that, PeaksOnly distorting does NOT mean your final mix itself is clipping. Pretty sure that if you mix so PeaksOnly isn't getting wiped out too hard, neither YouTube nor iTunes will be 'turning you down in the rotation to match the gain normalization'. But part of that is, no clipping in Monitoring and nothing that can possibly be slammed for effect. Kind of the opposite: a couple of the options like SubsOnly and PeaksOnly can show you if your loudness is getting out of hand.

You could think of it as 'mixes that can safely be sent to external mastering that, in turn, might want to loudenate' or you can consider the state of recorded music in 2019 and just skip the whole loudenation concept entirely. I'm increasingly into the latter. In my Evergreens podcast for patrons, I'm showing classic vinyl mixes and nearly everything there would get through PeaksOnly without incident, even though the peak energy can be made to go up to 0 dB cleanly. I have to pad my voiceover a good 6dB to blend, the opposite of compressing it, just to work with the natural levels of these classic mixes. You can completely ignore loudenation, in the era of ReplayGain and YouTube automatic playback gain compensation.

[Decibelianix]

Pretty sure that if you mix so PeaksOnly isn't getting wiped out too hard, neither YouTube nor iTunes will be 'turning you down in the rotation to match the gain normalization'. But part of that is, no clipping in Monitoring and nothing that can possibly be slammed for effect. Kind of the opposite: a couple of the options like SubsOnly and PeaksOnly can show you if your loudness is getting out of hand.
You could think of it as 'mixes that can safely be sent to external mastering that, in turn, might want to loudenate' or you can consider the state of recorded music in 2019 and just skip the whole loudenation concept entirely.

Hi Chris,

One thing I´m not sure about: are SubsOnly and PeakOnly meant to work at mastering loudness level (peaks close to 0 dbfs), or do they also provide useful information at mix level (-6dbfs peaks with an RMS around -18dfs)?

This last comment has confused me.

Thank you