Sonible 10th Anniversary Sale – up to 70% off

[dumbquestions]

I got dynamics , & accidentally registered smart:limit to ilok not realizing you can just register the plugin via the license number they give you. Now i can’t use it bc I didn’t realize that it’s dongle only, & I don’t have one. Is it possible to retract a license from ilok, persay? Feeling like I do when I ask questions lol. Emailed sonible in the meantime.

Edited May 13, 2023 by dumbquestions

[TheSteven]

9 minutes ago, dumbquestions said:

I accidentally registered smart:limit to ilok not realizing you can just register the plugin via the license number they give you. Now i can’t use it bc it’s dongle only, & I don’t have one. Is it possible to retract a license from ilok, persay? Feeling like I do when I ask questions lol

1) You get 2 licenses from Sonible  - any combination (PC + PC, PC + iLok, iLok + iLok)

2) to retract the iLok license contact their technical support (not iLok) about it. Probably not a problem.

Edited May 13, 2023 by TheSteven

[dumbquestions]

15 minutes ago, TheSteven said:

1) You get 2 licenses from Sonible  - any combination (PC + PC, PC + iLok, iLok + iLok)

2) to retract the iLok license contact their technical support (not iLok) about it. Probably not a problem.

Much appreciated, didn’t realize that at first. Good to go now 

[FrankP]

Now I bought smart: bundle, and I found all the plugin opened in the window have much more processor load at my processor having built-in Intel UHD graphics,  than FabFilter plugins.

[antler]

Does anyone have smart:EQ Live?

Is it really only useful for live performances, or can it help out in studio settings? And if so, would smart:EQ 3 be a better choice for studio anyway?

[Fleer]

Ive got it. 
But what would I know. 

[PavlovsCat]

I was reading and watching reviews of the metering bundle yesterday -- and it also applies to Izotope's tools -- and the reviewer made what seemed to me (who I want to be clear, I'm not very knowledgeable on mixing and mastering. while I worked as a musician many years, including recording in studios, I was never involved in mixing things beyond my own personal, very poorly mixed demos), an excellent point --- and it's this: tools like Sonible's true: balance (and, it would follow that Izotope Audiolens has the same problem) are comparing your unmastered master bus mix tracks to reference tracks that are actually mastered tracks, which is not an ideal comparison.  I'd love to get thoughts on this. 

The second reviewer, not Warren, but Paul, makes the note about the reference tracks being masters and the considerable differences of comparing unmastered mixes to mastered tracks: 

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by PavlovsCat
I originally wrote Insight instead of Audiolens and corrected it above.

[antler]

9 hours ago, PavlovsCat said:

tools like Sonible's true: balance (and, it would follow that Izotope Insight suffers the same problem) are comparing your unmastered master bus mix tracks to reference tracks that are actually mastered tracks, which is not an ideal comparison.  I'd love to get thoughts on this. 

IIRC, Insight is just a metering suite - I don't think it makes comparisons to anything. Possibly you might mean Tonal Balance Control, where you can choose different genres and see a relative frequency curve?

I'm not sure I follow. If we're using mastering tools to master our unmastered tracks, I don't understand why we'd not want to compare against a mastered track. It's true that we probably wouldn't want an exact match to the reference curve - every song is unique and different instruments/arrangements lead to different frequency distributions - it's useful to know if we're approximately there. For example, an EDM track would probably sound quite strange if it had the same relative frequency distribution as a violin concerto. But while we wouldn't want it to have the exact distribution as <insert the name of an EDM track here>, it's nice to know if it sounds roughly the same.

[PavlovsCat]

13 hours ago, antler said:

IIRC, Insight is just a metering suite - I don't think it makes comparisons to anything. Possibly you might mean Tonal Balance Control, where you can choose different genres and see a relative frequency curve?

