Mixing: Neutron, Melda, no vst seems to be able to do this now. Why?

[astramistil]

(I use Reaper)

I sincerely hope to be wrong, and my knowledge about the subject is limited, but here's my situation:

1-I have a bass and a guitar that I want to mutually 'unmask'

2-I want to use the EQ with "dynamic+ext. sidechain" mode, because it sounds alot more organic for that purpose than a "static EQ", and a better option than "dynamic+int. sidechain" since I dont want to duck stuff in my guitar if the bass is not playing and conversely

3- So I basically want to put conversely in sidechain the 2 instruments *for specific band*:
a) When bass plays (ext. sc), the guitar duck at 120Hz
b) When guitar plays (ext. sc), the Bass duck around 2Khz

*Now here comes the conflict: only 1 of the 2 instruments accepts ext. sidechain, the other instrument's dynamic EQ bands remain stationary. From what I know, it's actually not allowed to make the 2 instruments conversely sidechain each other (I guess because of feedback loop?) and I sincerely think a mixing revolution (from an "organic mixing" perspective) will have to find a way around this major issue.

*bouncing a track and using it as a sidechain input is not an option for real-time mixing*

With MAutoDynamicEq I can, if I create an aux in which I send one of the 2 instrument, use the aux 'pre-fader' input to feed the sidechain of the 'unmoving' EQ; but with lots of instrument its hard to not feel overwhelmed (clustered arrangement/mixing console). So why (from what I know) can't Melda send (if Reaper's logic don't allow) input (in that case will act as mutual "ext. sc") between 2 tracks that have MAutoDynamicEq instances? Some "s-c prefiltering" would adress many issues I think (I'll talk about that later)

So how to set Neutron or Melda or Reaper to get what I want and make tracks properly communicate? I thought that was the major revolution Neutron had to offer but otherwise, it's really disappointing... it's less than half a revolution (more focussed on ergonomic which is great), not the complete one I'm hoping for. The "unmasking view" + "reverse link" though are *amazing* tools for mixing flow (fast comparison and EQ changes, intuitive), and I seriously hope Vojtech will consider this approach (instead of having 2-3 fx windows having to switch back and forth, or clustering my computer screen).

=========

From what I understand with the feedback loop problem, at worst *specific bands* (not full-range) could stop moving if any conflicts occur or better, find a compromise (maybe prioritize one instrument over the other depending on the frequency area (specific-band), generating at worst a little bit of latency to process)

Conflict I could see, and potential resolution:
a) Why as I suggested earlier not apply pre-filtering 'HP/LP/BP' (as offer many compressor when it comes to sidechain), then cut areas where conflict may appear, avoiding easily risks of loop?

b) Harmonic content: if I duck guitar at 120hz from bass, I think there could be changes in the guitar harmonic content. Again here, some prefiltering would be a slight compromise for organic mixing compared to "static-eq" or "int. sidechain"

So is there a way around, tool or a update coming concerning this issue? What am I missing from the technical point of view if that's not possible? Thank you!

[.jon]

What if you just copy both tracks and use those copies just as sidechain sources?

[steve2KVR]

...well, if I understand the narrative correctly, I've been doing this with mADEq for quite a while...primarily in LPX (don't recall in Reaper/but will try ltr 2day, curiosity)...so...i.e.,take...
-two acoustic guitar tracks playing substantially the same rhythm part, #1 paned ML and #2 paned MR
-each has mADEq installed with side chain enabled
-set #1 side chain input to accept output from #2
-set #2 side chain input to accept output from #1
-on each track eq I enable a few bands and enable each of those bands to accept the "side chain" input
----now the tricky part---
-mix to taste....for this part the options/possibilities go on forever ...hth .../s~

[MeldaProduction]

As Steve says.
Anyways this is going to be a part of the mixing revolution (hehe hint hint, finally some scraps huh? ).

BUT note that universal sending from one plugin instance to another one is NOT possible! Why? Because it defeats time . No, literally. Imagine you put 2 plugins A and B onto a single track after each other. Then B is waiting for A, which is waiting for B, oops! Classic deadlock. And the plugins cannot know they have been set up this way, and they cannot even detect it.
You might think that "you wouldn't do that, it makes no sense", but in more complex mixing scenarios this actually IS possible and besides, trust me, you would do that by accident .

