oeksound BLOOM vs Gullfoss, Teote etc. - a bit LATE to the party?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 มิ.ย. 2024
- Hello, guys! Oeksound just released their third plugin and it can only mean I reviewed it for you. The question is: isn't it a bit too late to release another auto balancer on a market full of tools of this kind? Let's find out!
0:00 Intro
1:30 First look
2:10 Session overview
3:07 First tweaks
4:15 OOPS...
5:17 More tweaks
8:52 Final results
12:19 Summing tha thingz up! - เพลง
Hellloooo! What do you think about latest oeksound release? Maybe you prefer something else? Or you just don't use auto balancers? Lemme know down below!
Pawl i am really happy that you are doing good man! Much more happy than i could be about any plugin and all this stuff.
Did not know you had issues cause i was a bit yt absent (and still am to a point ) cause of work. Get better soon!
To your question, I think its probably a good plugin but after their release and pricing policy and even though i own their other two plugins
i decided to pass on it. I find their vibe simply weird. No loyalty offer but then they do sales a few times a year so it`s a bit insulting to argue that they don`t want to undermine their work and similar arguments i have read but at the same time doing sales.
If you mean it seriously then simply don`t offer any discounts ever and reliably hold this line. Some developers do it. Words should match actions imho
I think they all sound worse than the original, which just goes to show, you can't beat well engineered human engineering still. All the plugins attemps are just approximations, and the fabric of the sound feels oddly stretched.
TEOTE also pushed the Sides up - the clap and tambourine are much louder in the Side stereo image...
I have been using Gulfoss for many years and I have not yet found a competitor of such caliber... It is the best spice for a quality menu! Thanks for reconfirming what I already thought! 🥰
Same feelings here. Cheers!
hm i compared soothe to gulfoss and for me soothe won
For Soothe and Gulfoss, yes they are different in a few ways. Bloom and Gulfoss are more similar. Bloom is great but there has to come a time where you have to just stop buying new tools and use the ones you have.
…..I do like Bloom though for how simple it is to mix with.
Really Your ears are broken, doesn’t sound natural and destroy The signal in context of all mix
You don’t how to use your ears xd
Thanks for taking a look at this but I only had a passing interest. I have had a totally different experience to you with Gullfoss and, of all the plugins I've bought, it's the one I regret the most. It's not the worst plugin I've ever tried but I bought it when it first came out despite trying it and not liking it. That was a lesson for me in trusting my own ears and not being swayed by reviews. I tried to like it but over several months it didn't end up remaining on a single mix.
Anyway, for that reason I'll probably not even try Bloom but thanks for making that decision easier for me. Out of interest, I did try sonible smart eq4 and I quite liked it but, ultimately, I didn't feel it was doing anything I couldn't do myself.
Thanks for the video - I always appreciate them
Very helpful comparison 😊
Thanks, man, good to have you here!
Great sound from Gullfoss, by the way do you still use the touchscreen monitor ? Healthy recovery 👾
I already own Gullfoss which I love so I don’t want to buy a redundant plugin at $209 and they don’t offer a loyalty discount for Soothe 2 owners such as myself
True, I should have mentioned that...
Their attitude towards loyalty discounts is very strange as well, did you see what they replied to someone asking about them? It's definitely put me off buying anything else from them (I also own Soothe 2 already).
Same here
@@sburton84Also, same here.
Thinking about it, I feel the reason they didn’t do a loyalty discount is because seems like if you get bloom you don’t need spiff or soothe. Bloom does what they both do. All bloom needs is a sensitivity knob; which is probably why it’s not on bloom (to make you still get soothe)
I really hate what gullfoss does to the high end and high mids, it sounds so broken when you listen to the S sounds and such in the mix. I really thought youd go with teote or bloom they sound very clean.
There's also Zynaptiq stuff in a similar vein that predates all of these. (Unfilter comes to mind, but Intensity as well depending on the use/abuse)
From playing with them, Gulffoss to me is the most usable from a parameter/sound perspective. The controls all feel like they have a very usable range and require the least tweaking to get a sonic shift that's quite hard to dial in with a dynamic EQ.
Zynaptiq rules!
