I haven't used the fabfilter so I can't comment on its Dynamic EQ. For me Gullfoss main use is mastering and it's hugely impressive in to me. Remember the design of gullfoss is to reveal and tame competing frequencies. With a single instrument there's not a whole lot competing but in the master mix there is
I see. Well it's not doing the bass part, that for sure. It does give the mix a really nice flavor overall, and it's as detailed and smooth as it usually is, but I'd love some kind of plugin that could bass-master a song. It seems manually tweaking that 30-120hz region, no matter how detailed and carefully it's done, just isn't fully satisfactory. I'd love the same level of detail as Gullfoss on bass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grinder
I use Har-Bal and Izotope Tonal Balance version one to check for me. I can not see myself affording $300 NZ for this vst but I have to say it sounds good from all the noises I am hearing.
Grinder
Well just pay in USD then, it'll be a lot less than 300 !
Gave Har-Bal a look on YT. Looks a bit technical. I reckon Ozone is more intuitive and user-friendly.
Har-Bal actually has a one click option Dork Lard if you want to go there.
I have used that as an indicator for a few years it got me listening better.
It was revolutionary in it's time and still does the job I reckon.
Total balance shows the ball park too.
Nothing beats these types of programs but a good sounding recording space though.
If it goes on sale perhaps I may purchase looks like they only sell from their web and no discounts running by the looks.
Yes I am interested but some things are impossible at times.
The NZ dollar is at an all time low.
I see. Well it's not doing the bass part, that for sure. It does give the mix a really nice flavor overall, and it's as detailed and smooth as it usually is, but I'd love some kind of plugin that could bass-master a song. It seems manually tweaking that 30-120hz region, no matter how detailed and carefully it's done, just isn't fully satisfactory. I'd love the same level of detail as Gullfoss on bass.
What style of music are you doing ? I tried it on about 50 different jazz/pop/rock/metal/blues songs and it improved bass tremendously on about 95% of them. On those it reduced mud on bass guitar and drums and reduced ringing/sustain and tightened up the kick and bass notes. Not to mention the vibe it added. Typical setting for tame was 20 to 35.
What style of music are you doing ? I tried it on about 50 different jazz/pop/rock/metal/blues songs and it improved bass tremendously on about 95% of them. On those it reduced mud on bass guitar and drums and reduced ringing/sustain and tightened up the kick and bass notes. Not to mention the vibe it added. Typical setting for tame was 20 to 35.
Electronic rock. Like betw. Linkin Park and Depeche Mode. I'm sure I'm partly wrong for doing this but I rely on the mastering to have the bass appear (bass guitar and kicks, floor toms), I'll give them good presence in the mix as it is, but as to not cover up the mix with low frequencies crapping all over the rest of the instruments I rely on mastering: I've noticed analyzing Linkin Park songs and others that the bass peak is at exactly 60hz each time, that's apparently where all the power comes through, so I'll give my mix a good 4db at mastering at 60hz, and I boost most of 70-120hz with separate bands. I'll use any regular EQ plugin for that.
Gullfoss does suffer a little bit from being too definitive. It chooses what it wants and you have a bit to work with with the different knobs but it would be nice if you could at least give it a direction to follow (focus on bass for e.g.). It's amazing, I'm SO thankful you mentioned it the other day randomly - but it lacks that.
Har-Bal actually has a one click option Dork Lard if you want to go there.
I have used that as an indicator for a few years it got me listening better.
It was revolutionary in it's time and still does the job I reckon.
Total balance shows the ball park too.
Nothing beats these types of programs but a good sounding recording space though.
If it goes on sale perhaps I may purchase looks like they only sell from their web and no discounts running by the looks.
Yes I am interested but some things are impossible at times.
The NZ dollar is at an all time low.
Grinder
Sorry to hear about the NZ dollar, I was just trying to pull off an awful joke. Does it have anything to do with the All Blacks' latest loss to England ? Again, apologies...
Thanks for the tip on Har-Bal, I'll further look into it now. But I'm interested in those other two dynamic EQs at the moment, izotope Neutron and FabFilter Q3. People seem to be able to work a bit of magic on YT with these. I'm thinking of using Q3 like, just select a preset for a given instrument and then tweak to taste, and because it's dynamic, I bet the results would be better than anything I could try by ear from a static plugin.
Electronic rock. Like betw. Linkin Park and Depeche Mode. I'm sure I'm partly wrong for doing this but I rely on the mastering to have the bass appear (bass guitar and kicks, floor toms), I'll give them good presence in the mix as it is, but as to not cover up the mix with low frequencies crapping all over the rest of the instruments I rely on mastering: I've noticed analyzing Linkin Park songs and others that the bass peak is at exactly 60hz each time, that's apparently where all the power comes through, so I'll give my mix a good 4db at mastering at 60hz, and I boost most of 70-120hz with separate bands. I'll use any regular EQ plugin for that.
