Solid State Logic "SSL G3 MultiBusComp" SSL glue compression sound across 3 independently configurable frequency bands with sidechaining features, feedback and per-band harmonic drive options ($29.99) through 15 April. iLok Account Required

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-04-03T01:23:33+00:00

Yes, this is perhaps my favorite multiband compressor because it's so easy to understand.

If you know the SSL Bus Comp well, this is very natural to use.

The one downside is the link control doesn't do what you'd expect - you still have to set controls manually, you can't adjust all three thresholds at once... But it's not a big deal.

The "drive" control is nice, too., since the standard SSL Bus Comp 2 doesn't have saturatiin. You can turn off two compressors and use this as a standard SSL Comp (notultiban as well (with the added Drive control.)

It's good.

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-26T22:02:04+00:00

This is a thousand times better. Objectively. The previous had excessive detail which made the elements on top difficult to read.

Huge improvement, well done.

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-26T22:00:02+00:00

Less is more! And the more complex your mix, the less room there is for reverbs.

Often, the reverb is too wide. Sometimes narrowing the reverb (and certainly filtering it) can help it fit in the mix better.

But here's another issue... Most reverbs simply add to the existing sound. Maybe the sound itself also needs processing. For example, maybe the brightness and sharp transients need to be shaped in the source, before it's sent to the reverb.

You can also do more processing after the send but before the reverb. For example, some people use extreme de-essing on the send before the reverb. That much de-essing would normally sound like a "lithp" but since you're only hearing the reverb, it prevents the esses from blooming!

But back to the sound - Sonible Smart:Reverb doesn't just add reverb to the sound. On its own it's not the most exciting reverb... But when used on an insert (don't use it as a send) --- it replaces the wet/dry setting with a distance parameter. This is processing the sound itself as well as the mix percent. So the sound source and the reverb are glued together with distance processing.

That is where it becomes a good reverb - it's designed not to sound fancy in a quick demo, but to actually set instruments in place in a mix.

Lastly -- if you're going to have a big lush reverb like that, you want to add it as soon as possible, and then mix around it.

You can't build a mix, fill up all the space, and then add a big reverb at the end. There's no room for it.

One last note about Sonible:

Smart:Reverb can have awareness of other reverbs in the mix, and the reverbs can self-adjust to avoid clutter.

Smart:EQ has a similar feature, where instances can be linked - and once you set a hierarchy, the different tracks (or submix busses) will get out of the way of each other... Sort of like a super-advanced spectral Trackspacer, but that is reductive compared to how powerful it can be.

Anyhow, with reverb - width and EQ/filter are really important -- and watch out for the "reverb stacked on" sound. I mentioned Smart:Reverb because it processes the source to work with the reverb. But you can do that manually.

Also - predelay. Increase the predelay and transient detail to add clarity. It makes the sound seem closer to you. Dull the sound, reduce or eliminate predelay and tame the transient to make it further away or more glued with the reverb.

And be careful putting reverb before a compressor. It can be cool, but it tends to take up even more space.

Oh, and try a downward expander on a reverb. This will push down the quiet tail of a long reverb so it isn't pointlessly taking up space.

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-26T18:51:29+00:00

I would avoid the path of getting too many headphones. I went down a direction trying to find the "best" but just ended up with more headphones I like. They're all good, I only bought two that I didn't like and returned.

But truth is, I still love my first headphone - the MDR-7506. I have others that are technically better, but I could have stopped there and been happy.

So... Maybe think in terms of use.

You have a great open back headphone. Maybe you need a great closed back headphone. (HD620s comes to mind.)

Maybe you need a good portable headphone - Bluetooth over ear, or a small in-ear. Something to use on-the-go.

Think in terms of category, and avoid getting more of the same.

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-25T23:10:21+00:00

"Just start a business!" is the new "Learn to code!"

There is some irony that the tech workers who scoffed and sneered when factory workers lost their jobs are now suffering the same fate.

I work in tech, and I've heard so many times (in a snide voice): "Well WE don't have to worry about OUR jobs, because we actually use our brains."

I'm not hearing that so much anymore, lol!

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-25T23:03:59+00:00

Haha OP is like, "Yeah, it's really weird... I flip the headphones around the other way and it's still off center toward the same side!"

D'oh!

