frequency splitting

  • Thread starter Thread starter dobro
  • Start date Start date
Okay, I'm right. I said:

"I find, however, that usually when there's this mutual incomprehension thing going on between me and someone else that it's my incomprehension that's the bigger problem."

And I just checked some things out and now I think you're right. I think the splitter is just an analysis tool. Fuck. I thought I had my hands on an 8-band compressor for a while there. You know, I don't mind being mistaken (it happens all the time), but I'm gutted that I don't have the tool I thought I had.

Back to parametric EQ. Nah, I'm moving over to that scientific filter you showed me. :D Thanks for the input - I'd have wallowed in darkness othewise.
 
Damn!!!

Ok all of this talk about the Cool Edit Pro Frequency Splitter is making my head spin, lol. I have a question real quick... what about the people who use Waves Plugins for their means of EQ and Cubase to record and mix? How can I get the same technique used in the CEP2, using my Waves Platinum Bundle, Izotope Ozone, or Waves Mastering Bundle? Is it possible? If so, which plugins and how? I think that if you can do the same thing using Waves Plugins or Ozone Izotope, it may sound better.
 
dobro said:
I thought I had my hands on an 8-band compressor for a while there.
Click to expand...

Just because it isn't black magic doesn't mean you can't use it as a multiband compressor.

Or, there is also another way to do multiband compression, if you want to. If you apply "Dynamics Processing" to a track in Multitrack view, and then go look at its properties, there is a "Band Limiting" tab that you can play with.
 
jrosenstein said:
Just because it isn't black magic doesn't mean you can't use it as a multiband compressor.

Or, there is also another way to do multiband compression, if you want to. If you apply "Dynamics Processing" to a track in Multitrack view, and then go look at its properties, there is a "Band Limiting" tab that you can play with.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The reason I think the frequency splitter can be a totally kick ass multi-band compressor is that you can isolate the individual bands and hear what the compression is doing to JUST that band (solo it), and you really can't do the same thing by making 3 or 4 passes at the mix with the CEP compressor and limiting the bands. Obviously, you can get the same results, either way, but I think it's useful to (for example) compress the low end, solo it, see if it's pumping or breathing or if it's even doing any good, lol. Plus, you can compare comparable bands of your tune with commercial mixes.

RAYDIO - If you're using WAVES, the way you could do something similar would be to run the mix through the C-4 four times, for four seperate bands, and bring the output gain down on the other 3 channels to as low as they'll go. For example, do the low band first, but bring the other 3 bands all the way down to the floor, so that all you end up with (pretty much) is the compressed low end. Then, go back to your original file, do the same thing for the low mid band, and drop the lows, the mids, and the highs down to the floor, etc. At least this way, you could get the files in a form where you can see them and compress/EQ them seperately, if you want. If you know what you're doing, obviously, the C4 is fabulous and fast, AND you can solo each band to hear it before you compress...The freq. splitter is a way around NOT having c4 and/or isotope and/or all that other Kazaa'd stuff you talked about, lmao

:D :D (don't be pissed; I'm kidding)
 
Badda-bump!!

I have just spent an hour exploring splitting frequencies with the Frequency Band Splitter, and I noticed in the very low freek regions (20-100hz approx), a little crackle from each speaker on reviewing ONE track at a time, soloed. When I solo two tracks TOGETHER, it disappears. Like....uh....what is this crackling about? Thanks in advance, ---Lee
 
Don't know if anyone minds if I reopen this pup.

Being new to 2.0 (I still like 1.2 better or know it better) I just opened the splitter up for the first time. Certainly not a new tool, this has been done in various ways for variuos reasons for years, but a cool tool.

Here's a quick and simple little experiment I did. Split a mix into five bands, mix them back together with no processing/changes at all, invert the re-combined mix, mixed that with the original.


If the splittling/recombing is accurate, this should result in complete cancellation and I should get a mix of 0db.

Still with me?...What I got was pretty close. The result was -90db of broadband noise. I think it was dither noise though if anybody is interested I can poke around some more. The only thing a little disturbing was that there were two peaks in the noise- one down at 40 and one up at 20k.
 
Yeah, one of the very clever guys over on the Syntrillium board ran the same experiment with pretty much identical results. So it seems that the splitter is pretty accurate, and that's good.

Here's the thing I tried, and I'm still not sure what it means. I split a track into a number of bands, the lowest being 0-90 Hz. I then muted both the original, unsplit track and the lowest 0-90 Hz band, and then made a mixdown of all the other bands. Having done that, I ran the splitter on the new mixdown, expecting it to be completely empty of everything 0-90Hz, but there was still stuff going on in that band. What does that mean?

Another question I've asked over at Syntrillium is how steep the filter is on the splitter. They haven't replied, so I'm thinking they don't want to reply. So, I'm thinking the splitter must pretty much be a series of filters already found in 2.1 - maybe the Butterworth or something like that - and not anything particularly unique.

Other people have been trawling for input from Synt on the splitter as well, and so far no joy. Why would Synt keep mum about this thing?
 
You know them better than me, but I'd guess they are busy with many other concerns and it may not be common knowledge at the office how that process was coded or how it works. It would be interesting to know. They've always been really helpful on the phone.

Filtering can only be done a couple of ways and the little I understand about is that it is very difficult to do without artifacts or "residue"

ie I just took a mix, made a copy, graphic eq'ed the copy (-10 db at 62 hz, -10db at 8 k) then did the converse (10 db up at same freqs with same eq), should back to ground zero right? I then inverted this twice eq'ed copy and mixed it with it's clone parent. Should be zero, right?

The resulting wav wasn't just dust hovering around -124 db. It hit -18 db on what was left of the kick pulse of my mix. This isn't because the CEP graphic eq is terrible (not my fav but..) it is just very difficult not to have all kinds of phase related stuff going on.

I wonder how much your experiment says about the subharmonic content of sounds....but I really don't know what the hell I'm talking about any more.

side note I gotta get into ver 2! It's here on my protools/internet computer and I rarely fire it up. It's got a lot of cool features.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top