NUGEN plug-ins: interesting stereo tools and bass monofilter

[mhschmieder]

Wow, NUGEN makes incredible plug-ins that are true life-savers at the mastering stage!

I had tried a few years ago on my hopeless G4 iMac, but really made no progress in all the years I owned that underpowered toy.

Yesterday, I was polishing up the mastering of a local metal band's material, and had decided to give up on Ozone for this project as it sounded artificial and changed the timbre and character even at mild settings. It's still a great plug-in, but this particular project needs to stay very organic and raw, so it was the wrong tool for the job.

Slate Digital came to the rescue; though it was a PITA to keep switching tools to run 32-bit and 64-bit plugs. FG-X worked wonders, improving what I feel I can say is a very good mix (I couldn't say this about my previous efforts), and just enhancing vs. changing. Very transparent. Similarly with the tape emulator; I rarely use Nomad Factory's anymore (except occasionally on individual tracks in early mixing stages).

What really saved the day, though, was NUGEN's Monofilter. I had been struggling with mono-izing the bass frequencies using other plug-ins, and kept getting artifacts, phase anomalies, etc. Then I read some forum discussions and was reminded of Monofilter, which I had forgotten about. Aside from mid/side processing for bass mono-izing, it then takes the entire frequency spectrum content and time-aligns to tighten up the overall sound. The metering is quite educational as well, and is worth running on a pre-master to understand what's going on.

After that, I started to wonder if I could do better than IK's T-RackS Quad-Image for stereo widening (mild) of the upper frequencies (this is a mono-compatible mix already, and very narrow, but I wanted to widen it just a bit at the mastering stage vs. per-track/stem). The jury is still out after further review, but NUGEN's Stereoizer is at the very least the most flexible one available (if a bit tricky to learn and to intuitively take in the settings). It offers time-based and level-based (or both simultaneously) approaches to stereoizing vs. typical mid/side processing.

They have several other plug-ins as well, and each one seems unique. For instance, there's one that can move specific frequency ranges and is designed especially for fixing poorly miked overheads or legacy recordings that can't be remixed and/or need to be pulled into a new context (such as song samples pulled into a film cue or another song).

There's some confusion over the bundle packaging and overlap, and I didn't see a super-package or one that included precisely the ones of interest, but I'll suss that out after trying more of their demos.

One of the ones I plan to download in a few days, is designed to help you prepare MP3, Apple iTunes Store, Spotify, and other specific masters for alternative content distribution (vs. CD masters). It's a different approach from the Oxford Frauenhoff plug-in. I didn't check the price yet. The Monofilter on its own is $99 though.

[Michael Canavan]

After that, I started to wonder if I could do better than IK's T-RackS Quad-Image for stereo widening (mild) of the upper frequencies (this is a mono-compatible mix already, and very narrow, but I wanted to widen it just a bit at the mastering stage vs. per-track/stem). The jury is still out after further review, but NUGEN's Stereoizer is at the very least the most flexible one available (if a bit tricky to learn and to intuitively take in the settings). It offers time-based and level-based (or both simultaneously) approaches to stereoizing vs. typical mid/side processing.

I just picked that plug in up at KVR as part of a package deal.
Mostly wanted Amplitube, but the Quad package is cool and was included, need to download it and mess around.

[mhschmieder]

It's very transparent. All recent T-RackS additions have impressed me immensely.

Being a multi-band, it's very flexible. I'm widening the first band to get the transition point towards the upper lows, setting slope to 24 dB/octave (48 dB/octave starts to exhibit artifacts), and essentially shutting it off in the first band (as I don't want to widen below 200 Hz). Then I set to roughly 133% for the rest.

A simplistic setting, but it sounds good on THIS material, which is a power trio plus a deep vocalist. No extra stuff like synths or the like, so it's a very narrow mix but still sounds full and 3D but likewise sounds great in mono. Quad-Image produced very happy results; I just wanted to see if I could get it more "modern" without losing the character, using a more advanced tool. Probably I can, but the NUGEN tool takes deep concentration, which I didn't have at 2am.

[Michael Canavan]

Good to know, I have PSP and Nomad simple stereo wideners but nothing that preserves the bass!

[mhschmieder]

As good as NI's Quad-Image tool is, it is strictly an M/S type plug-in, which can be great of course but might need to be followed by some phase correction (depending on usage, and the material).

I ended up switching over to NUGEN's Stereoizer after spending about four hours with it tonight. First I got really good at ITD Mode, then IID Mode, then I combined into one setting and compared vs. series usage of two separate instances (almost but not quite identical results).

I won't really know until tomorrow what I'll end up using for sure, as I'm fatigued from a full day of mastering efforts, trying to step up my game several levels beyond my last few years of depending heavily on PSP Xenon and iZotope Ozone with an emphasis on the latter and its multi-module mode.

This time around, I did everything in stages, compared at each stage, and moved on. The NUGEN Monofilter was my first stage of mastering and is solid and frozen. After that came Slate Digital's Virtual Tape Machines, then my biggest surprise find which is the newish T-RackS Master EQ Model 432 (this may now be my go-to Mastering EQ!).

My penultimate stage is mild stereo widening via whichever tool I settle on between T-RackS Quad-Image and NUGEN Stereoizer after more listening with the client tomorrow.

Unfortunately, Slate Digital's FG-X didn't seem to work quite as well with the widened material as on the much narrower original mix where I used Quad-Image vs. the time domain basis from NUGEN Stereoizer. I did make a final run with it late tonight though and will review with a more rested mind tomorrow. I think I simply had to back things off a bit to keep the image centered after the compressor/leveler phase of FG-X.

No matter what the setting, PSP Xenon seemed to have a bit of a plastic coating on this material, even though it seems to work the best of any Mastering Limiter when applied to jazz and chamber music or even larger orchestral projects (mostly MIDI-based vs. live miked instruments, however).

I returned to Ozone 6's Maximizer on its own and found it more transparent than in the full signal path context of Ozone 6, even though I thought I had disabled or used very light settings on other modules earlier this weekend. So it may be that Ozone 6 Maximizer wins that role for this project, used mildly and unaccompanied by other isotope mastering plug-ins.

Part of my evaluation of whether to stick with NUGEN's Stereoizer or T-RackS Quad-Image for the stereo width control, will depend on my evaluation of the peak limiter results as well. I plan to buy NUGEN Stereoizer regardless; it is too unique of a tool to judge its use from just one project and context. Monofilter is a definite buy. I'll evaluate their other plugs shortly.

[mhschmieder]

Although NUGEN Stereoizer is an interesting and powerful tool, I think I'll save it for denser mixes. After more listening tonight, I concluded that T-RackS Quad-Image is easier to get transparent results on sparse material that has a narrow initial image.

What saved the day, and gave me what I think is probably now my Final Master, is Kush Audio's Clariphonic Parallel Equalizer. I read all the reviews and GS discussions first, so was aware of the need to pull it back after finding a "good" setting -- by quite a bit, actually.

I ended up using it like a Reverb that way, in some senses, as I always pull back a Reverb until you think it is no longer there. So it is also with Clariphonic, as that is the point at which the source material still sounds less full when the plug-in is bypassed, but no timbral or character change is detected once the plug-in is engaged. The mix simply sounds more dynamic, and slightly bigger with more sheen.

Interestingly, I got my best results by preceding Clariphonic with T-RackS Quad-Image -- this gave the most transparent results vs. either on its own (a bit unexpected), but inverting their order in the signal path really muddied up the stereo image and lost focus and energy (especially in the bass and the lower mid-range).

iZotope Ozone's Maximizer won the day, by far, for final limiting. I think the problem I had earlier with the full product is that one or two blocks isn't exposed on the main page and so I didn't notice that they were engaged. I'll check this later. I have the Advanced edition, and I need to verify I have everything I'm supposed to, for one thing, as the Dynamic EQ isn't part of the regular edition but I also don't remember seeing it in the block diagram.