I'm not sure I follow. If we're using mastering tools to master our unmastered tracks, I don't understand why we'd not want to compare against a mastered track. It's true that we probably wouldn't want an exact match to the reference curve - every song is unique and different instruments/arrangements lead to different frequency distributions - it's useful to know if we're approximately there. For example, an EDM track would probably sound quite strange if it had the same relative frequency distribution as a violin concerto. But while we wouldn't want it to have the exact distribution as <insert the name of an EDM track here>, it's nice to know if it sounds roughly the same.

Oops, I mistakenly wrote Insight instead of Audiolens, which I was comparing to Sonible's True: Balance.  If you watch the video, the guy who makes the point explains it much better than I did. These tools enable the user to compare their mix (unmastered) to the tool's included reference by genre or the user's chosen tracks. It's not sold with the idea the user is going to duplicate the reference track identically.  Of course,  as you point out, that wouldn't make sense. It's just meant to be a comparison used as reference enabling the user to get his track in the same ranges where desired. 

What intrigued me was that the second reviewer in the video made, what seemed to me, a profoundly good point: that the user is comparing unmastered tracks to mastered tracks and that's not ideal. I suppose a user could go through the effort of mastering before using this tool, but that's pretty laborious. Anyhow, so considering that, what do you think about the usefulness of comparing your unmastered song to a mastered reference track? I mean, it's obviously not as useful as comparing your mastered track to a mastered track, but would you still find the comparison very helpful when you haven't reached the mastering stage? 

I suppose, I could always put my tracks through Ozone first to use the AI mastering before going through this analysis. What do you think? 

Edited May 21, 2023 by PavlovsCat

[Yan Filiatrault]

21 minutes ago, PavlovsCat said:

Oops, I mistakenly wrote Insight instead of Audiolens, which I was comparing to Sonible's True: Balance.  If you watch the video, the guy who makes the point explains it much better than I did. These tools enable the user to compare their mix (unmastered) to the tool's included reference by genre or the user's chosen tracks. It's not sold with the idea the user is going to duplicate the reference track identically.  Of course,  as you point out, that wouldn't make sense. It's just meant to be a comparison used as reference enabling the user to get his track in the same ranges where desired. 

What intrigued me was that the second reviewer in the video made, what seemed to me, a profoundly good point: that the user is comparing unmastered tracks to mastered tracks and that's not ideal. I suppose a user could go through the effort of mastering before using this tool, but that's pretty laborious. Anyhow, so considering that, what do you think about the usefulness of comparing your unmastered song to a mastered reference track? I mean, it's obviously not as useful as comparing your mastered track to a mastered track, but would you still find the comparison very helpful when you haven't reached the mastering stage? 

I suppose,  for me, I could always tracks through Ozone first. What do you think? 

You don’t want to reference an unmastered track to another unmastered one. You want to compare to a finished product to try to reach the same ballpark while you work on mastering your track.

[antler]

10 minutes ago, PavlovsCat said:

I suppose,  for me, I could always tracks through Ozone first. What do you think? 

Right; I understand. To be honest, I hadn't thought of it that way.

Personally, I wouldn't use this type of tool at the mixing stage. At mixing, the main aim is to make sure that all parts of the song are as balanced and audible as they should be (e.g. muffled backing vocals probably shouldn't be made clear enough such that they compete with the main vocals). And that's it.

I don't really see a point in measuring levels at mix time. The only thing I would do level wise is make sure that nothing is clipped. I'd even say don't put a compressor on the master bus at mix time (but if some pro says otherwise, feel free to go with their advice).

Mix-wide (potential multiband) compression, EQ, stereo width adjustment, and limiting belong in the mastering stage. As they'll modify the frequency distribution, the graphs will look quite different pre and post mastering.

All of this is to say that these types of tools might not be that useful at the mixing stage. I definitely use them when mastering though. But that's just a reflection of how I use them.

[PavlovsCat]

47 minutes ago, antler said:

Right; I understand. To be honest, I hadn't thought of it that way.

