"people have been mixing and mastering for about 70 years now" yet 70 years ago music was very simple and electronic music almost didn't exist.
there are people out there who do advanced things with sound, hundreds of tracks, shaping transients in delta, having an inverse approach starting with transients and then body, all kinds of spatial processing, moprhing seamlessly between different types of synthesis, sculpting new sounds with physical modelling, all things which require very precise tools to control, there is a 1.4 MHz limiter for a reason, same with companies which specialize in different processing approaches
a big price for a small niche, yes, but who buys it most probably has the money and is not a beginner

 

1 - That's why I quoted "70 years ago" AND "last year", because nothing comprised in this time period ever needed "Bloom" to happen.
2 - There are countless similar tools in the market, most of the times people buy this or that plugin not because they need it but because they like it (and that's fine!)
3 - They asked to be talked outta it, I'm just making a very convincing point to help a brother save some pennies.

 

Wavesfactory Equalizer has similar idea. €99. Can be found on sister site.

 

huh?

 

I think it is a bit underwhelming. I only watched the first overview video that the Op posted, but it is just not that impressive. Nothing that you can't fix, with the tools that are already available I think. Soothe is a great plugin, but this one is just not worth it in my opinion. The difference on the guitar track is not big enough for me to justify paying 200 Euros for it and I don't like the sound of the bass guitar after bloom. The drum example is somehow more convincing, but still, I don't know if I want or need to pay 200 Euros. Rather not. And the colors are questionable to say the least.

 

Last edited: Mar 14, 2024

Among all the possible auto equalizers, you have to choose one because two or more cannot be used simultaneously. Alternative use is also possible, but one question arises here: which plugin is more objective? This is not about liking, but about optimal tonal balance, which is related to the laws of acoustics. Certainly, I try every new such product because there is always a possibility to make something better than existing software. So far, in my opinion, Smart EQ4 is the best, and I'm sticking with it until I'm sure that something better has been designed. Although until the advent of real-time AI, I don't see any significant improvement that could happen within the existing DSP approach.

 

I suppose he's talking of 44.1kHz SR x 32OS = 1.411MHz. Well, in this case we already have a 5.644MHz clipper...

 

I hope R2R give them a dose of humility. I see how disgusting and arrogant these Oeksound people are as a company, and I regret having bought Soothe. I don't even use it that much anymore. I've found Smooth Operator from Baby Audio does a better job 90% of the time, and it cost a fraction of the price. AND it doesn't use freaking ilok.

 

I like their apparent approach to pricing. This is what it costs, and your options are to buy it or not buy it.

Charge what the market will bear. Too high a price and no-on will buy it. Too low, and they are the ones leaving money on the table. No gimmicks, no "98.7% off today" sales prices, no "loyalty" pricing in any direction at all. Time to fish, or time to cut bait.

If you want to really think about pricing of some tool, you should know what $ per hour you think your work should bill out at. Are you a $20 per hour person or a $200 an hour studio rate. So at 200 bucks, will this thing save you 10 hours of work if you buy it for $200? It should be relatively obvious to you wether or not it will pay for itself, just lose you money, or even have a return on your investment. Maybe if you resell it, it will retain some or most, of its original sales price.

Better than PA-style pricing. I think their employee who prices their plugins uses some kind of psychotropic drugs.

 

I totally respect your opinion, but I don't see it that way. If things like "objective", "optimal tonal balance" and "laws of acoustics" were that easy to define, there would not be any need to involve humans in mixing/mastering processes.

In my opinion it is almost the other way around ... it is all about liking, music (and most of all other things) is highly subjective. It all comes down to subjective perception. At least in my constructivist-like world view.

Another aspect I see quite different is the tonal balance thingy. Even if the tonal balance of a track might be "optimal", what matters is the context. Maybe your kick drum track sounds thin as hell and, well, not optimal balanced. Not really a problem, if you get the sub frequencies somewhere else.

 

I assume you haven't had much experience with classical music or jazz, or with handling acoustic sources in general. In these domains, personal preference or taste is not the primary consideration; fidelity to the original sound sources is essential. Your attitude is common among individuals aspiring to be comprehensive authors, seeking alignment with their personal preferences even in the physical parameters of sound. While experimenting with sound colors might be enjoyable or personally gratifying for the author, and perhaps hold some personal significance, why should it impose on the listener? The term 'optimal balance' lacks clarity when its interpretation varies from person to person.
If you stick to your point of view, in fact you don't really need auto EQ.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 17, 2024

I don't know what your assumtion has to do with my post. Nor with the topic in general. Since I don't see any indication you are interested in knowing where I come from musically speaking, I don't see there is any point in writing it down. On the other hand I'm a little bit curious if there are any hints or discourses in the domains you mentioned (classical music and jazz), discussing some specific auto eq like plugins as some sort of savior regarding the search for the objective optimal tonal balance. I would not be suprised if the topics here were room acoustics or mic choice/placements.

Sounds to me like some sort of definition what jazz is about. Experimenting with sound colors. It is about musicians expressing themselves, often times in somehow inbalanced ways.

Why do you think so? I read my post again and I am not able to see any indication for me being an enemy of auto equing. In fact I use them on a regular basis. Surprise, surprise, most of the time to balance things out. To my liking. I'm not sure if that makes myself incompatible to certain domains in musical contexts, following your assumtion. Maybe I just don't get the point you are making.

 

Musicians rarely experiment with the sound colors of their acoustic instruments (and that's hard to do), but they do so, albeit infrequently, in jazz rather than classical music. This practice differs significantly from experimenting with sound color in the production stages, where you alter the sound colors chosen and implemented by musicians themselves.
Your stance seems contradictory. AutoEQ operates on the principle of applying natural sound energy distribution curves – that is, an objective principle that expresses natural (physical) laws and processes. Your expressed attitude regarding the crucial role of individual taste is not compatible with it.

 

I dug big into my pocket and bought Soothe 2 on sale. That and a multiband EQ/comp and I can make do. I'm not spending 200 bucks on a plugin anymore.

Sidenote: The new de-esser from Black Salt Audio for $29 bucks seems to be a steal. That's what I'm going to try.

 

can we change the GUI color ? Or a we doomed to pink?

 

Ah gotcha. So with Melda's 1024x oversampling we should be able to clip light itself