# Gullfoss - How do you find it effective? (Settings, Usage Approach, Things to Avoid)



## ibanez1 (Nov 17, 2022)

For those of you who actually use Gullfoss on nearly project and like it, how do you find it effective to use?

I've seen some back and forth from people who swear by it while others feel like it either flattens the dynamics or brightens the sound too much.

General settings and usage advice are much appreciated.

I want to demo this thing with intent and see if it's worth purchasing during the black friday sale .


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Nov 17, 2022)

If you're an expert engineer/mixer, it may do little to nothing (or make it worse to your ears).

For the rest of us, used conservatively, and leveraging all the available controls as well as the appropriate version (standard, live, or mastering), it can often improve the sound. It's pixie dust, not wizardry. Subtle, not obvious. If using it obviously, it'll be very obvious.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Nov 19, 2022)

I repeat victorleone123's words with even more words... 
Such tools do a job based on built-in measurement algorithms. If the case arises where the music is close to the example the tool was programmed for, it certainly does a good or a very good job. This certainly applies to Gullfoss and other similar tools, such as those offered by iZotope and others for example. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to insert a Gullfoss unit in every audio channel because...

An example: Recently I was trying to master a quiet piece of music, which was therefore not very rich in overtones and actually lacked bass (only cello). I tried to use iZotope's OZONE10-mastering tool. The piece has been analyzed. iZotope chose the "General" routine which was still a good decission.
But then, iZotope OZONE10 increased the bass and of course the treble, installed the stabilizer tool (similar to Gullfoss) which enhanced dynamically the lows and hights again and finally it increased the volume to an unbearable level. The result was completely useless even if all the effects have been applied dynamically more or less. Nevertheless, OZONE10 can "deliver" very good results, when I try to master a Pop Song or Rock Music - specially when the mix is already fine.

What do I mean by that: Not everything always has to be equalized and balanced (my mentioned mastering example above). A good mix is also not characterized by the fact that you always have to hear everything clearly, because in an orchestra most of the instruments are often there to create a soundscape where not every single viola has to be heard.
Using Gullfoss specifically is certainly good. But then you need to know what the tool is able to do and what are not its strengths. Also - for example as a beginner - believing, that "Gullfoss will save all your mixes" will not work.
Beat


----------



## ibanez1 (Nov 19, 2022)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> I repeat victorleone123's words with even more words...
> Such tools do a job based on built-in measurement algorithms. If the case arises where the music is close to the example the tool was programmed for, it certainly does a good or a very good job. This certainly applies to Gullfoss and other similar tools, such as those offered by iZotope and others for example. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to insert a Gullfoss unit in every audio channel because...
> 
> An example: Recently I was trying to master a quiet piece of music, which was therefore not very rich in overtones and actually lacked bass (only cello). I tried to use iZotope's OZONE10-mastering tool. The piece has been analyzed. iZotope chose the "General" routine which was still a good decission.
> ...


Thanks for the detailed explanation. As a beginner, I do have an attraction towards shortcuts and "gooderizers" as I've seen other people call them. Funny you mention ozone as I actually have ozone 10 and I have definitely not used it as much as I should . The part that appealed me about gullfoss was the ability to globally bring clarity and tamper resonance but the more I read, the more I think it it should be used sparingly. Maybe if I get gulfoss, it should be a tool to mostly find problem areas and occasionally add some sheen to the master. Or surgically tame a single instrument in a limited frequency range.


----------



## KEM (Nov 19, 2022)

I use Gullfoss as the first thing on my master and I never have tame or recover over 30%, it does a good job of adding a little bit of air, cleaning up some low mid mud, and tightening up the bass. It’s subtle but it’s a good plugin to have


----------



## ibanez1 (Nov 19, 2022)

KEM said:


> I use Gullfoss as the first thing on my master and I never have tame or recover over 30%, it does a good job of adding a little bit of air, cleaning up some low mid mud, and tightening up the bass. It’s subtle but it’s a good plugin to have


I'm liking the tone of this thread. It's a great tool that does add some more clarity but it doesn't solve all mixing/master problems and isn't a replacement for bringing balance to a composition.

