Stimming’s Instant Mastering Chain

The Lounge Other Gear
#672

I still sincerely hope @DaveMech would soon simply elaborate on his own video, by clarifying just 5 simple questions, as that no doubt helps everyone to appreciate the IMC better and dissolve any misunderstandings:

1
(at 14:05) how would you explain that IMC achieves ‘unity gain’ (or rather, appears gain-matched to the input signal) only while attenuated by -8…-9dB (with input and output pots)?

2a
(at 14:25) as you add Drive, what’s the reason that while RMS rises to -5.5dB max (+8.5dB level compared to Drive Off), peaks only ever reach -4.7dB (just +2.2dB)?

2b
(at 14:41) how does lowering the Threshold to -14dB position explain us seeing RMS drop to -10.3dB (-4.8dB compared to T=0), while the peaks become -5.5dB (thus, just a -0.8dB drop)?

3
(at 16:01) what do you mean by describing the results of this as “you are limiting in a way with that drive”? if one overloads any compressor into distortion, and then lowers its threshold further, the noise only become worse normally, right?

4
(throughout the video) why do keep starting compression procedures by adding gain with the Drive, which sits after the compressor — thus basically adding make-up gain first?

5
(throughout the video) as your dry input level holds the same and never peaks above -6.9dB (at 12:05), and you attenuate the input by at least -4dB at any time (-6dB @12:05), and the IMC drive is post-comp — would you agree that even the peaks never hit the IMC Comp VCA anywhere above -11dB, so that with 2:1 rate it can never compress by more than (-T+11)/2 dB during your demo?

#673

You’re contradicting yourself with points 3 and 4.

The drive isn’t overloading the compressor into distortion, it’s driving the compressed signal, as the drive sits after the compressor. This means that the drive can have a limiting effect on the signal without overloading the compressor.

You’re absolutely right though, if the drive was pre-compressor, then lowering the threshold on a very hot or clipping signal would sound dreadful.

As for point 4, gain and drive are not the same thing. Part of the process of setting up the IMC is to drive the signal coming out of the compressor to the point of clipping, then using the compressor to dial the dynamics back to the desired sound, then adjust the output gain as necessary.

Yes, there is a linear signal path, but not all interactions are linear, especially where distortion and dynamics are concerned.

Hope this helps.

5 Likes
#674

Here is the latest version of the schematics for those interested.

image

6 Likes
#675

I honestly 100% agree with everything you say here. Really. But I think it might be orthogonal to the current strife? Something I’m finding unsettling about this thread (and the source, I think, of a lot of the pushback) is the hostile demand people justify the existence of a device. There’s a real “you’re a bad person for liking this gear — explain yourself!” vibe that is just completely out of whack with the ethos of this forum and with gear ownership generally.

None of anything that’s ever posted here is necessary. It’s not possible to justify my interest in it or ownership of any musical gear I’ve ever had. And, frankly, if I bought 12 IMCs because I really liked the look of the carbon fiber housing, that’s just as valid a reason for doing so as anything else.

So I’m all for talking about what/how the IMC does what it does and focusing on the technical. But I find this “explain what you mean when you say you like what’s happening at 12:28 in your youtube video” stuff absurd and abusive. And I’m afraid these sorts of attacks are being excused under cover of “I’m just asking technical questions :angel:”

This whole thing started because someone questioned whether this device was named appropriately. After receiving numerous helpful and plausible explanations this person continued to dig deeper attacking anyone who disagreed. That’s why we are where we are, not because anyone’s been against the idea of questioning what the IMC does.

32 Likes
#676

Yeah, I was basically trying to reroute the thread towards something more constructive :sweat_smile:

but if you insist I can as well lock it for good… :sweat:

7 Likes
#678

This really reminds me of the discussion about mastering that occurred before the Analog Heat was released. I think this is more about one’s perception about what “mastering” really means.

Personally, I don’t think there needs to be barriers between production, mixing, and mastering, but that’s beside the point I guess.

1 Like
#679

I think the issue is that exactly this video has been referred to as a somewhat authoritative review of the IMC in a live situation. Whether the form in which the questions have been raised is okay is another issue (I read them as a response to the earlier exchanges), but the point whether the IMC compressor was at work at all in the video is an interesting one, I think. On my side, I have learned quite a bit on thresholds, attenuators vs. amplifiers, etc. (and also on the difficulty of reviewing compressors) in his exchange.

3 Likes
#680

I heard Behringer is working on a Delayed Schmastering Rope.

4 Likes
#681

There are too many commenters who are fixated on the drama, rather than the gear. It can never move on if the drama is being fuelled constantly. The parties caught up in this have been in discussion with the Moderation team, whilst trying to move on, it appears to be being drawn back.

Use the flags appropriately, not just to close down an opinion. When the topic opens itself up again it would be cool if those genuinely interested in discussing the gear would do so and those not interested in the gear just lay off commenting on the tone of posts, rather than the substance. This way the topic won’t keep getting flags and be a pointless overhead, let’s be honest, very few people are going to be in the owners club.

I’m about to mute the topic, i hope those not in the market for it might like to do the same !

#682

This topic was automatically opened after 17 hours.

#683

There is no contradiction, Rene. Or rather, it’s not there. Have you ignored my full opus before it got flagged? it’s gonna return soon, hope you read it.

A
Now look, Q3 is — (and I have to stress, all the questions are for DM first of all, not sure why you’re answering for him) — related to a different issue, that of the Threshold, and how it’s related to the Drive in IMC control scheme.

DM’s quoted words follow him lowering the T and witnessing the crackling go away, so he describes the entire affair, and NOT the process of adding the drive(1). Which might only imply that T is somehow affecting the drive OR that the Comp now at T(-14) compresses a hell lot more and hence the signal is not so hot and doesn’t overload the tranny anymore. There’s no other possibility, hence I mention the compressor there, and it’s up to Dave to confirm what he knew all along.

He never mentioned how T works on D. Don’t you wanna know? He makes viewers think all that happened there was the COMPRESSOR threshold got lowered and HENCE the noise went away. But it doesn’t work this way, and the comp did never work that hard, AND if T is only influencing C the noise wouldn’t disappear. Hence the contradiction.

That’s the point.

This affair did show the limiter in work indeed, and Drive plays a role in the process too, and T is connected to D, electrically coupled — see the circuit board (Thomann has IMC500 to look at)

(1)Now, as a matter of fact, no drive ‘limits’ in any way, it can only compress ever so slightly, and fyi overloaded trannies have very uneven compression over the FreqRange, ie ruining your sound, this is unavoidable.

B
No it doesn’t help. It’s not the question of (non-)linearity, it’s the one of the exact relationships, ie electric couplings.

Let’s see again. I’ll try to follow this completely unsupported logic you repeat after Doctron/Stimming.

You drive the signal coming out of the Comp to the point of clipping. You do so with the Drive(2). Fine. Now tell me please, the same question HOW EXACTLY lowering the comp T does “bring dynamics back” (lower Ts = more compression, less dynamics!), or how output gain ATTENUATION (there’s no ‘gain’ in IMC officially) helps that.
But more importantly, and I repeat this again: at T-14 in the video even the peaks only cross the T by mere 3dB.

So all questions are valid and still stand. You just repeat the wrong things and push it as ‘help’. Why?
Please, read my big text when it returns

(2) which IS make up gain, as ANY gain after your comp is just that: compression has your signal lowered, you compensate to return to unity — it is ONLY THEN you have the PERCEIVED LOUDNESS higher, as ONLY having achieved the original signal level you now have your average volume higher, and dynamic range obviously lower — this is how you compress, basics.

now that’s mad. They redrew the manual! Used photos instead of MS paint. Buttons are now round ))
Still got the tech specs all wrong and whistling.

before & after
at least they have some shame. who would’ve believed if I didn’t do screenshots?

T copy - RESIZED
T copy - RESIZED1920×1174 135 KB

1 Like
#684

Don’t know if you’re deliberately trying to misunderstand what I wrote so you can carry on with your capital letter rant, but when I talk about dialing dynamics back I am talking about reducing them.

@mods, don’t worry, I’m done now, best of luck with your forum dealing with this bullshit every day.

Peace.

5 Likes
#685

… can we like… all agree to just call them “transistors” and stop using an actual slur all the time when talking about electronics parts?

thanks…

8 Likes
#686

I think they mean “transformers”… (another reason to write it out, though)

1 Like
#687

no exactly my point! two different important terms use the same 5 letters at the beginning, so let’s just call them what they are…

and stop using the slur as a shitty short form cause it isn’t clear wtf anybody’s talking about!

also some of us are, uh, trans-sisters (lol) and don’t really wanna read “tranny” over and over trying to learn about checks notes audio equipment lmfao

13 Likes
#688

I suspect that this might have to do with the DOA stage. Which might be amplifying the sound a bit before the compressor.