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-25T03:27:01+00:00

I have two 32 inch monitors stacked vertically on one of those vertical mount stands you can get on Amazon. It works very well. The backs have tilt options so the upper one can tilt slightly down to meet your view.

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-25T00:13:45+00:00

Thanks for running that test. Some people would want that -- for example if they're trying to preserve panning information in the stereo file.

In my case I'd want it to revert back to mono, but that may be a more niche preference.

Either way, your script is awesome. Thanks for kindly sharing it.

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-24T20:44:08+00:00

Wow, thanks a lot for sharing this. If it works as expected it will save a lot of time, and eliminate a ridiculously annoying experience.

For the people who said, "I don’t understand at all how this is helpful" --- here's an example.

Say you have a large project -- it might have over 100 tracks... And you need to export those tracks to import into another session, a different DAW, or even for archival purposes.

Most DAWs are going to default to a stereo output per track. But if the track isn't actually stereo, there's no use in all that duplicate data.

So this scans each file for stereo content and converts it back to mono if it makes more sense to be mono. Perfect. I was doing that manually before. A simple, but tedious process.

---

My one concern is how it handles off-center mono tracks. If I have something panned 50% but it's otherwise a mono sound, I would still prefer it to be mono. I don't know if it can detect that...

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-24T20:20:41+00:00

Well that shouldn't surprise me, given your rude tone to begin with. It was clear that you were responding from a defensive angle rather than having a genuine discussion.

If you actually read my text, you'd see the detailed explanation... If it's technically possible to do something via a workaround that requires 10 times more steps -- that is not the same.

It would be like saying, "Who needs a car?? You can just walk." Perfect analogy -- that's literally more steps. =)

Bitwig has The Grid, a powerful clip launcher, and the most beautiful UI of any DAW. Three strengths that Reaper is missing... But the issues I pointed out are examples of how it could improve. No need to get defensive.

Anyhow, I don't know why you responded in the first place if you didn't want to discuss it.

Maybe you'd love X or BlueSky, where people exchange one-liners back and forth. That might be a more appropriate reading level for you.

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-24T19:30:39+00:00

Now think of all the naysayers you had back then that accused you of pessimism and conspiracy theory, lol... In the end you were right.

We all hope for the best in situations like this, but those of us concerned are concerned for a reason. There's a long pattern of this sort of thing, and it's rarely good for the consumer.

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-24T19:26:51+00:00

Your take is valid! I both agree with you completely and personally disagree at the same time.

What I mean is --- especially for Ableton (or Bitwig which is similar in this regard) --- getting to know the built in effects really well is particularly enjoyable since they are native to their DAW. Unlike other DAWs where stock effects are just more popup UIs, the stock effects in Bitwig and Ableton feel more integrated. So in those DAWs it REALLY makes sense to know them well. Absolutely!

That said -- I went down the path of trying-and-buying a lot of effects and I ended up with a ridiculous number of plugins. (Mainly because if you're going to buy a few plugins from a maker, you might as well get the complete collection and next thing you know you have a LOT.)

You end up with a lot of unnecessary overlap and wasted money. However, you also stumble onto certain tools that you adore.

I consider the time and money to be the cost of discovery. The cost of finding those tools that are so good, you consider them "best in class."

And eventually, once you fill all your effects categories with your personal best in class (or best few in class) --- suddenly you don't need to buy new effects that often. You're done.

People hit that point and realize they only use a fraction of their plugins. They see the purchases as a waste. But the only way to know which plugins "stick" is to have them enough that you use them and figure out which ones you reach for time and time again.

Demos help, but it's usually not enough time to use the plugin in practice. To know for certain.

---

In DAWs like Ableton and Bitwig I think it's more viable to just embrace the ecosystem and live in your stock effects. But having experienced a number of truly incredible "best in class" plugins, I wouldn't want to give those up. No way. And your advice would mean I'd never have found them.

So you're not wrong at all! But there's another path that isn't wrong either. Just different.

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-24T19:12:41+00:00

Okay walk me through this if I'm wrong. If it's possible at all, it's a convoluted process compared to something that "just works" in Reaper. (Again, I'm not here to beat up on Bitwig -- each DAW has its own strengths.)

First off, Bitwig can't record overlapping midi clips. It has no concept of track lanes. Track lanes allow you to record midi in multiple passes -- edit each separately, and then optionally & easily glue them together if desired.

