Transient Designer ?

SPL basically invented transient shaping with their hardware unit...so for me, their Transient Designer Plus plugin version is still the easiest and least damaging to use with its very basic layout and control design...but there are others.
What's great about TD Plus is the simplicity of function design, but always great results.
Also, don't think of Attack and Sustain as two opposing, either/or choices. In a "Pultec-ish" way, you can add both attack and sustain or reduce both or use just one at a time. I like to "turn the knobs" and tryout a variety of settings rather than make assumption about what I want to do with the attack and sustain knobs.

Here's a transient designer plugin roundup article.

https://sonicscoop.com/2017/02/02/ultimate-transient-shaping-plugin-roundup/

Those are good observations. There's something to be said for the push-pull aspect of some of these units.

The SPL TD is good at what its does and in its time it was the best. Technology is leaving this behind though. The SPL is SOOOOOO limited compared to the Waves Smack attack, the Izotope TD, and even the Melda TD that as demand for TDs continue to increase that SPL is headed for a lot of pro engineers unused plugins folder.

I don't give a shit what SPL and PluginAlliance do, but UAD needs to hybrid their version of that thing into a v3.0 of that plugin that lets you toggle between it working in classic mode, but also gives you expanded control more elements of that TD.
 
The SPL is SOOOOOO limited compared to the Waves Smack attack, the Izotope TD, and even the Melda TD that as demand for TDs continue to increase that SPL is headed for a lot of pro engineers unused plugins folder.

Therein lies the continuing beauty of the SPL TD...its so-called "limitation" is what makes it a joy to use. :)
I'm not sure who's tossing it in their unused plugins folder...but I'll reach for it without hesitation.

I find it interesting how for many, technology forces its use, and feeds an increasing demand for its evolution. There's a constant need by many DAW users for more evolved and involved tools...as though music production is very dependent on them.

I just don't have that much need to surgically manipulate transients in every which way in order to find something that sounds good.
Maybe if you're doing sound design or electronic/techno/synth stuff, that kind surgical, endless manipulation is needed...but I much more prefer tools that you can quickly/easily dial in without having to drill through too many options...and I find that it's the over-ambitious tools that often end up in my unused plugins folder, rather than the stuff like SPL TD, among others.
There's also the question one has to ask...if something needs an endless amount of manipulation...is it a limitation of a tool that's the problem, or the thing that needs that kind of manipulation?

I particularly can't stand anything from Izotope...you couldn't give it to me for free to use.


Just talking in general here...not aimed at anyone in particular.
 
Last edited:
Therein lies the continuing beauty of the SPL TD...its so-called "limitation" is what makes it a joy to use. :)

I'm not sure who's tossing it in their unused plugins folder...but I'll reach for it without hesitation.

I find it interesting how for many, technology forces its use, and feeds an increasing demand for its evolution. There's a constant need by many DAW users for more evolved and involved tools...as though music production is very dependent on them.

This has to do with the overall direction of how mixes are changing and evolving as evidenced over the last five or six years. A 2018 mix sounds NOTHING like what was going on in 2010 or 2012. Around 2008-2012 there was a noticable difference in brightness wars. Now a more advanced use of TD's, saturation, and imaging is becoming prominent in the sound people are after. You may not care about that and wish to have no part of it. Thats fine for you. For others, staying in step with the expectations of the trends of the industry is important. As mix engineers push the limits of new techniques and tactics, the need for tools to evolve with the trends in a workflow capacity increases accordingly. Therefore the music is not depending on it but the mix is.

I just don't have that much need to surgically manipulate transients in every which way in order to find something that sounds good.
Maybe if you're doing sound design or electronic/techno/synth stuff, that kind surgical, endless manipulation is needed...but I much more prefer tools that you can quickly/easily dial in without having to drill through too many options...

There is nothing specific to electronic/techno/synth stuff here. These changes in the mixing world are happening at all levels from country, to musical theater, to folk music, to church music to movie scores. There's style specific about this. The more advanced TDs such as the Waves one are still easy to dial in, but the base level of control over the slew rates and envelopes makes it far more versatile. So yes, 2 knobs is convenient. Hell, there are times I use the waves One Knobbers, as gimmicky as they are. But there is a clear tradeoff in versatility vs simplicity.

There's also the question one has to ask...if something needs an endless amount of manipulation...is it a limitation of a tool that's the problem, or the thing that needs that kind of manipulation?

