# Why would I *not* use Gullfoss on every instrument?



## SimonCharlesHanna (Sep 30, 2020)

I just purchased Gullfoss and have been playing around with it and it has some great results on a per instrument basis however, all the reviews/PR seem to be suggesting to use it as a mastering tool. 

Is it fine (in moderation) to be using it on a per instrument basis? Am I missing something?




View attachment 2020-10-01 16-13-37.mp4

View attachment 2020-10-01 16-09-41.mp4


----------



## Everratic (Sep 30, 2020)

I use it on almost every track and love it. Most of my instruments go through three instances of Gullfoss. I don’t get why so many people insist on just using it as a mastering tool. Maybe they don’t wait to admit that it negates many of their other plugins?


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Oct 1, 2020)

Maybe they don't have super computers. 

Gullfoss is very processor/audio performance hungry, but that's very understandable given the work it does!


----------



## el-bo (Oct 1, 2020)

There is a trick in cooking, where using baking soda can eliminate the harshness of over-acidic tomatoes. But using too much, under the assumption that all acid is bad, will completely remove any 'bite' from the flavour. And if you add even more, you can completely kill all the flavour of the dish.

I've not tried Gulfoss, although I've been demoing DSEQ2. I think the issue might be the same thing as the baking soda i.e If you use it on everything you'll end up squeezing the life out of your music. Not that overt resonance and harshness is always going to be desirable, but in many cases these help add nuance and energy to our music. This is why analogue filters and saturation/distortion etc. are so desirable. 'We' want that energy, and bite.

Of course, I'm not saying that it can't be used subtly, even if it is on every instrument. Just think it might be better used on an as-needed basis.


----------



## Everratic (Oct 1, 2020)

el-bo said:


> There is a trick in cooking, where using baking soda can eliminate the harshness of over-acidic tomatoes, for example. But using too much, under the assumption that all acid is bad, will completely remove any 'bite' from the flavour. And if you add even more, you can completely kill all the flavour of the dish.
> 
> I've not tried Gulfoss, although I've been demoing DSEQ2. I think the issue is the same thing as the baking soda i.e If you use it on everything you'll end up squeezing the life out of your music. Not that overt resonance and harshness is always going to be desirable, but in many cases these help add nuance and energy to our music. This is why analogue filters and saturation/distortion etc. are so desirable. 'We' want that energy, and bite.


This is an important point. Although I do use Gullfoss quite excessively, there are some instruments that I use much lower settings on, if I use it at all. Solo cello is a great example of this; Gullfoss' effects can make it lose much of its emotional expression.


----------



## babylonwaves (Oct 1, 2020)

DarkestShadow said:


> Gullfoss is very processor/audio performance hungry, but that's very understandable given the work it does!



it's not really CPU hungry here, but of course all that is subjective. I use it a lot to see what it does and it makes me better in understanding what I need to EQ in and out. Once I've done that, I remove it from an individual track again.

@SimonCharlesHanna 

I guess you cannot really overdo it, at least with moderate settings. But that doesn't mean that your mix will improve drastically. All this will not fix masking for instance.


----------



## Consona (Oct 1, 2020)

Mixing, Post-Production, and Effects


General Virtual Studio Mixing and Mastering discussion. Discuss tips & techniques to make your mixes shine.




vi-control.net


----------



## merty (Oct 1, 2020)

Gullfoss does 2 things, not only resonance but a "smile" type eq too. The smile curve is what you should be careful about.

The smile eq compansates a listening level effect, for example many producers mixed/mastered listening in low levels to get more loudness. Overall sound was more middy and this helped compressing the hell out of a mix, a common trick from the loudness war days.

So in theory, while mixing if you monitor in a constant listening level (google for example K-system) only 1 instance of gullfoss (again in theory) would do the same thing as using it in every track. There's also the danger of droping the mid.s too much while enjoing the mid. balance resulting in an unmusical (musical as in tonally, like adding tape curve to a mix etc.) overall sound.

Soothe2 and DSEQ2 for example (unless you force them to) won't do eq curves but only fix resonances. If the library you're using is a good sounding one out of the box and you want to keep it that way, these options are generally preferred and can be used if needed on every track.


