Thanks for your effort, but it seems I can’t handle it.
I did, but nothing happened. And the signal is getting nowhere. I would like to send the side signal from “MS” to the side track, which splits the signal again into lows, mids and highs. In your example you’re sending the signal both from the track called “split” to “mid” and “side”, but without splitting it before in a chain. When I use a sample in track 1 there’s something happening in the mid track, but the side track keeps silent without getting any signal. It doesn’t seem to work or I’m kinda stupid.
Thanks, I didn’t know that the manual contains doofers.
Haha, not really.
I know that you know that I still use samples, but only drums. And I used all kinds of instruments in the form of samples for not less than 20 years. But I really appreciate the possibilities and the sound of using synths aka VSTs. In my opinion there is no disadvantage, but a lot of advantages.
It’s your template, but swapped out with the side isolation utility
let me know if it works as intended, or also, if it doesn’t!
I see that the side isolation method that you (and @Jek, presumably, too) were using uses a stereo send summed with a dual phase inverted send, which works, but apparently causes issues when there isn’t information on both channels. I dunno, I haven’t fully wrapped my brain around it.
Hopefully this solves the hard panning problem, though, and lets us all get back to working on MBC 14
Actually my contribution for MBC is finished, I’m already mixing.
I just think that maybe I could add some more background stuff. Let’s see…
Thanks for the modification of my template, it’s much appreciated! It looks clean and the split works great. Panning is still an issue. In the end it’s quite the same result as before, only the sound while panning differs a little bit. I think I’ll use mid/side processing only for specific instruments. So I have one last modification to do…
Yes, and I have to think about the method gainer inverse R, mono, gainer inverse R and why this works, too.
Glad my template has inspired you to create a new template. Now it’s proven that a person who wants everything to be as simple as possible can inspire someone who’s working as a sound scientist and who’s researching in his laboratory all day long.
At first sight your template is a mess with all those groups, but it’s very logical and actually well built. You did some preparatory work so you don’t need to add that much tracks and effects while composing, and seemingly you want to maximize everything to the max (there’s a maximizer in every track). And it’s “live act ready”. Do you always use what you’re calling “chain verb”? That’s a reverb with a “sidechain effect”, right? What does the convolver do? I’ve never used a convolver, but as far as I know it’s another kind of reverb and/or delay, right? I’ve also noticed that you’re using the “bus compressor” only, just like I use the “compressor” only. So I’m curious. Why do you prefer the “bus compressor”? The bus compressor cannot be used as a limiter if necessary. Have you checked the waves after compression? Is the bus compressor “better” than the “compressor”? Or is there no specific reason? And why do you have 4 bass tracks? Is “Bass 1” the main bass and Bass 2, 3 and 4 are for layering?
I just did some small adjustments on my template: TNT template.xrns (13.2 KB)
I will temporarily go with this template for now until I find a better solution for the mid/side processing stuff. I don’t mid/side process the whole drum bus and instrument bus anymore, instead I send the signal only from specific instruments (the most important basic stuff) to the mid and the side. And I used your doofer instead of the chain I used before. Even though I still don’t understand why Gainer inverse R-Stereo Expander mono-Gainer inverse R can do the split, too… What about the left channel? Anyway, I prefer to put one device (doofer) into the chain instead of five just like I did before, because it’s cleaner and less work. Speaking of doofers, I now know more about it. I don’t think I’ll need them quite often, but it’s good to know how this works and maybe one day I have to create my own doofer stuff. I would like to have a device which detects volume and limits the volume if it’s too loud, similar like an auto EQ.
haha, yeah, although I’m rarely using it to boost, just to limit/tame peaks
I usually use the chain verb (reverb with the wet signal ducked by the dry - so that transients and body are dry and tails are wet) for cohesion in the percussion section (not kick and bass, however), sending my snares, claps, hihats, cymbals, and sometimes auxiliary percs to it to create a sense of space. usually fairly subtle, except maybe on the snare/clap. Convolvers are awesome, magical creatures that multiply audio signals - usually people use them for reverbs and delays, but there are all kinds of interesting, exotic effects that you can use them for, depending on the impulse loaded. It can be really fun to make your own impulses using unusual material to create dramatic ambiences and transformations of the original material.
I have a “compressor” on every instrument track, and mostly just use the bus compressor on groups. It’s nice to have the ability to soften the knee for more transparent compression on busses, and I don’t rely on the bus compressor to tame peaks… maximizers for me, lol
because basses are awesome I definitely don’t always use all four, in fact most tracks have just one or two, but I generally like to keep each instrument on a separate track and dial in individual eq and compression, etc. since bass is such an important part of most of the music I make, I like to have as much control here as i can, hence, lots of bass tracks
the left channel info is in the difference between the two channels, along with the right. think “mono” or “mid” is what’s identical between the two channels, while “sides” is what’s different. subtract the identical (by inverting one of the channels) and you’re left with the difference
Yes, indeed, and well camouflaged. Compressor on every track, Bus Compressor on every group track. Sounds like a plan.
I had to think about this for several times until I thought that I got it. And I still think about it. Nice math.
Nice job! I would have built it the same way I think, probably with some slight differences. Works well, I just have to make some more tests. What I’m unsure about: What does “q>>wide” do? It doesn’t seem to affect anything.
Edit:
Me too! That’s the only way to go when you want to have better options in terms of mixing. So these bass tracks are intended for more instrument basses and not for layering. Yes, bass is nice and important.
Your template looks like “@slujr light”. Interesting, you’re mostly using Hydra and Tape Delay, two devices I’ve never used. Do you consider “M/S” to be the bus receiving the signals from those tracks you want to process mid/side?
No one benefits from taking knowledge to the grave, but everyone benefits from better mixes and better music.
Yes, I do. This is the method you stopped using, right?
Not surprising! I would be remiss to not tip the hat to him, his videos on Youtube have given me countless tips and workflow ideas. On youtube I’m Big Nasty J.
I do most of my processing and effects layering in the instrument FX section and then also usually go crazy in the instrument modulation section assigning independent lfo banks and the hydras to instrument macros for (somewhat controlled) randomization and or automated control (via the automatron and automasher tools or else in the FX command column).
I love the Glitch2 vst but actually that lead me to discovering the repeater device which I use with an LFO randomly activating and deactivating it.
Yes, but I used this bus only temporarily and in a slightly different way. M/S was my third bus next to the drum bus and the instrument bus. Basically I used M/S as a layer. I kept the signals from the drum bus and instrument bus and mixed a smaller amount of M/S in. Mid/Side processing also has got a downside, and that’s panning, see above. That’s why I kept the original signal as the “main signal” and used M/S as a layer. For the same reason I now prefer to treat only specific instruments with mid/side processing, only the “main stuff” (like the centered drums except kick or pads and strings) to be exact.
Yes, you work differently than me. I had to check what’s going on first.
Just like my mixes. I think I won’t be satisfied until I’ve achieved a mixing quality like Röyksopp. And probably this will never happen, because I will remain an amateur aka music creation hobbyist forever, and time is short.
I just have noticed panning issues with this setup, just like mid/side. Obviously I missed something, but I think that I got it now. The missing link is hard panning left and right of rear left and rear right (at the end of the chain), just like this: TNT template.xrns (13.3 KB)
Now I’m looking for a way to combine rear bus and mid/side. This would be ideal.
Why not simply include free, crossplatform vsts where Renoise is lacking? For example melda or voxengo stuff…
Also keep in mind that summing tracks into a send might introduce disadvantages in multicore processing. At least I remember similar statements by Taktik.
That’s what I usually do all the time.
Any suggestions for a compressor featuring dual mono mode? Apart from the pricey stuff (150-300 €) I just have found Klanghelm DC8C and Klanghelm MJUC. And I think Lindell 7X-500 could do that via “Stereo Link”, too.
If you mean a commercial one, indeed only a few can do dual mono, for example pro-c2 (dont like it because of huge latencies), Melda MDynamics or U-He Presswerk. But I guess you mean budget plugins.
IMHO a really, really good compressor is Toneboosters BusCompressor V3, which now is free. Very underestimated plugin and packed with a ton of features. I think it’s even better than their new plugin TB Compressor V4. Maybe give it a try:
Exactly, I don’t want to spend hundrets of Euros if I can do it natively in Renoise by myself (works fine now, no issues at all) or with a free or a budget compressor. If I would like to spend a lot of money I could also buy the Shadow Hills Mastering Compressor, Vertigo VSC-3 and more. But who spends a lot of money if there are equal free and/or budget options?
Hm, you need to download the whole V3 package (for free) by Tonebusters (contains 23 plugins) to get this compressor. But I will check it out. According to my researches the Klanghelm compressors are the best there is (also in comparison with the pricey ones), and everybody seems to be speechless because of its low price. That’s why I’m thinking… Keep the native solution (see my current template) with RL and RR or use a compressor in dual mono mode on one fx track and drop the second one?
Klanghelm is some kind of secret tip for a long time… Only when I tried it, I couldn’t get out of it the sound I wanted, but maybe you have more luck. Can you report your experiences?
Here is another free one with dual mono, also continued:
Will do if I buy it. I would buy the DC8C, because the highly praised MJUC is a FET compressor and I already own a very good FET compressor. But I will check your suggestion first, Kotelnikov seems to be quite good. It’s very transparent, I like that. A rear bus compressor has to be as much transparent as possible. And I also like the layout of Kotelnikov. The term “Stereo Sensitivity” is misleading, but according to my researches this is nothing more than “Stereo Link”, so in fact it can be “stereo”, “dual mono” and everything in between.
Another compressor that seems to be one of the best there is, is the Unisum Mastering Compressor. If I would like to spend a lot of money for a compressor, this would probably be the one I would buy.
