Beta version of MDynamicEq available, optinions?

[IIRs]

Dan, I think you should really stop trying to adjust the multiband dynamics approach here. It even seems to me, that all you will get is a multiband compressor.

No, not at all. Really, worlds apart! What multi-band compressor allows you to compress a specific frequency with a Q of 8 to deal with a single wolf note on a bass guitar?

Dynamic EQ offers a huge range of options that no multi-band can cover at all. I simply don't see why the "dynamics" part has to be crippled just because its driving an EQ band instead of a gain stage.

[MeldaProduction]

But it's not crippled at all! It just works a different way! A simpler way. To be honest, so far I have seen absolutely no reason the threshold/ratio should be used here. You can do the same thing with the custom shape, but I believe in most cases you just won't need it at all.

[pendle]

hmmm

I just tested the "last touched " thing and it still goes to dynamics.

Which version of Reaper are you on IIRS ?

I'm 4.03pre4

cheers

Pendle

ooops

I was using your first beta , just loaded the new one and it works fine

soorry

[MeldaProduction]

Aaaaa, yeah, the first one was a little buggy

[IIRs]

To be honest, so far I have seen absolutely no reason the threshold/ratio should be used here.

For the same reason as on a conventional compressor: because catching just the highest peaks with a high ratio is totally different from riding the whole dynamic range with a low ratio.

Never mind, I give up.

[MeldaProduction]

Well IIRs, maybe it's just not for you.

Anyway you can do this and easily with the shapes here, you just need to think about it in a different way, in a more straightforward way IMHO. In fact, I think that if you just use the center curvature point to bend the curve, it will give you what you want, but would often sound better, as it wouldn't be that hard (though you can get similar thing with a soft knee I guess).
A big advantage here is that the curve is independent on the dynamic gain, whereas working with thresholds and ratios was always a big pain to be.

[mljung]

Still very positive about this new EQ.

So far I really like the simple approach, that it's, as intended, is easy to use.
I could sometimes use a band or two more. Usually five bands is enough, but sometimes, in tweaking less ideal recordings, a few more can come in handy.

One question: Will the first beta be compatible with the latest..?

::
Mads

[IIRs]

Well IIRs, maybe it's just not for you.

In its current form I'm afraid it isn't. I know from using IQ4 in a mastering context that the ability to make subtle adjudtments to the threshold or ratio is critical to getting the right results. It might be theoretically possible to do this with the graphical editor, but in practise its really fiddly and unintuitive (to me at least).

Looks like I'm stuck with my 6 year old Synthedit plugin a while longer...

No hard feelings though I hope: I appreciate the time you've taken to respond to my requests, even though I failed to convince you.

[daxliniere]

Thanks Vojtech, I'll definitely check that out in the next few days.

All the best,

[valsolim]

But it's not crippled at all! It just works a different way! A simpler way. To be honest, so far I have seen absolutely no reason the threshold/ratio should be used here. You can do the same thing with the custom shape, but I believe in most cases you just won't need it at all.

Hello, Vojtech,

I like the advanced dynamic settings very much! Indeed, I find the level transformation curve approach more straightforward and more general than the threshold/ratio parameters. However, I have a little idea for a subtle enhancement What if I want to process the input signal so that the high level passages will be pulled down and, at the same time, the low level passages will be pushed up? I suppose that in the current version I cannot do that with one band. Therefore, I suggest that the Y-axis of the level transformation chart should go from -100% to +100%.

What do you think about this idea?

Best regards
--
Miloslav

[MeldaProduction]

Still very positive about this new EQ.

So far I really like the simple approach, that it's, as intended, is easy to use.
I could sometimes use a band or two more. Usually five bands is enough, but sometimes, in tweaking less ideal recordings, a few more can come in handy.

One question: Will the first beta be compatible with the latest..?

::
Mads

Thank you .
To the compatibility - please do NOT use this in your projects yet, it may to be backward compatible. For example if we decide to add more bands, it won't be compatible, especially with automation. Though I have to say I'd rather keep the current number of bands, you can always use another instance, right?

[MeldaProduction]

No hard feelings though I hope: I appreciate the time you've taken to respond to my requests, even though I failed to convince you.

No problem . And don't worry, the few features you proposed made it definitely better . I was still thinking about the threshold / ratio approach, but I just cannot understand it. Can you give me some examples anyway? Despite I may not implement it, it would be useful to understand (after all if it would be just about the shape, it could share the shaping kernel, so not much work really...)

[MeldaProduction]

I like the advanced dynamic settings very much! Indeed, I find the level transformation curve approach more straightforward and more general than the threshold/ratio parameters. However, I have a little idea for a subtle enhancement What if I want to process the input signal so that the high level passages will be pulled down and, at the same time, the low level passages will be pushed up? I suppose that in the current version I cannot do that with one band. Therefore, I suggest that the Y-axis of the level transformation chart should go from -100% to +100%.

What do you think about this idea?

Best regards
--
Miloslav

Hi Miloslav, this can be done! In fact is very simple, just use the normal gain!

For example, let's say you want a peak filter at 1kHz, and you want -3dB in loud passages and +6dB in silent passages. Then all you need is to set normal gain to +6dB as you would with a normal equalizer, and then set dynamic gain to -9dB .

This is actually a typical example. You do something with the silent passage, work the same way as with a normal eq. And then you find that it is ok, but in loud parts it's just too much, and now you can fix it without compressors and other tools, just using the dynamic gain .

[valsolim]

For example, let's say you want a peak filter at 1kHz, and you want -3dB in loud passages and +6dB in silent passages. Then all you need is to set normal gain to +6dB as you would with a normal equalizer, and then set dynamic gain to -9dB .

Vojtech,

okay, you are right, we will see in practice - maybe this solution will serve well. I thought that the normal EQ should be adjusted for the average level passages, rather than for the silent ones...

However, if I would like to adjust only the impact (the depth) of the dynamic processing, keeping the average level passages unchanged, then I will have to adjust two parameters, instead of one. Let's say I have done it as you suggested and now I want to decrease the output dynamic range for that band symmetrically by 6dB. In that case I will have to increase the normal gain to +9dB and decrease the dynamic gain to -15dB, in order to get -6dB in loud passages, thus keeping the midrange gain unchanged. And I'm afraid that this adjustment involves too many calculations

So, my point was that sometimes it could be convenient to consider the dynamic gain as the depth of the dynamic processing where its direction could be controlled with the transformation curve.

--
Miloslav

[John-E34]

This seems to be exactly what I've been looking for, and find the way it operates rather straight forward.

My only feature request would be to have access to the "advanced settings" directly available from the main gui, maybe a button next to the "normal settings" button.

Sorry if already explained, but will this be part of an (existing) bundle, or something new.