@KEM I feel like between this and god particle, I'm copying your mastering chain. Maybe I'm trusting your recommendations too much after that awesome cover of the dark knight trilogy you shared lol.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Nov 19, 2022)

ibanez1 said:


> I'm liking the tone of this thread. It's a great tool that does add some more clarity but it doesn't solve all mixing/master problems and isn't a replacement for bringing balance to a composition.
> 
> @KEM I feel like between this and god particle, I'm copying your mastering chain. Maybe I'm trusting your recommendations too much after that awesome cover of the dark knight trilogy you shared lol.


Off topic = God Particle: I've read that the widening it applies to some upper or mid bass can be suboptimal. I've never used it, though. If true, it's just another example of don't slap stuff onto your mix without knowing what they do and using some good A/B testing (esp. with something like Gainmatch) to see if it's actually better or just different. Or worse.


----------



## KEM (Nov 19, 2022)

ibanez1 said:


> @KEM I feel like between this and god particle, I'm copying your mastering chain. Maybe I'm trusting your recommendations too much after that awesome cover of the dark knight trilogy you shared lol.



Hey I’ll take it  anyone actually taking my advice to heart makes me happy!!


----------



## Manfred (Nov 19, 2022)

It seems like it is about the ears we have…ugh!


----------



## Gingerbread (Nov 19, 2022)

I use it sparingly, and I personally only use Tame. I never use Recover. Just using Tame will suppress certain muddy frequencies, which will increase clarity and natural brightness just from their not being there. And I keep Tame no more than about 20 or 25.

Of course, I'm not an expert. But this follows advice I've gotten from others here, and it's worked nicely for me.


----------



## PeterN (Nov 20, 2022)

Personally, I have reached a level - in 5 years of mistakes - to understand to add clarity via midsize EQ, multi band compression, EQ cutting mid-lows and saturation (particularly so you boost saturation slightly over 1k). At the same time you have well done gain staging.

With this 5 years of mistakes, there's a certain superiority feeling now, looking down on people who use Gullfoss for clarity. Its pretty much same if you throw in an exciter - and the clarity sounds digital. With 5 years of mistakes, having reached a "novice" level, to me this Gullfoss plugin is a bit of a gimmick for amateurs (hehehe!), but I could be wrong.


----------



## doctoremmet (Nov 20, 2022)

PeterN said:


> Personally, I have reached a level - in 5 years of mistakes - to understand to add clarity via midsize EQ, multi band compression, EQ cutting mid-lows and saturation (particularly so you boost saturation slightly over 1k). At the same time you have well done gain staging.
> 
> With this 5 years of mistakes, there's a certain superiority feeling now, looking down on people who use Gullfoss for clarity. Its pretty much same if you throw in an exciter - and the clarity sounds digital. With 5 years of mistakes, having reached a "novice" level, to me this Gullfoss plugin is a bit of a gimmick for amateurs (hehehe!), but I could be wrong.


Wanna share any of your mixes? Your contribution makes me curious to hear some. I’d like some of that superiority feeling too.


----------



## PeterN (Nov 20, 2022)

@doctoremmet 

Sure

Im uploading shortly. You need to comment after that.


----------



## PeterN (Nov 20, 2022)

doctoremmet said:


> Wanna share any of your mixes? Your contribution makes me curious to hear some. I’d like some of that superiority feeing too.


I think you got a miss shot, but lets hear your comment.


----------



## doctoremmet (Nov 20, 2022)

PeterN said:


> @doctoremmet
> 
> Sure
> 
> Im uploading shortly. You need to comment after that.


Cool, thanks. It may be helpful as I completely suck at mixing. I quite like Kenneth’s mixes (@KEM) but I am often at a loss how to approach my own. I’ll have a listen and will comment. Although my opinion won’t be of much importance to others because it’ll be just another rather subjective noob’s opinion anyway.

But thanks, I appreciate you taking the trouble. Examples are usually very much appreciated by the community!


----------



## PeterN (Nov 20, 2022)

And for the clarification, the "superiority" thing was a joke. Who the F would be boasting about "superiority".... but I can see it can be read wrongly. Its meant to be 76% sarcasm/self irony.

20% nonsense and around 2% false and 2% truth.


