iZotope Neutron. A cautionary tale...

I posted a review of iZotope Neutron but with the big holiday sales coming- So iZotope is very likely to be pushing it hard in their sales & I thought some might find this useful.

Short version- HARD PASS on Neutron.

Here's that review:

Neutron- Essentially an iZotope channel strip. In practice?

Cumbersome, CPU hungry as all hell, superfluous for the experienced, & likely just dangerous for the beginner.

Neutron is marketed towards lots of it's features but none so heavy as this:

Track Assistant

Track assistant is very similar to the machine learning in Ozone's "Mastering Assistant" for track by track vs the whole mix. For the record I found the Mastering Assistant was far more useful to a beginner and can even be handy for those who know what they're doing

So I took a look at it. Slapped it on all manner of sources and WOAH. The crap it came up with. It's incredibly over the top.

Kick drum (inside)

Gate, EQ, Dynamic EQ, Transient Shaper, Exciter, and a Compressor.

Little over the top, ya think? It was well captured but needed some shaping sure... but what a convoluted way to get there.

Without exception no matter the source I found Neutron came up with the most complicated "solutions". It's not just because I'm not a fan of Exciters with a few rare exceptions, etc. Not only did I find the "suggestions" didn't sound very good- more importantly they muddied the waters. This is where I really take issue.

It could be argued a few ways:

1: It's not a product made for a seasoned engineer- This is a tool for people not as experienced

2: These are only starting points and you tweak from there

Ok so

1:

For the beginner this just far over complicates things. Adding a dynamic EQ where a regular EQ would have worked perfectly, etc. just adds more confusion and it's completely unnecessary. This could lead to someone to think they should try to learn by reverse engineering the "suggested" settings. With Neutron always picking the most complicated & convoluted solutions it's just another thing in the way- a hindrance not a "Assistant".

To say nothing of running it on multiple channels would require a seriously heavy duty computer- again, something the beginner isn't like to have...and how is it helpful to undo all the unnecessary work on multiple channels!

2:

I think that #1 answers #2 in large part as well. Why not just start tweaking on your own if all the Assistant offers is more confusion? The same reasons that make this a cumbersome (possibly corrosive) utility for the beginner is the same reason it's a pain in the ass if you are an experienced engineer- you must 1st undo the unnecessary suggestions & rework from there to arrive where you want to be- doesn't sound like much of an "Assistant", right?

I got my copy during a sale with a bundle or I'd never have bought it separately.

I STRONGLY recommend you pass on this if you're a beginner. HARD pass.

In fairness I should say I find Ozone to be plenty useful and have gotten great results- Just avoid the "Vintage" modules...and avoid Neutron entirely.

I feellike we've ahd the Izotope discussion before. I am NOT a fan. All their stuff feels like I'm using a sledgehammer to hang a picture on my wall. A regular hammer would be more than enough for the job. or screw the nail and use a fucking thumbtack. If my sounds ae working so poorly that I need something like Neutron then I need to rethink my earlier decisions and maybe retrack soem parts so they work with the rest of the music instead of beating on them with all these over the top gadgets...

We have and both had the same issues. This one just feels really misguided in practice.

Everyone wants their tune to sound killer. Fuck, so does everyone who listens to them & Neutron feels very much like a huge obstacle to that.

iZotope Ozone, Iris, Vocal Synth, etc. I can find use for. It's not always a first choice but at least I can find utility in using them. Their creative/music making stuff is great. Ozone with deication can do a damn good job but given the choice?

FABFLITER.

Fabfilter for most all ITB mixing needs does a fantastic job & is crazy intuitive. No matter your skill it encourages your good insticnts rather than head scratching.

