EQ after hard clipping will introduce insane phase rotation and peaks that are bigger than the original which defeats the purpose of the clipping in the first place
@@panorama_mastering "insane" i.e. I now have peaks that are larger than before clipping whilst also having more distortion from a 3db bass boost... Edit: clipping before any phase rotation is counterproductive...
the issue is the peak clipping generates broadband noise, while the compound effect of phase rotation from EQ and filters will move those clipped peaks in time. So what used to be only on peaks can appear anywhere on the waveform, masked or un-masked. You hear this all the time in FM broadcasting, especially as that process also use phase rotators to make voice waveforms (ads) symmetrical, to apply more gain before clipping and multiband limiting further.
My take: 1. peak clipping (judiciously) can work - for some material, on peak *transients* . Transients being short wavelengths, ie: HF. Not kick drums. 2. EQ sounds cleaner, deeper, with more "scope" for adjustments, *pre* clipping or limiting. Especially on a whole mix. Just as not wanting to receive mixes for mastering that have been clipped or limited. (buss processing for tone / density is fine of course, if mixed into it and not added after the fact). Sure, we can work with it and attenuate it before EQ'ing. But any necessary EQ is simply likely to sound objectively even better if not pre-clipped.
This is one of those things that seems small but man oh man… the whole song opened up so nicely. Yeah the low end is more present, relaxed, but the rest of the freq. spec. got so much silkier. Nice!
I tend to agree, the change slightly improved both the punch and clarity in the low end. I consider myself at best an intermediate level home producer, so take my comments in that context. Some of the discussion around phasing went over my head. My biggest takeaway from this video wasn't technical in nature. It's to remember our toolbox includes experimenting with the order of plugins when something doesn't sound quite right. Especially when the root problem is too subtle to identify. I imagine a lot of us share a similar learning journey -> former musician informally developing production skills. Our ears were accustomed to focusing on where WE sit in a mix, not balancing or accentuating frequencies. As our ears adjusted and we grasped basic concepts, we could assemble a passable amateur mix. Unfortunately, most of us eventually arrived at a period of paralysis-by-analysis and we struggled to complete mixes as a result. We eventually realized benefits from reducing the number of plugin choices and building templates. These templates often include set plugin chains to support a deliberate mixing process (perhaps a mistake?). Probably a long way of contextualizing my point but hopefully it's clear -> if we're too rigid with our initial mixing setup, it can be harder to find the small enhancements that can make a big difference. EQ before Comp, Comp before EQ, Clip before or after EQ, always side-chain effects, etc. None of these choices have an optimal answer that applies to every mix. In specific cases -> no matter how many times we cut or bump frequencies, we aren't going to fix our problem, because the real problem might be plugin order-of-operations.
On master bus, I do EQ into the clipper or limiter. However in the mixing stage, I had few occasion where drums are just not sharp enough,and was driving drums into the clipper to get some spitback from aliasing, and then boost that with the shelf or fresh air, to get more defined transient.
This is a game of controlling peaks. Michelangelo is causing lesser clipping i reckon. Try it without a clipper too ! Anyways the sound got better not only in low end, but also easier to hear in higher end.
Phase shift after saturation/clipping could be detrimental to harmonics relationship. I think this could be one of the main reasons for Michelangelo sounding much better before clipper
It makes sense to me as clipping and limiting are essentially distortions, even if you're only just shaving up the peaks. Kind of like the notion of "mixing into a clipper". It's not what I usually do, but it helps sometimes shaping the sound by controlling the distortion with processing, like "EQ" and bringing it up however you like with the clipper.