----------



## NoamL (Nov 20, 2022)

*GF 'Live'* is fun on individual, poorly recorded instruments. It's part of my toolkit for addressing home recordings.

Here is a little experiment to show why I don't like* GF on the master buss* so much.

I took the ending suite of Star Wars 3 and dissected it into two tracks: one for the loud parts, and the other for quieter interludes.

The quiet track can be compared to the loud one in any Match-EQ software, with un-surprising results:






Even though *both parts are mixed perfectly, *the match EQ still detects a massive difference *between* them.

That difference comes from 3 factors:

1. the _*timbre*_ of instruments is different when they play louder

2. the _*instruments Williams activates* _in his orchestration are different. For example, the piatti and trumpet are omitted from most of the quiet interludes, but have important parts in the loud music.

3. the _*program material*_ is different between soft and loud music. Instruments spread out more in louder music, as you can see by comparing a quiet part of Leia's Theme, to the orchestral climax:







Moreover, if we compare _just the loud excerpts_ to the _total suite, _the match EQ thinks they are very similar. I don't understand why, but I guess the loud music has more "weight per second" that dominates what the EQ algorithm sees.







So that leads to the problem with Gullfoss.

Well-orchestrated traditional music is constantly changing its dynamic level and combination of timbres. But Gullfoss is always targeting the same frequency curve.

GF is very smart. But there are limits: it cannot detect the (Italian) dynamic level of the music, nor detect which collection of instruments are playing. It does not have a built in set of different tonal curves to address different orchestrations.

It just has one "ideal listening balance" curve. This means Gullfoss is probably good on a piece of music that is very consistent timbrally, like a pop song.

But it's got issues addressing orchestral music. So if I commit an act of sacrilege here, and throw* Gullfoss on Shawn Murphy's mix of "Leia's Theme"*, you can see what the program tries to do.

I chose this point in the music (transcription by Brad Frey). A basic string orchestration with light accompaniment from the other sections of the orchestra, is a very common way to write an interlude between bigger sections.






And here is what Gullfoss thinks is "Wrong" with Shawn Murphy's work!!!






First it says "Hey there's no trumpets and no piatti, where's your 10k?" and then tries to juice that out of the high violins, making them crispy and thready. It also says "Hey your lowest bass is only around the bottom of the cello register" and tries to add subs out of nontonal room noise.

You can drag in the filter sliders to keep GF from affecting the subs and presence. But I've seen a lot of people don't do this. They use GF in full spectrum mode. This will always sound great on 1st impression because it's adding highs (detail, excitement). However it sucks the variety out of music. 


I think orchestral composers are better served by Tonal Balance Control. It's less of a
"moment to moment" effect and more looking at the long range balance of your music. TBC can also learn new presets, for example you could feed the "Interludes" and "Loud Parts" tracks above into TBC to create 2 _separate_ reference curves.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Nov 20, 2022)

NoamL said:


> *GF 'Live'* is fun on individual, poorly recorded instruments. It's part of my toolkit for addressing home recordings.
> 
> Here is a little experiment to show why I don't like* GF on the master buss* so much.
> 
> ...


You'd need to zero out the controls to see what Gullfoss thinks is "wrong". The controls amplify things, but it's within user control to use all the available controls to target more specifically. I think this isn't a great example of using Gullfoss. Not bad, but also a little biased against it.

I agree with your fundamental points about it, and the content to use it on, however.


----------



## KEM (Nov 20, 2022)

doctoremmet said:


> Cool, thanks. It may be helpful as I completely suck at mixing. I quite like Kenneth’s mixes (@KEM) but I am often at a loss how to approach my own. I’ll have a listen and will comment. Although my opinion won’t be of much importance to others because it’ll be just another rather subjective noob’s opinion anyway.
> 
> But thanks, I appreciate you taking the trouble. Examples are usually very much appreciated by the community!



My mixes aren’t that great but I’ve been forced to do some of my more recent releases myself since my mixing engineer was totally booked up, the last thing I put out was mixed by him though and I think his mixes are awesome, he also uses Gullfoss and The God Particle as the only thing on his master


----------



## NoamL (Nov 20, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> You'd need to zero out the controls to see what Gullfoss thinks is "wrong". The controls amplify things, but it's within user control to use all the available controls to target more specifically. I think this isn't a great example of using Gullfoss. Not bad, but also a little biased against it.


