Upward Dynamic Processor

There’s no Upward Dynamic Processor in Wavelab 9
Any news about it?
It really misses
Most of the creative mastering work is done with upward processors…

Since when?

Most mastering is done with EQ and Limiting/Compression. I don’t think I have ever used an “upward processor”

So you didn’t ever use a Dynamic processor with Ratio smaller than 1 ?
So you didn’t ever compress the signal boosting signals below the threshold instead of lowering signal above threshold
So you didn’t ever use Neodynium or RND4 from Roger Nichols?
So you didn’t ever use Waves C1 with a 0,96:1 ratio above the threshold to upward expand the signal and reduce intersample peaks?
Well…have a good mastering

I you use clip processing, you can use parallel compression with any “normal” compressor plugin. See:
2016-11-20_14-08-19.png

Philppe parallel compression is about routing,
upward compression is about amplification, with Ratio smaller than 1, of the input signal.
The things are completely different. I can make parallel upward compression or parallel downward compression or parallel saturation or eq, just connecting the processor on a send bus.
What you cannot do without a parallel routing is, for example, compress the dynamic range amplifying the signal below the threshold. To do this you just need a Ratio smaller than 1 eg, 0,8:1 wich means that the output signal will be greater than the input one. You need also a processor with allows to switch the analisys area below or above the threshold.
A classical simple example is Waves C1.

parallel compression is about routing

Yes, this achieves the same goal as upward compression. That is, to reduce the dynamic range by boosting the low signals rather than reducing the upper signals.
This being said, with parallel compression, all has to be done with the ears, you can’t reason with dB values and knobs. Moreover, a dedicated upward compressor is likely to give you more control on the process. But I maintain that parallel compression achieves, more or less, the same thing.

Let’s take a caricatural example:

  1. input signal is made of 2 peaks: 0 dB and -40 dB
  2. apply a standard compressor: you obtain -6 dB and -40 dB
  3. then you mix the input signal with #2, you obtain: 0 dB and -34 dB (this mixing is what happens when you select the option in the clip routine I told you about, previously).

Some interesting articles:
http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/parallel-compression
http://howtomakeelectronicmusic.com/how-to-use-maximus-for-parallel-compression

Philippe

In the article you submit there is actually the admission that parallel compression is a workaround to emulate a True upward compression. Upward compression doesn’t squash the peaks and upward expansion can even enhance the peaks. I’d prefer to have a total control over the signal process. And what about upward expansion? How do you achieve it with parallel processing?

In the article you submit there is actually the admission that parallel compression is a workaround to emulate a True upward compression. Upward compression doesn’t squash the peaks and upward expansion can even enhance the peaks.

Right. This is why I said “achieves, more or less, the same thing” :slight_smile:
This being said, I am pretty sure that parallel compression might be a good alternative (sometimes better?), especially because you can use any compressor with it. Moreover, with the WaveLab implementation, you can modulate in time the parallel mixing with an envelope.

We are here in sound design processes that can only be arbitrated by experimenting and comparing solutions.

I’d prefer to have a total control over the signal process.

I understand that.

And what about upward expansion? How do you achieve it with parallel processing?

Same way. Upward expansion is about increasing the high signals and keep the low signal as is. Therefore, by inserting a classical expander with the WaveLab parallel mode, you get “more or less” the same result.

Let’s take another a caricatural example:

  1. input signal is made of 2 peaks: -6 dB and -40 dB
  2. apply a standard expander: you obtain -6 dB and -46dB
  3. then you mix the input signal with #2, you obtain: 0 dB and -40 dB

Philippe

Thanks I will.

I predict this topic is going to go nowhere fast. A newbie arguing with PG.

Nice!

Philippe, Yes the workaround works but, you said it, it’s Just differenti points of view. If waves, and other brands make processors with different parameters it’probably because people like me likes a differenti way of working. Anyway, this has been a nice technical conversation Indeed.

Thomas, my last two masterings were the two last CD and DVD of Ennio Morricone. I’ve been chief sound engineer in RAI radiotelevisione Italiana for 26 years,now I’m professor in elettroacustics at Università di Torvergata in Rome and at Conservatorio Licinio Refice, Frosinone. I use Wavelab since version 1.0. My last masterclass on audio Mastering was at University of Groninghen, Netherland. I’m not tipically a newbie. I can understand you can or not be agree with my argomentazions but don’t judge me and my work, please

Whoever you are and whatever you do, it’s rather condescending to tell other mastering engineers in a mastering forum how they should do their job. Especially if you just appear as a newbie in a forum. We are not in your mastering masterclass, thank you.

Most mastering is done with EQ and Limiting/Compression. I don’t think I have ever used an “upward processor”

Arjan
Much earlier my last reply somebody else told me how Mastering should be done.
I Just post a request for a new feature, nothing else.
Then if somebody call me a newbie, It is my right to respond.

Very nice credentials. Great resume. I won’t post my resume but suffice to say I have been in Pro Audio for over 40 years and have been a loyal WL user since version 1.6. You have your way of working an I have mine. The way you came across in your post was as a newbie. Maybe we can both learn from each other. I too have taught mastering to over 45 interns here in my studio and have learned that sometimes there has to be some give and take in the learning process. Lets just agree to learn from each other and start afresh.

I apologize to you, Thomas.
Probably the great passion for our work, sometimes drives us on wrong paths. Nice to meet you. I’m sure we will still “fight” here.
Surely we will both learn from each other.
:smiley:

my last two masterings were the two last CD and DVD of Ennio Morricone

Nice, Ennio Morricone was my favorite composer when I was a teenager. A milestone on my path to the audio world, hence to WaveLab :slight_smile:

Philippe

No problem, we are all in this together and sharing information is a great feature of this web board. :smiley:

I too have wished for dynamics ratios which go below 1 and a curve response similar to that offered by the C1 plug-in. You can set up a similar curve to the C1 using the Melda MDynamic plug-in but it’s not so easy, and there may be some other plug-ins that can do something similar. Mid level upward compression can be useful for mastering.

The lack of C1-style upward compression/expansion is common to all Steinberg dynamics plug-ins including the new Master rig. The Master rig compressor has no soft knee or range control.

I’m quite surprised that very few dynamics plug-ins from any developer offer similar features to C1 and I think Steinberg are missing out on a potentially highly valued feature for those who need this kind of dynamic control. It would probably be easy enough to implement ratios which go below 1 which would give upward expansion, and perhaps a range control to give a similar curve to the C1.

Probably another subject, but I’d also suggest that the curve displays of most dynamics plug-ins are severely simplistic and limited, including those by Steinberg. I much prefer the curve displays in Sonnox Oxford Dynamics and SSL X-Comp, for example, where the whole display curve is raised or lowered according to the makeup gain (and the upper part of the graph goes beyond 0dB). This makes things more intuitive.