Throw a god damned blanket in the bastard.

tmoneygetpaid wrote:You can just send your kick or whatever you want to "resonant eq" out to an aux, put an EQ on the Aux channel, and put a send on the aux back to itself.Or you could put an EQ on the original track and boost it more.Someone A/B resonant vs. boosting more and report back, I'm curious.The difference is that with the resonant EQ the frequency boosted sustains and decays a little, in the manner of the resonant head on a drum, and responds similarly to changes in dynamics. "Boosting it more" doesn't.The routing you describe doesn't deal with the latency in the equalizer, so there will be a compounding regenerative delay proportional to the feedback, with a time constant equal to the latency of the equalizer algorithm. This delay will also have a time-based filtering effect, unrelated to the passband of the equalizer. I know there is latency compensation in plug-ins, but that is a fixed offset amount that won't (can't) accommodate regenerative feedback. That's why I suggested a hardware modeling plug-in of something like a moog filter that incorporates resonance.It is certainly possible to construct a FFT that includes the resonant amount and render the audio, but that doesn't provide for real-time monitoring, tuning and adjustment.I'm happy to demonstrate the effect sometime, just pop in during any mix session.

losthighway wrote:Steve, would you mind sharing a scenario where you might want to do this? Would it be for a kick sound that had attack, but not enough sustain?Yes, precisely. The low-frequency component of the bass drum isn't boomy enough. You sweep the eq to find a flattering frequency within the bass drum sound, then use the resonance to exaggerate its sustain. It isn't magic but the effect is useful often.You can use the old-school disco trick of keying a gate with an oscillator producing a pure tone, but that isn't a dynamic effect and tends to give itself away with anything but simple playing. The resonant equalizer responds to the playing dynamics and can be quite convincing.

tmoneygetpaid wrote:You can just send your kick or whatever you want to "resonant eq" out to an aux, put an EQ on the Aux channel, and put a send on the aux back to itself.Or you could put an EQ on the original track and boost it more.Someone A/B resonant vs. boosting more and report back, I'm curious.The difference is that with the resonant EQ the frequency boosted sustains and decays a little, in the manner of the resonant head on a drum, and responds similarly to changes in dynamics. "Boosting it more" doesn't.The routing you describe doesn't deal with the latency in the equalizer, so there will be a compounding regenerative delay proportional to the feedback, with a time constant equal to the latency of the equalizer algorithm. This delay will also have a time-based filtering effect, unrelated to the passband of the equalizer. I know there is latency compensation in plug-ins, but that is a fixed offset amount that won't (can't) accommodate regenerative feedback. That's why I suggested a hardware modeling plug-in of something like a moog filter that incorporates resonance.It is certainly possible to construct a FFT that includes the resonant amount and render the audio, but that doesn't provide for real-time monitoring, tuning and adjustment.I'm happy to demonstrate the effect sometime, just pop in during any mix session.

losthighway wrote:Steve, would you mind sharing a scenario where you might want to do this? Would it be for a kick sound that had attack, but not enough sustain?Yes, precisely. The low-frequency component of the bass drum isn't boomy enough. You sweep the eq to find a flattering frequency within the bass drum sound, then use the resonance to exaggerate its sustain. It isn't magic but the effect is useful often.You can use the old-school disco trick of keying a gate with an oscillator producing a pure tone, but that isn't a dynamic effect and tends to give itself away with anything but simple playing. The resonant equalizer responds to the playing dynamics and can be quite convincing.

You can just send your kick or whatever you want to "resonant eq" out to an aux, put an EQ on the Aux channel, and put a send on the aux back to itself.Or you could put an EQ on the original track and boost it more.Someone A/B resonant vs. boosting more and report back, I'm curious.

Been watching this video in bits and pieces and that drum section is really cool, although on my crappy headphones (or maybe I just don't have good ears), the kick EQ sounds subtle. Like, I hear it more in context of the overall mix, but not so much when I just focus on the kick. The other cool bit (I thought) was the snare compression trick where an 1176 gets used as an expander, somewhat. Had no idea that was a thing.

steve wrote:I'm happy to demonstrate the effect sometime, just pop in during any mix session.is this an invite for all of us, because i've been specifically told i'm not allowed near the studio for a while.

steve wrote:Say the latency of the equalizer at a certain setting is N samples. If you apply the equalizer to a channel, that channel will be offset N samples to compensate for the latency. If you're feeding it from a bus, then you can't offset the channel feeding the bus because it isn't a through-put, and that would put the channel out of sync with the rest of the session by N samples. So the return has a delay of N samples.This isn't the only way that DAWs compensate for delay. They take a chunk (buffer of audio) and run all the computations, including what's going out to buses. In other words, the delay of a plugin that's put on a bus is compensated for.steve wrote:You then feed that return back through the same bus, so the feedback has an additional N samples of delay, and additional delay on the feedback of that signal coming back into the parallel channel and so forth, regenerating the delay more and more with more feedback.I believe you're right here. I don't know if it can compensate for that, and maybe even some DAWs have protections against this sort of feedback.

Yeah, the whole point of the feedback is that it's an infinite loop. I guess technically it's not if we let that resonance decay. Anyway, I don't know how algorithmically they can handle that kind of a loop because the program could easily throw itself into an infinite loop.