EDIT} I was thinking some more about this and I think I've cooked lol. Something I'm learning in reaserching designing circuitboard signal transmition lines is that the rising and falling edge steepness (time to rise/fall per given amplitude) dictates it's freqency. This is because the steeper a rise time or a fall time, the higher the freqency it can repeat given that specific amplitude of wave. This would also apply here, so depending on how far round the flat top gets rotated, and how steep it ends up being, the freqency of the triangle wave like slope you have essentually just created will differ. If it's only a slight shift, and a gentle slope, it would be a lower freqency and the lower the harmonics, from it essentually being one side of a triangle wave, would begin to happen. I think this would also mean it's unmusical harmonics, as if the newly created slope angle (or slope pitch as it's sometimes called) dictates the starting freqency, and not any content of the prior signal, it has to be unrelated harmonic content to what was there before (only tied to time via when clipping happens, and the pitch will be dictated mostly by the amount of phase rotation from the eq)! Along this line of thinking (just thinking out loud now and throwing somethnig out there), it's probably not really a triangle wave, because there's only one side and it's asymmetric .. so it would probably be more correct to say something like the slope of a sawtooth wave, which if my thinking is correct, could mean that you are starting to add in even harmonics (as well as odd), shifting the energy from the souly odd harmonics of hard clipping (and if what I say in the first paragraph is correct, could also be shifted to a larger amount of lower freqency and less musical harmonics than you would normally expect from light clipping)... Would love to see you test this! As we're starting to get to the limit of my knowlage here and complex mathematics I don't fully understand start to take over, one thing I'm not sure of is if in this example the amplitude of the newly created slope that we are deriving the freqency from, comes from it's own height or the total waveforms height (or something inbetween/a mix). If it's it's own height, and not the overall waveform as I has assumed above (which I'm now thinking it might not be), it would mean the time the clipper was active for would also play a part in determining the freqency of the created slope, along with how much it's phase rotated. This would mean that the heavier the clipping (assuming an equal phase shift), the lower the freqency it could create, which sounds correct to me thinking about it now. This may mean it's just shifting the harmonics from odd to even+odd by rotating the phase of a clipped signal, and the point at which these are introduced in the freqency spectrum is a function of how hard you are clipping. It's something along these lines though I'm pretty sure lol... (what I had written before the edit basically just accidentally described the mechanics of how clipping distortion happens, before I re-read it and realised what I was describing lol).
@@panorama_mastering I've been mucking about, and I seem to be somewhat off the mark here. I tried manipulating the phase a bunch and it doesn't seem to effect the harmonics other than in volume when you settle on a setting, contrary to how I thought it might. It does seem to do something similar to what I opined it might, but only whilst actually changing the phase. When you settle on a value, the harmonics go back to what they were, which is confusing the heck out of me lol. It would seem something else is at play in your example maybe. Although if you could check your end just to make sure you get the same results as me, I'd appreciate it, however don't get your hopes up as it doesn't seem to work exactly the way I thought it would. Maybe there's some other trickery going on in the phase shifter I'm using, or maybe there's already been a fix for this issue that is built in to many phase rotation vsts (like comb filtering or something), and that's why all the lower harmonics vanish when you settle on a setting. I'm not really sure tbh, this has got me right stumped now lol.
Definitely makes sense AND sounds better. For a spell I used to have my "analogue chain" (emulation plugins) stuff, then a clipper or waveshaper to emulate clipping AD convertors, then clean digital stuff. Same principle, right?
It's like earing a radio mix because of clarity on A and a more quality mix because of depht on B. Both of them are good but not for the same purpose. What is the vision and the purpose of the track i think is the question.
Well, that doesn't make much sense to me, because changing the kick volume in the mix or putting a pro-mb on master would make a much bigger difference. What you shown here is a difference, but these changes can be achieved easier with more specific methods
I'm not looking to make a bigger difference, less is more, these harmonics produced by MA are great and musical for the song, it's just about the placement of this processor to not step on as much.
To my ears, EQ after clipper sounded like the low end was bleeding over the peaks making it sluggish. EQ before clipper gave more body to the kickdrum making the transients and sustain stable.
Does it mean i cn not put another eq after clipper? Just eq(s) before clipping? What about using 2 clippers? Eq, Clipper, compresor, sat, tape, Clipper again, limiter.
Yes, no, I think something I missed in this video would have been looking at the RMS value of michelangelo before and after, and matching that, because that would have given me a better indicator of my crest factor.
Great video as always Nic: question here: What about put sume clipping at the begining of the chain and another one just before the limiter. I've always had that question.
I'd take this a step further and say to just put a clipper in front of anything where you don't want stray peaks to affect the output, which could cover everything from saturation to compression to limiting. If it sounds bad you can always take it out, but why limit yourself and never try in the first place.
Would the following be best of both worlds? 1. Move clipper to end of chain (before limiter) to avoid phase rotation problems. 2. With your bus compressor now pre clipper, sidechain it to a clipped version of the mix to retain smooth compressor action. This is based on the assumption you like the clipper early in order to make your compressor work less. Or are there other reasons to have the clipper early?
@@WyattBrown377 A clipper shouldn't cause problems being before a compressor as there's no phase shift introduced by a straight compressor. It's only things like EQs etc. that don't play nice after.