Personally, I wouldn't use this type of tool at the mixing stage. At mixing, the main aim is to make sure that all parts of the song are as balanced and audible as they should be (e.g. muffled backing vocals probably shouldn't be made clear enough such that they compete with the main vocals). And that's it.

I don't really see a point in measuring levels at mix time. The only thing I would do level wise is make sure that nothing is clipped. I'd even say don't put a compressor on the master bus at mix time (but if some pro says otherwise, feel free to go with their advice).

Mix-wide (potential multiband) compression, EQ, stereo width adjustment, and limiting belong in the mastering stage. As they'll modify the frequency distribution, the graphs will look quite different pre and post mastering.

All of this is to say that these types of tools might not be that useful at the mixing stage. I definitely use them when mastering though. But that's just a reflection of how I use them.

Thanks a lot, @antler. That was the kind of insight I was hoping to get and I really appreciate your explaining it so clearly. As you know from our PMs, I don't know much about mixing or mastering (although, I'm slowly starting to learn!) and when the guy in the video made that point, it really struck me as being a fundamental problem with the approach of the way these tools are marketed, but it didn't occur to me until he said it and I didn't think of it with the depth that you just articulated. 

Edited May 20, 2023 by PavlovsCat

[MusicMan]

7 hours ago, antler said:

Right; I understand. To be honest, I hadn't thought of it that way.

Personally, I wouldn't use this type of tool at the mixing stage. At mixing, the main aim is to make sure that all parts of the song are as balanced and audible as they should be (e.g. muffled backing vocals probably shouldn't be made clear enough such that they compete with the main vocals). And that's it.

I don't really see a point in measuring levels at mix time. The only thing I would do level wise is make sure that nothing is clipped. I'd even say don't put a compressor on the master bus at mix time (but if some pro says otherwise, feel free to go with their advice).

Mix-wide (potential multiband) compression, EQ, stereo width adjustment, and limiting belong in the mastering stage. As they'll modify the frequency distribution, the graphs will look quite different pre and post mastering.

All of this is to say that these types of tools might not be that useful at the mixing stage. I definitely use them when mastering though. But that's just a reflection of how I use them.

Just for another perspective, I would use both of these two plugins differently.

True:Balance I would use even more in the mixing stages as if the bass was way out, it would be better to adjust just the bass and the kick in the mix, than to EQ correct over the whole track in mastering. I would balance all of the individual items as well of course, but it might be helpful as a quick check to make sure the foundations are right. Bass is often the hardest to monitor correctly, so that's where this is helpful if that is in the ballpark before you go into your detailed mix and then just use it to periodically check as you're going.

What the video is saying to a certain extent is true, in that once the mix is heavily limited/compressed the tonal balance can change, but actually the variations he's pointing out I believe are pretty small when you take in the metering. You can check this out by simply increasing your bass by 6dB and see how much the curve changes (spoiler.. it's not that huge). Those tonal changes he's pointing out at a guess are about 1dB or less.

I would simply run the mix through a limiter before looking at the balance. That will tuck some of the louder elements that can affect overall tone in and more closely represent what the final master may sound like. I started doing that a while ago anyway and it's a good check. I use PSP Xenon as it's light on resources and very minimal latency so great for the mixing and production stages.

True:Level I would use in the opposite way, in that I would use it predominantly in mastering, but then also occasionally in the mixing phase just to see what breaks up first and how things sound when you're trying to push for competitive levels for that genre. A lot of the things that help achieve of good level of loudness are done in the mix itself.

In terms of referencing, I personally like the idea of trying to mix like there will be no master and then aim to get the balances as close to how you want it to sound when released, so I would want to compare unmastered to mastered as well.

Edited May 21, 2023 by MusicMan

[PavlovsCat]

On 5/20/2023 at 8:29 PM, MusicMan said:

Just for another perspective, I would use both of these two plugins differently.

