exciters
- Thread starter Apple
- Start date
sonusman
Banned
I have found the best "exciters" are usually well written songs, musicians that are well practiced, instruments that are well tuned, mic placement that captures the sound the way it needs to be, and a mix that doesn't include mega processing!
I have used some exciters on a whole mix before. The downsides were usually much worse than any benefits.
Ed
I have used some exciters on a whole mix before. The downsides were usually much worse than any benefits.
Ed
I couldnt have said it better Ed!
I have an Aphex but never use it anymore. In my opinion they are rarely necessary with todays higher end sofware processing such as Waves. Like the BBE Sonic Maximizer and even Alesis 3630 the Aphex was a fine tool in the late 80s early 90s, but there are so many more quality toos out there today.
If you really want one Im sure dozens could be found on Ebay.
Oh what does it do? Emphasizes certain frequencies over others. Or as some others who quote industry advertisments, "it adds sparkle and shine." And if you have the Big Bottom feature it adds bass.
I have an Aphex but never use it anymore. In my opinion they are rarely necessary with todays higher end sofware processing such as Waves. Like the BBE Sonic Maximizer and even Alesis 3630 the Aphex was a fine tool in the late 80s early 90s, but there are so many more quality toos out there today.
If you really want one Im sure dozens could be found on Ebay.
Oh what does it do? Emphasizes certain frequencies over others. Or as some others who quote industry advertisments, "it adds sparkle and shine." And if you have the Big Bottom feature it adds bass.
Shailat
New member
I cant say its a totaly waste but damm near close.
I use it on ocassions like on synth strings, toms, Piano. But these are rare and few. On those examples for instance I can get a more real sounding string section, god like toms and a cut through piano. It can only be a bit of cream topping on rare ocassions. I use it on a combination with anti phase on the toms and sometimes kick as well but I could live with out it quite well.
I use it on ocassions like on synth strings, toms, Piano. But these are rare and few. On those examples for instance I can get a more real sounding string section, god like toms and a cut through piano. It can only be a bit of cream topping on rare ocassions. I use it on a combination with anti phase on the toms and sometimes kick as well but I could live with out it quite well.
knightfly
GrouchyOldFartOnBatteries
I used to use a BBE 882 for my live rig, the board I had was a 4-bus with 4-band fixed EQ, and sometimes the vocals had a hard time cutting thru the "guitar wall" - patched the 882 into the vocal sub inserts, (1-2) then fed all instruments into sub3-4, so I could raise/lower vox or band with just two faders -
However, even there I just used a tiny amount, when I could hear it it was a little too much.
Don't remember EVER using it in the studio, whenever I felt tempted I would try to find out what I'd done wrong in tracking, and fix it... Steve
However, even there I just used a tiny amount, when I could hear it it was a little too much.
Don't remember EVER using it in the studio, whenever I felt tempted I would try to find out what I'd done wrong in tracking, and fix it... Steve
Jagular
Active member
Well since I’m pretty new at this… 
I have a BBE Sonic Maximizer plug-in I use in CWPA9. I have found when I record my drum, keyboard and bass parts from my Roland XP-50 the sound recorded sounds very dull compared to the actual sound coming out of the keyboard. The BBE seems to be able to make the sound more alive again. Plus I use it a little on my vocals too.
So what would you guys do instead of this. (My signal is going into a Soundblaster – yeah I know – I can’t afford to replace it yet).
Just curious.
P.S. – In case it helps for you to hear my one and only effort on my rig to date and didn’t hear it in the mixing clinic look here
I have a BBE Sonic Maximizer plug-in I use in CWPA9. I have found when I record my drum, keyboard and bass parts from my Roland XP-50 the sound recorded sounds very dull compared to the actual sound coming out of the keyboard. The BBE seems to be able to make the sound more alive again. Plus I use it a little on my vocals too.
So what would you guys do instead of this. (My signal is going into a Soundblaster – yeah I know – I can’t afford to replace it yet).
Just curious.
P.S. – In case it helps for you to hear my one and only effort on my rig to date and didn’t hear it in the mixing clinic look here
Last edited:
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
Jagular said:
Connect the dots my friend.
chessparov
New member
bleyrad's response was quite profound actually.
The "exciting compressor" technique was developed by an engineer at Motown to add sparkle and sizzle to the sound.
If you guys are curious about it, I'll look up the link to let you
check it out firsthand... (unless bleyrad beats me to it!)
I found my little BBE box to be helpful sometimes on the
Tascam 244, a cassette multi-track recorder.
Never felt the need to use it on the other digital formats used,
being non-compressed 16 bit, and minidisc.
Chris
The "exciting compressor" technique was developed by an engineer at Motown to add sparkle and sizzle to the sound.
If you guys are curious about it, I'll look up the link to let you
check it out firsthand... (unless bleyrad beats me to it!)
I found my little BBE box to be helpful sometimes on the
Tascam 244, a cassette multi-track recorder.
Never felt the need to use it on the other digital formats used,
being non-compressed 16 bit, and minidisc.
Chris
I was listening to a mix on a boombox and although the balances were good, it needed a little sparkle. I compress my mixes just a little bit and that compression takes some brightness out. I was considering adding the high end back with an exciter, as opposed to an equalizer. Good discussion here. I would love to get the details of the compressor trick.
Apple said:
Have you seen these?
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73769
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73823
Both threads get into this from different angles.
With the right attack and release settings, you can, with limiting or low-ratio compression, single or multi-band, adjust the preceived brightness and/or 'wetness'.