Gullfoss does suffer a little bit from being too definitive. It chooses what it wants and you have a bit to work with with the different knobs but it would be nice if you could at least give it a direction to follow (focus on bass for e.g.). It's amazing, I'm SO thankful you mentioned it the other day randomly - but it lacks that.
Sure thing. Always use the tool that works best for you regardless of what anybody says. I also recommend being in a really dark room when you do the mixing to get your ears to focus
Ha Ha Yes Dork Lard, the ALL BLACKS You are so right the NZ dollar does go up if they win and down if they loose.
So crazy I have noted that over the years.
I enjoy skill and the rest so sit on the fence with sport just as I do with music.
I have Izotope Neutron etc but found my biggest leap forward was with treating my recording room properly this gave the audio I created with my hands a much better starting point.
The vst they make today may be an advance from Har-Bal I could not argue because I have not tried Gullfoss that said I have invest ed a lot of money
and the joy I am getting now is more about being used to my gear and leaning more and more what I want out of it and how to get that.
Har-Bal is very handy likewise Tonal Balance. Christmas is coming around I may have Gullfoss at the end of the year.
I have seen/heard about Gullfoss before, but though it was just another “mastering”-tool. This thread (and a few others), though, not only made me download the demo, but also register an iLok account and iLok License Manager. And I’ll tell you, I am SO anti-iLok. But hearing all the good stuff about the plugin, I just had to try it out.
This is a very nice shortcut tool for those who (like me) do not believe mastering is that of a necessity that it may have been claimed to be in the past. It is also perfect for those who work on a professional level where also quantity is a higher prioritized factor than quality (i.e timesaver), which would include almost all pros out there (including mastering engineers). And of course, it's a fast track (no pun) for those who are new to or don’t wish to dive too much into the knowledge of equalization and psychoacoustics.
For nobodys like me, I would say that, rather than a gooder-doer, Gullfoss is more of a problem-fixer – say, when you can’t, for whatever reason, work with the original source that seems to cause the problems. I believe that if your final mix is perfect, adding Gullfoss on the master bus won’t make the mix perfecter, only different in result but still perfect. As long as you tweak the parameters carefully, or it will actually sound very artificial in a way. Although, let’s say that Gullfoss really did make the perfect mix perfecter, I doubt you would hear the difference outside of your studio anyway.
So, will I buy Gullfoss? Probably, despite the anti-iLok I am. But I think I will use it more on individual tracks/sources than as a final mix tool on the master bus. Because it’s an impressive source problem-fixer!
Valle, your English is generally excellent, however the word perfecter does not mean more perfect (which is a contradiction in terms). Instead it refers to a worker who perfects something. The word is extremely rare, almost no one ever uses it. I've never heard it used in my entire life.
If the likes of Gullfoss can get your mixes closer to perfection in a way that you find hard to do without then those iLok niggles are a small issue. You can easily forget that iLok is in your system.
I have seen/heard about Gullfoss before, but though it was just another “mastering”-tool. This thread (and a few others), though, not only made me download the demo, but also register an iLok account and iLok License Manager. And I’ll tell you, I am SO anti-iLok. But hearing all the good stuff about the plugin, I just had to try it out.
This is a very nice shortcut tool for those who (like me) do not believe mastering is that of a necessity that it may have been claimed to be in the past. It is also perfect for those who work on a professional level where also quantity is a higher prioritized factor than quality (i.e timesaver), which would include almost all pros out there (including mastering engineers). And of course, it's a fast track (no pun) for those who are new to or don’t wish to dive too much into the knowledge of equalization and psychoacoustics.
For nobodys like me, I would say that, rather than a gooder-doer, Gullfoss is more of a problem-fixer – say, when you can’t, for whatever reason, work with the original source that seems to cause the problems. I believe that if your final mix is perfect, adding Gullfoss on the master bus won’t make the mix perfecter, only different in result but still perfect. As long as you tweak the parameters carefully, or it will actually sound very artificial in a way. Although, let’s say that Gullfoss really did make the perfect mix perfecter, I doubt you would hear the difference outside of your studio anyway.
So, will I buy Gullfoss? Probably, despite the anti-iLok I am. But I think I will use it more on individual tracks/sources than as a final mix tool on the master bus. Because it’s an impressive source problem-fixer!
It is very easy for me to hear the differences outside of the studio that gullfoss imparts. On most of my mixes I would set tame set to 20 and recover set to 10. On some mix's I even push the bass up between 1 and 6. The end result is a mix where the mud and droning sustains have been removed from the bass and the bass is now tight and punchy and also the highs are crisp and bright which really shines through in the car stereo. Additionally as I mentioned before it adds a fantastic musical pump to the mix because it's equeuing 300 times per second.