Actually, I _have_ zeroed out the brightness controller. Didn't zero out the recover/tame bias, but here's another pic with that done. You can always put GF yourself on Leia's Theme and see that, I'm not makin' this up!







The suggestion of using GF only in *Tame* mode is better. That makes GF a bit more workable on music at _mezzo-piano_ dynamics and orchestrations - you will no longer get those "ghost" peaks at 10kHz and 40Hz.

However, you will still run into this sort of thing on even quieter music. At the quietest dynamic levels, GF can be "confused" by the composer's selection of a very small subset of the orchestra. Here's the part of the suite where the solo Oboe plays the Force Theme accompanied by low string pizzicatos:





"Hey where'd the rest of the orchestra go? Why did you mix the oboe so loud?"

Overall, my point here is: orchestra music is varied, and GF aims for a static target.


----------



## KEM (Nov 20, 2022)

NoamL said:


> Actually, I _have_ zeroed out the brightness controller. Didn't zero out the recover/tame bias, but here's another pic with that done. You can always put GF yourself on Leia's Theme and see that, I'm not makin' this up!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don’t forget you can drag the little red lines on either side of the main panel to change where Gullfoss is allowed to work, so you could eliminate the room noise boosts it’s making in the low and high end


----------



## Trash Panda (Nov 20, 2022)

One should also consider automating the parameters in Gullfoss if you have drastic changes in dynamics and timbres throughout a piece. 

And always remember, regardless of where you place Gullfoss, if you are after the intended effect it brings, you have to adjust the Bias and Brightness to keep the bouncing meters in the middle. 

This makes a massive difference in outcome versus only tweaking Recover and Tame. 



For usage on the master bus, I’ve seen best results keeping the Tame value between 5%-20% and the Recover value around half or less of the Tame value, adjusting Bias and Brightness to keep the bouncing meter centered. 

There has been occasion where I wanted a darker sound and set Brightness to around -75% to -90% but it’s rare.


----------



## PeterN (Nov 20, 2022)

The Greg Wells Mix Centric plugin (as much as it irritates to praise a Waves plugin), does not create that digital sounding hiss, like GF does. Highly recommended, although, it is created by a shady company, that hijacks, down in some shady land.

Think it was JJ Puig who said he can't listen to 48khz tracks, as the digital sound gives him allergy. Dont know, putting GF on 48khz, we could test his reaction. Probably hat flies off the head.


----------



## ibanez1 (Nov 20, 2022)

NoamL said:


> Actually, I _have_ zeroed out the brightness controller. Didn't zero out the recover/tame bias, but here's another pic with that done. You can always put GF yourself on Leia's Theme and see that, I'm not makin' this up!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It almost sounds like we just need an automatable control for the frequency ranges gullfoss is trying to balance across. As others have stated, you can limit the frequencies at which gullfoss is working its magic but that frequency changes as the music progresses.

Much like automation on other plugins, one could just adjust the frequencies to only around the oboe spectrum for these softer intimate sections and then increase the spectrum as the orchestra opened up to instrumentation across the spectrum.

That would keep the goodness of the auto taming that gulfoss provides while forcing it to understand the spectral emphasis of different parts of the composition.

This would probably need the ability to isolate more than just 1 range of the frequency though for better results.

Better yet, if the gullfoss developers could just have instances of a gullfoss "monitor" on each track which understood the instrument type and analyzed the frequency contribution to the master bus and then fed that information into the curve fitting algorithm of the gullfoss master bus instance. It would then understand automatically "hey only the oboe is playing here and it seems to be 99% of the frequency contribution on my master. Maybe I shouldn't try to insanely boost unrelated frequencies beyond the oboe's range."


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (Nov 20, 2022)

ibanez1 said:


> Better yet, if the gullfoss developers could just have instances of a gullfoss "monitor" on each track which understood the instrument type and analyzed the frequency contribution to the master bus and then fed that information into the curve fitting algorithm of the gullfoss master bus instance.


I believe that's the approach Sonible EQ takes.

