Any feedback on Sonible smart vsts?
- Thread starter Ciochi
- Start date
LynxUK
An Englishman abroad
Wait until tomorrow, as SmartEQ 4 is getting released. I have a lot of their stuff. I really like Smart Limit and True Balance which are part of my template. Smart EQ, I don't use so much. Its not that I'm not impressed with what it does...the spectral balance feature is cool - set a priority for different channels/instruments and it will try to balance those instruments in the mix. To be honest, I still use Pro-Q 3 for most of my EQing tasks and then some analogue emulation everywhere else, so I havent really found an area that I would find it useful and better than what I'm using already. The same goes for the compressor-I can't seem to find a reason to use it above what I already use. Never ever used their reverb, so cant comment.
Saying that, you can't go wrong. They are decent, well respected plugins and probably more deserving of my neglect.
Saying that, you can't go wrong. They are decent, well respected plugins and probably more deserving of my neglect.
If you are concerned about having a good set of tools to use on everything, I would look elsewhere. If you are concerned about having a good workflow for spectral compression, especially for busses in my opinion, I can recommend the compressor. I do not know enough about the limiter; it seems good, but I couldn't say what makes a better limiter. I just use Elevate and TDR no. 6 most of the time, the Sonible too, and it seems to do fine, but doesn't stick out to me.
The EQ seems difficult to fit into a workflow not centered entirely around it, unless you trust its profiling that much (I don't), and for EQing I do not prefer working with it over TDR & Kirchhoff. The reverb I have never used and do not have a reason to try at the moment. I would be surprised if it were better than many of the other great offerings out there - not that Sonible should not be given a chance, but word on the street has not centered around this reverb as much as it has some of the other products from other developers.
The EQ seems difficult to fit into a workflow not centered entirely around it, unless you trust its profiling that much (I don't), and for EQing I do not prefer working with it over TDR & Kirchhoff. The reverb I have never used and do not have a reason to try at the moment. I would be surprised if it were better than many of the other great offerings out there - not that Sonible should not be given a chance, but word on the street has not centered around this reverb as much as it has some of the other products from other developers.
smart:eq 4 has just been released:
www.sonible.com
But apparently isn't part of the smart:bundle yet. Maybe later today.
I really like smart:limit, it gives good results quickly. But as mentioned, TDR Limiter is great as well and is currently available for $9.99. I haven't used the others (comp, eq) as much as I thought I would. I never use the reverb.
smart:EQ 4 by sonible - the intelligent equalizer with the power of AI
Within seconds, smart:EQ 4 creates spectral balance in single audio tracks and a lets you create an unmasking hierarchy via dragg&drop.
www.sonible.com
But apparently isn't part of the smart:bundle yet. Maybe later today.
I really like smart:limit, it gives good results quickly. But as mentioned, TDR Limiter is great as well and is currently available for $9.99. I haven't used the others (comp, eq) as much as I thought I would. I never use the reverb.
Thanks everybody for the replies.
The use I would do is not exhaust the eq/comp/verb task by using them.
I guess they are not even thought like that. As much their AI is good, it can't know that I want to lowcut that pad or enhance those freqs. I do like their group eq balancing, which will be applied at last on the chain.
I obviously won't have only them. I have plenty of tools to be used in traditional ways such as Q3, Nova, slick and TDR limiter along with many IKs, Ozone 10+ Neutron 4, many waves and so much more.
The use I would do is not exhaust the eq/comp/verb task by using them.
I guess they are not even thought like that. As much their AI is good, it can't know that I want to lowcut that pad or enhance those freqs. I do like their group eq balancing, which will be applied at last on the chain.
I've used it for half an hour, seems good but I 'm checking if the unmasking works better in neutron.
jazzman7
Senior Member
Perfect timing. For 29 bucks it's hard to go wrong. I'll probably try it out and experiment with a few stems and see how the unmask stacks up against the SMEQ3
motomotomoto
Active Member
IMO the sonible stuff is great, and the bundle is a crazy value.
1. Smart Limit - incredible option, usually my first choice these days unless I reach for ProL2 or a combo of limiters
2. Smart Comp - good clean spectral comp, prob the best spectral comp. Also good at plain clean digital comp tasks.
3. Smart Reverb - IMO a weak point. Smart reverb sounds OK, for a clean digital reverb but nothing special.
4. Smart DeEss - Haven't used it but heard it's good
5. Smart EQ - Lots of options out there for tonally balancing signals and I'm still divided on if it's actually good for mixing or not in general. However holds its own against the others including izotope, gullfoss, smooth operator, TDR, and others. I find that the non-dynamic curves in SmartEq3 also sound less artificial and more natural in a mix if you go that route.
Would actually love to hear what people think in general what use tonal balancers have in EQ for mixing. Yes a mix can be tonally balanced, but what is the purpose of tonally balacing individual tracks? Shouldn't each one occupy it's own space.
1. Smart Limit - incredible option, usually my first choice these days unless I reach for ProL2 or a combo of limiters
2. Smart Comp - good clean spectral comp, prob the best spectral comp. Also good at plain clean digital comp tasks.
3. Smart Reverb - IMO a weak point. Smart reverb sounds OK, for a clean digital reverb but nothing special.
4. Smart DeEss - Haven't used it but heard it's good
5. Smart EQ - Lots of options out there for tonally balancing signals and I'm still divided on if it's actually good for mixing or not in general. However holds its own against the others including izotope, gullfoss, smooth operator, TDR, and others. I find that the non-dynamic curves in SmartEq3 also sound less artificial and more natural in a mix if you go that route.
Would actually love to hear what people think in general what use tonal balancers have in EQ for mixing. Yes a mix can be tonally balanced, but what is the purpose of tonally balacing individual tracks? Shouldn't each one occupy it's own space.
Jackal_King
Senior Member
I like using Smart:EQ 3 on a group bus like strings or woodwinds but not so sure about trying it on individual tracks like I normally would with Pro-Q 3. I will pick up True:Balance this weekend since that's been on my wishlist all year as well as the upgrade to EQ 4.
Trash Panda
Clueless nitwit
I fucking love Smart EQ4. It's everything I'd hoped it would be in an update, as my primary use-case is carving out space in the frequency spectrum for the most important elements. Sometimes I like what the spectral balancing EQ does at the track level, sometimes I don't. Usually only end up using part of the smart filter curve in most instances since it wants to boost irrelevant frequencies (like sub bass on a violin).
The expansion of the groups to 10 tracks is super welcome, as is the ability to customize how the Smart Filters are applied (track only, group + track, group only). I was hoping for group-level dynamic filters, but they're still static. At least the learn time can be a full minute, and the results feel like that makes a big difference versus the old system that listened for 6 seconds.
Here's a 3-way comparison of an old piece where Smart EQ3 was used. The only EQ work done was Smart EQ3 on the 6 section busses (vocals, band, brass, perc, keys, strings). In Smart EQ4 I was able to set up the group with 9 sections (vocals, guitars, bass guitar, drums, brass, timpani, atonal perc, keys, strings).
In the Smart EQ examples, I'm using the fully dynamic/adaptive EQ curves and have not made any manual tweaks (though I'd personally do a few if I were truly redoing this). All tracks in the groups are group + track mode and the only EQ plugins are a few instances of Soothe 2 and Gullfoss.
I recommend comparing clips in 10 second chunks to be able to really hear the difference.
Track without Smart EQ:
View attachment MGS3 OST - Snake Eater (No Smart EQ).mp3
Track with Smart EQ3 on section busses:
View attachment MGS3 OST - Snake Eater (Smart EQ3).mp3
Track with Smart EQ4 on the 9 tracks/busses mentioned above:
View attachment MGS3 OST - Snake Eater (Smart EQ 4).mp3
Track with Smart EQ4 and a mix-bus level EQ matched to the modern pop target:
View attachment MGS3 OST - Snake Eater (Smart EQ 4 with Mix Bus EQ).mp3
The expansion of the groups to 10 tracks is super welcome, as is the ability to customize how the Smart Filters are applied (track only, group + track, group only). I was hoping for group-level dynamic filters, but they're still static. At least the learn time can be a full minute, and the results feel like that makes a big difference versus the old system that listened for 6 seconds.
Here's a 3-way comparison of an old piece where Smart EQ3 was used. The only EQ work done was Smart EQ3 on the 6 section busses (vocals, band, brass, perc, keys, strings). In Smart EQ4 I was able to set up the group with 9 sections (vocals, guitars, bass guitar, drums, brass, timpani, atonal perc, keys, strings).
In the Smart EQ examples, I'm using the fully dynamic/adaptive EQ curves and have not made any manual tweaks (though I'd personally do a few if I were truly redoing this). All tracks in the groups are group + track mode and the only EQ plugins are a few instances of Soothe 2 and Gullfoss.
I recommend comparing clips in 10 second chunks to be able to really hear the difference.
Track without Smart EQ:
View attachment MGS3 OST - Snake Eater (No Smart EQ).mp3
Track with Smart EQ3 on section busses:
View attachment MGS3 OST - Snake Eater (Smart EQ3).mp3
Track with Smart EQ4 on the 9 tracks/busses mentioned above:
View attachment MGS3 OST - Snake Eater (Smart EQ 4).mp3
Track with Smart EQ4 and a mix-bus level EQ matched to the modern pop target:
View attachment MGS3 OST - Snake Eater (Smart EQ 4 with Mix Bus EQ).mp3
NekujaK
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
As much as I like the Sonible smart products in principle, I have to give them just a "meh" in practice.
smart:comp can often provide a decent starting point, but compression is such an important and versatile effect, that I nearly always end up replacing it with a "real" compressor and tweaking manually.
The reverb is okay, but I have some really nice reverbs, so smart:reverb doesn't really add anything.
Haven't used the limiter, gate, or de-esser. But again, I already have some great limiters, and never had a situation where a standard gate or de-esser couldn't easily handle an issue.
The EQ is hit and miss for me. Everytime I try it, I end up removing it and EQ the old fashioned way - using my ears. Admittedly, I haven't played around much with the multi-track unmasking features, but IMHO, people obsess unecessarily about masking. Live instruments naturally mask one another, it's an important characteristic of how an ensemble performance sounds, be it classical, rock, jazz, country, etc... The way to address extreme masking problems is through the musical arrangement. But this is a separate philosophical mixing topic that should be discussed elsewhere.
The one Sonible plugin I use all the time is true:balance, to validate my mixes. It's similar to Izotope's Tonal Balance Control, but I find true:balance to be more responsive and musically useful.
I totally understand how the smart products can be helpful for folks who have limited mixing experience or don't work in an ideal monitoring environment. And I really get how these plugins can be time savers. However, it's dangerous to rely too heavily on automated mixing plugins.
First, they don't help you develop the skills and confidence to use your own ears and mixing instincts. I definitely don't consider myself an expert mixer, but whatever skills I may have developed over the years, have come from a lot of listening, trial and error, more listening, and a lot more trial and error. There's simply no substitute for getting your hands on the knobs and faders, engaging your ears, and doing the work yourself. I'm still learning every time I mix.
Second, they won't give you the best possible results. Automated mixing plugins from Sonible, Mastering the Mix, iZotope, etc. are incapable of understanding the true intent of a piece of music, and can't mix creatively to bring out its inherently unique characteristics. At best, you'll get a generic mix (which may be fine, depending on the situation), or a not-so-great mix.
As always, just my 2 cents... YMMV!
smart:comp can often provide a decent starting point, but compression is such an important and versatile effect, that I nearly always end up replacing it with a "real" compressor and tweaking manually.
The reverb is okay, but I have some really nice reverbs, so smart:reverb doesn't really add anything.
Haven't used the limiter, gate, or de-esser. But again, I already have some great limiters, and never had a situation where a standard gate or de-esser couldn't easily handle an issue.
The EQ is hit and miss for me. Everytime I try it, I end up removing it and EQ the old fashioned way - using my ears. Admittedly, I haven't played around much with the multi-track unmasking features, but IMHO, people obsess unecessarily about masking. Live instruments naturally mask one another, it's an important characteristic of how an ensemble performance sounds, be it classical, rock, jazz, country, etc... The way to address extreme masking problems is through the musical arrangement. But this is a separate philosophical mixing topic that should be discussed elsewhere.
The one Sonible plugin I use all the time is true:balance, to validate my mixes. It's similar to Izotope's Tonal Balance Control, but I find true:balance to be more responsive and musically useful.
I totally understand how the smart products can be helpful for folks who have limited mixing experience or don't work in an ideal monitoring environment. And I really get how these plugins can be time savers. However, it's dangerous to rely too heavily on automated mixing plugins.
First, they don't help you develop the skills and confidence to use your own ears and mixing instincts. I definitely don't consider myself an expert mixer, but whatever skills I may have developed over the years, have come from a lot of listening, trial and error, more listening, and a lot more trial and error. There's simply no substitute for getting your hands on the knobs and faders, engaging your ears, and doing the work yourself. I'm still learning every time I mix.
Second, they won't give you the best possible results. Automated mixing plugins from Sonible, Mastering the Mix, iZotope, etc. are incapable of understanding the true intent of a piece of music, and can't mix creatively to bring out its inherently unique characteristics. At best, you'll get a generic mix (which may be fine, depending on the situation), or a not-so-great mix.
As always, just my 2 cents... YMMV!
Still deciding on it. I will surely buy SM4, I got edu discount and can take it for 39$. I'm valuating if thel the smart essentials with comp e limiter for 100 bucks is something I would really use (I'm not a fan of compression in general) and I have a consolidated workflow for limiting or kinda (again, not too much, I'd rather use a clipper).
Here's a quick example of the track I'm using to evaluate the plugins.
First render is without any smart eq or limit
View attachment NOEQ.mp3
Then same portion with just smarteq3+4
View attachment JUSTEQ.mp3
Then Smart limit added but no tweaks and track X used a reference
View attachment EQ+SMARTLIMIT.mp3
Last same but with ozone 10, no tweaks, same track used with SL
View attachment EQ+OZONE10.mp3
I do prefer ozone over smart limit, but I can hear the automatic work of seq3+4
First render is without any smart eq or limit
View attachment NOEQ.mp3
Then same portion with just smarteq3+4
View attachment JUSTEQ.mp3
Then Smart limit added but no tweaks and track X used a reference
View attachment EQ+SMARTLIMIT.mp3
Last same but with ozone 10, no tweaks, same track used with SL
View attachment EQ+OZONE10.mp3
I do prefer ozone over smart limit, but I can hear the automatic work of seq3+4
Harry
Active Member
Interesting listen.
I'm still trying to work out the best way of using the Smart EQ4. Above you have used an instance of Smart EQ4 on each Bus - but not on individual tracks?
I was trying to take it a step further - make "Groups" within Smart EQ4 and then have each track affected - then take the "Groups" made in Smart EQ4, and join them together ---- can't figure out though how to ad a group made in Smart EQ4 to be joined in a new group with another group made in Smart EQ4 ... anyone know that? Alternative I suppose would be to add Smart EQ4 to every seperate track, add them ato a Smart EQ4 "group", and then a New instance of Smart EQ4 on each bus ... and then join all the Bus Smart EQ4s to another group .. I did try that on a busy mix, and it took a lot of time, and maybe its overkill or even will harm the final sound ... what do you think?
Other than the issue SEQ4 has with Reaper at the moment (word has they're on it) I do like SEQ4 for helping to expose inter-track issues. It may or may not be used to actually resolve whatever it finds since an all pass filter or something spectral might be a better choice. But I'll definitely be using it for analysis since its so fast and at least ball-park right.
Another thing I'm experimenting with is leveraging the fact it only listens to upstream plugins in its chain. This allows a user to add another EQ after it and not confuse it. Basically let it rough in the EQ from its more technical perspective and me make the aesthetic choices on another EQ after it. Jury is still out on that idea, but seems encouraging so far.
Another thing I'm experimenting with is leveraging the fact it only listens to upstream plugins in its chain. This allows a user to add another EQ after it and not confuse it. Basically let it rough in the EQ from its more technical perspective and me make the aesthetic choices on another EQ after it. Jury is still out on that idea, but seems encouraging so far.