@@DaftyBoi412 Yeah comps love following a clipper, since the peaks are already managed you get more consistent compression. As far as I'm aware that's actually the main reason to put a clipper early in the chain
@@WyattBrown377 Ye that is the reason people started pulling them earlier in the chain as they used to mostly be used at the end back in the day. Then people realised putting it before compression actually lets your glue compressor work more smoothly, and a load of people started to put it first in the chain instead as a result. We are now learning it should be somewhere in the middle heh. 🤣✌️
I definitely hear the difference via headphones. So does this now make you want to try a new 'order' so to speak? Since we moved the Mike before Clip and got a definite difference in results, would other steps be reordered to see how it plays out? Makes you want to approach the chain with new variations.
@@panorama_masteringjust played this in the ride...you FEEL the difference as well. Goodness. Now I'm going to go back on a master and see a difference. Especially since it's Rap which loves to have that heavy low end.
Ofcourse you should! Otherwise you will make the same mistakes for lots of songs “as standard”. Same Plugin order might, and probably not work for all songs 😜 All Song are different and need different approaches. Working with a preset/fixed order will limit you to get the best out of that track……. Unless you reverse engineer and make the perfect Master first and let the producer/mix engineer fix everything audible that comes with that master and render the fixed mix after that again 😉😎🥃
Well whenever I master I tend to always EQ before clipping knowing that it could amplify the peaks since it doesn't make sense to cut down peaks with a clipper and then boost them again with an EQ. How off am I?
I think you are mastering for bats 😂 I love the value you deliver on these videos, but maaan, you gotta be batman to hear that kick getting unchocked !
I see you’re not using the soft clip function anymore. Why is that? Also, since the moral here seems to be that clipping before any plugin that introduces phase rotation could jeopardize harmonics, the logic would seem to suggest - place ANY phase rotating plugin BEFORE clipping? Thoughts?
my mastering chain should have a red button that will light up and say "Go back and fix youre mix first..this version is not worthy of my mastering chain...come back ...try again ...
as a music artist...the sustained bass synth notes you loop on 9:21 a few dont change key at the right moment and sound a bit off..could have chosen a better combination of bass notes in that section...last bass note goes wobbly because it clashes with the frequency range where the body of kick the resides....with sub bass ...i just a use ozone 11 module to keep it in check...those low rumble frequencies will wake up a whole city block ..im out...oh edit...on my 30 years old pc speakers set with sub(sub is totally out of control lol) the song and soundstage (master sound balance) is excellent Well done!
You start talking about something as if I've been sitting next to you the whole time. I prefer videos where I can see right from the start - or at least in the description - what exactly it's about. I don't want to watch the whole video first to find out whether the topic is relevant to me.
You are really waaaay overcooking everything. That clipper just introduces distortion, eq phase rotation basically cancelles it. Honestly, you should focus on sounding 5 times more transparent. Could you live without standardclip? Try that for a month. :)
@@Millerboy If I need a multiband compressor, I'll just set up a damn multiband compressor. I don't need to add stereo expansion, clipping, phase rotation and more horseradish where it's not needed...
As small as the change felt in my ear it was sounding like "the missing part". Brilliant video.
Thank you!
You've earned my subscription. Small yet not so subtle is the change. Thanks for this.
Thanks for the sub! Welcome to the fam!
Definitely a big difference in sound 👍 way fuller sounding with michelangelo eq first
EQ after hard clipping will introduce insane phase rotation and peaks that are bigger than the original which defeats the purpose of the clipping in the first place
Correct, the "insane" phase rotation is relative to the move.
@@panorama_mastering "insane" i.e. I now have peaks that are larger than before clipping whilst also having more distortion from a 3db bass boost... Edit: clipping before any phase rotation is counterproductive...
I clip twice for this very reason. One at the beginning and again at the end.
the issue is the peak clipping generates broadband noise, while the compound effect of phase rotation from EQ and filters will move those clipped peaks in time. So what used to be only on peaks can appear anywhere on the waveform, masked or un-masked. You hear this all the time in FM broadcasting, especially as that process also use phase rotators to make voice waveforms (ads) symmetrical, to apply more gain before clipping and multiband limiting further.
My take: 1. peak clipping (judiciously) can work - for some material, on peak *transients* . Transients being short wavelengths, ie: HF. Not kick drums.
2. EQ sounds cleaner, deeper, with more "scope" for adjustments, *pre* clipping or limiting. Especially on a whole mix. Just as not wanting to receive mixes for mastering that have been clipped or limited. (buss processing for tone / density is fine of course, if mixed into it and not added after the fact). Sure, we can work with it and attenuate it before EQ'ing. But any necessary EQ is simply likely to sound objectively even better if not pre-clipped.
This is one of those things that seems small but man oh man… the whole song opened up so nicely. Yeah the low end is more present, relaxed, but the rest of the freq. spec. got so much silkier. Nice!
Interesting. Yeah it did sound a bit better pre-clipper. Sounded more open. The top one sounded a bit more choked
I tend to agree, the change slightly improved both the punch and clarity in the low end. I consider myself at best an intermediate level home producer, so take my comments in that context. Some of the discussion around phasing went over my head. My biggest takeaway from this video wasn't technical in nature. It's to remember our toolbox includes experimenting with the order of plugins when something doesn't sound quite right. Especially when the root problem is too subtle to identify.
I imagine a lot of us share a similar learning journey -> former musician informally developing production skills. Our ears were accustomed to focusing on where WE sit in a mix, not balancing or accentuating frequencies. As our ears adjusted and we grasped basic concepts, we could assemble a passable amateur mix. Unfortunately, most of us eventually arrived at a period of paralysis-by-analysis and we struggled to complete mixes as a result. We eventually realized benefits from reducing the number of plugin choices and building templates. These templates often include set plugin chains to support a deliberate mixing process (perhaps a mistake?).
Probably a long way of contextualizing my point but hopefully it's clear -> if we're too rigid with our initial mixing setup, it can be harder to find the small enhancements that can make a big difference. EQ before Comp, Comp before EQ, Clip before or after EQ, always side-chain effects, etc. None of these choices have an optimal answer that applies to every mix. In specific cases -> no matter how many times we cut or bump frequencies, we aren't going to fix our problem, because the real problem might be plugin order-of-operations.
On master bus, I do EQ into the clipper or limiter.
However in the mixing stage, I had few occasion where drums are just not sharp enough,and was driving drums into the clipper to get some spitback from aliasing, and then boost that with the shelf or fresh air, to get more defined transient.
This is a game of controlling peaks. Michelangelo is causing lesser clipping i reckon. Try it without a clipper too ! Anyways the sound got better not only in low end, but also easier to hear in higher end.
Phase shift after saturation/clipping could be detrimental to harmonics relationship. I think this could be one of the main reasons for Michelangelo sounding much better before clipper
Definitely!
It makes sense to me as clipping and limiting are essentially distortions, even if you're only just shaving up the peaks. Kind of like the notion of "mixing into a clipper". It's not what I usually do, but it helps sometimes shaping the sound by controlling the distortion with processing, like "EQ" and bringing it up however you like with the clipper.
Exactly!
issue is the peaks are not necessarily only peaks as they get shifted in time via phase shift. (phase is time).
EDIT} I was thinking some more about this and I think I've cooked lol. Something I'm learning in reaserching designing circuitboard signal transmition lines is that the rising and falling edge steepness (time to rise/fall per given amplitude) dictates it's freqency. This is because the steeper a rise time or a fall time, the higher the freqency it can repeat given that specific amplitude of wave. This would also apply here, so depending on how far round the flat top gets rotated, and how steep it ends up being, the freqency of the triangle wave like slope you have essentually just created will differ. If it's only a slight shift, and a gentle slope, it would be a lower freqency and the lower the harmonics, from it essentually being one side of a triangle wave, would begin to happen. I think this would also mean it's unmusical harmonics, as if the newly created slope angle (or slope pitch as it's sometimes called) dictates the starting freqency, and not any content of the prior signal, it has to be unrelated harmonic content to what was there before (only tied to time via when clipping happens, and the pitch will be dictated mostly by the amount of phase rotation from the eq)!
Along this line of thinking (just thinking out loud now and throwing somethnig out there), it's probably not really a triangle wave, because there's only one side and it's asymmetric .. so it would probably be more correct to say something like the slope of a sawtooth wave, which if my thinking is correct, could mean that you are starting to add in even harmonics (as well as odd), shifting the energy from the souly odd harmonics of hard clipping (and if what I say in the first paragraph is correct, could also be shifted to a larger amount of lower freqency and less musical harmonics than you would normally expect from light clipping)... Would love to see you test this!
