Gamma values are based on the display system. Broadcast TV uses a gamma value of 2.4, which was originally derived from the CRTs used in TV sets and monitors. Apple’s QuickTime Player and Apple’s ColorSync technology is based on a gamma value of approximately 1.96. The web is in-between at 2.2.
Depending on the application, a generated/exported Rec 709 file (SDR video) will often include an embedded gamma tag to identify the gamma value. Gamma of 1.96 is tagged as 1-1-1. Gamma of 2.4 is tagged as 1-2-1. This tells QuickTime Player how to display the file to the screen. What happens when you move between different post applications that expect to see different gamma values?
Editing software applications’ color management
Adobe has spent a lot of R&D effort in improving color management within Premiere. Most of this involves the automatic conversion of various camera log images into Rec 709 (or other). There are also display preference settings for the viewer to use gamma values of 1.96, 2.2, or 2.4. However, these settings do not change the image. They merely change the video appearance in the viewer. If you are on a Mac, then internally Premiere is tied to Apple’s ColorSync technology and works in 1.96 gamma. I don’t edit on a PC, but I believe there Adobe is using sRGB values for the display. Unfortunately, none of Premiere’s color management settings address the issue of different gamma values for source footage that’s already Rec 709 and not log.
In Premiere and Final Cut Pro, when a file uses a gamma value of 2.4 and contains a tag of 1-2-1, both applications will ignore this and assume a tag of 1-1-1 (QuickTime standard). This is true even though QuickTime Player itself correctly interprets this information and displays the file as intended. The result is that when you import the file, it will look more washed out within the NLE than the original. If you export this file from Premiere or FCP without doing anything else to the file, the result will not match the original. It will be brighter with lower contrast and saturation. It will now also have a tag of 1-1-1. Clearly both of these applications have converted the gamma value of the file. Sadly there are no internal settings to compensate for this.
The post production workflow dilemma
The easiest thing to do would be simply to work in your desired NLE, make the file look like you want it to look, export it, and deliver. That’s all well and good, but it’s not the real world.
Often, the creative edit (‘offline’ edit) is done in one NLE. The camera files are sent with a list to a colorist to grade (usually in DaVinci Resolve Studio). The graded files are rendered/exported and delivered back to the editor to conform for finishing (‘online’ edit) and delivery. That portion might be in yet a different editing application.
If the colorist exported the files using a gamma value of 2.4 (set in Resolve’s export dialogue), then the color-corrected files are tagged as 1-2-1. However, back in FCP or Premiere, these files will be converted and no longer match the files from Resolve.
Workflow solutions and workarounds
The good news is that Resolve is the only one of these applications with specific settings to control gamma during the grade and when exporting the file. This means that you can check with the colorist about certain settings and request a specific output. If you are doing the grade yourself in Resolve, then there are several settings to be mindful of.
On a Mac, set the color management to work in DaVinci Wide Gamut/Intermediate and the output to Rec 709-A (or Rec 709-Scene). When you export, your Deliver page settings should be Rec 709 / Rec 709 (not specified gamma). This will ensure that the files are tagged as 1-1-1 with 1.96 gamma and match the appearance in the Resolve viewer. These files will pass through Final Cut Pro or Premiere correctly. The export from the NLE will match the files from Resolve.
If you cannot control this and receive files from a colorist tagged as 1-2-1, then there are two manual ways to deal with it. The first way is to apply a LUT to the clip that you have imported back into the NLE. Adobe used to offer a correction LUT, but it’s no longer available from Adobe. It can still be found on the internet, so search for ‘QT Gamma Compensation.cube‘. This LUT will offset the conversion the NLE is doing to the file. The second method is simply to use the NLE’s color tools for a manual correction. Typically, you can pull down the midpoint of a curve slightly and add about 5-10% saturation and you’ll be pretty close.
Going back to what I said at the start, it is impossible to make a single file that is identical in all places. If you are working with Mac-oriented settings, but need to deliver for broadcast, the best approach is to grade the final version using an external video reference display. If it looks right there, even though the exported file has a gamma of 1.96, it will be acceptable for broadcast and look correct on TV.
Files for the web might be a bit dicier. If your footage is bright and colorful with a decent amount of contrast, then these gamma differences will be less noticeable. However, if you went for a darker, moodier, low-contrast grade, then differences will be more obvious going between platforms. The best approach is to test your exports and make adjustments if needed. If you use Frame.io or a similar review-and-approval site, then it’s easy to upload a file and check that on various computers, browsers, tablets, and smartphones to see whether adjustments are necessary.