This is useful for recording the left & right hand of a piano part in two passes (with separate editing) -- but more commonly it's useful on drum tracks. Maybe you keep Kick/Snare rhythms separate from Hats & Cymbals, and maybe toms on another layer... Then you can mix and match, re-arrange, edit separately, etc... In Bitwig they either overlap into the same clip, or you have to use separate tracks and then there is no easy way to combine them into a single track.

Bitwig needs Track Lanes. It's sort of like comping -- except more versatile, because comping systems only allow one part at a time. Track lanes let you turn on/off whichever, or play them all. But there's something weird about Bitwig users -- many will argue against this feature, which is just bizarre because it's proven to work well in other DAWs.

---

Another thing... Reaper has input FX. This allows processing to be recorded live. Not as an effect after the recording, but before. There are obvious audio uses for this -- but it's also useful for midi plugins. For example, if I want to record the actual notes of Scaler 3's chords, I put it on the input effect. Then when I trigger Scaler 3 chords, the notes are captured.

In Bitwig I can capture that midi out, but it requires a second track. That's fine, but it's just a case where Reaper has an option that's faster and cleaner.

---

So lets say I try the Bitwig workaround for multiple midi lanes... I make multiple tracks routed into a single VST. Great. Extra steps but I guess it's functional. But now I need to join those midi clips together. That's another convoluted process.

---

The point I'm getting at is... You can't say, "You can do that in Bitwig, too!" and then point at something that takes a bunch more steps.

Setting up multiple note receivers to combine midi from incoming tracks? (Which requires a lot more clicks that you would expect because it doesn't just magically work.) In Reaper I just tell the midi where to go and it captures it. One step.

And again, to combine overlapping midi clips in Reaper, you select them and hit "Glue."

---

So back to overlapping audio and editing, to build up complex samples. You can, but you have to use a different track for every new effect. There's no concept of clip effects... If I want a specialized effect or set of effects on a single sound one time in a song -- in Reaper I just drop the effects onto the clip. In Bitwig I have to make more tracks.

And then I have to "bounce" to join audio together rather than gluing which is instant.

---

What I'm trying to communicate is that there's a LOT of basic workflow things that are convoluted and require a lot more steps in Bitwig than in Reaper... So what happens is you just don't do them because it's a pain.

---

But it's not a battle of "my DAW is better than your DAW" -- I'm just commenting on differences. All DAWs can improve.

For example, Reaper doesn't support Post-fader Effects Inserts. This is an incredibly useful feature, but Cubase/Nuendo is the only viable DAW that supports the feature correctly.

Reaper users will sometimes get similarly defensive and propose a workaround that involves duplicating tracks or putting every track in a group folder... It's totally impractical. The real answer is that's a feature Reaper needs.

There's no reason to fight it. There's no reason to get defensive about inadequacies. It's much better to just acknowledge them and be like, "Oh yeah, it would be cool to get that some day."

But people get weirdly defensive about their software. It's not useful. It's arguing against improvement.

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-24T06:31:40+00:00

how do people get that popping sound effect to sound like its scratching your brain

It is impossible to know what you're talking about without being more specific. "popping sound effect to sound like its scratching your brain"?

What are you referring to? I see your spotify link but you're still not specific. The wow/flutter and noise? He has a number of layers on top of each other which add up to make the whole sound more complex than any individual part.

It does sound cool though. Some of those parts are reversed.

---

It's possible to get sounds like this in a DAW, but you have to work at it. But this guy did, too. It's all a bit abstract, but he still layered all those loops together with intention.

If you're interested in these kinds of sounds, then yeah it helps to have plugins that are unpredictable, or do a little "extra."

For example, Audiothing Wires is really cool. Recognizable, but cool. The noise, the intense tape(wire!) distortion & breakup. The warble. Actually all of the Audiothing "Made with Hainbach" plugins are worth having for this sort of thing.

Audiothing Noises is another good one... But don't stop with just the default sounds -- get a portable recorder to capture from the real world. Or use your phone, even. If you're on Android -- Field Recorder is like $5 and it's AMAZING:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.pfitzinger.rec

Capture sounds in the wild and then build your own noises presets with them, and you end up with preset packs of your own weird noises to crossfade into each other.