---

To me, it just seems like Gullfoss is like most of the AI assistant stuff. It offers to make some changes according to "conventional wisdom" learned from machine learning tons of songs. EDIT: It actually learns through an entirely different process, as detailed in the correction below.

What it offers is a second opinion. You can accept it, or investigate to figure out if it sees something you might not have noticed, or you can turn it off because you don't agree with what it's doing.

The concept of "conventional wisdom" isn't that it's always right or wrong, just that it's a consensus opinion, arrived at through the collective trial and error of many before you. Each person doesn't have to start from scratch, they can instead use conventional wisdom as a starting point, or as a sounding board.


----------



## Henu (Nov 20, 2022)

I agree completely with @NoamL . Gullfoss is way better suitable for static music like rock, pop etc, and any classical/game/orchestral stuff makes it go bonkers very fast even with tame only and bias cranked up. That's why I'm not too keen on using it on that stuff either. It's a bit hit or miss, and usually I end up not using it at all on very dynamic or sparse music.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (Nov 20, 2022)

Henu said:


> I agree completely with @NoamL . Gullfoss is way better suitable for static music like rock, pop etc, and any classical/game/orchestral stuff makes it go bonkers very fast even with tame only and bias cranked up. That's why I'm not too keen on using it on that stuff either. It's a bit hit or miss, and usually I end up not using it at all on very dynamic or sparse music.


Seems like you'd want Gullfoss to kick in just when things hit a certain dynamic then, no? Like a compressor.


----------



## Henu (Nov 20, 2022)

Pretty much yeah. I generally want it to only to tame some badness and resonances I haven't been able to notice/clean in the mix instead of adding anything. I can always add stuff manually if I felt like it.

What I also don't like is that the boosting (or recovery) is quickly messing up with the dynamics and the mix starts very fast to sound more compressed instead of more clear, which is absolutely not what I want when using it. My arm hair starts to raise up every time I see it adding something, especially if I know there is no information I want it to boost in that area. :D


----------



## NoamL (Nov 20, 2022)

Henu said:


> What I also don't like is that the boosting (or recovery) is quickly messing up with the dynamics and the mix starts very fast to sound more compressed instead of more clear,


ok that's very interesting, because I have had the same nonscientific impression (GF reduces dynamic range if the settings are hot enough) but have no explanation for how that could be. Is it just that it biases to boosting more when the music is soft? Or by aiming at that static curve it's compensating for the ways soft music is timbrally different so it creates a "loudness profile" similar to louder music?


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Nov 20, 2022)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> I believe that's the approach Sonible EQ takes.
> 
> ---
> 
> ...


Gullfoss doesn't use AI / machine learning at all:

"Gullfoss is not using artificial intelligence (AI), neural networks, Fletcher-Munson curves, traditional DSP methods, or machine learning algorithms. Instead, Gullfoss is the first in a line of products that employ our computational auditory perception technology.

... Both waterfalls and pink noise come near to maximizing the amount of information perceived by your brain. They give your brain more of what it wants. Gullfoss the software is all about organizing the information in the signal so that your brain finds the result more pleasing."






Soundtheory - Reveal your sound


Soundtheory develops unique methods for realtime audio processing. Try Gullfoss, your own pair of Golden Ears!




www.soundtheory.com


----------



## KEM (Nov 20, 2022)

Alan Meyerson loves Gullfoss


----------



## Bluemount Score (Nov 20, 2022)

KEM said:


> Alan Meyerson loves Gullfoss


He's an amateur


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (Nov 20, 2022)

AnhrithmonGelasma said:


> Gullfoss doesn't use AI / machine learning at all:
> 
> "Gullfoss is not using artificial intelligence (AI), neural networks, Fletcher-Munson curves, traditional DSP methods, or machine learning algorithms. Instead, Gullfoss is the first in a line of products that employ our computational auditory perception technology.
> 
> ...


My mistake, Gullfoss isn't using machine learning. I still treat it the same way I treat the other AI stuff though.


----------



## NekujaK (Nov 20, 2022)

Just to add some flavor to this discussion... Gullfoss isn't the only game in town when it comes to "grooming" mixes.

TEOTE from Voxengo is very similar to Gullfoss, but far more flexible and tweakable. IMHO, TEOTE does a much better job of auto-balancing frequencies, and gives you the ability to control the parameters of its inner target and how it's applied.

MixRoom and BassRoom from Mastering The Mix are also really helpful tools that are much more targeted to specific instruments and musical styles than either Gullfoss or TEOTE. And you can create your own frequency reference profiles for the plugins to use. What's nice, is these plugins make EQ recommendations, but it's up to you how much to follow them. I have found the recommendations to be useful about 75% of the time, but it's always up to you how to apply them.

SmartEQ from Sonible is another contender, but I've never liked what it does.


If you're on the fence about Gullfoss, I'd recommend taking a very close look at TEOTE and MixRoom/BassRoom before making a final decision.


----------



## PeterN (Nov 20, 2022)

NekujaK said:


> TEOTE from Voxengo is very similar to Gullfoss, but far more flexible and tweakable.


Issue with "tweakable" is there's a hell a lot of buttons, and many of us get annoyed in learning those buttons. There's no time. 

Hope they have added pre-sets to it, recently got an email it is updated. I rolled those buttons once, with no clear idea, but it sounded good.


----------



## Living Fossil (Nov 20, 2022)

ibanez1 said:


> For those of you who actually use Gullfoss on nearly project and like it, how do you find it effective to use?


First of all: While I like Gulfoss _per se, _I don't use it on nearly "every project".
I think this is a plugin that sometimes works really well and sometimes does not.
Over the last year, it's been maybe on about 40% of the stuff I did. Which is a lot.

Second: In 98% of all cases I use it in very moderate settings. Brightness usually is negative.

Third: there are thin red lines that confine the frequency range where Gulfoss is doing its work.
It's important to use this, otherwise the plugin will try to superimpose its algorithm on one's aesthetical concept.


----------



## Henu (Nov 20, 2022)

NoamL said:


> but have no explanation for how that could be


How I'd simply think it, when it's boosting too much it's technically raising the quiet parts, giving the impression of reduced dynamics in the music.


----------



## tsk (Nov 20, 2022)

Following the discussions I had on another thread about Gullfoss, and now that I've used it further with various tweaks, my personal feeling is that I regret purchasing Gullfoss. I don't think it's particularly useful for me. What I probably should have got was a more surgical tool like Soothe, although I have not tried that myself.

This may be because I don't want a tool's chosen underlying settings applied to my track or master, even if I can cut the frequency range down to a small slice. Each time I move the red lines so that it's acting on a small area, I start thinking I might as well just use a dynamic EQ. Maybe that's my lack of understanding, but this is just how it feels to me.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Nov 20, 2022)

tsk said:


> Following the discussions I had on another thread about Gullfoss, and now that I've used it further with various tweaks, my personal feeling is that I regret purchasing Gullfoss. I don't think it's particularly useful for me. What I probably should have got was a more surgical tool like Soothe, although I have not tried that myself.
> 
> This may be because I don't want a tool's chosen underlying settings applied to my track or master, even if I can cut the frequency range down to a small slice. Each time I move the red lines so that it's acting on a small area, I start thinking I might as well just use a dynamic EQ. Maybe that's my lack of understanding, but this is just how it feels to me.


All the "AI" / "intelligent" plugins have an underlying algorithm. Soothe does, too.

A dynamic EQ would work, but it doesn't necessarily sample the frequency as much as Gullfoss, and it's on the user to identify the frequencies (not always a bad thing!).

I suggest asking for a refund if you purchased it from Soundtheory directly.


----------



## NekujaK (Nov 20, 2022)

PeterN said:


> Issue with "tweakable" is there's a hell a lot of buttons, and many of us get annoyed in learning those buttons. There's no time.


Tweaking TEOTE is not required. It has some all-purpose presets that work just fine. But if you feel the need to tweak it, you'd likely only need to do it once and save it as a preset.

The only tweaking of TEOTE that I do for each individual song is simply constraining the high and low frequencies that it affects, which is similar to the frequency sliders in Gullfoss. Otherwise TEOTE is pretty much good to go right out of the box.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Nov 20, 2022)

NekujaK said:


> Tweaking TEOTE is not required. It has some all-purpose presets that work just fine. But if you feel the need to tweak it, you'd likely only need to do it once and save it as a preset.
> 
> The only tweaking of TEOTE that I do for each individual song is simply constraining the high and low frequencies that it affects, which is similar to the frequency sliders in Gullfoss. Otherwise TEOTE is pretty much good to go right out of the box.