Im sorry, but what are we listening to at 2:53? The "spoiled" version?
In what instance of the mastering you will use this? before the final limiter? I liked gullfoss result too
Limiter is always the last thing in the chain, excluding metering, obviously. Cheers!
@@FoliaSound I meant the gullfoss in which place you put it in the master! thank u for the answer
I too am a GullFoss fan and before purchasing it I did days of tests with it, TEOTE, and WavesFactory Equalizer. Yes, Gullfoss was the winner but I also really liked the sound of TEOTE. I now also have Sonible Smart:EQ 4 and while it has a it's own advantages and a place in many of my projects, GullFoss is still the one I use most. It just seems to do the right thing to make my track or master sound the way I want it to.
Thanks for a great video!
I think Bloom just requires more tweaking. Yours had the highest release, which I don't think is going to get what you're looking for. I think Bloom used correctly can match Gullfoss fine. I've tried both and while Gullfoss is faster, Bloom gives the user more input in the final sound.
I agree
Good to see you back! ❤
Heeey! Good to hear from you! :)
200% recovery in Gullfoss! Wow, I have been told to keep it way down around 20% or so. But seems like it works good for you with that setting. i think you probably should have just switched off the squash in Bloom for comparisons, but I don't think i will be investing at its high price.
I liked TEOTE the most, it seemed more present, Bloom seemed warm and more aggressive, but that might be on your end because of the way you made the quick cuts and avoided entering the multi-band squash area to finely dial it or get artsy with it rather than just professionally balancing it. Gulfoss definitely seemed the easiest to use to achieve balance, with the option not to go ham on flattening the entire spectrum. So I'd say they're different things, bloom might allow you to do crazier things and sort of not fuck it up as much as you would with a bare multi band compressor, which might be a huge life saver for genre specific producers that like pushing that boundary as much as they can, BUT I would still probably revert to Teote or even refer to Gulfoss as a smart dynamic EQ, in smaller steps, just to make sure it translates more naturally, while teote is sort of like a more in depth multi band processor, it fixes the thing by coloring it just right. Try spectral shaper from ozone, and find a narrow frequency range to work with, I like to use it in the lower mid range of a mixbus to control those specific frequencies without altering my bass presence, because if you use it on top of everything, it just ducks my sub out, and I hear it, and I hate it, but in this case with bloom, I suppose you can actually bring it back manually, and get a different color of sound that might be less 'pro', but more artsy and warm.
initially I thought you would go with Bloom and finally your conclusion was absolutely right, Gullfoss is awesome.
Hi1 . Thanks for the comparising video. i did not comper those - but i use bloom for spoken vocals and here it shines - i would not see bloom for rebalancing a mix ... have a fine day!
Thanks, Walter, same to you!
Thank you Gullfoss definitely
I think i will stick with Gullfoss and Sooth. You know If i recall Gullfoss has gave us many free updates, Live and Mastering Sooth im already 1 Paid update in. I dont mind i know they gotta make money but Gullfoss packs a punch with that aswell... Great video., Lovin The NDH 30s you where right....
Ha! I knew NDH 30 will make it. Cheers!
Thank you
No problem, Sam!
welcome back :)
Hello, Eren, good to see you!
Hi ho. From what I’ve read the squash function in bloom is an extra (a compressor gets introduced to the mix) and should not be used for regular use. I haven’t tried bloom yet but maybe that played a roll why it couldn’t fully compete?
Yep, this "squash" is very so-so in my opinion. Try it yourself, Pia, and tell me what you think!
@@FoliaSound will do! 😊
Hello My Friend Hope all is well great show
I use gulfoss daily to eq dialoug without sounding Eqed or processed….i gave bloom a try, gulfoss is the winner for me as well.