There are the obvious counter-arguments, such as the AI ‘look’. While that might be an issue for some, it’s not really new. Ever since the dawn of filmmaking, non-traditional production methods have been used. Within the last quarter century, films like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within are probably the closest equivalent to the current AI trend. Sky Captain used real actors, but Final Fantasy was totally synthetic, thanks to motion capture, a lot of 3D animation, and tons of SGI computing horsepower. They may have been groundbreaking for their day, but both were financial failures.
Fast forward to modern artificial intelligence production techniques
Brute force computation on-site has been replaced by logging into various LLMs with as little as a laptop. Meanwhile, some data center is crunching away to generate your prompts. The skills of talented computer animators have been supplanted by your ability is to visualize a shot and describe it in minute detail as a written prompt. However, one key difference in the production of a synthetic film up until now – whether it’s traditional animation, pseudo-realistic, or a hybrid – is that it typically requires a large team. AI-generated content is more conducive to having a single producer working on it. The vision has to be tightly controlled and the prompts kept consistent and specific. It’s harder to achieve good results when the creation of AI content is driven by a decentralized team. So the ‘director’ is often the primary creator of the content.
Let’s set aside the issue of the visual aesthetics of AI. Maybe it will get better and become more acceptable, maybe it won’t. It has clearly advanced in a short period of time. Hopefully, the frequent and unprompted hallucinations will stop happening. It’s hard to say. Personally I don’t think so, because of three factors: 1) AI is inherently ‘stupid’; 2) AI does not understand the real world in terms of physics, perspective, movements, etc; 3) There is no financial incentive for AI developers to make visual content better than it is now. That’s because other applications of AI are far more lucrative. For now, AI image generation is good enough for the majority of content creators and consumers.
Will there be a market for an AI-generated feature film? If you don’t include something done specifically for animation or anything that might only have novelty appeal, then I still think the answer is ‘yes’. However, that’s only true if the story is compelling or possibly if it’s a limited, straight-to-streaming project. Many viewers are fine with AI in its current form. Plus, if we are thinking in terms of Netflix, then there’s a huge potential international audience. While you might look at creating an AI feature film as a ‘cheaper’ way to tell your story and maintain total creative control, it’s not the easy route some might envision. So, is it a feasible option for a producer in the world of indie filmmaking?
Adobe Firefly image created by Oliver Peters. PROMPT USED: Two martial artists fighting in steampunk environment with 1970s film style.
Sadly, in spite of inflation, the rates outlined in that article are still more or less valid today. There are certainly fluke productions that get made at the bottom end of that range and become wildly successful. Nevertheless, most producers can expect to be closer to the $1 million end. The total time frame is typically nine months to a year. Between production and post, possibly as many as 100 folks have been involved. Filmmaking is team art. It’s rarely the total and complete vision of a single writer or director or producer working entirely on their own.
Let’s compare that to a hypothetical, synthetic 90-minute feature film produced exclusively with current AI tools. A typical dialogue-driven film will have around 1,200 shots, each averaging several seconds. However, the shooting ratio (filmed versus used) is likely between 4:1 and 10:1. Footage for all scenes is usually captured over a 20-30 day stretch on a smaller film, utilizing a handful of locations and sets. Often the editing starts on the first day of the shoot and carries through until everything is delivered. Within that time frame, ten weeks are usually budgeted for the editor and director to ‘lock the cut’ and finish the film creatively.
In the case of AI, these same 1,200 shots have to be precisely described (prompted), previewed, and the best version downloaded. Hallucinations and improper rendering of the prompts are inevitable, which means that there is still a good-to-bad shot ratio that’s similar to real production. Given that ratio, a person working for a solid day will probably average four or five good clips/shots each day. This means it will take a solid year to generate the entire film if you work five days a week. Add more time for potential shot changes and re-renders, which will likely push you into the first part of a second year. That effort is more than a real production, but less than the four years that it took to get Final Fantasy out the door.
Trying to divide this into a team approach is likely going to cause additional problems, primarily of consistency. As the person writing the prompts to create the imagery, you are taking on the role of director, cinematographer, and all the on-set departments involved in standard film production. Each shot must be described in lengthy detail. So a single shot might require a prompt that can be as long as a typewritten page. Therefore, it’s important to maintain tight control over how each shot is described/explained to the AI engine.