Definitely worth a try. I much preferred Gullfoss.


----------



## PeterN (Nov 20, 2022)

@doctoremmet

How about this orchestral one doc, uploaded another one, do I qualify as *novice* around? Who can do it without Gullfoss. There's 2-3 clicks that shall be fixed.

The track is btw a showcase, that creativity beats it. Try to use basic theory, esp part 3.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Nov 20, 2022)

It's like any tool, if it's really used for what it was programmed for, it will do a good job. I compare it to a spice. But if every dish is spiced with curry... OK, if you love curry more than anything, you will love all the mixes, done with your sepcial tool.

*Transparency in the mix: One of the main mixing mistakes made by beginners*
As I mentioned above, beginners always think we need to hear everything in a mix - all the time. NO! Listen to a Brahms symphony, movie music, or a pop song. It is usually the case that we can make out one main melody and possibly a 2nd counter melody and of coarse you can always hear the bass (hopefully). All the rest of the "non-melody instruments" just create mood. Of all these (many) remaining instruments, one hears only a kind of mush. If one were to remove individual instruments from this mush, something would be missing. Nevertheless, you can't hear all the clarinets, oboes, violas as clear as the current melody instrument/ensemble. So when it comes to getting transparent mixes, apply this basic rule first and foremost.


define which voice (or max two to three) are important when (in which bars). 
darken the voices that are not important (EQ). This point is unfortunately much too little considered.
set up the instruments on the virtual stage in such a way that, if possible, there are not two with the same frequency range behind each other.
bring solo instruments to the foreground.
on the other hand, bring instruments really into the depth of the room. Panning also from front to back.
...Something is clear, such a mix naturally becomes dynamic. It will contain some control cams. You may say that Gullfoss does that automatically.... yes, but probably not at the right time in the right place.

If you implement point 1-5 from above, then you get a result, like this.




_Listen to how well the solo violin (first seat) contrasts with the first violins at the beginning - only because they are darker in sound. The tin whistle never has problems in the foreground. The brass is set up far back. The bass is always well audible because it sounds from the center (both speakers for large energies), etc. __The piano is hard to make out because it doesn't have an important voice. But if it were "muted" in the mix, something would be missing. The piano therefore only provides a kind of basic mood in the sound._
_By the way, I did not use a Gullfoss _

If you have followed all these rules, a Gullfoss tool can perhaps put the icing on the cake. But as mentioned in an answer above - only very little of it.

Beat


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Nov 20, 2022)

PeterN said:


> @doctoremmet
> 
> How about this orchestral one doc, uploaded another one, do I qualify as *novice* around? Who can do it without Gullfoss. There's 2-3 clicks that shall be fixed.
> 
> The track is btw a showcase, that creativity beats it. Try to use basic theory, esp part 3.



Sorry to be so direct: This piece is generally mixed much too bright (harsh). The strings alone are so sharp in sound - nothing gets past them. There would have been brass and probably other things further back which have now no chance......and you may not trim the winds even brighter, because what plays far away cannot sound bright.

Presumably the mixer of this piece wanted that this or that to come out a little better. - So he raised the corresponding treble of this and that instrument. Afterwards, however, he heard again that other instruments sound too dark and quiet ... At the end of the day, the mix got so high in the treble and with compressors that it was/is effectively broken... that can happen and is not tragic. So I would start all over again. Maybe my points 1-5 above will help not too run in this "harsh-trap" again.

