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

[Scotty]

HI Pumafred, I should clarify that by referring to that one feature that has been thus far undocumented in reviews I was referring to the youtube style style videos and the excellent askaudio/macprovideo 14 part video series on Neutron. Your comments are fair and I don't take any issue with your opinion. IN fact I am motivated to go a little deeper with Melda based on your comments. I own the Melda mixing, creative bundles + Core and few of the mastering plugins as well. I am hoping the Vojtech takes a good look at the Neutron and can allow the ego to admit that Izotope has done good work here and there may be a feature or two that could be added to or improved upon in some of Melda's mixing plugins if he isn't already going in that direction now. Improvements may very well be mostly applicable to "presentation" of the interface with the majority of the algorithms already present but usability matters too. So at any rate that is all I am on about. - Scotty

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!

[ZentralmassivSound]

AFAIR from the videos, Neutron suggests some dynamic EQ settings after the collision analysis, isn't it? So it's not all static EQing but goes into the "only when needed" direction. MSpectralDynamics would still be superior in that sense though.

[Scotty]

HI ZentralmassivSound;

Yes izotope indicates that the dynamic eq be applied as necessary and provide side chaining support for specific EQ bands allowing feeds from other Neutron plugins (including the applicable Neutron standalones). Melda can do the same thing.

The specific feature that I am commenting that has been missed or not mentioned by reviewers is buried in the Izoptope EQ settings and the manual itself which states

"To get the best, most accurate masking calculations, we highly recommend setting each
Neutron instance’s Gain Offset amount to the same value as the DAW’s track volume fader.
It will not in any way affect the audible gain of Neutron, simply the levels at which masking is
calculated."

This should be set match the channel volume to provide more accurate masking information so that the collisions are reported more accurately if the plugin is instantiated pre fader - In Cubase the first 6 slots are pre fader and the last 2 are post fader. If instantiated on the post fader the masking information will be correctly displayed and you don't need to touch the the gain offset. I just thought it was worth mentioning.


To be clear changing the gain offset setting doesn't process the sound at all rather - it just reports the collisions with more accuracy - the user might make EQ decisions while masking based on the collisions reported as if the output gain was at 0 dB when in fact the actual collisions could be very small or much greater than reported if the the actual daw strip was higher or lower than 0 dB. The feature just give more feedback for the masking features.

In more general terms my comments have more to do with more with izotope and some the the intelligent mix assistant features that have different presentation and ease of use as compared to the already excellent Melda counterparts.

AFAIR from the videos, Neutron suggests some dynamic EQ settings after the collision analysis, isn't it? So it's not all static EQing but goes into the "only when needed" direction. MSpectralDynamics would still be superior in that sense though.

[pumafred]

AFAIR from the videos, Neutron suggests some dynamic EQ settings after the collision analysis, isn't it? So it's not all static EQing but goes into the "only when needed" direction.

Actually, no, Neutron makes no suggestions in the collision analysis mode. It is only a masking meter. The collision histogram guides you towards frequencies you may want to adjust.
The Track Assistant makes suggested settings, but this does not take other tracks into account.

[pumafred]

Scotty,
I would like to make clear that I didn't mean my comments to sound critical or aggressive. If my enthusiasm for the topic made them seem so, I apologise.

[Scotty]

No worries whatsoever. I enjoy the banter. I share your passion. - Scotty

Scotty,
I would like to make clear that I didn't mean my comments to sound critical or aggressive. If my enthusiasm for the topic made them seem so, I apologise.

[MeldaProduction]

Scotty, it's not about ego or anything . I actually took a good look at Neutron, and besides it is obvious that they took lots of features from us (which is not surprising since I gave them a NFR ), there is only the collision meter (which we already have in MMultiAnalyzer, but better as it processes as many tracks as you need) and the integrated EQ, which we don't have inside it. Then there is just the track assistant, which I was sadly very disappointed from. I also tried the preset collection and again I was very disappointed...

So the only thing that would be worth improving is the EQ inside MMultiAnalyzer and I'm skeptical about it, it's a little complex there, then there's the marketing issue with people who already bought MAutoDynamicEq and MMultiAnalyzer etc. And also I think it's sort of a deadend really, I have something far more advanced and automatic in mind. After all the many times mentioned MSpectralDynamics already does far better job than any static processing in Neutron, and that's just a very simple example of what can be done. I hope at least

[Harry_HH]

Scotty, it's not about ego or anything . I actually took a good look at Neutron, and besides it is obvious that they took lots of features from us (which is not surprising since I gave them a NFR ), there is only the collision meter (which we already have in MMultiAnalyzer, but better as it processes as many tracks as you need) and the integrated EQ, which we don't have inside it. Then there is just the track assistant, which I was sadly very disappointed from. I also tried the preset collection and again I was very disappointed...

