makeup vs output

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's probably it! Right on.

So to recap...

The "makeup gain" is permanent? Then you can adjust the blend of dry wet with the dry knob. Then output is the accumulative total of your makeup gain and dry/wet?

So, first is makeup. Then blend, if you want. Then the total of it all with output.. Is that right?
 
This is the pic that I was looking at:

TDR Feedback Compressor | Tokyo Dawn Records

On this one, I would *ass*ume that the make-up gain would be the output level for the compressed signal, and the Dry Mix Output would be the output level for the uncompressed signal. Or maybe the dry mix is just a percentage, where all the way to the left of the dial is 0% dry signal and all the way to the right is 100% dry.

Oh, and there's also this handy user manual that explains it all :D
http://www.tokyodawn.net/labs/TDR Feedback Compressor - Manual.pdf?645f4a

So let's say that you put this as an insert on your stereo drum bus (although I don't think this plugin is stereo, but lets pretend it is). You could put some really aggressive compression on it (fast-ish attack, fastest release, 8:1 ratio, threshold set to peak at 8-12 dB of gain reduction). That'd sound pretty squashed on its own, and the transients would be flattened by the fast-ish attack. But then you could turn the wet/dry mix so that the squashed signal is riding just underneath the dry signal. So you hear the transients and "pop" of the original, but the sustain of everything would be emphasized by the squashed signal, creating a kind of thickening effect.
 
Yeah but....that's not it. Haha. Sorry...it's TDR Feedback Compressor II.

That one is a little diff. There's a make up knob just like your pic, then a dry mix knob in dbs, then an output level option. So 3 settings.
 
Oh, I see. I missed the "II". :D

But I think all the same stuff applies. But with the 2nd version, you can set your wet/dry mix, then adjust the volume as a whole. So you don't have to remix your compressed and uncompressed signals just to make the whole thing louder. That's how I see it, at least.
 
In ReaComp, the makeup gain always gives me a major volume boost--louder than the track with the plugin disengaged. So I wind up having to dial down the output gain to compensate. However, I do use it to boost the level of the track, vocals especially.
 
This sort of thing was so much easier when you would start in the analog realm. Because everyone would start on reasonably simple equipment that only did one thing. Each piece of equipment would have to be plugged into the next, making signal flow obvious.

Now, with computer daws,stand alones and plugins, you don't see the routing, or that how anything works. Also, everyone has access to plugins with very clever features that are not "standard" features on that sort of thing (like this post). So the newbs don't have any context as to what normal features on a device are.

I've noticed a lot of questions from people confused because they are using some plugin that does a bunch of cool, yet non-standard, stuff. Then they try to apply info they picked up about standard stuff and just get confused.
 
Farview said:
...they are using some plugin that does a bunch of cool, yet non-standard, stuff.
Click to expand...

I've never believed something should be done a certain way because it always has been. That isn't any excuse for it to be "more right" or proper. Technology advances. Resources are more abundant to a larger variety of people. Things change and, as far as technological advances, they are almost always for the better.

I work at a law firm (well, today is my last day here) but I am also an RN. The way simple things in hospitals were done 30 years ago, hell, even 10 years ago, is much different today. Those things are different because science and technology allows for safety, infection-control, and recognition of disease/symptoms to help patients even more than they could in the past. There are some healthcare workers who resist change in the workplace simply because "that's the way we've always done it" - blood draws, hygiene, medication administration, etc.

And this same idea applies to music, movie, and art production, in my opinion. Things change but they only change because there is a demand for it, or evidence supporting its use. No one is adding features to compressors to complicate anyone. These things are added because there is a benefit to them and some are asking for it.

I haven't been mixing my music for long at all; about 2 years, I believe. But I'm often surprised at how many people here are resistant to change and evolution. "The good old days" of music, the good ol days of mixing, the good ol days of this and that. Change is important not only in music, but in our general lives and to our selves.

