Setting up ZL Equalizer?

[irpacynot]

Anyone can walk me through setting up the sidechain correctly in Waveform to analyze a couple of tracks with this plugin?

I understand the settings on the plugin, but can't quite figure out where the sends and returns need to be, as well as which track the plugin should be placed on.

Thanks

[Maarid]

is there an equalizer on the track you're editing, and a sidechain from the track whose dynamics will be the basis for the dynamic filter, or what's the question? For example, there is a bass track with a humming long-drawn sound throughout the lower frequency band and a drum track, the kick of which sinks into a wide long bass, you can make the kick louder, but then the bass will collapse or inaudible against the background of the entire track, this is called a frequency conflict. To fix such an annoying little thing, we put a dynamic equalizer on the BASS TRACK (for example, ZL) and connect the sidechain from the drum track (because a kick is a short click and it can be sacrificed without harm to the composition), we get a second signal on the drum analyzer and look where our kick (for example, 80 hertz) we put the dynamic filter is placed in the place where the kick clicks (80 hertz), we turn on the dynamics and it is the dynamic range of the filter (the second strip) that we pull down to dynamically cut out the BASS and we get that at the moment of a short kick, in the place where the kick itself sounds, the bass disappears (is cut out), quickly and accurately, we do not lose the bass, because the cutout is only at the moment when the kick sounds, and at the same time the bass does not drown out the kick itself, this is what all sidechain dynamic equalizers do, always and everywhere

[Watchful]

Tony, is this EQ like a analyzer, where you want to analyze the EQ curves of several tracks at once?

Span, for example, can do spectrum analysis like this, but setting it up is really complicated (I've found) and is done from within the plugin itself. You don't necessarily sidechain it from within Waveform.

But if your plugin works ona track-by-track basis, insert it onto the desired track. The sidechain feature...if your plugin supports it...is in the upper-left corner of the plugin windows.

One other thing you can experiment with: put the EQ in its own track. Then change the output of any desired tracks to point to the EQ track: you can then analyze multiple tracks at once.

[irpacynot]

Sorry, guys - yeah, it has a match option I'm looking to utilize. I'm trying to figure where to place each plugin (return, send and the ZL eq). Not sure if the return plugin is supposed to go on the track I'm trying to match, or the other way around.

[Maarid]

Well, then everything is much simpler. For convenient and deep signal matching, it is convenient to use tdr prism, which I recommend to try to anyone who is interested in it.
You can use not just a sidechain, but even your own instances of the plugin itself (as fab filter pro q does)

111.png

up to four lanes for comparison at the same time.

222.png

I also strongly recommend using the Audit Masking button, which provides direct information about potential frequency conflicts in the sources being compared.

333.png

The LEGEND button in the upper-right corner disables the display of the settings menu in the window, which makes this plugin an indispensable free assistant for mixing tracks.
In recent versions, they have completely removed the restriction on frequency analysis, you can see the entire frequency of the signal with which your daw operates, although there may be a limit of 192000, unfortunately, I cannot visually verify it yet

But I recommend using the Voxengo Span analyzer for monitoring on the master bus, when you need to display exactly the total range of audible frequencies from minimum to maximum, preset mastering, I advise

[irpacynot]

Well, then everything is much simpler. For convenient and deep signal matching, it is convenient to use tdr prism, which I recommend to try to anyone who is interested in it.
You can use not just a sidechain, but even your own instances of the plugin itself (as fab filter pro q does)
...

Okay, but just like with ZL Eq, how would I set up the send and return plugins to show the track I want to match versus the track that's going to be changed?

And yeah, Prism seems great for taking stock of frequency masking. Will definitely put that one on my plugin favorites.

[Watchful]

Send and return is easy to do.

These are Waveform plugins found in the plugin flyout menus.

Drag the Send plugin into the track you wish to send. You can put it as the last plugin in the chain (but you don't have to...sometimes you might not want to send effects...that's up to you).

Drag the Return plugin to the return track. Place this as the first plugin in that track.

Anything that goes through your Send track now passes through the Return track as well.