Good luck and success
Beat


----------



## PeterN (Nov 20, 2022)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> Sorry to be so direct: This piece is generally mixed much too bright (harsh). The strings alone are so sharp in sound - nothing gets past them. There would have been brass and probably other things further back which have now no chance......and you may not trim the winds even brighter, because what plays far away cannot sound bright.
> 
> Presumably the mixer of this piece wanted that this or that to come out a little better. - So he raised the corresponding treble of this and that instrument. Afterwards, however, he heard again that other instruments sound too dark and quiet ... At the end of the day, the mix got so high in the treble and with compressors that it was/is effectively broken... that can happen and is not tragic. So I would start all over again. Maybe my points 1-5 above will help not too run in this "harsh-trap" again.
> 
> ...


haha 

thanks


----------



## ibanez1 (Nov 23, 2022)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> It's like any tool, if it's really used for what it was programmed for, it will do a good job. I compare it to a spice. But if every dish is spiced with curry... OK, if you love curry more than anything, you will love all the mixes, done with your sepcial tool.
> 
> *Transparency in the mix: One of the main mixing mistakes made by beginners*
> As I mentioned above, beginners always think we need to hear everything in a mix - all the time. NO! Listen to a Brahms symphony, movie music, or a pop song. It is usually the case that we can make out one main melody and possibly a 2nd counter melody and of coarse you can always hear the bass (hopefully). All the rest of the "non-melody instruments" just create mood. Of all these (many) remaining instruments, one hears only a kind of mush. If one were to remove individual instruments from this mush, something would be missing. Nevertheless, you can't hear all the clarinets, oboes, violas as clear as the current melody instrument/ensemble. So when it comes to getting transparent mixes, apply this basic rule first and foremost.
> ...


After demoing gullfoss, I think I understand better what you were explaining here. I have a track with only 3 instruments: Noire as the piano and 2 instances of the sonoxinema intimate legato cello. I put gullfoss on the master and just as an experiment, I went extreme with the tame. I liked what it was doing to the cellos for the most part but playing the entire composition with the noire, I noticed it had destroyed the piano sound. Noire's entire strength is the mellow underscore and it had turned it into a bright tinny sound that was up front due to gullfoss wanting to bring out clarity with tame i'm assuming. Mind you this was at 80% tame so the answer is probably to not use that high of a number on the master .

I almost feel like you could use higher tame values on gulfoss for specific instruments if you wanted to make them pop but never put extreme settings on the master.

Now I think I need to toy with the frequency limits in gullfoss to see if clearing mud on the master works out for me.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Nov 23, 2022)

ibanez1 said:


> After demoing gullfoss, I think I understand better what you were explaining here. I have a track with only 3 instruments: Noire as the piano and 2 instances of the sonoxinema intimate legato cello. I put gullfoss on the master and just as an experiment, I went extreme with the tame. I liked what it was doing to the cellos for the most part but playing the entire composition with the noire, I noticed it had destroyed the piano sound. Noire's entire strength is the mellow underscore and it had turned it into a bright tinny sound that was up front due to gullfoss wanting to bring out clarity with tame i'm assuming. Mind you this was at 80% tame so the answer is probably to not use that high of a number on the master .
> 
> I almost feel like you could use higher tame values on gulfoss for specific instruments if you wanted to make them pop but never put extreme settings on the master.
> 
> Now I think I need to toy with the frequency limits in gullfoss to see if clearing mud on the master works out for me.


Each of the 3 versions are different sounding.


----------



## dyross (Dec 25, 2022)

Trash Panda said:


> And always remember, regardless of where you place Gullfoss, if you are after the intended effect it brings, you have to adjust the Bias and Brightness to keep the bouncing meters in the middle.
> 
> This makes a massive difference in outcome versus only tweaking Recover and Tame.


Sorry to bump an old thread, but a question that has been bugging me - why doesn't Gullfoss automate / simplify the process of doing this? Something like an auto-bias feature that takes a given Recover/Tame balance, listens a bit, and suggests a value for Bias? Is there a reason this is hard?

I ask because this seems like something that a lot of people get wrong, but if it's the intended usage, why don't they make it easier to get right?


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Dec 25, 2022)

dyross said:


> Sorry to bump an old thread, but a question that has been bugging me - why doesn't Gullfoss automate / simplify the process of doing this? Something like an auto-bias feature that takes a given Recover/Tame balance, listens a bit, and suggests a value for Bias? Is there a reason this is hard?
> 
> I ask because this seems like something that a lot of people get wrong, but if it's the intended usage, why don't they make it easier to get right?


Reso does that. But a sample is just a slice in time, not real time over time.

I'm also not sure what's hard about using Gullfoss - just have to use your ears, like "dialing in" a lot of things.


----------