----------



## Jkist (Oct 1, 2020)

Everratic said:


> I use it on almost every track and love it. Most of my instruments go through three instances of Gullfoss. I don’t get why so many people insist on just using it as a mastering tool. Maybe they don’t wait to admit that it negates many of their other plugins?



Three instances? Dang. How does that work, one on the individual instrument, one on the instrument bus, and one on the master?


----------



## GtrString (Oct 1, 2020)

Sounds a bit like those aural exciter processors that came out in the 1980s. If you overuse it, your mix can end up sounding thin and shrill. Its not only about how each element sounds, it's about how all the elements sound together.


----------



## ScrltPumpernickel (Oct 1, 2020)

I've been using Gullfoss four a couple years now and sometimes it does wonders (with all its parameters usually not exceeding 20%) but most of the time it's just making things sound different (at best).

One of the things Gullfoss does is "taming" resonances and it could be beneficial to the material when those resonances are caused by, say poor recording technique, but we must not forget that acoustical resonances constitute (at least in part) a timbre of an acoustical instrument and sometimes give it desirable character.

My advice would be, if you can: take one project where you used Gullfoss extensively and leave it for a month, wait till the "honeymoon" is over and than try stripping off instances of Gullfoss one by one - this will help you to form your own opinion.


----------



## fakemaxwell (Oct 1, 2020)

Listening to those clips- If this was not to picture it'd probably be fine albeit a little hyped, would probably be a bit ear fatiguing depending on monitoring. Not sure how the mix would sound if EVERYTHING had this kind of EQ on it, could get brittle fast.

However if this is playing under a scene it would quickly become difficult to deal with, and I'd probably be applying an EQ to reverse the Gullfoss to an extent. Way too hyped and would start to clash with dialogue.


----------



## Everratic (Oct 1, 2020)

Jkist said:


> Three instances? Dang. How does that work, one on the individual instrument, one on the instrument bus, and one on the master?


Exactly. I use the highest settings on the individual, lower settings on the bus, and the master instance varies a lot. Sometimes I only use 5% on master and sometimes it goes up to 40%.


----------



## Living Fossil (Oct 1, 2020)

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> Is it fine (in moderation) to be using it on a per instrument basis? Am I missing something?



I think both examples sound a lot better without it.
It adds a lot of artificial junk in the high mids and above.
I guess for these both sounds some conventional EQing (or using a dynamic EQ) is a better option


----------



## Casiquire (Oct 1, 2020)

I wouldn't use it on individual tracks just because individual tracks should be EQd in context. Why would you want to hype up each individual track? Dulling certain tracks is a way to push them back in a mix so others can stand out. Also the noise in the last example is very loud after Gullfoss.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "never". That could very well be what individual tracks need in certain instances. It can be examined in that particular instance against the rest of the track. I'm just wary of _any _effect applied on every single track. I don't even EQ every track in a mix


----------



## Greg (Oct 1, 2020)

I only use it for cutting. I would use a puigtec eq for boosting, or a uad massive passive. The top end air sounds more like noise to me. But if you like it who cares, use it however you like :D


----------



## Babaghanoush (Oct 1, 2020)

I use it on each stem but generally not on individual tracks. I really don't see why you couldn't if you feel there's a need. If it sounds good, it is good.

With Gullfoss, I've found that Alan Meyerson's 20% rule really helps me. Set your parameters to where you really like the sound and then back them down 20%. This little tidbit has helped me a lot and seems to work really well for me when using Gullfoss.

BTW. Meyerson himself speaks highly of Gullfoss as you can hear in this video around the 29 min mark.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 1, 2020)

Can anyone who has both compare Gulfoss to Clariphonic?


----------



## Arbee (Oct 1, 2020)

NYC Composer said:


> Can anyone who has both compare Gulfoss to Clariphonic?


I don't own both but I recently trialled both at the same time and ended up with Clariphonic. I found the dynamic nature of Gulfoss somewhat of a blessing and a curse (i.e. I don't have the level of expertise to handle it with the necessary finesse). I preferred Clariphonic as I liked the "sheen" it provides, the control and predictability of the result, and it's less of a dangerous weapon in my less skilled DIY hands. Apologies that's not a very scientific comparison....