Valle, your English is generally excellent, however the word perfecter does not mean more perfect (which is a contradiction in terms). Instead it refers to a worker who perfects something. The word is extremely rare, almost no one ever uses it. I've never heard it used in my entire life.
If the likes of Gullfoss can get your mixes closer to perfection in a way that you find hard to do without then those iLok niggles are a small issue. You can easily forget that iLok is in your system.
So it's not the track that is perfecter: Gullfoss is the perfecter!
Valle, your English is generally excellent, however the word perfecter does not mean more perfect (which is a contradiction in terms). Instead it refers to a worker who perfects something. The word is extremely rare, almost no one ever uses it. I've never heard it used in my entire life.
Thanks!
But .. hmmm, I thought that was perfectOr (with an O, not E).
According to some dictionaries perfecter can be used as a comparative form of perfect. (EDIT: Which I know is a contradiction in terms).
Anaway, normally I would write ”more perfect”, but I thought “perfecter” was as good as ”gooder-doer” in this matter
It is very easy for me to hear the differences outside of the studio that gullfoss imparts. On most of my mixes I would set tame set to 20 and recover set to 10. On some mix's I even push the bass up between 1 and 6. The end result is a mix where the mud and droning sustains have been removed from the bass and the bass is now tight and punchy and also the highs are crisp and bright which really shines through in the car stereo.
Fair enough! But how did you deal with mud and droning sustains, tightness, punchyness, crisp etc before Gullfoss got out on the market?
But .. hmmm, I thought that was perfectOr (with an O, not E).
According to some dictionaries perfecter can be used as a comparative form of perfect. (EDIT: Which I know is a contradiction in terms).
Anaway, normally I would write ”more perfect”, but I thought “perfecter” was as good as ”gooder-doer” in this matter
I didn't want to pick you up on everything!
I would prefer to say closer to perfection. That said "more perfect" is far less of an abuse of the English language than the current gross misuse of the word literally.
They’re having a 35% off Black Friday sale for those who are looking to buy it
I couldn't find any mention of a 35% off sale on their website. It's showing at $260 Canadian, which is about $199 US Dollars. Would that be the regular price or the BF sale price?
(I DID see that they had a BF sale price in 2019.)
Regarding the EQ, I already have FabFilter Pro-Q3, which is also dynamic. It would be interesting to know how they compare.
Regarding iLok.
I resisted iLok (mainly because of the hardware dongle) for a long time, then along came Adaptiverb, so I had no choice other than to sort out an account.
As well as Adaptiverb I also have Wormhole, Blackhole and Soothe. And I manage those licenses across my main workstation and a laptop.
Up to now I haven't experienced any issues. That said, I know people on other forums who have, in the past, and it does still worry me.
Gullfoss isnt an ordinary Dynamic EQ. Its much closer to a spectral dynamics processor. It has probably dozens (or more) dynamic EQ bands automated by AI using a proprietary algorithm based on how humans process audio that excels in unmasking full mixes or sub mixes. The effects can be subtle or stark depending on the audio. Usually a little goes a long way.
If you want something similar that's affordable and non- ilok take a long look at DSEQ2 by TBproaudio. I think of Gullfoss as a mix sweetener and DSEQ more as a problem solver. DSEQ is VERY useful for taming harsh resonances that are difficult to track down using traditional EQ or dynamic EQ. Its most similar to the very popular Soothe plugin.
I still find it hard to understand Gullfoss, on some of my tracks it hardly seems to do anything although the visual feedback indicates it is working quite hard and on others the difference it makes is super apparent although visually it seems to be processing much less.
I still find it hard to understand Gullfoss, on some of my tracks it hardly seems to do anything although the visual feedback indicates it is working quite hard and on others the difference it makes is super apparent although visually it seems to be processing much less.
Agreed. Its not a silver bullet for instantly better mixes but when it works, it works really well. I will bypass it if I'm not hearing a noticeable improvement.
Maybe when its not doing much it means that your mix is already where it needs to be.
Agreed. Its not a silver bullet for instantly better mixes but when it works, it works really well. I will bypass it if I'm not hearing a noticeable improvement.
Maybe when its not doing much it means that your mix is already where it needs to be.
Verdict: it can't polish a turd, but it can polish a diamond
I had a chance to try this EQ recently and I was totally blown away by it as was my partner. This is a dynamic EQ that can pull out high frequencies and tame mud in the base like nothing I've ever heard. Use it on the master or on individual tracks and it's simply incredible. The thing that makes it so interesting to me is what I call a pumping effect.