Think about it - the people before you say the same things you say. "things were better/easier x years ago". And the people before them say the same things, and so on and so on. You can be someone who knocks the present/future, or be someone who realizes its value and goes with it.

That said, I like you Farview. :) you've helped me quite a bit recently. Not really aimed at you, just got my mind going with that.
 
Farview said:
This sort of thing was so much easier when you would start in the analog realm.
Click to expand...


I agree.

The guys who made the transitions from tape and all analog studio setups (and who didn't freak out over the digital technologies)... :D
...they brought with them the whole signal flow and gain staging sensibility, and understood the hardware gear functionality, which is a great foundation to have even when working with digital...and usually, those people use digital from that analog mindset...whereas the total newbs who only know DAWs/plugs...they tend to be all over the map, though I don't think it's all necessarily their fault, because as you said, the DAW/plug code writers often design from an "anything goes" perspective, rather than hold to more standard analog design perspectives.

It's cool that some audio software can go well beyond in features/options than what comparable analog hardware could...but that could also make it confusing for newbs who never really dug into signal flow, gain staging and all that hardware stuff.
 
I'm not resistant to change an evolution. I'm saying that there is no obvious starting point anymore. It used to be that you would start with a standard setup, mainly due to monetary constraints, and build your foundation of knowlege. Most pieces of equipment did one thing, so the routing was obvious, since you had to patch it with cables. Gain structure was obvious because it was easy to see which piece of equipment was getting overloaded in the chain.

As you moved on, the equipment you used would get higher up the food chain. You would be introduced to new features after you had a foundation of what the normal features do.

Now, anyone can get their hands on the biggest, most convoluted plugin that has 15 extra controls that are not used 99.99% of the time. Someone without a foundation can easily be confused, overwhelmed, or worse, come to conclusions about a process based on the goofiness example of that sort of processor.

That's what I'm on about. I use all these goofy things too, because they are useful. I just think it would be easier for people to learn from the beginning.
 
I do see what you're saying. That is a bit different, yes. I need to give that some thought before I reply to it. But look at telephones today... how simple were they back in, say, 1975? Rather easy. Today, my mother couldn't even figure out how to turn on a cell phone. But the kids, well they can. They have been smashed with technology for years now and the younger ones are more easily able to figure out new gadgets and whatnot.
 
Farview said:
I'm not resistant to change an evolution. I'm saying that there is no obvious starting point anymore. It used to be that you would start with a standard setup, mainly due to monetary constraints, and build your foundation of knowlege. Most pieces of equipment did one thing, so the routing was obvious, since you had to patch it with cables. Gain structure was obvious because it was easy to see which piece of equipment was getting overloaded in the chain.

As you moved on, the equipment you used would get higher up the food chain. You would be introduced to new features after you had a foundation of what the normal features do.

Now, anyone can get their hands on the biggest, most convoluted plugin that has 15 extra controls that are not used 99.99% of the time. Someone without a foundation can easily be confused, overwhelmed, or worse, come to conclusions about a process based on the goofiness example of that sort of processor.

That's what I'm on about. I use all these goofy things too, because they are useful. I just think it would be easier for people to learn from the beginning.
Click to expand...

This x 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
 
andrushkiwt said:
I do see what you're saying. That is a bit different, yes. I need to give that some thought before I reply to it. But look at telephones today... how simple were they back in, say, 1975? Rather easy. Today, my mother couldn't even figure out how to turn on a cell phone. But the kids, well they can. They have been smashed with technology for years now and the younger ones are more easily able to figure out new gadgets and whatnot.
Click to expand...

The things....with audio...much of what was true 60 years ago...is still true today....so it's not just about being gadget savvy...it about audio recording foundations, and many newbs don't have that, and they have a hard time with it, because they dive right into the deep end of the pool.
Sure, the kids today are more comfortable with computers and software...but that comfort doesn't provide any audio recording foundation.

