As best as I have been able to determine, there are no specific noise gates in T-RackS, and if this is correct, then T-RackS certainly needs an advanced noise-gating system like the Alesis 3632 Compressor which does compressing, limiting, and gating . . .
I have an Alesis 3630 Compressor, which is the classic version, and it works very nicely as a noise gate, as well as not costing very much, and while it might be a stretch to call it an "advanced" signal processor, it works and is reasonably easy to use. It also does "ducking", which is yet another important capability for a mixing and mastering suite . . .
In the regard, it is useful to understand that there are three primary uses for T-RackS and its various individual components:
(1)
Individually selected signal processors for very specific instruments and voices, where the strategy is to use perhaps one or two of the signal processors for an instrument or voice to control and to modify some characteristic, which for example might involve using the Brickwall Limiter to push a snare drum rimshot to the front . . .
(2)
Mixing suites, where the general strategy is to introduce a bit of global control via a combination of signal processors working in tandem on the Master stereo output track . . .
(3)
Mastering suites, where the general strategy is to do fine tuning after everything has been mixed, also via a combination of signal processors working in tandem . . .
[
NOTE: The general definition of "tandem" tends to suggest a serial use like a truck pulling two trailers, but I use it with a broader definition which includes parallel use, thereby allowing various combinations of serial and parallel . . . ]
Another highly specialized signal processor that I would like to have is something to do a custom type of "slicing", which is a bit difficult to explain but easy to understand . . .
When I watch stellar hit songs like "Billie Jean" (Michael Jackson), it is easy to observe instruments that are highly constrained but in a way that does not involve compressing, limiting, and noise-gating, which is the reason that I think it is more of a mathematically computed "slicing" activity, where for example one should be able to control and modify the arbitrary introduction of very short duration "moments of silence", which as best as I can determine is one of the ways that hit songs are "pumped" without actually increasing the volume levels of individual instruments and voices . . .
And this might be something that only works when groups or sets of instrument and vocal tracks are fed to an "algorithmic slicer", which as I explained in my most recent post to the ongoing topic "The Fabulous Affordable Studio Monitor Project" in this FORUM about a truly inexpensive but fabulous studio monitoring solution is exemplified in the way The Rolling Stones perform "Miss You", where the general idea is that everyone essentially plays individual notes as if each note was (a) a solo and (b) a transaction, where the term "transaction" is used in the sense of being something that does a grand total of three things with vast precision:
(1) starts . . .
(2) does something useful . . .
(3) ends . . .
The Fabulous Affordable Studio Monitor Project (IK Multimedia FORUM)As an example, a single crisp and distinct snare drum rimshot is both a "solo" and a "transaction", and it is quite fascinating to watch the way Charlie Watts switches to what I call "single-stepping" mode when he wants to push cymbal and snare drum rimshots to the front . . .
[
NOTE: The sound is not so bad, but the important thing is that you can watch Charlie Watts doing the cymbal and snare drum rimshot "single-stepping", which is easiest to observe beginning at 4:55 and continuing for approximately 30 seconds, which looks patently awkward, since he plays "air cymbal" with his right drumstick when he plays a snare drum rimshot with his left hand. It looks strange, and it is not easy to do, but it is a stellar technique for "pushing" the snare drum rimshots to the front of the mix . . . ]
"Miss You" (The Rolling Stones) -- Philadelphia 2005 -- YouTube concert videoExplained another way, when there is only one track of a single instrument, it is virtually trivial to make it loud, but as the number of instruments increases, it becomes more difficult to get clarity and perceived loudness, because the release phases of all the instruments tend to be additive in a way similar to hiss and noise . . .
Yet, if there are 10 instruments and only one plays a note at any given moment, then this is very similar to what happens when there is just one instrument playing individual clearly delineated notes, and while the overall volume level is the same, what happens is that by virtue of advanced mathematical algorithms it is as if each instrument was playing at maximum volume, where instead of having 10 instruments essentially "sharing" a sonic space, each instrument during its specific and highly partitioned and constrained "slice" effectively uses the entire sonic space, although with the caveat that there needs to be a bit of sustained background to provide smoothness and continuity, since otherwise it sounds like a rapid pulse, which introduces the problem of making the instrument and voice "slices" impossible to distinguish to the absurd level that all of it simply sounds like a surreal polyphonic synthesizer . . .
And the key to making this "algorithmic slicer" practical is to discover a way to design the user interface so that makes intuitive sense and has controls and parameters which actually do something obvious and discernible, which is fabulous . . .
Fabulous! 
by lukebredin » Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:05 am 
.
.