True:Balance I would use even more in the mixing stages as if the bass was way out, it would be better to adjust just the bass and the kick in the mix, than to EQ correct over the whole track in mastering. I would balance all of the individual items as well of course, but it might be helpful as a quick check to make sure the foundations are right. Bass is often the hardest to monitor correctly, so that's where this is helpful if that is in the ballpark before you go into your detailed mix and then just use it to periodically check as you're going.

What the video is saying to a certain extent is true, in that once the mix is heavily limited/compressed the tonal balance can change, but actually the variations he's pointing out I believe are pretty small when you take in the metering. You can check this out by simply increasing your bass by 6dB and see how much the curve changes (spoiler.. it's not that huge). Those tonal changes he's pointing out at a guess are about 1dB or less.

I would simply run the mix through a limiter before looking at the balance. That will tuck some of the louder elements that can affect overall tone in and more closely represent what the final master may sound like. I started doing that a while ago anyway and it's a good check. I use PSP Xenon as it's light on resources and very minimal latency so great for the mixing and production stages.

True:Level I would use in the opposite way, in that I would use it predominantly in mastering, but then also occasionally in the mixing phase just to see what breaks up first and how things sound when you're trying to push for competitive levels for that genre. A lot of the things that help achieve of good level of loudness are done in the mix itself.

In terms of referencing, I personally like the idea of trying to mix like there will be no master and then aim to get the balances as close to how you want it to sound when released, so I would want to compare unmastered to mastered as well.

Thanks for those insights,  @MusicMan.  Weighing what both you and Antler are saying, I can still see value in using the Metering Bundle during the mixing phase. And it's going for $41 USD at Best Service, which seems like a phenomenal deal for these tools to me. I also have levels from Mastering The Mix, which Starship Krupa had praised, so I'm going to read up and watch some videos on how to use that. I'm really slow at this stuff,  as I mostly just want to play and record some music to let my family and friends hear, but I want the mix to sound decent. 

Edited June 5, 2023 by PavlovsCat

[antler]

10 hours ago, MusicMan said:

Just for another perspective, I would use both of these two plugins differently.

True:Balance I would use even more in the mixing stages as if the bass was way out, it would be better to adjust just the bass and the kick in the mix, than to EQ correct over the whole track in mastering. I would balance all of the individual items as well of course, but it might be helpful as a quick check to make sure the foundations are right. Bass is often the hardest to monitor correctly, so that's where this is helpful if that is in the ballpark before you go into your detailed mix and then just use it to periodically check as you're going.

What the video is saying to a certain extent is true, in that once the mix is heavily limited/compressed the tonal balance can change, but actually the variations he's pointing out I believe are pretty small when you take in the metering. You can check this out by simply increasing your bass by 6dB and see how much the curve changes (spoiler.. it's not that huge). Those tonal changes he's pointing out at a guess are about 1dB or less.

I would simply run the mix through a limiter before looking at the balance. That will tuck some of the louder elements that can affect overall tone in and more closely represent what the final master may sound like. I started doing that a while ago anyway and it's a good check. I use PSP Xenon as it's light on resources and very minimal latency so great for the mixing and production stages.

True:Level I would use in the opposite way, in that I would use it predominantly in mastering, but then also occasionally in the mixing phase just to see what breaks up first and how things sound when you're trying to push for competitive levels for that genre. A lot of the things that help achieve of good level of loudness are done in the mix itself.

In terms of referencing, I personally like the idea of trying to mix like there will be no master and then aim to get the balances as close to how you want it to sound when released, so I would want to compare unmastered to mastered as well.

Interesting. This gave me pause for thought.

I took a recent project that I had the bounces for during the (raw) finished-mix and master stages. I dragged them both into a new project - one on each track - and put an instance of Tonal Balance Control on both. During a full section of the song, I did a screen capture and overlayed the two to see the difference. This is the result:

With some post-image colour manipulation, the raw mix is shown in the original white colour (slightly blue from the overlay), and the mastered version is yellow. Though bear in mind my typical mastering chain isn't too heavy either: