Using Digi's Dyn/EQ3 in critical situations?

[Chris Coleman]

So - is anyone using Digi's new EQ and Dynamics suite of plug-ins in critical situations?

I hadn't really used Dynamics3 until I needed a transparent compressor for light dynamics control of saxophone in a jazz mix recently. Only 2dB or so of compression, but pretty nice. I also like the EQ3 - but neither are first-call processors yet. I've got Waves, URS, PSP, and everything in MP4.

[Andre Knecht]

Aren’t all situations critical? I mean, would you knowingly use the wrong tools for the job? If it works on something, do it. Sometimes life is simple. Or am I missing something in your post? (Yeah, that must be it.)

PS: Your signature could also be an appropriate response.

[trakbytes]

Well, I did try the Digi Dynamics III as a +12 broadcast limiter, and it did NOT contain my mix as expected. So, I would consider this a critical situation, and I will stick with Waves L1 for this function.

Chris, do your Waves automation parameters work with Dynamics III installed? Mine disappeared until I removed Dynamics III from the plug-in list, and then everything came back to normal. Pity.

Bob

[jeremyroberts]

Andre said:
Aren’t all situations critical?

LOL! 2nd time in a few days that this subject surfaced...

My mentor once beat me up for dragging along "non-essential" elements in a mix. What is that keyboard doing if it isn't meant to be heard? Why are there woodwinds in the track if you're going to undermix them... why write the part if it isn't important?

He would pound into my head, "If the element is not important to the mix, why is it there?"

SO -- with that logic, if the element is important, why not make it sound good? If the eq/comp/plug/audio path is not great, make it great... and your mix will be better for it.

</soapbox>

[John McDaniel]

My mentor once beat me up for dragging along "non-essential" elements in a mix...
Why are there woodwinds in the track if you're going to undermix them...
why write the part if it isn't important?

He would pound into my head, "If the element is not important to the mix, why is it there?"

A composer's best friend is an eraser; buy a big one and use it early and often.

Paring down to essentials is always the hardest thing to do.

j mcd

[Seeee]

LOL. the guy posts a decent enough question and you bust his balls over insignificant elements in the mix. LOL.

let me clarify for him.. sometimes there are elements in the mix that we dont give a [bleep] whether it is processed with a 64bit data path, a 2 bit datapath, with the original EQI, or the pultec, or URS, etc.

a cow bell for instance. who gives a [bleep]. the toms? who gives a [bleep]. I use the worst mics I can (on purpose) and rely on overheads for the tone. that doesnt neccesarily mean i dont want to process the tracks with somethin.

[John McDaniel]

LOL. the guy posts a decent enough question and you bust his balls over insignificant elements in the mix. LOL.

You reply to me, perhaps by default rather than making the effort to scroll upward.

If you ARE replying to me, I'm not busting anyone's balls, I'm replying to Jeremy.

Jeez, first with the wiretapping; now with the tangent police.

j

[jeremyroberts]

a cow bell for instance. who gives a [bleep]. the toms? who gives a [bleep]. I use the worst mics I can (on purpose) and rely on overheads for the tone. that doesnt neccesarily mean i dont want to process the tracks with somethin.

then it doesn't matter - and the question is moot - if that's how you feel...

would you use a tool that sucks?

I have no problem using the EQ3 on anything - even though other EQs may have a different/better sound. EQ3 will never suck...

John - sorry you got caught in the crossfire.