Quantcast
Mastering The Mix Releases BASSROOM Plugin - Page 26 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Mastering The Mix Releases BASSROOM Plugin
Old 2nd January 2021 | Show parent
  #751
Gear Addict
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ManBand ➡️
Hello Mastering the Mix I just wanted to ask a question about Bass Room. I really love this plugin but i was thinking about running into problems with balancing when you start automating kick and bass volume during a mix. Wouldn't that screw up the perfect sound that Bass Room has found? I was thinking of a work around that could help you control the mix better. You could just add Bass Room presets for individual channels as well. You could make something like "sub bass" and "live bass" or "high bass" and also "low kick" and "punch kick". I think that would help to better understand how to apply Bass Room during a mix and have more control.
Hi

When it comes to the targets that Bassroom (and Mixroom) suggest, we take volume into account in the calculation so you'll get the same targets regardless of the volume. With that in mind, the EQ should sound well balanced whether the kick is louder or softer.

I hope this helps!
Old 3rd January 2021
  #752
Gear Addict
 
1ManBand's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Yes that helped. THank you very much!
Old 17th February 2021
  #753
Gear Addict
 
🎧 5 years
Mastering The Mix plugins have been updated with bug fixes and improvements. We recommend everyone to update to these latest plug-in versions.


What's New In This Release?

Mixroom: V1.0.4: Build Feb 12, 2021:

Big Sur + Apple Silicon support optimizations specifically for the new Apple M1 processor.
Improved graphics performance.
Updated authorization error messages with links to fast solutions.
Balanced Master default preset.
Master filter mode as default.
Improvements to the 'smart bands' feature.
Improvements to the heat map.
Bug fixes.

Bassroom: V1.0.6: Build Feb 12, 2021:

Big Sur + Apple Silicon support optimizations specifically for the new Apple M1 processor.
Improved graphics performance.
Updated authorization error messages with links to fast solutions.
Reduced UI height to fit on smaller screens available in settings.
Balanced Master default preset.
Bug fixes.

Reference: V2.0.1: Build Feb 12, 2021:

Big Sur + Apple Silicon support optimizations specifically for the new Apple M1 processor.
Improved graphics performance.
Updated authorization error messages with links to fast solutions.
Reduced UI height to fit on smaller screens. UI height is now adjustable.
An issue where level matching can cause spikes in volume now fixed.
Fixes for looping issues and Cubase/Wavelab compatibility.
Level Line EQ set to 'Match' by default. This means the EQ line you see in the Trinity Display is the exact curve to dial into your EQ to sound like your selected reference track.
Bug fixes.

Animate: V1.1.5: Build Feb 12, 2021:

Big Sur + Apple Silicon support optimizations specifically for the new Apple M1 processor.
Improved graphics performance.
Updated authorization error messages with links to fast solutions.
Threshold engaged to-14dB on Expand. -60dB on Ignite, Punch and Grow to give faster results.

Expose: V1.1.3: Build Feb 13, 2021:

Big Sur + Apple Silicon support optimizations specifically for the new Apple M1 processor.
Improved graphics performance.
Updated authorization error messages with links to fast solutions.
Output settings now save for the next session.
The update is free for all existing customers and they recommend everyone updates to the latest plug-in versions. Mastering The Mix's new global installer is designed to allow you to install or update your chosen products and components in one go.

Download the update here.

For a clean install search for the 'Mastering The Mix Uninstall' in your applications and run the uninstaller before running the new installer. You can select to uninstall individual components or all plugins.

Trial Extensions:

ANIMATE 14-day trial Extension: SUD4-35ZX-NJEZ-RFBD-9HJX-FJFB-WWXT
LEVELS 14-day Extension: TY6R-BEJU-TT7K-J7E4-II2C-649X-V2XT

REFERENCE 14-day Extension: KKAY-FWKV-KTMQ-INDS-XAYC-283Z-IAXT

EXPOSE 14-day Extension: RA9X-54QN-3B59-4XME-GC29-CDNF-5AXT

BASSROOM 14-day trial extension: RS6W-4WCP-9HY2-CKBA-XZUF-N7UR-3IXT
MIXROOM 14-day trial extension: TDRR-7T9N-HJGD-IXRR-KC84-9YDQ-DEXT.
Old 27th February 2021
  #754
Lives for gear
 
Right now I'm juggling 2 instances of BASSROOM to compare which is best.

