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

[aMUSEd]

There's a 'Neutrino mode' selector that has the same presets as Neutrino but I thought the whole plugin was based on Spectral technology. Not sure what you mean by "Spectral section'.

[Alphacodex]

The nice thing about Neutron is the unmasking features. Hoewever those could easily recreated if melda would add an eq on top of MMultianalyzer and maybe the inverse function, so that moving the gain up on an eq band will move down the corresponding eq band on the competing track.

[Svama]

Voxengo Glisseq is a good example for this. You can layer the frequencies of different signals.

[alexis1]

The nice thing about Neutron is the unmasking features. Hoewever those could easily recreated if melda would ...

I wonder how that it's different from using the buttons at the lower right of MeldaAutoDynamicEq?

[webhamster]

The nice thing about Neutron is the unmasking features. Hoewever those could easily recreated if melda would ...

I wonder how that it's different from using the buttons at the lower right of MeldaAutoDynamicEq?

Have you actually looked at Neutron before answering? In what way do you think it is the same?

[alexis1]

The nice thing about Neutron is the unmasking features. Hoewever those could easily recreated if melda would ...

I wonder how that it's different from using the buttons at the lower right of MeldaAutoDynamicEq?

Have you actually looked at Neutron before answering? In what way do you think it is the same?

Sorry for being unclear. I don't think it is the same. I don't think it is different. I'm asking because I don't know. I'm familiar with the one (MAutoDynamicEQ), and was wondering what people familiar with both might answer the question I made in the post you quoted.

Have you used both?

[Svama]

You can see a collision graph of two different sources, similar to mmultianalyzer. Voxengo Gliss eq is more alike. Here you can see I think up to four different frequency graphs at once in one instance, but no collision graph.
I tested Izotope Neutron for a longer time, but decided against it, cause it's a CPU hog and doing it by ear still reaches better results than the track assistant, but it's a great idea, which I think will get better offer the years. For beginners this is great and I bet this will become the plugin of the year. Indifferent whether by good marketing or because of it's features.

[alexis1]

You can see a collision graph of two different sources, similar to mmultianalyzer. Voxengo Gliss eq is more alike. Here you can see I think up to four different frequency graphs at once in one instance, but no collision graph.
I tested Izotope Neutron for a longer time, but decided against it, cause it's a CPU hog and doing it by ear still reaches better results than the track assistant, but it's a great idea, which I think will get better offer the years. For beginners this is great and I bet this will become the plugin of the year. Indifferent whether by good marketing or because of it's features.

Thanks, svama!

MeldaAutoDynamicEq - I know we can display kick and bass on one instance, and of course can use that to guide manual EQ changes. What I'm not so clear about is how results obtained from using the button on the bottom right (named something like, "EQ Track 1 to be different from Track 2") gives different results from using Neutron.

If you or anyone can help me with that I'd be grateful - thanks!

[jmg8]

OK, so here is the breakdown:

Firstly Neutron has 2 modes for track separation.

Firstly there is the collision EQ, it is a dynamic EQ which is just a basic version of MAutoDynamicEQ. The neutron version does nothing special at all. However it does include a collision meter which is not available in MAutoDynamicEQ. The collision meter allows the comparing of 2 tracks in your mix to see if they are competing with each other in the same frequencies. This can be done using MMultiAnalyzer.

Next there is Neutrino, which is located in the bottom right corner of Neutron. This is a spectral separation tool. It hardly gives you any control at all, it basically just lets you pick your instrument, like vocals, or drums. Then it uses spectral dynamics to separate the 2 tracks by removing frequencies from one track that are present in the other. This is a very very basic version of MSpectralDynamics.


Now to your question about MAutoDynamicEQ. The word AUTO in MAutoDynamicEQ refers to the bottom section that you mentioned. What it does, is analyse the source and target, then automatically creates an EQ curve to make them sound similar or different. This can be used many different ways, examples are: To make two separate backing vocalist recordings on two different microphones sound similar to each other. Or to help separate the kick and bass, when they are both competing for the same frequencies. This feature doesn't exist in Neutron.

In a nutshell MAutoDynamicEQ and MSpectralDynamics are massively superior to Neutrino. There is only 1 thing that Neutrino can do that they can't and that is multiple tracks at once. The Melda tools can only separate frequencies for 2 tracks at once, where Neutrino can do unlimited. There is something much better planned from Melda which will allow unlimited tracks too, Vojtech calls it the mixing revolution (hence the title of this thread). We will have to wait and see what it will be. But I imagine it will be a spectral tool that runs across all your tracks allowing you to make changes to your mix from 1 master instance. I am very excited to find out!

[pumafred]

I must respectfully disagree with your description of Neutron, which I am currently trying out:

Firstly Neutron has 2 modes for track separation.

Not so, as I will argue below

Firstly there is the collision EQ, it is a dynamic EQ which is just a basic version of MAutoDynamicEQ.

Actually, when set to Track separation, the eq is not dynamic, as far as I have seen. You control the Eq of both tracks in the same GUI, but the nodes cannot be turned into their dynamic setting. (They can afterwards, of course, when leaving the Track separation mode.)

The neutron version does nothing special at all.

Well, as mentioned, it allows you to control the Eq of both tracks simultaneously. Not indispensable, but convenient.

The collision meter allows the comparing of 2 tracks in your mix to see if they are competing with each other in the same frequencies. This can be done using MMultiAnalyzer.

True, but it also includes an indicator of the frequency of these collisions, to suggest which may be more worthy of attention. Again, not indispensable, but convenient.

Next there is Neutrino, which is located in the bottom right corner of Neutron. This is a spectral separation tool. It hardly gives you any control at all, it basically just lets you pick your instrument, like vocals, or drums. Then it uses spectral dynamics to separate the 2 tracks by removing frequencies from one track that are present in the other. This is a very very basic version of MSpectralDynamics.

I agree with everything here, EXCEPT that Neutrino does not do spectral SEPARATION. It only influences the spectrum of the main track, and does not take the other one into consideration. It would be great if it tried to do this, but we will have to wait for Vojtech to do something of the sort.

In a nutshell MAutoDynamicEQ and MSpectralDynamics are massively superior to Neutrino.

Agree

There is only 1 thing that Neutrino can do that they can't and that is multiple tracks at once. The Melda tools can only separate frequencies for 2 tracks at once, where Neutrino can do unlimited.

As mentioned, I believe you are mistaken on this point. Neutrino does no separation.

There is something much better planned from Melda which will allow unlimited tracks too, Vojtech calls it the mixing revolution (hence the title of this thread). We will have to wait and see what it will be. But I imagine it will be a spectral tool that runs across all your tracks allowing you to make changes to your mix from 1 master instance. I am very excited to find out!

Yes!

I'll be happy to know if I am wrong on any of these points.

[jmg8]

OK, Yes you are correct. My mistake, Neutrino doesn't do any separation.

[MeldaProduction]

Just my comment - I may be missing something, but the multitrack support in Neutrino is only for visualisation, it doesn't do any processing based on that (or at most static setup of the bands, but I didn't find that). MSpectralDynamics on the other hand does all of the that dynamically meaning that if there are no collisions, it doesn't do anything and spares the track of additional processing.

Anyway the whole point for me here is that Neutrino is just a tiny little step somewhere, basically only the EQ with analyzer with multiple tracks. I'll check if it would be easy enough to add an EQ to MMultiAnalyzer, but I don't think so. Well, it won't be that hard either, but I don't want to waste valuable development time on something like this, while I can spend it on something actually revolutional .

[Scotty]

vojtech, I humbly ask you not to be dismissive. I own a lot of your plugins and they are on all my song files. I Also own Neutron. The workflow in Neutron has been very well thought and ease of identifying useful nodes in seconds is a time saver. The collision detection is helpful but best tuned by ear as mentioned previously. There are settings in Neutron that so far all the reviewers are missing and that is to the reduce the gain settings to match the volume level of the actual fader in your daw for more accurate masking information (this is in the manual). Regardless. There are some effective design decisions here (even if it is merely an intelligent channel strip) that I have no doubt you could incorporate (with the Melda touch of course) and I would happily purchase them. Respectfully. - Scotty

Just my comment - I may be missing something, but the multitrack support in Neutrino is only for visualisation, it doesn't do any processing based on that (or at most static setup of the bands, but I didn't find that). MSpectralDynamics on the other hand does all of the that dynamically meaning that if there are no collisions, it doesn't do anything and spares the track of additional processing.

Anyway the whole point for me here is that Neutrino is just a tiny little step somewhere, basically only the EQ with analyzer with multiple tracks. I'll check if it would be easy enough to add an EQ to MMultiAnalyzer, but I don't think so. Well, it won't be that hard either, but I don't want to waste valuable development time on something like this, while I can spend it on something actually revolutional .

[Scotty]

Vojtech, I humbly ask you not to be dismissive. I own a lot of your plugins and they are on all my song files. I Also own Neutron. The workflow in Neutron has been very well thought and ease of identifying useful nodes in seconds is a time saver. The collision detection is helpful but best tuned by ear as mentioned previously. There are settings in Neutron that so far all the reviewers are missing and that is to the reduce the gain settings to match the volume level of the actual fader in your daw for more accurate masking information (this is in the manual). Regardless. There are some effective design decisions here (even if it is merely an intelligent channel strip) that I have no doubt you could incorporate (with the Melda touch of course) and I would happily purchase them. Respectfully. - Scotty

Just my comment - I may be missing something, but the multitrack support in Neutrino is only for visualisation, it doesn't do any processing based on that (or at most static setup of the bands, but I didn't find that). MSpectralDynamics on the other hand does all of the that dynamically meaning that if there are no collisions, it doesn't do anything and spares the track of additional processing.

Anyway the whole point for me here is that Neutrino is just a tiny little step somewhere, basically only the EQ with analyzer with multiple tracks. I'll check if it would be easy enough to add an EQ to MMultiAnalyzer, but I don't think so. Well, it won't be that hard either, but I don't want to waste valuable development time on something like this, while I can spend it on something actually revolutional .

[pumafred]

There are settings in Neutron that so far all the reviewers are missing and that is to the reduce the gain settings to match the volume level of the actual fader in your daw for more accurate masking information (this is in the manual).

You are right, but a) nobody here set out to write a full review of Neutron, which we are still trying out, and b) that feature is not very practical because you have to set the gain every time, rather than linking it to your fader changes. I suspect this can better be achieved by inserting Neutron post fader, no?

BTW, I own many Izotope products, so I am far from dismissive. I think they are posing an interesting challenge, mostly with their Track Assistant, and the Learn function in the Eq (which only highlights specific eq points worth examining, without changing anything).

The masking part, aside from work flow issues, could already be done quite easily with Melda plugins.

Neutrino, though I own it, is too much of a "black box" approach for my taste. I am glad I own MSpectralDynamics for that job or, when I feel lazy or in a hurry, SKnote's SoundBrigade (http://www.sknoteaudio.com/wp/index.php ... a-mission/)

Also note that the guys at Tokyo Dawn Labs are already offering an interesting identification of key eq points in the Learn function of their SlickEq GE and their SlickEq M (http://www.tokyodawn.net/tokyo-dawn-labs/)

But enough advertising of the competition. Come on, Vojtech, show them how to do it!