If it needs more manipulation than a 2 knob SPL module can deliver, then the problem is the tool. So simply use another plugin. Weather the source ought or ought not require x amount of manipulation is pretty irrelevant to the job you're expected to perform as a professional mix engineer when batch of audio files are handed to you.
 
Last edited:
This has to do with the overall direction of how mixes are changing and evolving as evidenced over the last five or six years. A 2018 mix sounds NOTHING like what was going on in 2010 or 2012. Around 2008-2012 there was a noticable difference in brightness wars. Now a more advanced use of TD's, saturation, and imaging is becoming prominent in the sound people are after.

Mmm...I don't agree at all.
Maybe in some genres...but I'm also hearing a substantial swing away from that, back to more "retro" flavors, and a return to more analog gear. I don't mean to imply any of the analog VS digital nonsense...just that many people are seeing/hearing that as the way to "new" sounds, rather than digging deeper into more technology for the solution.
There's a big push in that "retro" flavor with many Indie/Alt bands...but on the opposite end, the mainstream Pop, Metal, R&B, Hip-Hop and Rap are still stuck in the same technologically driven approach to making music.
I guess it depends on which way each of us choose to go...though for me, the whole "retro" thing isn't really *retro*, it's the sounds I've always loved, even when I use the technology. :)

I also don't see that "staying in step" with some established expectations as an interesting way to move forward. I know that in some facets of the music industry that's what drives things, and why it is...but there's the other side, where stepping away from the expectations is what usually brings in the new sounds/trends for others to follow.

Everything old is new again...
 
Mmm...I don't agree at all.
Maybe in some genres...but I'm also hearing a substantial swing away from that, back to more "retro" flavors, and a return to more analog gear.

Are you talking about video games?? That is about the only audio related industry I can think of where there is ANY interest in a retro style audio. No one I know of in music is hiring mixing engineers to intentionally make their records sound like a dated 90's or early 2000's throwback.
...but on the opposite end, the mainstream Pop, Metal, R&B, Hip-Hop and Rap are still stuck in the same technologically driven approach to making music.
That's because it continues to sell.

And before anyone goes off on a rant about how music doesn't sell anymore, consider the billion dollar plus cashflows we see on our shareholder reports from audio released licensing agreements brokered by companies like Disney and Activision. All who are more than happy to continue to capitalize on said 'technologically driven approach to making music'.

I also don't see that "staying in step" with some established expectations as an interesting way to move forward. I know that in some facets of the music industry that's what drives things, and why it is...but there's the other side, where stepping away from the expectations is what usually brings in the new sounds/trends for others to follow.

Everything old is new again...

I personally never gave a flying ass fuck about which way is forward and which way is backwards as long as either direction paid the bills. If it moves you toward a deposit at the bank its plenty forward enough for me. The reason I see staying in step with the industry as essential is for two reasons. First, the investment companies that write your paycheck for audio projects are very intune with whats going on around them. Second, they could give two shits about your opinions on what is or isn't artistic, and have no use stick-in-the-mud people who won't conform to the rest of industries standards. At the end of the day its your own choice weather you want to get paid or not.
 
Are you talking about video games?? That is about the only audio related industry I can think of where there is ANY interest in a retro style audio. No one I know of in music is hiring mixing engineers to intentionally make their records sound like a dated 90's or early 2000's throwback.

:laughings:

Is that what "retro" means to you? You can't see past the '90s?


I personally never gave a flying ass fuck about which way is forward and which way is backwards as long as either direction paid the bills. If it moves you toward a deposit at the bank its plenty forward enough for me. The reason I see staying in step with the industry as essential is for two reasons. First, the investment companies that write your paycheck for audio projects are very intune with whats going on around them. Second, they could give two shits about your opinions on what is or isn't artistic, and have no use stick-in-the-mud people who won't conform to the rest of industries standards. At the end of the day its your own choice weather you want to get paid or not.

"who won't conform to the rest of the industries standards" ... :facepalm:

So you think everyone is out there just "conforming" so they can get paid?
That's why so much of the cookie cutter music sounds so fucked up today.

I don't much give two shits about anyone's opinion who has such a mercenary and unimaginative perspective on creativity and artistic pursuits.
 
Well then back it up another 10 or 20 years. How far back do u wanna go? 80s? 70s? There are elements unique to 80s sounds in modern music but the overall mixes are still far more processed, brighter, louder, cleaner, and more compressed. Any modern ...meaning today right now...commercial mix in mainstream film, broadcast, or game audio is going to reflect these evolutions in our mix process and market changes.