1. You can create different return channels by naming them...this will be self-evident when you look that the plugins. I usually have one for vocals, one for drums, one for backing, etc.

2. You can create parallel returns easily. I will have one for short delay, one for long delay, one for reverb, etc.

[Maarid]

Okay, but just like with ZL Eq, how would I set up the send and return plugins to show the track I want to match versus the track that's going to be changed?

I'm genuinely trying to understand this phrase, and about 70% of the time I'm thinking about it, I have cognitive dissonance all the time.
1. If you have two different tracks to compare, you put an equalizer on one, connect the second one to the equalizer via the sidechain, either at the top of the plugin window or at the bottom when selecting the plugin, selecting the sidechain as the source of the second track needed for comparison. Or you hang up two prism plugins and add a second instance as a source anyway.
2. If you have one track and you want to compare the original with the superimposed effect, then add a second empty track, before the effect that you want to see on the analyzer, you hang send, on the second empty you hang return to get a doubling of the signal. Then, after the effect, you place an equalizer on the first track and connect the sidechain from the second empty one with return to it. Well, or you hang two copies of prism around the effect and watch how the signal changes.
3. If you need to compare visually different effects (it's not clear why visually? but suddenly), then you follow all the steps from the second version, only place the second group of effects after return, or use two prisms on each track.
Just a visual comparison of frequency fluctuations is usually used to avoid guessing, but to find a flaw quickly, which is precisely what the visual display of peaks and bursts allows. Why do you need a visual comparison with a single source? The question that puts me in a stupor, honestly. If I need to compare two different effects, I usually use a rack, put AB first and double the signal to two different effects with a single output, switching alternately, I can compare by ear, why should I compare by eye - I can't understand, sorry

[irpacynot]

Send and return is easy to do.

These are Waveform plugins found in the plugin flyout menus.

Drag the Send plugin into the track you wish to send. You can put it as the last plugin in the chain (but you don't have to...sometimes you might not want to send effects...that's up to you).

Drag the Return plugin to the return track. Place this as the first plugin in that track.

Anything that goes through your Send track now passes through the Return track as well.

1. You can create different return channels by naming them...this will be self-evident when you look that the plugins. I usually have one for vocals, one for drums, one for backing, etc.

2. You can create parallel returns easily. I will have one for short delay, one for long delay, one for reverb, etc.

I think my main trouble was figuring out which track (the return track or the send track) to place the ZL equalizer on.

Okay, but just like with ZL Eq, how would I set up the send and return plugins to show the track I want to match versus the track that's going to be changed?

I'm genuinely trying to understand this phrase, and about 70% of the time I'm thinking about it, I have cognitive dissonance all the time.
1. If you have two different tracks to compare, you put an equalizer on one, connect the second one to the equalizer via the sidechain, either at the top of the plugin window or at the bottom when selecting the plugin, selecting the sidechain as the source of the second track needed for comparison. Or you hang up two prism plugins and add a second instance as a source anyway.
2. If you have one track and you want to compare the original with the superimposed effect, then add a second empty track, before the effect that you want to see on the analyzer, you hang send, on the second empty you hang return to get a doubling of the signal. Then, after the effect, you place an equalizer on the first track and connect the sidechain from the second empty one with return to it. Well, or you hang two copies of prism around the effect and watch how the signal changes.
3. If you need to compare visually different effects (it's not clear why visually? but suddenly), then you follow all the steps from the second version, only place the second group of effects after return, or use two prisms on each track.
Just a visual comparison of frequency fluctuations is usually used to avoid guessing, but to find a flaw quickly, which is precisely what the visual display of peaks and bursts allows. Why do you need a visual comparison with a single source? The question that puts me in a stupor, honestly. If I need to compare two different effects, I usually use a rack, put AB first and double the signal to two different effects with a single output, switching alternately, I can compare by ear, why should I compare by eye - I can't understand, sorry

I apologize to both of you either way. Silly me, evidently when you select the track to sidechain to in the ZL plugin, it automatically does the work for you, so no need to set up sends and returns. I only thought it was necessary because the guy on Youtube showing how to set it up was having to do that in Reaper.