Because that is the actual point of the drive circuit. It clips the signal, rounding off the peaks. If you push it too far it goes into total distortion. If you push it to the edge, you “chop” the peaks of the signal off and therefore are able to higher the overall signal. Which is, very similar to what one can achieve with a limiter. Hence my comment about that. Saturation in itself can be seen as a form of compression.

Because it’s impossible for the compressor to work at 0 seconds at full capacity. This is what the attack handles. So the transients of the sound will go through uncompressed pretty much as the attack stage handles how long it takes before the compressor works at full capacity. The attack cannot be 0ms. This is how compression works. It lowers the signal in volume. So it’s logical that the RMS becomes much lower, since that is how RMS works. It measures the avarage loudness in a certain window of time (300ms, I just looked that up). So you see that the avarage volume drops as the compressor is lowering the volume of the signal. But the peaks are not lowered as much since they don’t get compressed at full force immediately. Hope this makes it clear for you.

The drive happens AFTER the compression circuit. As I mentioned before you are in a way limiting the signal as peaks clip.

As mentioned you are contradict yourself here with point 3. The drive indeed sits after the compressor.
To answer your question: The reason for this is A. This procedure is explained as the right way to get the optimal drive setting through the transformer, and B. This makes sense since you first drive the signal into distortion, then compress the signal as much as needed to get it just short of that distortion. Thus limiting the signal. of course one could do it the other way around as well. Keep drive at 0, compress until you are pleased with the sound, then higher the drive until you hear it distort and dial it back a little. The downside of this is that when you compress the signal gets lower in volume. So to hear it well and to compensate you’d want to add gain. But once you then start to use drive to clip the signal it becomes super loud. So starting with drive, start very loud, then compress, thus lowering the volume. Basically two birds with one stone in a sense. (If that makes sense)

Two differ approaches where I guess the former is to get your level as loud as possible. And the latter to gain the most pleasing compression amount. There’s no right or wrong here really. Both methods can also end at the same result. This is why I go back and forth between settings until I’m pleased with the balance between sound and loudness.

You are comparing loudness levels in two different realms of audio here which doesn’t make much sense. In the digital domain things are measured at full scale (dbfs) and in the analog domain things are measured in dBu. Changes in one domain happens relatively the same as in the other domain. However, 0dBu = -18dBfs. So you can see that the numbers on the front panel work on level measurements in dBu not dbfs. So what you wrote here doesn’t add up.

If you want to hear the IMC clearly compress the signal, listen to the part where I am working on the break of the track. You can hear the pad sounds pump really heavily (even more than they are in the track itself) after I engage the IMC.

Hope this clears it up for you. And please, next time, try approaching a discussion and questions with a bit less of an aggressive and defensive manner. Then you can expect an open conversation and answers to your questions in a normal manner as well.
And from my end, I do apologize for the one comment where I said that your opinion doesn’t mean anything because you haven’t tried the unit. I shouldn’t have said that.

Cheers and have wonderful holidays everyone. I’m signing off of the forum for a little while.

51 Likes
#689

🫶

2 Likes
#690

I just wanted to provide a counterpoint to the “if it’s not reviewed online, it’s not a good product” idea. Here are a couple clips of professional musicians you have heard of using IMC in their hardware live acts:

  • Carl Cox:
  • JakoJako:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CvhyQYpgwIR/

People are out there using this product in its intended setting, they’re just too busy gigging to spend time talking about it on discussion boards.

13 Likes
#691

It only arrived this morning, so take all of this with a pinch of salt:

Initial impressions are that it’s less of a colour-box than the +FX (it has a lot less mid-range saturation/drive potential), but the +FX sounds muffled in comparison – the IMC has way more headroom and clarity. I don’t seem to need to fight it as much to find a sweet spot, most settings sound good. The input/output knob markings do seem to be misleading: I think there’s about 10-12db of overall gain with them both set at "0"dB. Compressor is more subtle than I was expecting, and I can’t get the sidechain to do much (but I’m sure that’s my error). I can already tell it will work better for me as an end of chain mastering box, getting me much closer to the sound of a finished mix, AND the loudness I want for live-streaming, completely in the analog domain!

I’ll play with it for a few days till I understand it better, then do some science-y tests and comparisons.

8 Likes
#692

Re the IMC compressor, I liked Stimming’s comment on it in a previous post in this thread - see point (4) of his post:

4 Likes