When you see it operate you can see what the EQ is doing dynamically and it seems to have this pumping affect that very gently brings out pleasing frequencies and allows you to tame unwanted frequencies like muddy bass. The controls couldn't be easier to use and make the results instantly noticeable. One of the tricks of many plugins is to simply boost things and then we perceive them as better.
When I pushed the recover parameter, more highs come out instantly and seem to lift a veil off of the music but when I go back and forth between bypass it becomes very clear that it is a good thing and not just a hyped thing. What I mean is that when you go back and listen to it later it still sounds great. On to the bass. My partner and I are really impressed with how the definition of the bass comes out clearer than ever without stepping on anything else. The tame control did that. Anyways can you tell I'm impressed. I think I read it EQs 300 times per second.
Pumping in the EQ really makes the music sound more vibrant in a good way. Well done
The real question is how can we achieve this using only Reaper internal tools, or coming close to it. Above tool could be used as a learning device, doing same using other tools, having PluginAnalyser and similar tools.
The real question is how can we achieve this using only Reaper internal tools, or coming close to it. Above tool could be used as a learning device, doing same using other tools, having PluginAnalyser and similar tools.
You'd have to rewrite the gulfoss algorithm to equalize at 300 times per second and include all of their AI which is Black Box stuff that nobody knows what it's doing
It's more affordable than Gullfoss and it uses a regular serial number code for authorization instead of iLok.
+1. This is the only plug I've purchased this holiday season, and Voxengo's authorization is righteous. I think it can sound great, though it can be airy to the point of sizzle if overused. A little always goes a long way with this sort of stuff.
Here's a video directly comparing Teote to the iLok-infested one:
You'd have to rewrite the gulfoss algorithm to equalize at 300 times per second and include all of their AI which is Black Box stuff that nobody knows what it's doing
What matters is: Is it possible, if yes, some genius will make it. When is another question.
I would even prefer having specialized versions of this.
(a) low optimizer
(b) mid optimizer
(c) high optimizer
And not over all bands together. If you need all bands, you could simply use a,b,c together. More flexible, probably also less cpu consuming if used one by one. (b) mid optimizer would give most impact I guess, as controlling lows and highs sounds a bit easier.
What matters is: Is it possible, if yes, some genius will make it. When is another question.
I would even prefer having specialized versions of this.
(a) low optimizer
(b) mid optimizer
(c) high optimizer
And not over all bands together. If you need all bands, you could simply use a,b,c together. More flexible, probably also less cpu consuming if used one by one. (b) mid optimizer would give most impact I guess, as controlling lows and highs sounds a bit easier.
You would have to know all of the psychoacoustic tests that these NASA scientists did and what assumptions and conclusions they made from those tests otherwise you're going to end up with something that is not gullfoss
For those (like myself too) who are averse to the high price and iLok elements of Gullfoss, I would recommend TEOTE by Voxengo.
[...]
It's more affordable than Gullfoss and it uses a regular serial number code for authorization instead of iLok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vsgrt
Check out Voxengo TEOTE - does a lot of the same things, no ilok, fair price.
Another one in the same vein: TBProAudio DSEQ
But yeah, TEOTE.
Anti-iLok always.
I don't believe that's a fair comparison. As far as the TEOTE description is concerned, there's no psychoacoustics sience behind. Just "own" algorithm. I think that TEOTE is a GlissEQ on sterioids.
Don't get me wrong. I used to be a Voxengo-fan (I have a lot of them – not using anymore, though), but TEOTE and Gullfoss are light years apart in technique and philosophy.
We need only something doing much faster matching against pink noise, I guess. 300 times per second maybe? Just to see what the result will sound like. Being 80% there would be a nice start.
We need only something doing much faster matching against pink noise, I guess. 300 times per second maybe? Just to see what the result will sound like. Being 80% there would be a nice start.
You would have to know all of the psychoacoustic tests that these NASA scientists did and what assumptions and conclusions they made from those tests otherwise you're going to end up with something that is not gullfoss. You might also want to try to design your own Tesla while you're at it.
You would have to know all of the psychoacoustic tests that these NASA scientists did and what assumptions and conclusions they made from those tests otherwise you're going to end up with something that is not gullfoss. You might also want to try to design your own Tesla while you're at it.
There marketing material certainly completed my buzzword-bullshit bingo sheet. Quantum theory? Seriously? Whenever someone who's not a physicist uses that word all kinds of alarm bells in my mind go off.
Spectral dynamic processors are cool and all, but I don't trust anyone who lays it on that thick.
There marketing material certainly completed my buzzword-bullshit bingo sheet. Quantum theory? Seriously? Whenever someone who's not a physicist uses that word all kinds of alarm bells in my mind go off.
Spectral dynamic processors are cool and all, but I don't trust anyone who lays it on that thick.
Linear Mode