The flaw in your reasoning on the second part is first that you assume there is supposed to be artistic merit to this, and second appear to assume those artistic standards should conform to yours. I suspend judgement on how imaginative anything is. No one cares. It sells or doesn't sell. That is the only reality of this business.
 
The over-processed, brighter, louder and more compressed sound is getting worn out. There are current, modern bands who are turning away from that.
The fact that the "mainstream" is like a large tanker, that takes a long time to turn and change direction, doesn't mean there's no one trying to or that there's a reason not to try...unless you just want to stick to some so-called "standard".
The "mainstream" is ultimately driven by change, not by toeing the line, but it's usually done be a few, while everyone else waits and then follows along.

I don't assume anything needs to conform to my views...and I couldn't give I damn. You're the one with the somewhat angry and defiant attitude here going on about a need to conform and follow standards. I don't really need to make money off of music and recording, which is probably why I don't have to conform.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you don't see any artistic merit in the work you do...only an assembly line paycheck, and I would like to know what that even is, because if you're really in the mainstream music industry, you would not be hanging out on a home rec audio forum talking about a paycheck.
 
I don't assume anything needs to conform to my views...and I couldn't give I damn. You're the one with the somewhat angry and defiant attitude here going on about a need to conform and follow standards. I don't really need to make money off of music and recording, which is probably why I don't have to conform.

You're reading way too much into that. I'm not angry about anything. I have made no statement about anyone needing to conform about anything. The only thing I made a statement about is what it takes to keep getting paid in this line of work. Something I know a good deal more than most people about.
 
Well...maybe I read to much into it, but there seemed to be a tone of anger in your comments about not having any use for people who won't conform to some industry standard to keep the money coming in.

Who gets to decide when that "standard" changes to something new, something different, if everyone just sticks to one same thing in order to get paid?
You want to remove all aspects of artistic creativity...yet industry standards are usually born not from a need to get paid...but by artistic change and evolution or retro-revolution. Then the guys who only look for the payout... bottle it and mass produce it and turn it into your "standard"...but it doesn't last.

AFA what you know that you need to do to get a paycheck, that's your choice, but if there's no artistic value in it, IMO, you might as well be punching out washers if the money is equally good ...but don't sell it like the whole music world has to follow that line of thinking in order to be current or relevant.
You're basically saying only music that sells well and follows some "standard" is relevant, and we all know that's not the case.

There are thousands of people on sites like this, on YouTube, on Soundcloud, in the local bars and clubs, recording and playing music...and none of them are really "making money". At most, they make a few bucks to cover expenses, but for the majority, it's all a labor of love, for the sake of the music, the creativity and the art.
If I had to gauge my own involvement based entirely on some bottom line financial return...I would have quit a long time ago, and I'm sure so would have many others. That's why I always kept my day job and my music interests separate.
Doing jingles and corporate cheese or gigging dance tunes in margaritaville just so I can say I'm making money in the music biz...never much appealed to me. I would rather punch washers for money, and stay free to play and record without the burden of conforming.

You're wanting to remove creative interest, and make the focus about financial needs, but I know for a fact that there are many who don't approach music and audio recording that way...but since you say you know a great deal more than most people about getting paid, maybe you can share it with the membership.
I'm sure some here want to just get paid.
 
Just to clear the air...
I don't disagree with you that to really make money in the music biz...you may have to do a lot of things that are forced on you, things you may not even agree with or be happy about deep down, but you must conform to...and that is what it is, we all make our choices.

I just don't see that as "THE" driving force for how music *must* be made and recorded...it only dictates what someone may have to do to ride the current wave, whatever it is...but every wave fades out at some point. So someone also has to be doing something different on the sidelines that will then stir up another wave.

I don't fault anyone for wanting or needing to get paid...I just don't accept that we all have to "conform" from an artist music/recording perspective because there are some people who need to get paid. Those are two different things, IMO.
IOW...some of the best music has come from artists who never gave a fuck about making money, they just wanted to make music. It was the people who needed to get paid who turned it into a "business"...a "standard" for others to then follow.

I've had many opportunities and moments where I thought about doing recording "for money". I certainly have the studio, and I can half-ass my way around the gear as well as most...but the thing that always stopped me, was the reality that I would end up probably doing a LOT of stuff I really didn't like if I wanted to get paid regularly and/or try to live off it to some degree.
So I always stopped myself from going down that path...but I still entertain the idea of trying to do some sort of "selective" projects that appeal to me...but that shit would never cover all the bills.

Anyway...there was no intention to get into some kind of argument here...we were talking about Transient Designer, and somehow segued into this art VS money discussion. :)
 
Well...maybe I read to much into it, but there seemed to be a tone of anger in your comments about not having any use for people who won't conform to some industry standard to keep the money coming in.

What? Wow. My apologies if it came across like that.

...but don't sell it like the whole music world has to follow that line of thinking in order to be current or relevant.
You're basically saying only music that sells well and follows some "standard" is relevant, and we all know that's not the case.
That wasn't what I was saying at all. Let me try again. I did not insist music must follow a standard. I said MIXING engineers that wish to present themselves as offering a service step with whatever the film/broadcast/game audio standard is any given time must remain in tune with said standard.

...thousands of people...recording and playing music...and none of them are really "making money". ...it's all a labor of love, for the sake of the music, the creativity and the art.
Now I see what the hell pissed you off. I'm not knocking, belittling, attacking, or degrading this. I'm pretty sure we were talking about 2 different things.

You're wanting to remove creative interest, and make the focus about financial needs, but I know for a fact that there are many who don't approach music and audio recording that way...but since you say you know a great deal more than most people about getting paid, maybe you can share it with the membership.
I'm sure some here want to just get paid.

Removing my own creative interest is the only god damn way I can keep from shooting myself in the head from frustration or murdering my own clients for the aggravation they can cause me at times. Look, when you can't fight a system you know is broken you have 2 options. You either get really fucking pissed at the world over something beyond your power to change, or you suspend judgement and just let it be a job at times.

I respectfully *and again respectfully have a different view on this. I allow the art of mixing to be a craft more than it is an art. To be a technical trade more than it is a form of creativity. Someone else is the artist. That's their job. Mine is to finish the project that they imagine, dream up, and labor over.
 
The flaw in your reasoning is that you don't see any artistic merit in the work you do...only an assembly line paycheck, and I would like to know what that even is, because if you're really in the mainstream music industry, you would not be hanging out on a home rec audio forum talking about a paycheck.

I understand that you wrote this when you were mad. Ok.

But now that we cleared the air, there are plenty of very successful engineers who have contributed to online communities. I wouldn't put my name anywhere on the level of Bob Olson, Eric Sarafin, Jacquire King, George Massenburg, or in the video game audio scene Brian Schmidt...but all of them maintain a presence (or did at one time) in forums. I happened to catch a question from a game audio thread by a guy here (nintendoeats)... I don't come by here often, but when I do, if I can add some random meaningful shit into a discussion I attempt it from time to time. All I'm saying is don't write anyone off simply because they have an account on a home studio forum.
 
I'm pretty sure we were talking about 2 different things.

Yeah...that's what I also said in my last post.
Doing something a certain way because you have to in order to get paid is one thing...the artistic approach to doing that same thing is another.

WRT today's "sound"...I was simply saying that there are current artists who are stepping away from that over-processed, bright, very compressed sound.
AFA the guys who have to please some exec at a record company who has specific expectations...I don't necessarily see that as something that has to force the hands of the artists...that they have to absolutely must follow that, but I'm sure some have to because they are not driving the bus, and maybe some producer is.

Now...you can argue with them that if they don't follow that, the execs won't like their new sound...whatever...but I just don't think that we are all now endlessly locked into that over-processed kind of sound. Not everyone is still looking for that. It might not yet be a new "wave"...but I do hear a growing trend back to the more "open" and less processed sound that was more common in the past before studio production became so heavily technology driven.
That said...I just heard today how the gated reverb snare sound of the '80s is making a comeback too. :eek:
I actually hear quite many flavors in new production sounds these days, pulling from a variety of music "decades" from the past, along with the more recent, over-processed, bright flavor, but it's different from artist to artists and genre to genre. I'm not hearing so much of that "one sound" thing anymore.

OK...I understand now why you say you need to remove your creative interest...but I guess I don't get how that is the same thing as feeling a need to conform to something. I mean...if artists want to go in a totally different direction, do you debate that to make them aware they should follow some "standard"?
I'm sure many are looking for you to make their stuff sound like __________...but I would find it hard to believe that everyone is saying they want the same haircut, or that you are saying they should all have the same haircut.

Mixing as a craft still has an artistic impact...so if a certain sound is imposed, creative interest isn't necessarily removed from the process.
Mind you...I have the luxury of not paying attention to trends, because I'm mostly working on my own stuff...and I never think in terms of "What's the current sound?" so that I can adjust my approach to meet that goal...though I have to admit, I have slightly brightened up some tones, but not because of a need to be current, I just noticed that I was doing too much of the dark flavors, which I've always been partial to.
 
Back
Top