It's very much like car racing.
Few drivers start with an F1 car or and Indy car.
Most learn the basics first, on smaller, slower tracks, with simpler cars...and then they move up a level.
Home recording digital technology immediately puts everyone in an F1 racer.
 
Exactly. It isn't about being tech savy.

For example, with a compressor. A standard compressor will have Threshold, ratio, attack, release and make-up gain. You can google any of those controls in relation to a compressor and find all sorts of info on them.

If the first compressor you see has an extra 15 controls, most with ambiguous or cutesy names, you will have a hard time finding out any info on them because that plugin is the only thing in the world with a control called that.

Like in the case of this thread: Why would a compressor have both makeup gain and an output control? The question confused a bunch of people with decades of experience with compressors, because the answer is that a compressor shouldn't. After you told us which plugin you were looking at, it was quickly determined that the output was to adjust the gain after the mix control, which is not a standard feature on a compressor.

I would actually argue that the compressor in the plugin doesn't have both makeup gain and output. The output control is on the feature that allows you to do parallel compression, which is taking the place of a mixer bus and aux send.

If you had done parallel compression on a mixer (DAW or hardware) using a bus, you would understand that the feature in that plugin was actually a separate process and the reason for the output gain would be more apparent.
 
Farview said:
If you had done parallel compression on a mixer (DAW or hardware) using a bus, you would understand that the feature in that plugin was actually a separate process and the reason for the output gain would be more apparent.
Click to expand...

well i think Tad is the first one who figured that out.

What I'm saying is that the "standard" is changing. The new standard is what we have now. Just like when you started with analog, the people who recorded before you didn't have the devices, settings, and controls that you had then. You can rationalize it however you want, but it's still the same thing. The standard changes.
 
andrushkiwt said:
well i think Tad is the first one who figured that out.

What I'm saying is that the "standard" is changing. The new standard is what we have now. Just like when you started with analog, the people who recorded before you didn't have the devices, settings, and controls that you had then. You can rationalize it however you want, but it's still the same thing. The standard changes.
Click to expand...

Dude, there are a lot of old farts patrolling these waters. Learn what you can from them but don't try to teach 'em nothin'. They don't give a shit about your new fangled ways of thinkin'. Everything was better when there was only 1 compressor and 68 dB signal to noise ratio is all anybody ever needs. I mean c'mon, your plugin doesn't even have a transformer so how can it be any good?

:eatpopcorn:
 
It's not an issue of new school vs old school. It's simply a matter of plug-ins confusing n00bs because they have no actual foundation to build on. Plugs, sims, and samples have all but killed any need to learn basic fundamental recording/mixing practices. When you don't know what you don't know, it's easy to dismiss "old school" as being outdated or unnecessary, when really, the old school aren't the ones failing to understand basic stuff.
 
Greg_L said:
It's not an issue of new school vs old school. It's simply a matter of plug-ins confusing n00bs because they have no actual foundation to build on. Plugs, sims, and samples have all but killed any need to learn basic fundamental recording/mixing practices. When you don't know what you don't know, it's easy to dismiss "old school" as being outdated or unnecessary, when really, the old school aren't the ones failing to understand basic stuff.
Click to expand...

Just yanking your collective chains, man. There is a lot of wistful longing for simpler times around here. You were a noob once too. Well, maybe not you.:)
 
Actually, the issue is about the different functions of output gain and makeup gain on a compressor VST. But let no opportunity to posture go to waste.
 
cafehonda said:
Just yanking your collective chains, man. There is a lot of wistful longing for simpler times around here. You were a noob once too. Well, maybe not you.:)
Click to expand...

I was a noob with analog gear, and then a n00b with digital. But when I went to digital, I'd already had years of fucking around old school, so the transition was mostly painless. My biggest hurdles were just getting interfaces and DAWs to work. I'm not computer savvy. RAMs and buffers, sample rates and bits, blah. Using the actual software and plug-ins was nothing though because I already had those fundamentals and background.

But I also got dirty and actually tried things. I do the work, still.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top