Anyway, got it figured out by noodling. Thanks again, guys.

[Maarid]

because the guy on Youtube showing how to set it up was having to do that in Reaper.

Oh, then I'm waiting for questions about glue compression in the near future.

[irpacynot]

Oh, then I'm waiting for questions about glue compression in the near future.

Definitely feel like I'm finally making some headway in that area. Very much in love with BusterSE.

[Maarid]

Definitely feel like I'm finally making some headway in that area. Very much in love with BusterSE.

AO is generally famous for its good compressor range, although in general their entire analog approach is more like a philosophy - the realism of physical equipment, a somewhat restrained style.
in my opinion (judging by the tutorials on youtube), then specomp is implemented closer to glue than busterse - transient staining during compression does not really resemble glue, in my personal opinion, of course.
But again, all this is purely a matter of taste and personal preference.
I would also suggest that you try silver fox from lotus audio to diversify your look.
But as for my personal vision, these products are mainly aimed at emulating the classic, older sound, giving a slight aftertaste of 2005-2010, weak transients of the tops, soft bass, ala style of mixing electronics with real instruments, which still sounds good, but a little bland.
I suggest we try to do this: we put a rack instead of a compressor, put two mid\side encoding plug-ins in the rack, connect the input to one plug-in and encode the signal to the mid\side, then put two copies of Kotelnikov free with the same settings in mono mode and connect them in parallel to the mid and side separately and then combine them back into decoding back to stereo

111.png

222.png

The point of this action is that we separate the mid and side processing as much as possible (as if Kotelnikov were doing it in stereo) and they do not affect each other when calculating rms compression.

[irpacynot]

Definitely feel like I'm finally making some headway in that area. Very much in love with BusterSE.

AO is generally famous for its good compressor range, although in general their entire analog approach is more like a philosophy - the realism of physical equipment, a somewhat restrained style.
in my opinion (judging by the tutorials on youtube), then specomp is implemented closer to glue than busterse - transient staining during compression does not really resemble glue, in my personal opinion, of course.
But again, all this is purely a matter of taste and personal preference.
I would also suggest that you try silver fox from lotus audio to diversify your look.
But as for my personal vision, these products are mainly aimed at emulating the classic, older sound, giving a slight aftertaste of 2005-2010, weak transients of the tops, soft bass, ala style of mixing electronics with real instruments, which still sounds good, but a little bland.
I suggest we try to do this: we put a rack instead of a compressor, put two mid\side encoding plug-ins in the rack, connect the input to one plug-in and encode the signal to the mid\side, then put two copies of Kotelnikov free with the same settings in mono mode and connect them in parallel to the mid and side separately and then combine them back into decoding back to stereo
111.png222.png
The point of this action is that we separate the mid and side processing as much as possible (as if Kotelnikov were doing it in stereo) and they do not affect each other when calculating rms compression.

As I was reading through your reply, my mind quickly went to Kotelnikov. Then, read the rest of your message...

That's my other main bus compressor. I kind of experiment with a large range of song types, so I turn to different tools so far, depending.

I'm still not quite comfortable with setting up buses in the way you pictured above, so right now, if I'm wanting to compress the sides and mid differently, I'll use two different instances of Kotelnikov, one for diff and one for sum. But perhaps it's time to start making myself comfortable with that (scary) chaining system. My guess is, it's pretty much the same thing, but for some reason it seems more daunting when fiddling with it that way.

[Maarid]

I'll use two different instances of Kotelnikov, one for diff and one for sum.

True, but I hear a different result if I put them in series with the sum and subtraction modes, to the point that if I put them in series inside a rack with four encoders and decoders, I hear a different result than using these modes in Kotelnikov itself
I believe that this is exactly the interaction that occurs when calculating the rms signal, otherwise ordinary stereo compression would be sufficient. Apparently the rms is calculated with a gap of the clean incoming signal, and then encoding and mid/side separation occurs.