So the only thing that would be worth improving is the EQ inside MMultiAnalyzer and I'm skeptical about it, it's a little complex there, then there's the marketing issue with people who already bought MAutoDynamicEq and MMultiAnalyzer etc. And also I think it's sort of a deadend really, I have something far more advanced and automatic in mind. After all the many times mentioned MSpectralDynamics already does far better job than any static processing in Neutron, and that's just a very simple example of what can be done. I hope at least

I've got the MMultiAnalyzer (as well as almost all the iZotope stuff), therefore just one friendly comment:

The above may be all true, but one thing which the iZotope has done pretty well, and improved in, is the GUI and the workflow.
You may say that the most important thing is what is under the hood - I agree with that, but if the use of the plugin is difficult or 'not cool', you don't get all the outstanding feature in use.

On my behalf I was dissapointed to the real value of the Neutron, especially to the fact that the Track Assistant operates only in one track at the time.
But I can imagine that the iZotope main strategy to make the USE of the Neutron plugin cool - in addition that the single elements (Eq, compressors etc.) are pretty decent - attracs many, especially younger project studio operators.

The developer who can combine a very good, intuitive GUI, cool & easy workflow, and dynamite performance, has the killer app.

[MeldaProduction]

I understand that. iZotope does that for the decades, simple plugins. No problem with that. But you know, most Melda users actually expect some killer features, which generally doesn't go well with simple GUI . Anyways the point here is that I believe it all can be done in much easier, friendlier, automatic and generally better and better sounding way, just with some innovation and well lots and lots of technology... That said, I'm pretty sure Neutron will find lots of users, who like the easy approach, but for me there's nothing very interesting.

[moonmadness]

there is only the collision meter (which we already have in MMultiAnalyzer, but better as it processes as many tracks as you need) and the integrated EQ, which we don't have inside it.

i would gladly pay extra money on top of what i have already paid for MADEQ to have this functionality inside MADEQ.

isn't it time btw to drop those free updates for life anyway?
i don't like the concept of free updates for life, for many different reasons...

[webhamster]

Maybe you could do it similar to mxxx core. If there is a autodynamiceq license this functionality is activated.
Another option is like the hofa analyzer / iq-eq combination. They are separate plugins but communicate.
Even though the hofa setup is very simple it is already very useful. Amazing to imagine a autodynamiceq or mspectrumdynamic in combination with multi analyzer, especially if it would include collision detection and some auto frequency analyzing.

[Harry_HH]

... But you know, most Melda users actually expect some killer features, which generally doesn't go well with simple GUI . .

I wasn't talking about a "simple GUI", but a attractive, intuitive GUI, cool & easy workflow.
The GUI can be complex but happy to use and intuitive at the same time.

I don't buy the idea that this can't be combined with killer features and high performance.

Without pointing to any direction, the above should be the objective for all products, undepending the skill level of the target user group.

[pumafred]

Respectfully, let us not fall back to the never ending discussion about the Melda GUIs. Vojtech has already taken a stand on that, and we take it or leave it.
I think it's more interesting to stick to the discussion about "revolutionising mixing".

I found Vojtech's comments about Neutron above very interesting. The more I try Neutron (which I bought) the more I am reaching the conclusion that it could have been much more powerful. In fact, as Scotty mentioned above, the experience is stimulating me to study much more my Melda plugins, many of which I realise I hardly know in their full potential. But Izotope probably did us the favour of stirring up interest in some new approaches.

Meanwhile, I eagerly wait for Vojtech to show us how "it all can be done in much easier, friendlier, automatic and generally better and better sounding way, just with some innovation and well lots and lots of technology..."

[MeldaProduction]

isn't it time btw to drop those free updates for life anyway?
i don't like the concept of free updates for life, for many different reasons...

Well, I sort of regret it, but so what, it's better for the customers and there are plenty of them out there, so... But I agree that our licence model is far too "nice". But you might not believe it, but there are still a few out there that complain and want more . Nothing is perfect...

pumafred: Will try my best!! I actually have lots of music here, which I don't want to mix until this is done, because I want it mixed properly

webhamster: It would actually be a marketing problem if you think about it. Not mentioning it would be a waste of development time. Yes, it would generate money, but I consider the development time far more valuable.

Harry_HH: You see, everyone has a different opinion, this conversation has been here so many times, that I'm not going to spend time with that anymore. That said I consider our GUIs very very effective and well layed out. Especially considering the amount of features they provide. Some people will agree, some will not, that's life .

[alexis1]

Mr. V. - for those thinking about buying something like Neutron (the general public, like me, not advanced and smart users, like most of the other Melda customers and people on this forum) - are you able to give a timetable for your MMixRevolution plug-in release?

Thanks!