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 1, 2020)

I’m very fond of Clariphonic as a semi-exciter. I’m still curious about comparisons.


----------



## AlexRuger (Oct 1, 2020)

Huge fan of Gullfoss here, but yeah, as some others are saying, don't overuse it. 

I typically use it on a handful of tracks -- not nearly all, not even lots, but more than just one or two -- by varying, typically subtle amounts. I often place it on a stem or two and maybe on the master. It's _very _easy to overuse it, both in terms of number of tracks and in terms of settings, but it can really do wonders when used intelligently. I find it's especially great as a kind of "basic cleanup" or "better-izer" before moving on to more "proper" processing (i.e. more aggressive EQ-ing, compression, etc).

Great plugin, but as always, use the right tool for the job and use it as best you can.


----------



## Dex (Oct 1, 2020)

I've been using it since it came out. As you've noticed, it tends to bring out a lot of top end that you probably don't want in your mix! It's trying to maximize detail, and maximizing detail across the full spectrum almost always amounts to adding some brightness. What I do is I have it focus on the mids for instruments. I know where I want my top end to come from, and I know where I want my bass frequencies to come from, so there's no point in asking gullfoss to bring them up on other instruments. Then, after gullfoss has enhanced the track (in the mid range), I'll do my mixing EQ. You don't always want every detail emphasized on every instrument track. Some things need to sound duller and more distant.

Also, here's (maybe) an unpopular opinion: If your mix is enhanced by gullfoss on the 2-bus, your mix isn't good enough. Go fix it.


----------



## NoamL (Oct 2, 2020)

Gullfoss removes ugly resonances, that's probably the best part of the plugin. You don't need a lot, even at 15% mode it does heavy lifting.

However... Gullfoss is subtle but it's still a correlated effect, and will "glue" the track together... as someone pointed out in the tape saturation thread a while ago, glue effects are the enemy of detail and definition.

For example if you go way overboard with tape, pitch warble, a VHS dynamic EQ, all of which are glue effects:



The track sounds glued, but it also has degraded definition. So you have to balance the two...

One thing to watch out with Gullfoss is it EXTREMELY BRIGHTENS the sound. If you use Gullfoss on naturally recorded orchestral music and don't set the brightness control to somewhere between -35 to -70% you'll likely completely alter the tonality of your mix. The brightness has a good "first impression" but it has a tendency to make instrumental music very brittle sounding.

I assisted as add'l writer and mixer recently on a documentary score. The score was a challenge because the director wanted some very odd and eclectic combinations of instruments (string ensembles playing col legno and oddball pluck instruments and whatnot). There was no time to set up a great template and I relied heavily on Gullfoss to make sure the master mixes weren't insanely off base in some way.

Listening back to those mixes 6 months later I was very dissatisfied. The resulting sound was brittle, thin, wearingly bright, lacking body, "hyped," scooped, and just not PLEASANT. Maybe NOT in a way that ordinary people would notice, but definitely that anyone who works with music would tilt their head and go "why is there a global effect on this?"

There were some tracks where Gullfoss did a great job taming an ugly middy synth, or a double bass pizzicato that was more resonance than definition, stuff like that, but overall I regret using it and only use it as a bypassed mix-checker now.

I would never use it actually effecting the sound, in greater than 10% mode catholically across an entire score, ever again, imo that's a mistake. As for putting 3 instances of Gullfoss in a chain, turning one of them all the way to 40%.... No offense but I bet this is malpractice and the sound you get out the other end is way too much "Gullfoss character.


----------



## Everratic (Oct 2, 2020)

NoamL said:


> I would never use it in greater than 10% mode catholically across an entire score again, imo that's a mistake. As for putting 3 instances of Gullfoss in a chain, turning one of them all the way to 40%.... No offense but I bet this is malpractice and the sound you get out the other end is way too much "Gullfoss character."



I wrote the post about putting most of my instruments through three instances of Gullfoss. If you don’t mind, I’d like to hear your thoughts on what such a mix sounds like. I’m curious if it’s as bad as you thought.


----------



## NoamL (Oct 2, 2020)

There does seem to be a lot of "sibilance" in the perc. Like a sq-sz sound?

It doesn't sound terrible though!