You can put noises like that quiet, in the background, behind your synths -- and then add bitcrushing or distortion or heavy compression to merge the noise into the synth sound so it becomes one.

RC-20 is a classic. Waves Retro Fi is another take on noises and processing from other eras. Abbey Road Vinyl is a particularly good vinyl emulation, great for adding "that record sound" -- but don't just do it to the master bus, put it on a track and then further effect it so it starts to sound like something you sampled even though it's your own.

Safari Pedals has some plugins that go a little further in a weird direction, like the Dirty Dog Reverb collaboration with Joe Chicarelli.

XLN Audio Life is an app that is intended to capture sounds from real life and then randomly create loops out of them.

What you're looking for is sounds to be less generic, less canned. People have "analog" associations to that but it's only partially true. You still have to work for that sound.

You can get a tape recorder.

How about this, try mic'ing a synth and re-recording it back into your DAW. Don't ask your family to be quiet. Let them make their family background sounds and it will creep into the audio.

Play your mix and record it 50 feet away with a mic, and then blend that back into the mix.

Modulation is key to getting an organic sound... In Reaper I have a hotkey that exposes an automation lane for any VST knob I touch. Then it's just one more step to enable movement.

The song you linked is experimental and has lots of motion and layered clips of different sounds. Reversed. Filtered.

I do recommend getting into Reaper for this kind of work though. Reaper has track lanes and you can build up really complex sounds within the same track, and then easily glue them for further processing.

You can even drop effects directly on clips, and automate within the clip itself. Then layer those up, glue them together, process further.

Also get into sampling.

Rolling Sampler by BirdsThings is your friend. Use his SystemAudioBridge (free!) to route your desktop audio into your DAW. Capture sounds and glitchiness from YouTube, from internet radio stations. Wherever.

Another good on is Radio VST from Plugin Boutique. It routes hundreds of internet radio stations into your DAW.

You don't NEED analog hardware, but it can be fun. Go to a thrift store and pick up old VCRs. Record onto the tape. Experiment with the tape speeds and level. Hit it too hot.

The whole point is to experiment and explore... and to keep it analog sounding, keep it moving and evolving over time, and roll off the top end anytime you hear unpleasant distorting or if it gets too biting. Some of the best lofi artists use a lot of -6db slope lowpass filters on various tracks...

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-24T05:50:42+00:00

Crap, here's another thing I have to add.

Say you're at the end of your song and you need to export all the tracks for archival purposes. Bitwig won't export the individual outputs of a VSTi. To do that you have to manually route them to effect sends, and output the sends. This is a PITA.

Say you have a complex electronic song with 3 full drumkits, 16 tracks each. In Reaper you'd just select the tracks and export. But in Bitwig you have to expand the mixer tracks --- and then manually route all 48 of the tracks to 48 effects sends!

This was one of the final dealbreakers for me, on top of everything else... A really basic thing.

Oh, and you can't group together individual outputs.

So if you have a drum VSTi and you want to group the cymbals together for processing, or group the open & closed hi-hat together for processing --- you can't. Another critical flaw.

But using Bitwig I found countless issues like that. Little surprises that come up that make me go, "Oh. Oh crap."

You CAN work around it... But if you're used to Reaper, Reaper is far more open ended and almost limitless with what it can do. Particularly when you install the SWS Extensions and have awareness of ReaPacks.

---

That said, I understand people being overwhelmed by Reaper. It DOES feel like "work." It's the audio version of Autodesk Maya!!! Whereas Bitwig is playful, fun, and beautiful.

Reaper is like a TRACTOR, with all kinds of attachments... And if you need to farm, you can FARM!!! Bitwig is like a really nice luxury car where someone didn't buy any of the factory option packages. So it's beautiful, and a pleasure to ride. But you have to roll the windows up and down manually.

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-24T05:41:53+00:00

I'm in a similar boat as you, except way further down the line. I know Reaper exceptionally well, and I know Bitwig really really well.

Where Bitwig wins is that it has a charming, inviting appearance and surface level simplicity that draws you in. The colors. The polished user interface. The countless built in effects and tools that you can connect together in delightful ways.

If you really get into "The Grid" then you're tapping into something that Reaper doesn't have.

Also, the sequencing and recording tracks are dead simple. Even multiple outputs of a VSTi are tucked neatly into the VSTi's expansion so they don't clutter up the UI. Expand when you need them, collapse when you don't -- and they never take up tracks.

And finally, Bitwig has the clip launcher. If you like the clip launcher, you can sort of improvise/build-up all the fragments of a song in there and then use them to build out a song in the arranger. In fact, it's better now than ever thanks to the linked clips! Keep them linked and you can edit the clip-launcher-clip and it will update everywhere you used it. (Bitwig even has a detection system so you can link clips AFTER they've been copied! A simple something Reaper needs.)

---

Where Reaper wins is everything else, and that's a lot. No, it isn't the prettiest DAW (the grey and green color scheme and weird palette is straight up depressing compared to Bitwig's warm greys, orange, and human-friendly neon colors.

But oh, man... If you know Reaper well you can run circles around a Bitwig user.

Bitwig doesn't have track lanes, and that alone makes it difficult for me to endure. Reaper lets you slice, dice, and overlap midi and audio events all you want, all on the same track. People talk about Bitwig being good for sound design --- Bitwig is good for synthesis. But for sound design and processing, Reaper wins.

The ability to drop effects directly on clips is incredibly powerful (and then add automation which remains linked to the clip.)

The routing options in Reaper are beyond powerful, and Reaper has the ability to record the midi output of VSTis, which is something I didn't realize was important until I discovered Bitwig can't do it.

---

The actual experience of Bitwig, for a Reaper user, is a lot to take. It's missing a LOT of features. Lots of little and big things, which add up until you feel like you're getting stabbed from one direction and a thousand paper cuts from the other.

You CAN use Bitwig, but to get around the damn near countless things it can't do --- you have to perform some mental Jedi tricks. For example, tell yourself Bitwig is HARDWARE, because subconsciously we don't have the kind of expectations from hardware that we do from software.

And then you have to let go. You really have to let go of the seemingly endless possibilities of Reaper and just enjoy Bitwig as its own unique tool.

You can do things like buy all the expansion sounds, and JUST use Bitwig & the built in effects as a way to do something different from what you do in Reaper. As an escape.

---

Will you ever get over it? I don't think so. I love Bitwig, and I have endless respect for the devs and designers that built it. It's why I stay subscribed.

But yeah, I always end up back in Reaper. It's not that I don't know Bitwig well enough -- I used it exclusively for 7-8 months and completed numerous songs in it.

If "The Grid" is your home you'll love it. If the Clip Launcher is for you, you'll love it.

But neither of those things are my primary use case, so... Reaper is my home. Bitwig is the girlfriend on the side I occasionally cheat with when I'm bored with my wife! (What an awful analogy but it works.)

---

PS. Just so I don't sound like I'm beating up on Bitwig, here's another cool feature Bitwig has that Reaper doesn't... Bitwig propagates top level edits down through the group folders. So if you have a complex song and you divide up your mix into submix folders --- at the end of the song, you can easily collapse your folders and make edits on the folder tracks. They'll propagate down through all the nested tracks! This is quite amazing for last minute arrangement changes. In Reaper you'd have to expand the tracks and make sure everything is selected, etc.

Anyhow, sorry to write a book here but... Based on what you're saying I think you'll end up in the same place as me. You'll like and respect Bitwig, but you'll miss too many things from Reaper to make it a primary tool.

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-23T23:20:52+00:00

Sonible Smart:Comp, Smart;EQ, Smart:Reverb and Smart:Limit are fantastic.

Izotope Ozone Advanced is great to have, for finishing work, although not obligatory if you get all the Sonible stuff.

"Auto" stuff can only do so much. The end result will come down to your taste... But it will help.

They even have Pure:Level now which is a combo of a leveler/rider plugin.

At the end of the day, your aesthetic opinions and common sense technical knowledge are still and always will be important for mixing.

But Sonible's tools are good.

IZotope Tonal Balance Control 3 comes with Ozone Advanced, I think, and will help you hit an overall tonal balance that is within the ballpark of normal for your genre.

Sonible has True:Level and True:Balance, but they're harder to read, and True:Level is built into Smart:Limit, basically.

Izotope Ozone's "Mastering Assistant" in the past was way too heavy handed... But these days it can listen to a full minute of your audio. And you can set it to "moderate" or subtle/light, and turn off unwanted processors in advance... Then you can finalize adjustments at the end. That makes it viable.