I think u just needed to tweak bloom again and it is capable of getting you there. I subscribed I'll be watching. Thanks
I have Gulfoss, Smart EQ, Equalizer and now Bloom. I see the fact that they don't all sound the same on the same material as a benefit. Kind like different distortion types. I'll try smart eq, equalizer or bloom in there default modes on a sound and see which one I like the most. That will change depending on the instrument processed and what I want to do the sound. In other words these are all colors. If you can get what you need from Gulfs most of the time then you don't need anything else. Bloom does have features the others do not (I don't know Teote at all so I can not speak to it ). Being able to do mid side processing on each of those bands can lead to some interesting sound shaping possibilities as well as the dynamic processing. No it isn't the same as a multi band compressor but I think that is beside the point. It is described as a tone shaper and that is how I use it. Saying that Gulfosss is better at fixing truly damaged audio doesn't make bloom unusable. Although they are both dynamic, they don't exactly do the same thing.
First and foremost, Godspeed on the continuing recovery =]
From what I've seen, it looks like Bloom is a program-dependent tone shaper whereas TEOTE uses a set of spectral profiles and Gullfoss uses a standard profile based on its own method. I would throw in: sonible's smart line and iZotope's plugins uses machine-learning based on various profiles and Wavesfactory Equalizer uses what seem to be some noise profile. Having some of these tools myself, I've found that some tools work better than others. Furthermore, just because you have the option to use change a sound, doesn't mean you have to exercise it. I know you were just testing the "squash" feature, but I honestly wouldn't have used it for that kind of material. Maybe the squash sounds better when feeding it electronic material.
In general, I do like these kinds of tools as they can help you address technical issues and give you the ability to be more creative, whether it's bringing a sound to the finish line or giving you a "level field" from which you can then add additional colour. I don't know if I will add Bloom to my arsenal personally (and I'm really trying hard not to get into buying stuff just for the sake of buying it =] ). But it looks like a very solid tool and worthy of use.
By the way, I also find myself using Gullfoss a lot and probably sonible's stuff next.
Hey, Derek, thanks for the insight, I can see you're an experienced user of tone shapers, so if you say bloom is worth it - it surely means something.
As for the recovery, when you realise, that your feelings were used against you - full recovery isn't an issue at all. I'm old enough to leave it behind very quickly.
Cheers!
Harrison's spectral eq I like more
Właśnie zastanawiałem się nad Bloom ale widze coraz wiecej osób porównuje go do Pro MB i jeszcze ty do gullfossa to chyba jeszcze sie zastanowie
Pro-MB? Powiedziałbym, że to zupełnie inne narzędzie.
@@FoliaSound A co ciekawe sporo osob mowi ze to nic innego jak multiband compression dlatego wlasnie sie zastanawiam, koniec konców jesli przyspiesza prace a efekt finalny brzmi dobrze to moze i warto
I'm a fan of your channel... but... I thought you were joking when you said you were "very experienced" with Gullfoss as you put Recover to 200% with Tame at 0 and then adjusted the Bias. Bias adjustment is essentially a "balance" control between Recover & Tame - so, if either is set to 0 the Bias does nothing. Also, your test was best suited for Wave Factory's Equalizer as it is boosting and cutting relative to pink noise. Bloom is boosting/cutting relative to the source material itself so the "target curve" is changing in real time - with your big honky boost in the midrange it will control it somewhat, but relatively based on the other bands around it - the four bands aren't just like Pro-MB, they all interact with their neighbours... so boosting the Hi will affect the Hi Mid, and changing the Hi Mid will have an effect on the Hi band etc. Gullfoss is also more sophisticated than just trying to conform to pink noise... Recover boosts frequencies that are being masked by louder and more resonant neighbouring frequencies, whilst Tame is reducing the obnoxious frequencies to so there is a proportional change to your signal - the Bias has an indicator on the left which when "centered" as a white dot will find the optimum balance between the Recover and Tame. Try setting the Recover and Tame at 50 each and then center the Bias line into a dot.
Erm, sure thing, but using bias you can push Gullfoss even harder :) And tweaking bias on extreme settings d o e s things. Go check it out yourself!
that’s not true man.. adjusting bias still affects the processing even when only ‘Recover’ is being used. Same with ‘Tame’. It’s seems to push and pull all the processing either closer to or further from 0db depending on what option you’re using.
@@FoliaSoundyou’re correct Paul.
Yes, it does indeed. But you'll also notice that it flattens the correction because it's biasing to zero. I'm sure someone will find a use for it, but it's not something I'd do on a mix or master.