User request: Would love an A <--> B instance function just like in MIXROOM. Would be so handy.
Old 11th April 2021 | Show parent
  #755
Lives for gear
 
Can you tell us about the 'Balanced Master' default preset in Bassroom? I can't remember when it was added but it's my goto now - as I make ambient-based music and there's no real preset for that. Is it a -4.5db slope, 3db pink noise, or some kind of curve?
Old 11th April 2021 | Show parent
  #756
Lives for gear
 
Well - BASSROOM saved a mix again for me this weekend.

I just COULD NOT get the bass to sit right in a track I was otherwise happy with. (Classic House style)

Funnily enough - set bassroom to ‘classic house’ and moved the sliders maybe 50% of the way to what was suggested - instantly better! Love this thing.

Should my ‘ears be better’ - yes.

Should I be able to ‘just eq it right’ - probably.

Do I care? No. (Well, a little! And I’m practicing every day!)

Bassroom rocks. End of.
Old 11th April 2021 | Show parent
  #757
Lives for gear
 
Ol' Betsey's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianL ➡️
Should my ‘ears be better’ - yes.

Should I be able to ‘just eq it right’ - probably.

Do I care? No. (Well, a little! And I’m practicing every day!)
That's worth a quote in itself!

Right on and keep on keepin' on!

R.
Old 11th April 2021 | Show parent
  #758
Gear Addict
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MogwaiBoy ➡️
Can you tell us about the 'Balanced Master' default preset in Bassroom? I can't remember when it was added but it's my goto now - as I make ambient-based music and there's no real preset for that. Is it a -4.5db slope, 3db pink noise, or some kind of curve?
So good to hear! The balanced master preset is as result of a ton of testing and tweaking. We’ve been really happy to hear that so many users have found it so useful! I’m afraid we don’t give the details of exactly what we’re doing to deliver these targets to protect our IP.
Old 17th April 2021 | Show parent
  #759
Gear Maniac
I just updated from v1.0.0 to v1.0.6 today, and unfortunately, not everything has changed for the better - and some things actually never worked, as it seems.

Backward Compatibility

Quote:
Originally Posted by unr ➡️
It seems like the recent posted full installer installed a Bassroom version, which is not compatible with older projects.
I had the same problem in Cubase 10 - eight months later. Bassroom's plugin state could not be recalled for any of my projects, as the DAW does not recognise the new version as the same plugin.
Unfortunately, I doubt that this issue will be fixed. Most likely, a new version can either be compatible with the original Bassroom versions or with the later versions - but not both (assuming that it's some internal identifier which has changed).
It's really unacceptable for backward compatibility to be completely ignored like this. Successful backward compatibility tests should be part of QA prior to any release in my opinion.

UI Changes

Unfortunately, the new font is not an improvement. Legibility is much worse. For instance, it's really hard to differentiate a "+" from a "-", because the vertical line is hardly visible in the new font. And even the numbers are not as clear. The new font may be more stylish, but form should follow function imo. This is but a minor annoyance though.

Target Estimation Quality

I also wondered if the "new" pre-EQ analysis, which is the new default, is an improvement or not, as I found that it produces different targets from the old version. To determine which method is preferable, I wanted to check whether chaining two Bassroom instances (right after one another) would produce a flatter target in the second instance with or without the pre-EQ option. I looped 6 bars of the chorus section of a song for some time and used the same target preset in both instances, of course, resetting the targets of the second instance after the first had been set to the stabilised targets. To my great surprise, neither analysis method produced an even remotely flat target in the second instance; see the attached table.
So it looks like Bassroom is rather bad at estimating the effects its filters have on the spectral balance - whether in pre-EQ or post-EQ mode. I don't know how MTM come up with their estimates, but my guess is that their method does not appropriately consider all of the interactions.

It's really surprising that the post-EQ method can't reach the desired target, as obviously, the post-EQ analysis should be able to determine that the target has not yet been reached and subsequently correct the target in the respective direction.