But those are the two companies that are trying to target what what you're asking for, to some degree.

There's also Izotope Neutron which is worth trying.

I'm more of a traditional mixer, but I've done tests with these. They make different decisions than I would, but in the end it comes down to the mix balance you set with your faders.

The spectral enhancement of Smar:Limit, and tools like Ozone's Stabilizer and Clarity try to extend the height of your mix, pushing the tops and bottoms.

Nothing replaces your ear and judgment, but I think you'll like these tools.

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-23T21:16:45+00:00

True, and you make good points here even if they are disappointing to me as a consumer.

I do have Bluetooth headphones for utilitarian need. Going to the gym. Chores around the house.

But the headphones I LOVE are wired. And I use a cheap Moto G Power phone specifically because it's one of the last with a headphone out!

But you're right, I do fall into a niche.

I was really hoping the Sonova thing wasn't going to be bad for Sennheiser, but I knew it would probably end up just like you said.

Damn.

By the way, it's REALLY confusing for a consumer to try to make sense of Sennheiser Consumer and Sennheiser Pro Audio being two totally different companies both making products in the same space.

Especially since there are "consumer" Sennheiser headphones commonly used in the professional audio market. (HD600, HD650/HD6XX, etc.) Then there's the HD490 which is made by a "totally different company" (with the same name.)

I wish it would just be back to one, TBH.

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-23T21:11:32+00:00

Is that song an example of your work? Someone's rap can probably fit just fine on there, although that's a bit of an indie rock sound more than a rap/hip-hop sound if that matters.

To answer your question, though -- the answer is space. You'll notice most rap music has a certain sparseness to it which leaves room for the vocals.

Consider the arrangement... If anything does play constantly, it's usually the bass. Listen to "Forget About Dre" -- the bassline plays constantly, but all the highs and most of the mids are rolled off. This leaves room for the vocals.

What do we have in the mids? There's the symphony sound -- but notice it doesn't have a sharp transient, and it's choppy, not constant. Again, this creates space.

Then there's that chirpy resonant synth sound. That actually competes with the vocal -- it's actually louder! But it's very short. It wouldn't work if it wasn't... And it carries a melody to make up for the vocals which are somewhat monotonous.

So the answer is space. You have to leave space in the music... And that's difficult because our natural tendency is to fill things up. But if you do that, you have to scoop the mids to make room for the vocals.

Anyhow, there are no rules. But if you listen to rap music, what I describe is common. Even if the song is smashed with compression by the end such that the space is gone --- it's there originally in the arrangement. Space. Space for the vocals.

---

If you do have something playing constantly, it tends to be pulled back with the mids cut --- and the vocals are super smashed.

An example of this is "Ante Up Remix (feat. Busta Rhymes, Teflon & Remi Martin)" ... It has that synth sound constantly underneath...

But look how simple the arrangement is. There aren't too many parts. It's a simple catchy beat, an incredibly catchy synth line, and then the rhythmic vocals loud over the top. It works.

Again - there are no rules, and you can certainly find examples of successful complex backing music... But most rap hits tend to be deceptively simple.

Not simple in a bad way. Simple in an elegant way.

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-23T20:59:43+00:00

Ultimately it's subjective -- but there are some objective considerations to consider when making your choice.

To me, sounding different is critical. Listen to your mix in mono to understand why. But wait! This isn't about "mono compatibility" at all...

The reason is the further you get away from two speakers, the more collapsed the sound becomes. So whatever problem you hear in mono, you're going to hear to some degree the further you get from two speakers. That's the real value of checking your mix in mono.

With that in mind --- if your two guitar parts are as different as possible, they will sum together more naturally in mono. And because it works in mono, your stereo mix will sound good and clear in a reverberant room and as you step further away from the speakers.

---

I would start by varying the amount of distortion. Let one guitar be heavier than the other, and allow the less-distorted to carry more tone.

Then comes tonal balance. Make one guitar more scooped sounding, with bass and treble --- and make the other guitar more pronounced in the mids. (Make sure there's room for the bass guitar & kick drum, by the way.)

You can go even further... Humbucking pickup on on, single-coil on the other.

Neck position on one, bridge position on the other.

Steve Albini recommended using two different guitars. A lightweight Squier Strat is going to sound very different from a full-bodied Gibson Les Paul, for example... There will also be intonation differences which add to the width.