As we're starting to get to the limit of my knowlage here and complex mathematics I don't fully understand start to take over, one thing I'm not sure of is if in this example the amplitude of the newly created slope that we are deriving the freqency from, comes from it's own height or the total waveforms height (or something inbetween/a mix). If it's it's own height, and not the overall waveform as I has assumed above (which I'm now thinking it might not be), it would mean the time the clipper was active for would also play a part in determining the freqency of the created slope, along with how much it's phase rotated. This would mean that the heavier the clipping (assuming an equal phase shift), the lower the freqency it could create, which sounds correct to me thinking about it now. This may mean it's just shifting the harmonics from odd to even+odd by rotating the phase of a clipped signal, and the point at which these are introduced in the freqency spectrum is a function of how hard you are clipping. It's something along these lines though I'm pretty sure lol...
(what I had written before the edit basically just accidentally described the mechanics of how clipping distortion happens, before I re-read it and realised what I was describing lol).
Interesting. Test.
Signal 1 Square wave
Signal 2 Square wave with an allpass filter at the fundemental
What happens to the harmonics?
@@panorama_mastering I've been mucking about, and I seem to be somewhat off the mark here. I tried manipulating the phase a bunch and it doesn't seem to effect the harmonics other than in volume when you settle on a setting, contrary to how I thought it might. It does seem to do something similar to what I opined it might, but only whilst actually changing the phase. When you settle on a value, the harmonics go back to what they were, which is confusing the heck out of me lol.
It would seem something else is at play in your example maybe. Although if you could check your end just to make sure you get the same results as me, I'd appreciate it, however don't get your hopes up as it doesn't seem to work exactly the way I thought it would. Maybe there's some other trickery going on in the phase shifter I'm using, or maybe there's already been a fix for this issue that is built in to many phase rotation vsts (like comb filtering or something), and that's why all the lower harmonics vanish when you settle on a setting. I'm not really sure tbh, this has got me right stumped now lol.
Definitely makes sense AND sounds better. For a spell I used to have my "analogue chain" (emulation plugins) stuff, then a clipper or waveshaper to emulate clipping AD convertors, then clean digital stuff. Same principle, right?
Correct
Great! Thanks
These videos are amazing, thank you dude!
My pleasure!
You're right, subtle yes, but the bass is better with the clipper post MA.
It's like earing a radio mix because of clarity on A and a more quality mix because of depht on B.
Both of them are good but not for the same purpose.
What is the vision and the purpose of the track i think is the question.
Exactly; contextually this is an EP so throughout the mastering of this track to track I erred on the side of A
Let's goo ,we do better because of your videos
Yup. Low end is thicker and has better definition w/ Mich. pre-clipper. Good one.
Well, that doesn't make much sense to me, because changing the kick volume in the mix or putting a pro-mb on master would make a much bigger difference. What you shown here is a difference, but these changes can be achieved easier with more specific methods
I'm not looking to make a bigger difference, less is more, these harmonics produced by MA are great and musical for the song, it's just about the placement of this processor to not step on as much.
beautiful content with value!
Take the clipper fully off?
To my ears, EQ after clipper sounded like the low end was bleeding over the peaks making it sluggish. EQ before clipper gave more body to the kickdrum making the transients and sustain stable.
It's a really interesting choice, see I still enjoyed the original. But having this knowledge/flexibility will power me up in the future.
Only thing I ever put after my clipper on the 2-buss is a limiter..
Does it mean i cn not put another eq after clipper? Just eq(s) before clipping?
What about using 2 clippers?
Eq, Clipper, compresor, sat, tape, Clipper again, limiter.
You can if you have the balls
@@BlueCoore I have balls for 5 clippers!
Michelangelo is for color. The levels have to be addressed AFTER!
So, you figured that one out.
Yes, no, I think something I missed in this video would have been looking at the RMS value of michelangelo before and after, and matching that, because that would have given me a better indicator of my crest factor.
Great video as always Nic: question here: What about put sume clipping at the begining of the chain and another one just before the limiter. I've always had that question.
I'd take this a step further and say to just put a clipper in front of anything where you don't want stray peaks to affect the output, which could cover everything from saturation to compression to limiting. If it sounds bad you can always take it out, but why limit yourself and never try in the first place.
I prefer the new version too
Would the following be best of both worlds?
1. Move clipper to end of chain (before limiter) to avoid phase rotation problems.
2. With your bus compressor now pre clipper, sidechain it to a clipped version of the mix to retain smooth compressor action.
This is based on the assumption you like the clipper early in order to make your compressor work less. Or are there other reasons to have the clipper early?