----------



## NoamL (Oct 2, 2020)

Does this track have the same fx? This does feel a little thinner/brittle IMO. When the bass hits at 0:47 it's like the juice has been squeezed out of it  Nice composition by the way.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Oct 2, 2020)

Babaghanoush said:


> I use it on each stem but generally not on individual tracks. I really don't see why you couldn't if you feel there's a need. If it sounds good, it is good.
> 
> With Gullfoss, I've found that Alan Meyerson's 20% rule really helps me. Set your parameters to where you really like the sound and then back them down 20%. This little tidbit has helped me a lot and seems to work really well for me when using Gullfoss.
> 
> BTW. Meyerson himself speaks highly of Gullfoss as you can hear in this video around the 29 min mark.



ha! I actually do this already - I'll dial in EQ the way I think it should sound in pro-Q2/3 and then back the gain scale back until I find the sweet spot between leaving the signal in tack and shaping it.


----------



## Everratic (Oct 2, 2020)

NoamL said:


> Does this track have the same fx? This does feel a little thinner/brittle IMO. When the bass hits at 0:47 it's like the juice has been squeezed out of it  Nice composition by the way.




This one has much fewer instances of Gullfoss as well as lower settings across the board. Gullfoss tends to kill soft string sounds so I try to not overdo it. 

I think the composition here lacks a true low bass sound. I used cinesample’s sub bass to add some weight during such climactic moments.
Glad you like the composition though.

I think the brittle sound and sibilance problems can likely be addressed via decreasing the brightness — so I learned something useful from this.


----------



## R. Soul (Oct 2, 2020)

Quite a few of you mentions that Gullfoss brightens the sound, which is correct.
Apart from lowering the brightness control, I find most of the time, it's easier just setting a range filter around 10 khz and thereby avoiding Gullfoss touching the higher frequencies.


----------



## davidson (Oct 2, 2020)

Has anyone had chance to compare this to soothe?


----------



## merty (Oct 2, 2020)

If anyone wants to deal with resonances without changing the tone like Gullfoss does, I mentioned DSEQ on my previous message and it has an AI tool which to my experience works pretty well on individual tracks;



Also if not tried, inserting just 1 instance of Gullfoss to the master-out before starting the mixing stage might be a more preferable approach to some.


----------



## Bman70 (Oct 2, 2020)

Everratic said:


> I wrote the post about putting most of my instruments through three instances of Gullfoss. If you don’t mind, I’d like to hear your thoughts on what such a mix sounds like. I’m curious if it’s as bad as you thought.




As a casual listener / musician this seems to have some sharp high freqs that get a little biting. Like the piccolo or flute... it seems to have lost some of the airy warmth of a wind instrument and gets slightly strident.

To digress from Gullfoss, I think over hyping our highs is easy to slip into as digital musicians in general. We might have ear fatigue from hours of mixing, and feel refreshed by slapping a sheen on it which sounds over bright to fresh ears. I also wonder if we've started to overly identify warmth with mud.


----------



## AlexRuger (Oct 2, 2020)

Bman70 said:


> As a casual listener / musician this seems to have some sharp high freqs that get a little biting. Like the piccolo or flute... it seems to have lost some of the airy warmth of a wind instrument and gets slightly strident.
> 
> To digress from Gullfoss, I think over hyping our highs is easy to slip into as digital musicians in general. We might have ear fatigue from hours of mixing, and feel refreshed by slapping a sheen on it which sounds over bright to fresh ears. I also wonder if we've started to overly identify warmth with mud.


That’s definitely a stage in learning to mix, as well. First you learn to scoop at 300hz, then you add the smile curve, then over time you learn to finesse from there. Maintaining clarity while keeping things warm and full takes a lifetime to master.


----------



## Arbee (Oct 2, 2020)

AlexRuger said:


> Maintaining clarity while keeping things warm and full takes a lifetime to master.


Oh so true, I only hope I live long enough!


----------



## AlexRuger (Oct 2, 2020)

Arbee said:


> Oh so true, I only hope I live long enough!


Ha, me as well!


----------



## CT (Oct 2, 2020)

Bman70 said:


> I think over hyping our highs is easy to slip into as digital musicians in general. We might have ear fatigue from hours of mixing, and feel refreshed by slapping a sheen on it which sounds over bright to fresh ears. I also wonder if we've started to overly identify warmth with mud.