I did successfully verify that using the sum of the targets indicated by both instances (and setting it in the first instance) produced a result that is much closer to flat, so it's all just an estimation issue. Machine learning methods, trained on the right data, could probably produce accurate targets, but I see no reason why the post-EQ method should be unable to incrementally improve its target based on the observations.

Concluding Remarks

I always found that Bassroom did a good job of cleaning up the bass balance, but my new findings, especially regarding the target estimation quality, are making me doubt the quality of the product. I will continue to use Bassroom nonetheless, because it does work to clean up the bass. I just hope that MTM can come up with a better target estimation process in a future update.
Attached Thumbnails
Mastering The Mix Releases BASSROOM Plugin-bassroom-two-instances.jpg  
Old 19th April 2021 | Show parent
  #760
Gear Addict
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by opcode81 ➡️
I just updated from v1.0.0 to v1.0.6 today, and unfortunately, not everything has changed for the better - and some things actually never worked, as it seems.

Backward Compatibility



I had the same problem in Cubase 10 - eight months later. Bassroom's plugin state could not be recalled for any of my projects, as the DAW does not recognise the new version as the same plugin.
Unfortunately, I doubt that this issue will be fixed. Most likely, a new version can either be compatible with the original Bassroom versions or with the later versions - but not both (assuming that it's some internal identifier which has changed).
It's really unacceptable for backward compatibility to be completely ignored like this. Successful backward compatibility tests should be part of QA prior to any release in my opinion.

UI Changes

Unfortunately, the new font is not an improvement. Legibility is much worse. For instance, it's really hard to differentiate a "+" from a "-", because the vertical line is hardly visible in the new font. And even the numbers are not as clear. The new font may be more stylish, but form should follow function imo. This is but a minor annoyance though.

Target Estimation Quality

I also wondered if the "new" pre-EQ analysis, which is the new default, is an improvement or not, as I found that it produces different targets from the old version. To determine which method is preferable, I wanted to check whether chaining two Bassroom instances (right after one another) would produce a flatter target in the second instance with or without the pre-EQ option. I looped 6 bars of the chorus section of a song for some time and used the same target preset in both instances, of course, resetting the targets of the second instance after the first had been set to the stabilised targets. To my great surprise, neither analysis method produced an even remotely flat target in the second instance; see the attached table.
So it looks like Bassroom is rather bad at estimating the effects its filters have on the spectral balance - whether in pre-EQ or post-EQ mode. I don't know how MTM come up with their estimates, but my guess is that their method does not appropriately consider all of the interactions.

It's really surprising that the post-EQ method can't reach the desired target, as obviously, the post-EQ analysis should be able to determine that the target has not yet been reached and subsequently correct the target in the respective direction.

I did successfully verify that using the sum of the targets indicated by both instances (and setting it in the first instance) produced a result that is much closer to flat, so it's all just an estimation issue. Machine learning methods, trained on the right data, could probably produce accurate targets, but I see no reason why the post-EQ method should be unable to incrementally improve its target based on the observations.

Concluding Remarks

I always found that Bassroom did a good job of cleaning up the bass balance, but my new findings, especially regarding the target estimation quality, are making me doubt the quality of the product. I will continue to use Bassroom nonetheless, because it does work to clean up the bass. I just hope that MTM can come up with a better target estimation process in a future update.
Hi 😊

On July 12th, 2020, we released an update to BASSROOM (version 1.0.5). We made an essential change to BASSROOM to fix an issue with the input configuration. This, unfortunately, means that Cubase 'thinks' it is a different plugin, even though its unique ID is the same. This is regretful and we tried to find a solution but alas, there was no solution for Cubase. This issue will only affect Windows VST3 Cubase users who installed BASSROOM running version 1.0.4 (those who installed before July 12th, 2020).

There were no font changes in the update. If there is a font issue feel free to reach out to our support here and we’ll take a look: https://masteringthemix.zendesk.com/...b/requests/new

The way we calculate targets for both Mixroom and Bassroom is totally unique and doesn't always perform as some users expect. When testing, you can get repeatable results when you use an altered version of the file you’re working on as the reference. If you don’t use the same song, due to differences in instrumentation and sound choices between a song and the reference there can be tonal balance variations of up to around 1.5dB in most scenarios. The difference is determined by just how different the reference track is from the track you’re working on. This is a characteristic of our algorithm and makes the targets more appropriate for your track as it’s suited specifically for your arrangement and instrumentation.

We would be very skeptical to change the analysis to make it align perfectly to a test. Our measure of success is how it works when people use it to adjust their music, and the overwhelmingly positive feedback regarding this validates its success.

Thanks!
Old 19th April 2021 | Show parent
  #761
Gear Maniac
Thank you very much for the response.
The Cubase issue is unfortunate; I understand that there's little you can do.

As for the font issue, I might take some screenshots later on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MasteringtheMix ➡️
The way we calculate targets for both Mixroom and Bassroom is totally unique and doesn't always perform as some users expect. When testing, you can get repeatable results when you use an altered version of the file you’re working on as the reference. If you don’t use the same song, due to differences in instrumentation and sound choices between a song and the reference there can be tonal balance variations of up to around 1.5dB in most scenarios. The difference is determined by just how different the reference track is from the track you’re working on. This is a characteristic of our algorithm and makes the targets more appropriate for your track as it’s suited specifically for your arrangement and instrumentation.
I don't see how this is related to the issue I described.

I was describing a simple test to check whether Bassroom's targets are correct in the sense that they are consistent with Bassroom's own estimations.
Let me describe my procedure more clearly:
  1. Put two instances of Bassroom on the mixbus (right after one another) and choose the same preset in both ("Alt-Rock Hero" in my case).
  2. Loop a couple of bars from the chorus section of the song and let the targets in the first instance settle. Then set these targets in the first instance.
  3. Reset the targets in the second instance and wait for them to settle.
My expectation was that if the first instance estimates the targets correctly, the second instance's targets should be close to 0 dB.
As the table I attached to my previous post shows, they were not close to 0 at all in my case.

However, there are gain changes I can set in the first instance that will cause the second instance to display 0 dB targets. That target is quite different from the one displayed by the first Bassroom instance.
I thus conclude that Bassroom's target estimation is flawed.

There is a straightforward iterative estimation procedure that should converge to targets that work (i.e. that are consistent in the sense described above). Let C be the function that returns the gain changes (Bassroom targets) that should be applied to a signal/spectrum s. C can be your current estimation technique; we require that function C return zero changes when the signal already has the desired balance.
  1. Perform spectral analysis in order to obtain initial spectrum s
  2. Compute the initial gain change C(s)
  3. Internally apply EQ changes C(s) to input signal and perform spectral analysis of the effected signal in order to obtain s'
  4. Compute additional gain change C(s')
  5. Internally apply EQ changes C(s)+C(s') to input signal and perform spectral analysis of the effected signal in order to obtain s''
  6. Compute additional gain change C(s'')
  7. Internally apply EQ changes C(s)+C(s')+C(s'') to input signal and perform spectral analysis of the effected signal in order to obtain s'''
  8. And so on... The current best target is always the sum.
Note that the EQ changes I refer to are internal to the plugin and have nothing to do with the EQ changes performed by the user. By observing and analysing the signal modified by Bassroom's own estimated targets, we incrementally improve the targets. The iterative method should converge as long as function C proposes changes in the right direction and as long as the user is feeding a consistent signal to the plugin.

It seems like Bassroom is currently computing targets without checking what the effect of actually applying these targets to the input signal will be. By analysing the effects, you can get precise targets and also, for instance, appropriately react to Q changes the user might make.
Old 19th April 2021 | Show parent
  #762
Gear Addict
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by opcode81 ➡️
Thank you very much for the response.
The Cubase issue is unfortunate; I understand that there's little you can do.

As for the font issue, I might take some screenshots later on.



I don't see how this is related to the issue I described.

I was describing a simple test to check whether Bassroom's targets are correct in the sense that they are consistent with Bassroom's own estimations.
Let me describe my procedure more clearly:
  1. Put two instances of Bassroom on the mixbus (right after one another) and choose the same preset in both ("Alt-Rock Hero" in my case).
  2. Loop a couple of bars from the chorus section of the song and let the targets in the first instance settle. Then set these targets in the first instance.
  3. Reset the targets in the second instance and wait for them to settle.
My expectation was that if the first instance estimates the targets correctly, the second instance's targets should be close to 0 dB.
As the table I attached to my previous post shows, they were not close to 0 at all in my case.

However, there are gain changes I can set in the first instance that will cause the second instance to display 0 dB targets. That target is quite different from the one displayed by the first Bassroom instance.
I thus conclude that Bassroom's target estimation is flawed.

There is a straightforward iterative estimation procedure that should converge to targets that work (i.e. that are consistent in the sense described above). Let C be the function that returns the gain changes (Bassroom targets) that should be applied to a signal/spectrum s. C can be your current estimation technique; we require that function C return zero changes when the signal already has the desired balance.
  1. Perform spectral analysis in order to obtain initial spectrum s
  2. Compute the initial gain change C(s)
  3. Internally apply EQ changes C(s) to input signal and perform spectral analysis of the effected signal in order to obtain s'
  4. Compute additional gain change C(s')
  5. Internally apply EQ changes C(s)+C(s') to input signal and perform spectral analysis of the effected signal in order to obtain s''
  6. Compute additional gain change C(s'')
  7. Internally apply EQ changes C(s)+C(s')+C(s'') to input signal and perform spectral analysis of the effected signal in order to obtain s'''
  8. And so on... The current best target is always the sum.
Note that the EQ changes I refer to are internal to the plugin and have nothing to do with the EQ changes performed by the user. By observing and analysing the signal modified by Bassroom's own estimated targets, we incrementally improve the targets. The iterative method should converge as long as function C proposes changes in the right direction and as long as the user is feeding a consistent signal to the plugin.

It seems like Bassroom is currently computing targets without checking what the effect of actually applying these targets to the input signal will be. By analysing the effects, you can get precise targets and also, for instance, appropriately react to Q changes the user might make.
Thank you for this in-depth reply. It's very interesting and I have already shared it with my team.

The iterative process was the approach we used when we first launched it. BASSROOM would analyze the signal and provide the targets, you would then adjust the bands to match the targets. BASSROOM would calculate the effect post EQ and how it related to the target, however, with all the EQ band changes, the overall 'tonal balance' changes, and users felt they were chasing an ever-moving target.

We explored how the calculation worked 'pre-EQ' as we knew this would keep the targets more constant...and we found the sonic results were just excellent; seemingly more appropriate for the music being worked on. We've stuck with that and it's been giving our customers excellent results.

As I understand it, your process is that you have one instance of BASSROOM, then you adjust the gain until the targets of another instance of BASSROOM (instantiated after the instance where you adjust the bands) move to zero. If this is correct then this would be similar to using the 'post EQ' analysis setting. As mentioned, EQ changes lead to a change in the overall tonal balance of the track. The target estimation may seem mathematically flawed in this type of test, but it works so well with the music.

To get the tonal balance adjustments to a point where a subsequent instance of BASSROOM using the same preset would zero out, use the post EQ analysis setting and tweak the parameters until they line up (they'll need to be tweaked and updated a few times).

The iterative estimation procedure that you have outlined could be challenging to implement, take longer to give the targets, and if it's similar to the 'post EQ' analysis, it 'may' not sound as good anyway. Nonetheless, if our conversation around this sparks a new way of analysis that yields even better results, we're excited to explore it. Thanks again for your time and energy put into this.
Old 19th April 2021 | Show parent
  #763
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasteringtheMix ➡️
The iterative process was the approach we used when we first launched it. BASSROOM would analyze the signal and provide the targets, you would then adjust the bands to match the targets. BASSROOM would calculate the effect post EQ and how it related to the target
A key difference between the post-EQ analysis you describe and the method I outlined is that in my method, the user's settings are not considered. Instead, there is a second signal path which internally applies EQ filters with the current best targets in order to analyse what the targets' effects are (i.e. as if the user had set the recommended targets).

Quote:
The iterative estimation procedure that you have outlined could be challenging to implement, take longer to give the targets
It would take longer for the targets to fully stabilise as you need to repeat the analysis multiple times. However, in later iterations, the changes should become smaller and smaller, provided that the input is consistent. Notably, you could even drop the requirement that the input remain consistent by simply recording the input to memory and internally "replaying" it to analyse what the effect of applying new targets to the audio signal would be. In this way, the additional estimation steps could take place in parallel (in separate execution threads), which could save a lot of time, such that it might ultimately not take much longer than a single pass at all.

Quote:
Nonetheless, if our conversation around this sparks a new way of analysis that yields even better results, we're excited to explore it. Thanks again for your time and energy put into this.
Glad to be of assistance. While I don't have any development experience in the audio domain, I do have a lot of experience in parameter estimation in general (I have a PhD in artificial intelligence, but songwriting and mixing are equally passions of mine).
Old 20th April 2021 | Show parent
  #764
unr
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasteringtheMix ➡️
Hi 😊

On July 12th, 2020, we released an update to BASSROOM (version 1.0.5). We made an essential change to BASSROOM to fix an issue with the input configuration. This, unfortunately, means that Cubase 'thinks' it is a different plugin, even though its unique ID is the same. This is regretful and we tried to find a solution but alas, there was no solution for Cubase. This issue will only affect Windows VST3 Cubase users who installed BASSROOM running version 1.0.4 (those who installed before July 12th, 2020).

There were no font changes in the update. If there is a font issue feel free to reach out to our support here and we’ll take a look: https://masteringthemix.zendesk.com/...b/requests/new

Ableton live was also effected by the VST3 incompatibility.

Regarding the bad readability of the font, i reported this here too, quite in the beginning shortly after release of bassroom.
Old 23rd April 2021 | Show parent
  #765
Gear Addict
 
M.Retra's Avatar
Big, fat BASSROOM crash when I attempted to load an audio file for "preset" analysis. A previous audio file was already in place, and the attempt was to load a second one, then delete the first since one cannot delete the previous audio file beforehand. Apparently, the green-region cursor was already in play mode at time of deletion, so this carried over into the second file, and its green-region cursor was also in play mode. No audio was playing nor could I turn it off. About 5 seconds later, Ableton Live hard-crashed to desktop.
Old 23rd April 2021 | Show parent
  #766
Gear Addict
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Retra ➡️
Big, fat BASSROOM crash when I attempted to load an audio file for "preset" analysis. A previous audio file was already in place, and the attempt was to load a second one, then delete the first since one cannot delete the previous audio file beforehand. Apparently, the green-region cursor was already in play mode at time of deletion, so this carried over into the second file, and its green-region cursor was also in play mode. No audio was playing nor could I turn it off. About 5 seconds later, Ableton Live hard-crashed to desktop.
Sorry to hear you ran into this issue.

If you could please reach out via our support form below we’ll take a look and do our best to help the situation.

https://masteringthemix.zendesk.com/...b/requests/new

If you could please include a screenshot of the issue you’re seeing that will help us resolve the issue faster.
Old 23rd April 2021 | Show parent
  #767
Gear Addict
 
M.Retra's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasteringtheMix ➡️
Sorry to hear you ran into this issue.

If you could please reach out via our support form below we’ll take a look and do our best to help the situation.

https://masteringthemix.zendesk.com/...b/requests/new

If you could please include a screenshot of the issue you’re seeing that will help us resolve the issue faster.
FYI, I am currently demoing the product, but yes, if it happens again, then I will try to snap a screenshot, if I can act quick enough.
Old 2nd July 2021
  #768
Lives for gear
 
Bassroom is still an all time great plugin in my workflow. I have found that often times I have 2 instances of Bassroom. One for the verse and one for the chorus that I automate in and out. Maybe a future update could include a 'morph' feature that glides the bands one setting 'A' to 'B'? Similar to the morph capabilities of Nugen's SEQ. That would save some time!
Old 2nd July 2021 | Show parent
  #769
Lives for gear
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JfromRVA ➡️
Bassroom is still an all time great plugin in my workflow. I have found that often times I have 2 instances of Bassroom. One for the verse and one for the chorus that I automate in and out. Maybe a future update could include a 'morph' feature that glides the bands one setting 'A' to 'B'? Similar to the morph capabilities of Nugen's SEQ. That would save some time!
Wow, excellent ideas!