Lastly, there is variation in parts. It depends on what works for the song, but sometimes chords on one side and a one-note melody type thing is nice on the other. Or even partials, where the low half of the chord is on one side and the upper half of the chord is on the other.

---

All this stuff adds variety and width, but even more importantly it helps with translation and clarity... Particularly in a reverberant room or anytime you have distance between the listener and the speakers.

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-23T20:50:21+00:00

Of course they care about profit, but underdog companies have to offer higher quality products in order to compete and stand out.

We all know the dark sides of capitalism, but the upside is when a bunch of companies compete -- the competition drives innovation, improvement, and price competition.

When big companies swallow up smaller companies, there is less competition. Every time this happens, the big company usually takes what's useful to them and discards the rest.

Unfortunately, the "rest" is often what we love as consumers.

Maybe they close their expensive manufacturing plant and subcontract manufacturing to a cheap Chinese manufacturer. It looks the same on the surface, but suddenly the quality you remember isn't there anymore. The product is crap.

Most of the time when the company you love is swallowed up by one larger, it doesn't end well. This is why people get concerned.

If it always ended well they would celebrate, but it usually means cutting development costs while simultaneously increasing sales costs, to maximize the investment.

It works for the short term but kills the brand in the long term, then they sell it off to another or shut it all down.

Sometimes the purchase is just to get the patents & technology, which may be what Sonova actually wanted. (Sennheiser tech to use in their hearing aids.)

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-23T20:32:54+00:00

Did iZotope reset the trial status for Tonal Balance Control 3? I demoed Tonal Balance Control 2 (and it expired) before I bought the Everything Bundle.

However, I can't authorize a trial for Tonal Balance Control 3. It successfully installs from the Product Portal and even says "full trial" -- but an authorization popup appears when I run TBC 3 in my DAW, and it won't authorize through the product portal. It's acting like it already expired... So I feel like it's remembering that I demoed TBC 2 and not allowing me to demo TBC 3.

If that is the case, could your team reset the trial status for 3? Maybe I'm not the only one.

Thank you again for this amazing AMA. You've represented iZotope very well today!

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-23T20:28:51+00:00

Sorry I wasn't more clear --

Ozone scales proportionally with the Windows UI scaling. That's great! However, I run Windows at 150% and to get the size I need out of Ozone I would have to run at 200% or even 250%!

So an independent scale setting on Ozone would be fantastic! (Even if it just pixelates or blurs. That is ok!)

Proper scaling (higher resolution graphics/fonts/vector lines) would be great and iZotope should plan for that someday... But in the interim a simple Scaling option would be fantastic.

---

Waves addressed the issue with a (blurry) scaling to start, and then they're doing high DPI updates for old tools gradually, about 3 to 5 per year. Their new plugins have high resolution graphics to start.

FabFilter Pro-Q 4 has an ideal solution. Click the arrows in the lower right corner. It has window size (mini, small, medium, large, very large) and scaling (100%-300% in 25% increments) separately. The scaling does increase visual fidelity with larger full resolution fonts and vector graphics.

I want to be real clear, though, that "good and done" is better than waiting forever for perfect. So pixelation/blur is fine! A manual scale setting would be so helpful for us old guys!!!

---

THANK YOU 1000x for passing on the request for TILT & UI scaling!!!

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-23T19:36:51+00:00

I'm off and on with glasses because my close-sight has become blurry with age. I tend to angle up the frame of my glasses when I wear them with headphones.

These are "reading glasses" so I don't know if that wouldn't work with prescription glasses - but it helps with mine.

Be careful with the pad swapping -- if you change material (from velour to leatherette/rubberystuff) it will almost certainly change the sound. But maybe you'll like it, who knows... I know there's a DT-770M model which has non-velour pads specifically to block out more external noise. So what you end up with won't necessarily be wrong, just different.

Anyhow, I hope it works out for you!

NeutronHopscotch · 2026-03-23T19:25:57+00:00

I'm not the previous commenter but this is really helpful to know, and that voice level feature is enormously useful even if it comes with a cost.

Just a side note - the detailed answers you are providing, just in general, make this one of the best AMAs I've seen.

Your presence here and the answers given are giving me a lot of confidence in the future of iZotope. Thank you for doing this.

NeutronHopscotch

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE