SoundTheory have updated Gullfoss and it now includes Gulfoss Master. Gullfoss Master is "a no-compromise edition of Gullfoss with all quality-related parameters set to maximum. It is specifically designed for mastering engineers requiring the highest precision. While sharing common feature sets, each edition is customized to perform best in each stage of the recording process: Gullfoss Live for tracking, the original Gullfoss for mixing, and now Gullfoss Master to put the final touch on your music. Gullfoss Master allows for finer parameter adjustments and optimizes the auditory model for small gain changes. It also increases the internal precision so that the processing noise floor is reduced even further."
All three editions of Gullfoss are now available in one download:
Gullfoss Master
- Extended auditory model tuned for mastering.
- Finest parameter precision.
- 20ms latency, higher CPU consumption.
Gullfoss Standard
- Suitable for most mixing and mastering applications.
- 20ms latency, lower CPU consumption.
- Standard auditory model.
Gullfoss Live
- Suitable for live music mixing and tracking.
- Latency below 2ms.
- Minimal treatment of transients, leading to a different sound character.
Until the end of July, there's a 30% discount on Gullfoss (use code MASTER30).
Current owners get the update for free.
I have been targeting this plugin for a long time ... to anyone who uses it: how much does it help in context of orchestral mixes with sample material? Are there any drawbacks? Like for example, being carried away by a shining clarity, but later finding out, that it doesn't sound natural - like an orchestra - any more ...
Gullfoss is not really about bringing ‘shining clarity’ to a mix, Fri. (There are other tools for that, like the Kush Clariphonic.) Gullfloss is more a sort of pre-programmed mixing engineer with sensational ears and a few thousand ultra-fast pairs of hands each controlling the band of a multi-thousand-band EQ. Quite amazing, actually.
I suppose I should use it more than I do, but I have this old-fashioned brain (a tiny part of it anyway) that always remains a bit suspicious, even if the results are excellent, of these solutions that operate largely beyond my control.
The way I use it most of the time is more like asking a third party what he or she thinks of a mix. I look at the curve adjustments Gullfoss does, and if I notice some drastic movement somewhere, I’ll make an adjustment with a traditional EQ. But in some cases I have Gullfoss on the MasterOut as well, be it with very cautious settings.
And I use it on one or two piano libraries as well, with great results.
There’s a two-week demo available, so you can try it out. (You need an iLok though.)
When I tried the demo I found it quite good too. I didn't buy it because, to my ears, the 'pre-programmed mixing engineer' has a sonic taste that does not quite align with my own. See, Gullfoss has (or at least: had when I tried it) quite a strong tendency towards a bright mix. Very bright. Too bright for me. I guess you could call that 'modern, and it is what's currently on vogue. What with the VLS Synchron libraries also exhibiting a bright sound signature. Oddly, the 'Brighten' parameter did not help much on the material I used it on. Even when set to negative values, I still heard a glassy and top heavy sound. The only solution was to limit the frequencies it was working on to the lower mids and below.
That's the limitation Gullfoss comes with in my opinion. It has an underlying sound signature that it is working towards, and little can you do to change that. If you like that sound signature, it is a fantastic and quite unique tool. If you don't it's usefulness is quite a bit diminished in my opinion.
Thanks, guys! So, to make sure I got it right what the plugin does: It is kind of a dynamic equalizer that auto-sets its parameters constantly according to certain parameters (probably AI?) with the goal of getting more clarity to the mix. Is that about right?
Well, that clarity is what could sometimes could be perceived as a bit to bright. What I was afraid of is pretty much what Linos said, I suppose.
But what I really wonder, since you have only very limited controls: a plugin like this could destroy balances and colours of orchestral instruments. Most of these types of plugins that operate with a lot of AI or analysis-based settings under the hood are mostly tuned by the developers with pop music in mind. That is why I wondered how the plugin performed with an orchestral mix.
I will certainly try a demo at some time. But I always find it quite hard to make up my mind in such a short period of time. That is why I also find it valuable to find out what others experienced.
Linos wrote: ↑Jul 20, 2021 9:35 am
When I tried the demo I found it quite good too. I didn't buy it because, to my ears, the 'pre-programmed mixing engineer' has a sonic taste that does not quite align with my own. See, Gullfoss has (or at least: had when I tried it) quite a strong tendency towards a bright mix. Very bright. Too bright for me. I guess you could call that 'modern, and it is what's currently on vogue. What with the VLS Synchron libraries also exhibiting a bright sound signature. Oddly, the 'Brighten' parameter did not help much on the material I used it on. Even when set to negative values, I still heard a glassy and top heavy sound. The only solution was to limit the frequencies it was working on to the lower mids and below.
That's the limitation Gullfoss comes with in my opinion. It has an underlying sound signature that it is working towards, and little can you do to change that. If you like that sound signature, it is a fantastic and quite unique tool. If you don't it's usefulness is quite a bit diminished in my opinion.
Agreed, I often set it to -50% Brightness and it still really emphasizes the top end.
It's good as a diagnostic tool for the midrange though.
FWIW - I tend to find myself restricting Gulfoss to the mids, but quite wide mids. I often have separate instances on my music and vocal busses, and on the vocals in particular it tries to wildly over-compensate at either end, I guess because it is expecting full range material. But that's the thing... often music isn't full range either, often in sections of the song / track it will be limited frequency-wise as the instrumentation varies, and then it can go nuts. I usually have Tonal Balance 2 in my master chain, and it has the exact same issues, and I just ignore it mostly except for the part of the cue / song which is most full-on.
But all this said, Gulfoss is still really useful. People often compare with Soothe 2, different purposes but I feel there's an overlap, and I just don't get on with that at all, hearing these distortion side effects. With all the above provisos, I find Gulfoss safer. Like most here I find Clariphonic wonderful if I need more top end zing rather than pushing that area with Gulfoss.
I have to be honest, but I think my ears will just not up to being able to detecting an audible difference between regular and master versions, but I haven't yet tried.