The difference is you are doinig it with compression instead of gererating and adding harmonics with 'Exciters' (generally
)The 'exciter' compressor, is doing it to a copy of the original and mixing that in with the original. Keeps the original's dynamics in tact, while blending in the processed version.
Wayne
chessparov
New member
Here's how you'll find the article;
Go to www.recordingeq.com
The click on the icon that has "Motown Recording Articles" in it.
After it moves you to a different site click the icon that has
"techniques" in it.
Well worth the effort!
Chris
Go to www.recordingeq.com
The click on the icon that has "Motown Recording Articles" in it.
After it moves you to a different site click the icon that has
"techniques" in it.
Well worth the effort!
Chris
darrin_h2000
Banned
I find them to work well on the Karakoke CDs. I sometimes get a singer that just wants to record themselves and those CDGs sound dull.
After Dolby B on a tape is good too. Ill use them when I want that 70's effect.
After Dolby B on a tape is good too. Ill use them when I want that 70's effect.
for those who asked:
The Motown 1960's Exciting Compressor
With the Motown mix approach there were problems. If you wanted the lyrics to be heard you had to use a lot of compression on the vocal so that the the softer words could still be heard over the higher-level music. In addition you boosted the "presence range" (around 5 kHz) with an equalizer. The only problem with this is that it took the life & natural dynamics out of the vocal.
Lawrence Horn came up with a brilliant idea. He took the vocal and split the signal so that it when to 2 console channels. Before the vocal signal went to the second channel, it went through a compressor. Now he had two channels of the vocal - one compressed and one uncompressed.
On the uncompressed vocal he added very little with the equalizer and he added the reverb. On the compressed channel, he compressed the h**l out of it and added a ton of high-frequency equalization. What he would do is bring up the "natural" channel to full level to get the basic natural sound on the vocal. On the other compressed and equalized channel, he brought this
up just enough to add excitement and presence to the vocal sound.
The result was nothing less than amazing. In the mix the vocal sounded very natural and bright. None of the music ever "stepped on" the vocal and you could hear each and every syllable in the lyrics. The vocal never got lost.
The Motown 1960's Exciting Compressor
With the Motown mix approach there were problems. If you wanted the lyrics to be heard you had to use a lot of compression on the vocal so that the the softer words could still be heard over the higher-level music. In addition you boosted the "presence range" (around 5 kHz) with an equalizer. The only problem with this is that it took the life & natural dynamics out of the vocal.
Lawrence Horn came up with a brilliant idea. He took the vocal and split the signal so that it when to 2 console channels. Before the vocal signal went to the second channel, it went through a compressor. Now he had two channels of the vocal - one compressed and one uncompressed.
On the uncompressed vocal he added very little with the equalizer and he added the reverb. On the compressed channel, he compressed the h**l out of it and added a ton of high-frequency equalization. What he would do is bring up the "natural" channel to full level to get the basic natural sound on the vocal. On the other compressed and equalized channel, he brought this
up just enough to add excitement and presence to the vocal sound.
The result was nothing less than amazing. In the mix the vocal sounded very natural and bright. None of the music ever "stepped on" the vocal and you could hear each and every syllable in the lyrics. The vocal never got lost.
for those who asked (this is a quoted excerpt, but unfortunately I neglected to include the identity of the original source, which I've now forgotten.)
The Motown 1960's Exciting Compressor
With the Motown mix approach there were problems. If you wanted the lyrics to be heard you had to use a lot of compression on the vocal so that the the softer words could still be heard over the higher-level music. In addition you boosted the "presence range" (around 5 kHz) with an equalizer. The only problem with this is that it took the life & natural dynamics out of the vocal.
Lawrence Horn came up with a brilliant idea. He took the vocal and split the signal so that it when to 2 console channels. Before the vocal signal went to the second channel, it went through a compressor. Now he had two channels of the vocal - one compressed and one uncompressed.
On the uncompressed vocal he added very little with the equalizer and he added the reverb. On the compressed channel, he compressed the h**l out of it and added a ton of high-frequency equalization. What he would do is bring up the "natural" channel to full level to get the basic natural sound on the vocal. On the other compressed and equalized channel, he brought this
up just enough to add excitement and presence to the vocal sound.
The result was nothing less than amazing. In the mix the vocal sounded very natural and bright. None of the music ever "stepped on" the vocal and you could hear each and every syllable in the lyrics. The vocal never got lost.
The Motown 1960's Exciting Compressor
With the Motown mix approach there were problems. If you wanted the lyrics to be heard you had to use a lot of compression on the vocal so that the the softer words could still be heard over the higher-level music. In addition you boosted the "presence range" (around 5 kHz) with an equalizer. The only problem with this is that it took the life & natural dynamics out of the vocal.
Lawrence Horn came up with a brilliant idea. He took the vocal and split the signal so that it when to 2 console channels. Before the vocal signal went to the second channel, it went through a compressor. Now he had two channels of the vocal - one compressed and one uncompressed.
On the uncompressed vocal he added very little with the equalizer and he added the reverb. On the compressed channel, he compressed the h**l out of it and added a ton of high-frequency equalization. What he would do is bring up the "natural" channel to full level to get the basic natural sound on the vocal. On the other compressed and equalized channel, he brought this
up just enough to add excitement and presence to the vocal sound.
The result was nothing less than amazing. In the mix the vocal sounded very natural and bright. None of the music ever "stepped on" the vocal and you could hear each and every syllable in the lyrics. The vocal never got lost.