wanna talk EQ? (xaq, I'm ure I've mentioned this stuff before so sorry for rehashing my insane EQ methods and beliefs) this will sound insane and fucked up, but unless its ahrdware or an emulation of a specific hardware? I usually just use whatever crappy channel parametric, a baxandall or a tilt EQ, maybe even just hpf or lpf plugin. I print a lot of basic EQ off my little Eureka strip or symmetrix EQ while recording these days or I also use the filters from synths as EQ when i want some less than subtle hpf or lpf. I don't really do a ton of EQing. I seldom EQ my master bus unless its really subtle to add air, remove muck, etc. I'll use brainworx cleansweep on tehre, if that counts. I tend to use some kinda fake pultec plugin out of my collection on kick drum. Soemtimes Ill find a really characterful peaking filter to go beyond what the channel EQ can do for snare. I have a couple skronky stnadalone peaking plugins I like for adding snap at 6k rather than using a multiband EQ. If I need tog et surgical, yes I use fab filter usually unless my CPU is bogged down then I use the fruity loops parametrics which work fine. The only place I use a heavy EQ is in mid-side and then i have a bunch of stuff. But that's usually just one ffects sends to like stereo-ize and diffuse stuff. I do a lot of my in teh box 'EQin' with targeted saturation and compressor choices. Even when a comrpessor is abrely doing anything withthe dynamics it cane be a subtle way to change the timbre of an isntrument without all that hase shift. I usually reach for the channel EQ not only to take out some bottom or roll out a little top or lower mids really fast, but also to get that shitty EQ phase shift that moves sounds back. I mostly cut and seldom boost more than 3dB. If I want a lot of boost to bring something forward I usually use a fake plugin 1073 or 550. I just don't see the ened fr all this processor hungry stuff when I am doing pretty subtle things and my channels have a simple parametric built in. I'm mor likely to re-record soemthing and get the timbre right going in than I am to open soemthing surgial like fab fitler and try to fix it. I'll at elast try to redo it first and then I'll start screwing with fab filter if I can't beat the original take. I actually have a real hatred of heavy EQ. I feel like I can ehar it. its soemthing that was prevelant in certain 80s music and then it came into every genre in a big way bit by bit through the 90s where guys would have EQs set up before theye ven lsitened to the takes! Now its like everyone EQs the shit out of everything during mix down and even with DI synthesizers and drum machines it often jumps out at me in a bad way. I find ymself lsitening to the mix decisions and not the song. With microphones I just move the mic and maybe high pass if I have to. For DI stuff EQ going in is definitely the 'mic placement' to me. But going in. For soem reason it soudns different going in. Even when you're mixing with all hardware, EQ going into the recorder soudns different. Its like if the EQ happens before any A/D cvnersion or any tape artifacts if you use tape? It like, works better? Those weird phase things between the flat bands and the EQed bands sorta smooth on out in the recording and playback process... but once something is recorded and then EQed later its a real decision to do that because that shit is gonna sound EQed. it becomes less about getting the sound and more an effect... so the broader a brush i can paint with while mixing the happier I am. If I don't go broad I make my narrow cuts to remove soem weird resonance I missed while tracking absolutely minimal, the least dB I can get away with. I'll start really extreme and just back off bit by bit until the annoying frequencies are noticeable, then cut a little and be happy... like a lot of people do shit I guess, but I really don't wanna hear the EQ qorking and if there's a little bit of that annoying frequency left, so be it. Reducing it some will do.

or that's how I hear things. I've really changed my EQ aesthetic over the eyars. Even just the last 5 years. I sued to be unafraid. There was a time where I woudla reached for fab filter on multiple channels, every mix because soemthing's bothering my and Iw as going tog et extremely surgical. I can no longer get into that. I feel like for all the creative, fabulous plguins out there that help with sound design and stuff there are a ton of plugins thata re extremely surgical in the EQ and dynamics realm that, even in skilled hands, are destroying music for me. I mean, tehre are less new songs than ever that I like, but a lot of songs I would like are murdered by all this technology. I know I like the tune, but I ahte the mix, the amster or the whole production. I struggle with that joan as Policewoman record because of the mx and amstering decisions and its a case of the tools overpowering the music. But what do I know? No one is buying any of my music (although I'm not trying to sell it, but virtually no one bought it when I did sell it). Maybe I'm crazy. What I do know is what I like and what I don't like. I actually haven't opened an Izotope plug in months and months and I can't remember the last mix I used fab fitler on... or even any kinda parametric other than MS EQs and the FL studio 3 band channel EQ. I shit you not. Lately I have this one free bax EQ that i think is called basiQ and I like that a lot LOL.

I'm just a light touch on just about everything anymore. EQ, Comp, you name it.