This is how I feel about a lot of modern mixing trends, very generally speaking. I really hate the highly scooped/smiley'd (and dynamically squashed, while we're at it) sound that's become so prominent. It's refreshing to hear anything that doesn't veer in that direction. I like mids. But I realize I am coming from a pretty different angle than many here are.


----------



## Arbee (Oct 2, 2020)

This Kiasmos track has been an "ear opener" for me...


----------



## Henu (Oct 2, 2020)

davidson said:


> Has anyone had chance to compare this to soothe?



Have both, completely different tools. Soothe is my tool when the resonances on single tracks (drum overheads, badly recorded vocals, etc. screechy violin) go too evil for normal EQ tp easily fix. Gullfoss I use on the master bus every now and then to give that small bit of polish with very mild settings. Sometimes I don't like what it does and don't use it at all, sometimes I do.


----------



## PeterN (Oct 3, 2020)

Henu said:


> Have both, completely different tools. Soothe is my tool when the resonances on single tracks (drum overheads, badly recorded vocals, etc. screechy violin) go too evil for normal EQ tp easily fix. Gullfoss I use on the master bus every now and then to give that small bit of polish with very mild settings. Sometimes I don't like what it does and don't use it at all, sometimes I do.



What about Soothe, do you hear any difference on vocals? Mind askinbg this, I know this thread is on Gullfoss, but since they are somewhere in same cathegory. I demoed it and it made no difference, would you mind telling your experience since you use it on vocals.


----------



## rrichard63 (Oct 3, 2020)

The marketing hype for Gullfoss reminds me of the marketing hype for Zynaptiq Intensity, although I suspect the algorithms are different. Has anybody compared the two on the same material?


----------



## Living Fossil (Oct 3, 2020)

rrichard63 said:


> The marketing hype for Gullfoss reminds me of the marketing hype for Zynaptiq Intensity, although I suspect the algorithms are different. Has anybody compared the two on the same material?



I have Intensity (but i don't have Gulfoss) and it's great when used in moderation.
With Intensity you can define which frequencies get a treatment, so it's up to the user if it's about enhancing the highs at all.

I don't think there is a big similarity in the algorithms.
Intensity is definetely not made for getting rid of anything (like resonances etc.), but rather for putting more focus on details. Which of course can go terribly wrong if not done right or in exaggerated amounts. 
(of course this is the same with Gulfoss)


----------



## rrichard63 (Oct 3, 2020)

Living Fossil said:


> Intensity is definitely not made for getting rid of anything (like resonances etc.), but rather for putting more focus on details.


Very helpful comparison, thanks!


----------



## Henu (Oct 4, 2020)

PeterN said:


> What about Soothe, do you hear any difference on vocals? Mind askinbg this, I know this thread is on Gullfoss, but since they are somewhere in same cathegory. I demoed it and it made no difference, would you mind telling your experience since you use it on vocals.



Soothe is miles ahead on badly recorded vocals, I wouldn't use Gullfoss on that. It's way more surgical and more suitable to target certain areas while Gullfoss is more of a "allaround" shaping tool.


----------



## Virtual Virgin (Oct 13, 2020)

I have found it can give some pleasant results on individual instruments in the mix, but I have hesitated to put in on more than 2-3 in a whole orchestration. I would imagine if you use it on literally every instrument, the amount should be very minimal (5% or so tame/recovery?). With too much dynamic EQ going on I think it will start to sound too synthy (I am going for naturalistic orchestrations, but maybe there is a place for this in other contexts?). 

I will add that recently I tried it on a mix with a lot of saturation stages (as an experiment with analog colorations from plugins) and it was not complimentary to my 2-bus as it made all the fuzzy glue crunchy and crusty. I think it sounds much better on transparent orchestral sounds.


----------



## PeterN (Oct 13, 2020)

Virtual Virgin said:


> I have found it can give some pleasant results on individual instruments in the mix, but I have hesitated to put in on more than 2-3 in a whole orchestration. I would imagine if you use it on literally every instrument, the amount should be very minimal (5% or so tame/recovery?). With too much dynamic EQ going on I think it will start to sound too synthy (I am going for naturalistic orchestrations, but maybe there is a place for this in other contexts?).
> 
> I will add that recently I tried it on a mix with a lot of saturation stages (as an experiment with analog colorations from plugins) and it was not complimentary to my 2-bus as it made all the fuzzy glue crunchy and crusty. I think it sounds much better on transparent orchestral sounds.



I used Gullfoss on my latest pop rock orchestral on half of instruments and I thought it sounded like Sting. So I checked it with reference matching, and - yes, it was the "Sting sound". From now on I will call it the Sting plugin. Good for pop rock.


----------



## Will Blackburn (Oct 13, 2020)

Probably not the popular view but i think plugins like Gulfoss / Soothe / DSEQ etc ruin mixes, and they show how detrimental they are the more you use them. Although i found Sonibles stuff really interesting but that's purely from an analytical standpoint, the smart algo's usually make everything sound worse, but help identify frequencies you should probably boost/cut etc.


----------



## rrichard63 (Oct 13, 2020)

Will Blackburn said:


> ... the smart algo's usually make everything sound worse, but help identify frequencies you should probably boost/cut etc.


It's sounds like you are suggesting that these plugins be used a diagnostic tools rather than for their sound. I think that's an interesting idea.


----------



## Virtual Virgin (Oct 13, 2020)

Will Blackburn said:


> Probably not the popular view but i think plugins like Gulfoss / Soothe / DSEQ etc ruin mixes, and they show how detrimental they are the more you use them. Although i found Sonibles stuff really interesting but that's purely from an analytical standpoint, the smart algo's usually make everything sound worse, but help identify frequencies you should probably boost/cut etc.


I don't agree. I think the dynamic nature of them allows for less obtrusive fixes, but they become ugly when you blast the effect so hard that you have to hear it working. I think the future of mixing will be with these types of tools which blur the line between eq and compression and have abilities to adapt strongly to the program material in real-time. The "AI" and "smart" component still has a long way to go (I think Izotope's Smart Assistant is junk for instance), but I think these things are just beginning to reach a level where they show a benefit. There will be a lot of development.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Oct 13, 2020)

I picked it up last sale and havent installed it yet. 

like most things, I think it's absolutely important to get everything right from the ground up. Good samples, good mic selection, good programming. If the programming "worked" because of reverb, then you're stuck as wet as it was when you made it - if it only worked with the EQ, then it won't sound right without it. 

with minimal EQ and Reverb You can avoid the inevitable build up of un-natural things that spring from them, and if the midi performances blend well - adding a little bit of gullfoss after as a final "glue" will be all it needs.


----------



## Hendrixon (Oct 14, 2020)

Everratic said:


> I wrote the post about putting most of my instruments through three instances of Gullfoss. If you don’t mind, I’d like to hear your thoughts on what such a mix sounds like. I’m curious if it’s as bad as you thought.




Honestly? the sound is so fatiguing I stopped the track after 50 seconds...
If you can't hear this, do an eq match with a reference track you love, you will see it visually.


----------



## Dex (Oct 14, 2020)

Yeah, too “digital” and harsh. Makes me think too much 8k+, but taming that alone wouldn’t be enough to fix the mix.


----------



## Hendrixon (Oct 14, 2020)

Dex said:


> Yeah, too “digital” and harsh. Makes me think too much 8k+, but taming that alone wouldn’t be enough to fix the mix.



Exactly, the best mastering engineer in the world won't be able to eq this final mixed track back to life, since the problem is in the instruments tracks them selves, they're eq/sound/timbre was ruined in the multi track mix stage.


----------



## Jkist (Oct 14, 2020)

In that example, I think I hear a harp or something come in towards the latter half of the song. It would probably sound good on just a few instruments, like on that one, but yeah if you put it on everything the mix becomes lopsided, too top-heavy to where it does sound harsh, and like it lacks body.

Maybe you could try using it on just the few instances you want to be more at the forefront of the mix, and then throw it on the master with subtle settings. That might give a better result.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Oct 14, 2020)

I use it subtly on a mix bus. That's it. I'm not an audio engineer/mastering professional. It helps a lot. But one instance is more than enough. I never go beyond 50 (usually 10-35%, sometimes even less than 10). Brightness almost always stays the same. It's useful to sometimes control lower frequencies, or give my music some air. Of course, mixing and EQ and so on comes first, after all is done than I add it on my mix/master bus to give it something extra.

The very first two settings (tame and the other one to brighten things up, but not the brightness) are almost always the only things I change. A little bit.

And yes, like already mentioned: if you put it on the soft piano with room noise, adding air even by 0.8dB brings the noise up.


----------



## Dex (Oct 14, 2020)

ProfoundSilence said:


> I picked it up last sale and havent installed it yet.
> ...
> and if the midi performances blend well - adding a little bit of gullfoss after as a final "glue" will be all it needs.


That's quite a bold claim for someone who hasn't even installed the plugin yet. After using it for a long time, I really don't think that gullfoss sounds good on the matter bus, and I don't think of it as glue at all. It has numerous uses, but these are not them. I really think it's best to have it focus on like the 100-200 to 2k-5k range for individual instruments, and if it's making big adjustments, it's better to make the largest part of those adjustments with a static EQ, so that the dynamic adjustments are smaller. Big frequent swings in EQ, especially like you'd get by using it on the master bus, sound weird and digital to me.

FWIW I agree with the rest of your post (that I cut out of the quote).


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Oct 14, 2020)

Dex said:


> That's quite a bold claim for someone who hasn't even installed the plugin yet. After using it for a long time, I really don't think that gullfoss sounds good on the matter bus, and I don't think of it as glue at all. It has numerous uses, but these are not them. I really think it's best to have it focus on like the 100-200 to 2k-5k range for individual instruments, and if it's making big adjustments, it's better to make the largest part of those adjustments with a static EQ, so that the dynamic adjustments are smaller. Big frequent swings in EQ, especially like you'd get by using it on the master bus, sound weird and digital to me.
> 
> FWIW I agree with the rest of your post (that I cut out of the quote).


Was just going by what I heard on the official demos,

Many of which seem to glue disjointed parts as well as flatten the Dynamics a little. 

While this plug-in doesn't seem to touted self as doing that, certainly seems like it's a side effect, and if its goal is to clean up partials a little bit for clarity whatever it is supposed to do under the hood, I don't plan on adding plugins to re expand the dynamic range after, so I'm going to treat this as if it's light compression

I can't see myself using this on individual buses because I don't use individual buses


----------



## Everratic (Oct 14, 2020)

Hendrixon said:


> Exactly, the best mastering engineer in the world won't be able to eq this final mixed track back to life, since the problem is in the instruments tracks them selves, they're eq/sound/timbre was ruined in the multi track mix stage.


I think I hear it now. I'll try to fix the mix and post two versions here for comparison, one with gullfoss globally bypassed and one with improved gullfoss settings.


----------



## merty (Oct 15, 2020)

I don't think its (potentially) that irreparable for a mastering engineer. On the bright side its mostly a freq. adjustment thing so if expectations are reasonable that harshness at-least can be solved.

Bad setuped buss compressors are far worse, if the attack/release is setuped bad then much can't be done. Even worse is if client mixed through a high-ratio comp. on top of the bad attack/release, disabling it means basically mixing the whole song all over again.


----------



## Hendrixon (Oct 15, 2020)

Once a project is bounced to stereo master, all the mix stage tracks will trip on each other.
At that stage there is very little that can be done to fix a single track/instrument inside it.
If its a something like an acoustic guitar and vocals? not that you should, but yes you can salvage a track.
But a busy mix? nope, back to the studio.

Yup over compression is worse then botched eq job.
A friend of mine is a mastering engineer, I'll never forget how he cursed TC for making the Finalizer popular. there were tracks he refused to work on because of that box


----------



## cug (Dec 13, 2020)

Babaghanoush said:


> With Gullfoss, I've found that Alan Meyerson's 20% rule really helps me. Set your parameters to where you really like the sound and then back them down 20%. This little tidbit has helped me a lot and seems to work really well for me when using Gullfoss.
> 
> BTW. Meyerson himself speaks highly of Gullfoss as you can hear in this video around the 29 min mark.



Thanks for posting this. It's an excellent series. At 37:50 he talks again about his 20% rule on other aspects of mixing and arranging. Great advice (I remind myself).


----------