If my ears are not broken, I did not notice anything than a bit low freq taming.
works similar to McDSP 4000
I Own gullfoss soothe and Bloom and bloom blew me away. Has done amazing job on pianos strings cellos and many more instruments that I would have to use many plugins to achieve what it did and maybe not even that good as bloom did it
I won't deny the fact this is a quality plugin, soo if it works for you - great to hear, man!
Paweł widzę, że wskoczyłeś na wagon " moje zdrowie jest do dupy" . Mam madzieje, że dział, bo sporo yuotuberow zgarnęło sporo kasy od patronów w ten sposób.
Moje zdrowie jest do dupy? Gdzie tak powiedziałem, kiedy? Miałem trochę problemów osobistych, szybko je rozwiązałem, jadę dalej, na nikogo się nie oglądam! Pozdro!
Gullfoss is introducing way more artifacts in the highs than Bloom but Bloom is also not completely free of artifacts. You should not be going above 7 to avoid using compression in Bloom plugin. Also Bloom is meant to live on individual tracks more than master bus. I've found Bloom more transparent and tweakable than Gullfoss but still I need to test it more. This type of automatic-eq plugins always introduce some audible artifacts and tend to take the life out of the tracks so I avoid them as much as possible and use gullfoss only as a guide what eq choices I might be missing to improve the sound of the track
Artifacts? What do you mean? Clicks, pops? I hear none. As for going above 7, I'm perfectly aware of that and I pointed it out in the vid, that I don't really like this multiband compression-like thing. Cheers!
@@FoliaSound as for the artifacts I mean high end phasiness (you can hear those multiple narrow filters working all the time) and fluctuation, blurrying out the contrast between the elements of a mix + taking the dynamics away (everything sounds like a blurry wall of sound) . Try it on acoustic drums with open hi hats and some strummed acoustic guitar - you'll be shocked how many artifacts those automatic eqs like gullfoss have. But vocals sybilance is also really revealing test for the artifacts vs some normal deesser
@@huberttorzewski If he doesn't catch those artifacts then don't even try to explain it to him... i think it is obvious that Bloom is way transparent and you actually have more control.
I'm also (dare I say) an experienced GF user. Foliasound is using gullfoos in a bizarre way - as some have pointed out above - 200% recovery is super extreme setting, almost guaranteed to create issues. I simply don't get why you wouldn't use 'tame' in this example - Especially the 'wrong' eq curve you created is a mid boost . The high end artefacts in the GF example here are all the result of the 200% recovery. Anyone doubting gullfoss shouldn't;t base anything on this example. I've used Gullfoss pretty much daily since it was launched and I've never used it as shown here.All these plug ins are fantastic when used well.
1. Bloom = Almost perfect but a tad too thin sounding. Good clarity
2. Teote = Good clarity but sound is too hollow for my liking
3. Gullfoss = Too muddy still but better
4. Original = Too muddy
Overall bloom surprised me. Looks like another oeksound gem.
My listening conditions were compressed youtube video -> PC -> Neumann MT 48 -> Beyerdynamic DT 1770 Pro
I’m no expert but I actually liked bloom more 😅
No actually Gulfoss, then bloom
Hi Paul! you are jumping to conclusions without understanding, you said yourself that Bloom needs to be studied. and everything looks like a vendetta. Why? Gullfoss is an awesome plugin, but Oeksound went further.
Vendetta?! I got nothing against oeksound, I actually love their stuff and soothe2 is the best thing in its class, I use it a lot!
Focus on making music sound good at the recording stage and then optimize bit
you abused it , its made a big improvement on certain setting but glazed right over it
Got Gullfoss, so I have no need to buy Bloom.
Gulffos is unuseless for is a bad plugin vs Bloom, works similar like a Pro-mb but more easier to use
Tried bloom and honestly quite unimpressed
Gullfoss was earpiercingly bright, if you cant hear that your room is way to dampened.
agree - but he is using Gullfoss all wrong! A horrible misrepresentation of how beautiful it CAN sound. Used with better settings, this track would be fixed v nicely. The other two plugins are superb too.
bloom sounds much better , gulfoss sounds overprocessed as always
I sushed it very hard, but you can make Gullfoss sound very smooth, especially with mastering version...