Possibility of de-esser on individual channels?

Forums Forums SQ Forums SQ feature suggestions Possibility of de-esser on individual channels?

This topic contains 4 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of ianhind ianhind 1 year, 9 months ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #85049
    Profile photo of ianhind
    ianhind
    Participant

    As the title says, is there any chance the de-esser can be programmed to work in the channel pre-amp section?

    I understand the limitation of the DynEngine being forced into the FX slots. But eating up entire FX engines for simple de-essers seems counter productive.

    I understand grouping vocal mic’s and bussing them into an FX slot, but that just isn’t feasible.

    Is there any chance of this ever happening?

    #85065
    Profile photo of KeithJ A&H
    KeithJ A&H
    Moderator

    Hey @ianhind,

    I’m afraid it’s not possible to add a De-Esser as a per-channel processing option anywhere in the chain.

    One of the reasons for the audio coherency and system stability of both SQ and dLive is because all processing is in place, you’re just choosing whether to use it or not. This is why you can’t do something like add the Tube Stage to a mix channel – because no preamp modelling exists there, and why you can’t add the Tube Stage post compressor, because there is no preamp modelling there either. However, it’s also the reason that you can use high end modelling on every channel without incurring any latency whatsoever.
    [This is obviously quite different to ad-hoc plugin use in a DAW for example, where as you add more plugins, the CPU usage will go up and it’ll take longer to load projects etc…]

    With the DynEngine in dLive, you actually have 64 instances of Dyn8 ready to go, then you route channels to these as required. There is actually a latency here, but it’s just a few samples!

    RackFX are similar in some ways, except that each engine can run completely different processing.

    This is why, when we had so many requests for the members of the Dynamic Trio pack (Multiband comp, DynEQ and De-Esser), they had to be built to run in the RackFX, because these types of processing do not already exist in the channels.

    Hope this helps to explain it a little better.
    Cheers,
    Keith.

    #85079
    Profile photo of ianhind
    ianhind
    Participant

    Thank you for the detailed explanation Keith. That makes complete sense.

    With that being fully understood, is there any possibility of an increase of RackFX slots to cater towards that limitation?

    dLive having 64, maybe the SQ could have 16 Dyn available?

    If the SQ’s RackFX was bumped from 8 to 16 RackFX slots, it would be a decent work around to implement de-essers smarter.

    RackFX slots 9-16 could be Dyn only (no reverbs) which would really help us utilize these tools efficiently.

    #85081
    Profile photo of KeithJ A&H
    KeithJ A&H
    Moderator

    @ianhind – The dLive has the Dyn engine in order to run (64 instances of) Dyn8. The SQ does not have this engine so cannot run Dyn8 at all.
    The SQ does run the same RackFX dynamics as dLive however, and the difference in the number of RackFX available (dLive has 16, SQ has 8) is down to hardware/available processing in each.
    In the same way as the SQ was designed as a 48 channel mixer, it was also designed with 8 RackFX engines – so it’s not possible to simply add some more with a firmware update.

    Cheers,
    Keith.

    #85082
    Profile photo of ianhind
    ianhind
    Participant

    Again thank you Keith for the detailed replies.

    So the chance of us getting more de-essers, is basically impossible.

    Appreciate the responses. I can put the hopes to bed and deal with the limitations.

    Cheers

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.