@@WyattBrown377 A clipper shouldn't cause problems being before a compressor as there's no phase shift introduced by a straight compressor. It's only things like EQs etc. that don't play nice after.
@@DaftyBoi412 Yeah comps love following a clipper, since the peaks are already managed you get more consistent compression. As far as I'm aware that's actually the main reason to put a clipper early in the chain
@@WyattBrown377 Ye that is the reason people started pulling them earlier in the chain as they used to mostly be used at the end back in the day. Then people realised putting it before compression actually lets your glue compressor work more smoothly, and a load of people started to put it first in the chain instead as a result. We are now learning it should be somewhere in the middle heh. 🤣✌️
I definitely hear the difference via headphones. So does this now make you want to try a new 'order' so to speak? Since we moved the Mike before Clip and got a definite difference in results, would other steps be reordered to see how it plays out? Makes you want to approach the chain with new variations.
Always, always new orders.
@@panorama_masteringjust played this in the ride...you FEEL the difference as well. Goodness. Now I'm going to go back on a master and see a difference. Especially since it's Rap which loves to have that heavy low end.
Dont you think we should experiment with the plugin order for each song since it varies from song to song?
Ofcourse you should! Otherwise you will make the same mistakes for lots of songs “as standard”.
Same Plugin order might, and probably not work for all songs 😜
All Song are different and need different approaches. Working with a preset/fixed order will limit you to get the best out of that track…….
Unless you reverse engineer and make the perfect Master first and let the producer/mix engineer fix everything audible that comes with that master and render the fixed mix after that again 😉😎🥃
Yes, experiment, but part of experimenting is having a starting point, a hypothesis, and an end point to measure against the hypothetis.
in the case of Michelangelo you only used the harmonics ("agression") and he trim ?
correct.
Well whenever I master I tend to always EQ before clipping knowing that it could amplify the peaks since it doesn't make sense to cut down peaks with a clipper and then boost them again with an EQ. How off am I?
You're on the money.
Is the clipping adding additional harmonics to the Michelangelo?
I think you are mastering for bats 😂 I love the value you deliver on these videos, but maaan, you gotta be batman to hear that kick getting unchocked !
;)
air drumming at its best!!
I mean how can't you. How good does this song feel?
@@panorama_mastering its a must! the track is an absolute smacker!!
I see you’re not using the soft clip function anymore. Why is that?
Also, since the moral here seems to be that clipping before any plugin that introduces phase rotation could jeopardize harmonics, the logic would seem to suggest - place ANY phase rotating plugin BEFORE clipping? Thoughts?
Put the link to the song in the description please. Make it eaiser for us to do your call to action
Done!
@@panorama_mastering
why do you use the sontec over another eq ive seen it in a few engineers videos but i never understood why especially with that price.
Simple, quick, easy, no distractions.
If I need something surgical watch my last video ;)
my mastering chain should have a red button that will light up and say "Go back and fix youre mix first..this version is not worthy of my mastering chain...come back ...try again ...
Nice!
that's partly a producer's (invaluable) job!
as a music artist...the sustained bass synth notes you loop on 9:21 a few dont change key at the right moment and sound a bit off..could have chosen a better combination of bass notes in that section...last bass note goes wobbly because it clashes with the frequency range where the body of kick the resides....with sub bass ...i just a use ozone 11 module to keep it in check...those low rumble frequencies will wake up a whole city block ..im out...oh edit...on my 30 years old pc speakers set with sub(sub is totally out of control lol) the song and soundstage (master sound balance) is excellent Well done!
It’s an italian Name.Why the heck you pronounce it Maikelangelo?! It’s miikelangelo 😂
Ehi! When in Rome!
In Venice too 😂
You start talking about something as if I've been sitting next to you the whole time. I prefer videos where I can see right from the start - or at least in the description - what exactly it's about. I don't want to watch the whole video first to find out whether the topic is relevant to me.
You are really waaaay overcooking everything.
That clipper just introduces distortion, eq phase rotation basically cancelles it.
Honestly, you should focus on sounding 5 times more transparent. Could you live without standardclip? Try that for a month. :)
2:22 Someone is actually using this sh|t?
It has a pretty good MB compressor that just sounds right on some stuff. I wouldn’t completely knock it.
@@Millerboy If I need a multiband compressor, I'll just set up a damn multiband compressor. I don't need to add stereo expansion, clipping, phase rotation and more horseradish where it's not needed...