The interesting thing about a power trio, is that it doesn't seem to work too well to widen things or play too much with frequency-dependent settings at the mix stage, or even the stem stage. It sounds unnatural to my ears. But the types of plug-ins that are used at the mastering stage, when used carefully and subtly, seem to add dimension and power without giving the false illusion of there being more than three people (plus a singer) involved.

Obviously, the REAL professionals on this forum have a lot more experience at this than I do and may shoot my theory full of holes.

[monkey man]

Obviously, the REAL professionals on this forum have a lot more experience at this than I do and may shoot my theory full of holes.

Ha ha ha! From my perspective this is hilarious, Mark. Cripes!

Way to go, man. Well done on the job, from go to whoa, and it's fantastic that you're so happy with it. I mean, that's always the bottom line, isn't it?

[mhschmieder]

I may need to start a new thread on the Kush Audio plug-ins. I wasn't even aware of them until recently; I knew about their hardware so was surprised when they got into software.

[mhschmieder]

After revisiting the mix, and getting rid of the auto-panner on the guitar as well as slightly revisiting other aspects of the guitar and the kick drum, I no longer needed the NUGEN Monofilter plug-in and in fact found it to unpleasantly alter the timbre and naturalness of the sound even at minimal settings, just like the Stereoizer.

I also tried the Stereoizer on a LOT of different sources, including synths, and have decided to pass it by. It's a cool idea, but I'm not going to have the time to master it before the demo expires as I need to knuckle down and finish the album now that we are FINALLY fully satisfied with a start-to-finish mix/master of our lead track (the one we'll push heavily).

Furthermore, T-RackS Quad-Image started sounding a bit plastic even at minimal settings as well, once the source mix had been revisited as described above. Before tonight's edits, it was still my best mix ever, but there were aspects I wasn't perfectly happy with that were for the client's requests, which ended up having been misguided once we got to the heart of what was really wanted by "widen the kick".

These are all great plug-ins, for sure, but the lesson is that "Less is More" and it's always a good idea to revisit the goals when you find yourself adding more plug-ins to the processing chain and seeing if one of the earlier steps could be executed better.

Interestingly, iZotope Ozone fell out of favor again by the time I had prepared a better balanced and more rounded mix. Even with minimal settings I found it non-transparent and coloring a mix that simply needs to sound "the same, only louder".

My final mastering chain consisted of Stephen Slate's Virtual Tape Machines, followed by T-RackS Master EQ Model 432, Clariphonic Parallel Equalizer, and finally Stephen Slate's FG-X (with the Compressor turned off). All were set to custom settings that were extremely mild, but the final result feels very full, energetic, and loud, while maintaining the naturalness of the voice (in particular), the timbre of the guitar, and the full dynamic range of the players.

There is one gigantic flaw with Kush Audio's Clariphonic, which is that it doesn't have an Output Level control. As isotope RX is currently my only 64-bit mastering tool (I haven't had time yet to adequately learn Project Mode in PreSonus StudioOne), and only allows one plug-in at a time, I don't have an opportunity to manage the gain staging the way I would like. Right now I am getting three mild overs (digital clipping) where the separately tracked guitar parts (only one player in this band) overlap for a second or two (and need to; fading would be wrong). I'm going to try attenuating pre-Clariphonic and see if it still pushes things into clipping.

I didn't have any luck with Kush Audio's Pusher or UBK on ANY source, but didn't have a lot of time so may try some more before the demos expire. Clariphonic is a definite buy, however, and also wound up on the drum buss as a final touch. I think UBK and Pusher are well-designed and deeply programmed, but are specifically for cases where you aren't happy with the sound of the track or the mix and need or want to deliberately change its character quite radically.

Like I said earlier, this is a project where the musicianship is top notch, and the recording is already of high caliber, so there wasn't much "fix it in the mix" nonsense to deal with. I still have a lot to learn, but I feel I am able to do a very good job of recording drums, bass, and vocals at this point. The guitar was recorded by someone else, and not well, so that was a challenge at the mix stage. All the same, I have less confidence with guitar recording overall than anything else. It's so hard to read a guitarist's mind.