Yeah, when Bassroom works (which is often) it's spooky how good it does.

I would love to see a simple "snap to guides" button that automatically sets the bars to the estimation at exactly that point in time. Otherwise I spend a bit of time chasing the guides up and down and have to replay the section several times, focusing on a couple of bands at a time. Then replay yet again to chase the makeup gain guide.

For an intelligent "auto" plugin, it's pretty hands-on / manual. Minor gripe though
Old 3rd July 2021 | Show parent
  #770
Gear Addict
 
🎧 5 years
Gret comments guys! Sounds like we can integrate some of the Mixroom features here (add smart bands and A/B settings, with automation between the two.
Old 3rd July 2021 | Show parent
  #771
Lives for gear
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasteringtheMix ➡️
Gret comments guys! Sounds like we can integrate some of the Mixroom features here (add smart bands and A/B settings, with automation between the two.
Heck yes!

I make a point of being sceptical everytime I use it but Bassroom continues to prove its trustworthiness. The default 'balanced master' target is spot on for my uses.
Old 4th July 2021 | Show parent
  #772
Gear Addict
 
Andy McGroarty's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasteringtheMix ➡️
Gret comments guys! Sounds like we can integrate some of the Mixroom features here (add smart bands and A/B settings, with automation between the two.
"snap to guides" would be awesome, I'm forever chasing them lol!
Old 15th July 2021 | Show parent
  #773
Lives for gear
 
screentan's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Not sure if this has already been requested but can I make a request for A B snapshots please? At least A & B or even better A B C D like Plugin Alliance do. Cheers
Old 15th July 2021 | Show parent
  #774
Lives for gear
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by screentan ➡️
Not sure if this has already been requested but can I make a request for A B snapshots please? At least A & B or even better A B C D like Plugin Alliance do. Cheers
Mastering the Mix acknowledged a few posts up ^^^^ that this was a good idea - so I can't 100% confirm it's happening but it looks likely
Old 15th July 2021 | Show parent
  #775
Gear Addict
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by screentan ➡️
Not sure if this has already been requested but can I make a request for A B snapshots please? At least A & B or even better A B C D like Plugin Alliance do. Cheers
Hi 😊 Yes, AB will be included in a future update for BASSROOM.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #776
Lives for gear
 
I really don't want to have to rely on an automatic EQ, so I mixed a song without Bassroom. Was happy with the result. Exported a pre-master file and that was that, job done. Then I thought "Hmm... maybe I should just do a little test with Bassroom" - and voila, instant improvement. Bass more controlled (less 20/40hz), but bigger sounding (more 80hz), with the higher bands carving mud out. Matching the volume is night and day, the clarity/weight/depth increase is undeniable.

And this is just the default 'Balanced Master' on a 100% dark ambient track, for which there is no flashy preset available - and it still worked.

I'm amazed at the transparency of the filters in this thing.

Damn, I really don't want to have to rely on an auto EQ but Bassroom delivers again and again.

Looking forward to A/B instancing and snap-to-guide features! Please don't break compatiblity with current version
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #777
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MogwaiBoy ➡️

Damn, I really don't want to have to rely on an auto EQ but Bassroom delivers again and again.
If I may ... then continue with the workflow you used ... can always check what the 'auto-eq' suggest afterwards. If it is better ... then continue to 'learn' the sounds.

That is how we all get better ...
Old 2 weeks ago | Show parent
  #778
Lives for gear
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJHollins ➡️
If I may ... then continue with the workflow you used ... can always check what the 'auto-eq' suggest afterwards. If it is better ... then continue to 'learn' the sounds.

That is how we all get better ...
So true! That's the goal... to get off the crutch and stand on your own two feet. But it's also nice to have something to lean on when you need to
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 67 views: 20922
Avatar for Tonio Ruiz
Tonio Ruiz 8th October 2014
replies: 346 views: 53148
Avatar for MasteringtheMix
MasteringtheMix 19th April 2021
replies: 5506 views: 561652
Avatar for The Press Desk
The Press Desk 22nd April 2021
replies: 0 views: 136
Avatar for TML
TML 9th June 2021
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump