Exciters

Link

New member
ok, there are all these exciters on the market out there. Can anybody help me out here, I know there's a BBE maximiser, the Aphex exciter and the behringer ultramizer, and probably a shitload more!!! I'm in the market for one at the moment. Just wondering if there is anybody out there that can help me out on this one.
Thanx!!!
 
Hmmmmm...

Exciters are very overrated and tend to do more harm then good in most applications.

I am betting that you are looking to use it either on a dull sounding vocal, or a dull sounding mix.

On the vocal, try a better mic. In particular, the AT4033 and the 979 Audio 998 are very "bright" sounding mics.

For a mix, well, you would just need to mix with more high end....:)

Bad cable = duller sound. Purchase good cables.

Oh yeah, crappy mic preamps tend to sound dull too....

Yup, just get all new gear.....:)

Ed
 
The Behringer Ultramizer Exciter was OK. The rest of the Ultramizer sucked bigtime, though. Probably the best one still is the original Aphex. It's also one of the few that actually generates new overtones, instead of just applying dynamic filtering.

But otherwise sonusman is right. It's better if you can get by without one.
 
Ed's right on all counts except one... (but he had a smiley there so I know he was kidding!) :)

For a mix, well, you would just need to mix with more high end....

But in case someone doesn't understand the implications of this.... (we can't have people EQ'ing needlessly, can we???) ;)

You can't add high end by EQ to something that wasn't there in the first place... it's far better to get your tracks recorded properly (with the sound you want - including brightness) than to "add" a high-freq EQ boost to the whole track on mixdown for "brightness" and "air". Those elements come from the tracks and balance in the mix, *not* an EQ knob!!

(Just thought I'd point that out for the sake of the budding engineers out there!!!) :)

Bruce Valeriani
Blue Bear Sound
 
For the Record(sic)

I object to any insinuations real or implied that BBE Sonic Maximizers can or should be lumped in with any generalized condemnations of the category of gear known loosely as "Exciters." When used properly and with savoir faire (not to mention know how),BBE helps sounds,has no additives,and does no harm to the environment.It is different and can be a useful tool to enhance even "correctly" recorded audio,as well as improving clarity in live mixing situations.Why,it can even make operators of tubby,flabby bass guitar amps rekindle the fires of sonic passion and regain bandmate approval.
 
bvaleria?

"You can't add high end by EQ to something that wasn't there in the first place... it's far better to get your tracks recorded properly (with the sound you want - including brightness) than to "add" a high-freq EQ boost to the whole track on mixdown for "brightness" and "air". Those elements come from the tracks and balance in the mix, *not* an EQ knob!! "

You mean Shania Twain actually sounds like that??? :confused:
 
I have the BBE 462, but I never use it for recording. It DOES, however, really lend a hand when we are playing outside in a big environment and I want something 'extra' in our sound. Really helps the sound to fill out and be more defined.
 
John Sayers said:
bvaleria?

"You can't add high end by EQ to something that wasn't there in the first place... it's far better to get your tracks recorded properly (with the sound you want - including brightness) than to "add" a high-freq EQ boost to the whole track on mixdown for "brightness" and "air". Those elements come from the tracks and balance in the mix, *not* an EQ knob!! "

You mean Shania Twain actually sounds like that??? :confused:

Yes!!! :)

Actually looking back at what I wrote - it wasn't too clear... I simply meant if you have a dull or muddy track (or mix!) - boosting highs with EQ doesn't really add clarity... you're simply de-emphasizing the muddiness by over-emphasizing the high-end - doesn't make for a very balanced sound.... the way to really fix it is to get the sound right as it's being recorded... high-frequency EQ boost *WILL NOT* add high-frequencies that weren't there to begin with, neither will an exciter...

Obviously, in real life - you still have to fix that track or mix and sometimes re-cutting bits is not an option, but it'll always be a patch job relative to having the original tracks done right the first time!!!

:)

Bruce Valeriani
Blue Bear Sound

PS Didn't you know Shania has a 1/3 octave shelf EQ centered at 12KHz built right in to her vocal cords.... kinda like active pickups in a guitar!!! ;)
 
Yeah, I knew that - she told me herself, actually. But what I want to know is this: supposing you track right and get the mix okay. Does an exciter:

a) change the sound in a way that is only a matter of taste?

b) change the sound in a way that aims to fit in with what loads of major studios are doing these days?
 
If the tracks are right and the mix is right, you wouldn't NEED the exciter... every tracks would have it's space and the mix would sound balanced and "right"...

If you do NEED the exciter, then you could argue that the mix or track wasn't right in the first place... geddit?? :)

In the end, though - it really is a matter of taste. You're the engineer and as such you're supposed to make it sound "right", whatever "right" means in the context of the music genre, style that you're dealing with... If everything you record or mix requires the use of an exciter, I'd say there may be a problem in the monitoring environment or system, or lack of ear-training in translating your monitor mixes to other systems.

Use any processing/effects/EQ you want, but before you touch them knobs... make sure it's recorded properly first... then you'll find yourself reaching for those "special" knobs and boxes a lot less often! :)

Bruce Valeriani
Blue Bear Sound
 
Back
Top