[astramistil]

I'll try with LPX.

But Vojtech why this compromise wouldnt work:
-Setup MDQ on track 1 and 2
-Sidechain conversely each other
-*pre-filter* the sidechain input, so there you would have static information so each MDQ could ''communicate'' in advance which area not to touch

or (better)

-add to each MDQ's band a switch that would make it 'priority band' or not (e.g.: if guitar tries to duck bass at 120hz and bass do the exact same with guitar but with the 'priority switch' on, guitar as s-c input would be pre-filtered/ignore)

(if conflict occurs in setting the priority switch (e.g.: The 2 instruments has 120hz band+'priority switch' on), then an indicator (maybe the band+analyzer) could becomme red signaling problematic areas)

*even better* an option in analyzer could show the 'priority area' so we avoid trying to duck same area (e.g: bass priority at 120hz, duck guitar; then in Bass MDQ, I see in pale blue the area where guitar's MDQ is ducking from bass, so that I won't be tempted to duck the same area inside bass' MDQ with guitar input as s-c)

(also, moving a band could update pre-filtering information in real-time with little latency from what I understand; so if there are conflicts, a band in one of the MDQ could stop working and appears red, as what's disappointingly happening right now in Reaper+MDQ or Neutron)

-So with 'priority band' and static prefiltering that could update in real-time with a bit of latency, would adding serially MADQ (e.g: guitar+bass, guit+vocal, guit+kick, all mutually sidechaining each other) be a problem?

====

Does that makes sense? Otherwise which parts in my reasoning are wrong, does my propositions are theoretically impossible, or only impracticle?

[steve2KVR]

...and please share your results...also, each band in mADEq has a side chain delay feature, mess with that...like I said "gets complicated" with all the options available. Once you get a feel for it, you might end up using this "trick" all over the place...I know I did... .../s~

[astramistil]

GODAMMIT YOU WERE RIGHT STEVE!!!!

Ok now I'm between being totally elated (it works!) but totally despaired (not in Reaper... at least from what I know, and HOURS wasted trying to find way around..)

So Reaper is the problem.. Please can you check in reaper too just to be sure?

It even works with Neutron..

I cant go without Reaper... dont have a good mac enough to run LPX (my PC tower is my main workstation).

So happy for you that it works and that you use it; I sincerely think thats a revolutionary way to approach mixes

How come reaper (the ultimate beast when it comes to features) cant allow that?! All the time I've wasted searching way around, people telling me ''its impossible because of loops'' etc.. etc etc.


Any ideas, suggestions? (godammit again!!)

[astramistil]

Finally!! It works!! in Reaper!!

"You have to tell Reaper to allow feedback routing if you want two tracks to communicate like that. It's a safety thing so you don't get, well, feedback. It's under Project Settings | Advanced."

Now I'll just have to be careful, and thats where Melda could help as I suggest with priority pre-filtering+monitoring (area and band notification where feedback/conflict could occur)

Is it part of the masterplan Vojtech?

[steve2KVR]

...in the config I use there is no chance for feedback in the classic sense because the incoming/side-chain signal is not being routed/added to the input of the target plugin, but rather to the "dynamic detection" parameter of the individual bands/etc...it's not much different the good'ol kick-duck-base routine...hth.../s~

ps...but, careful though, once you enter "that" briar patch it's a real time suck...multi-parameters modulators and such...

[MeldaProduction]

astramistil: There's a little confusion here I think - sidechaining one plugin to another and then back, is something very different. First of all, host does that! And it knows it can . Btw. several times in more complex mixes I was angry at Cubase that it didn't allow me to sidechain something, the target just wasn't there and I thought "maybe I have a bug in the plugin" . Well, not really, I was just trying to cheat time .

Anyways this sidechaining is different because first one audio is processed and then the next audio is processed back. With some luck you can route the dry version to both, but still, there is no way to make one plugin that would alter both tracks at the same time.

That said, I was refering to the generalized solution where a plugin would accept several tracks and modify them. It cannot be done in general. But I have it as part of the master plan indeed