Budgeting AI production costs
Adobe Firefly Galley Image. PROMPT USED: Ethereal tone, hyper-realistic close-up portrait, intense cinematic lighting with soft shadows, detailed facial textures and expressive eyes, moody dark background with subtle depth, ultra-sharp focus on the face, realistic skin tones, luxury fashion editorial aesthetic, shallow depth of field, rich contrast, emotional realism, award-winning portrait photography style, 8k detail, rich colors in background, slightly foggy environment, neutral expression,
Credits are based on a number of variables, including complexity and length. For instance, if you upload a short, simple office shot with talent and prompt the AI engine to keep it largely the same, but change the background, then the number of credits charged will be relatively low. On the other hand, a completely generated one minute film opener will cost you a lot of credits. In fact, some services limited the length and/or resolution of a shot. Need something longer and you’ll be asked to upgrade the plan.
What about the cast?
We’ve all seen plenty of parody videos that use the likenesses of well-known actors, politicians, or celebrities without their consent. The creators get away with this because it is a parody and protected (at least in the US). But that doesn’t apply to a real film. You don’t want to rely on some arbitrary likeness created by the AI software, because you cannot vouch for the legal use of that persona. Therefore, you do need to hire an actual cast.
You can approach the production in three ways. One way is to simply photograph stills of your cast members in various positions and angles. These would be used as reference frames for the AI clips. Likewise, you can record and upload voice samples. This gives you ‘safe’ training content for the LLMs; however, you will need to work out an NIL contract (name, image, likeness) with each cast member. For example, maybe you have a cast of ten actors and you pay each $1,000 for the rights to use their image and voice in perpetuity as part of the film. That’s $10K for the cast.
The second approach would take this up a notch. You could record the entire script’s dialogue in advance with the real actors and then use that as the real audio. Some of the software options allow for matching the AI renders with lip-synced audio. Essentially this is similar to the production workflow used for animated films. Naturally, this increases the cost for the cast, their time, and studio session time.
The third approach would be to shoot all scenes with the real cast and cheap cameras in general environments. Those clips would be uploaded to the AI system with prompts to replace everything – only using those recordings as a guide. For example, an office background becomes a moody newspaper bullpen. An actress is replaced by her AI self wearing different clothing. The audio might be the real audio or possibly augmented with ADR sessions in post. Essentially this is analogous to the way the film A Scanner Darkly was created in 2006. Remember, that the AI is still recreating the entire shot, so the appearance of your actual cast members will be slightly altered in those rendered images.
Ultimately, this is hard to budget without knowing the exact method to be used. However, since some general production days are required, this becomes the more expensive of these three techniques. The upside is that these recordings can be ‘pre-edited’ to hone the story. Then those edited shots become the basis for [hopefully] a more accurate AI result, with ‘real’ performances and emotion.
Even with AI content, post production is required
You’ve generated all of the shots from detailed, descriptive prompts. If everything comes together as planned, there might only be several weeks of editing for refinement. However, if it doesn’t come together – and many films are truly built in the cutting room – you can assume the full ten weeks, along with more AI content creation to fix gaps.
You often don’t know what works and what doesn’t until you see a cut assembled. It’s at that point you realize which scenes and shots can be removed or rearranged. However, my guess is that you have less wiggle room to adjust the cut than with a standard film. That’s because the bad AI renders might not be useable alternate takes in the same way as an unused take in a regular film.
Color correction might also take longer, because the AI ‘look’ is so baked in. Compared with live action shot on film or in RAW or log using a digital camera, the colorist has much less latitude to creatively impact the aesthetics with tools like DaVinci Resolve or Baselight. If you are trying to shift the grade into a different style, the colorist has to work against the stylized color of those rendered clips.
Audio post rounds it all out. Depending on the digital performances of the synthetic AI ‘actors’, you might have a lot more time in ADR, as I discussed above. After all, there’s no real way to truly ‘direct’ the AI to get the range of emotion human actors would be able to give. Some of that can be mitigated in vocal performance recordings with a real cast at the start (as with animation) or through ADR after the fact. The bottom line is that audio post will likely require more ADR or voice recording time, the same amount or more for sound design, and the same number of mixing hours. The music score can also be created through AI, but it will likely be rather vanilla. You won’t get the same ebb and flow to the score in the way that a music composer would produce.
Closing thoughts
I’ve put together a back-of-the-napkin budget estimate for what a 100% AI-generated feature film might cost (click to enlarge or download the image). Naturally, this is more of an educated guess than anything else, simply because it hasn’t been done yet. Plus the economics of AI are evolving and there are many variables, as I’ve already outlined. Hopefully it’s a realistic starting point without cutting corners.
It should be noted that the biggest line item in my hypothetical AI budget is the cost of a director. However, if you yourself are the person generating the AI content and this is your project, then you are the director. Clearly in that case, it’s not a hard cost. However, it does represent the impact of opportunity-loss, because you would otherwise be doing billable work for other clients as a director. That’s definitely something to consider before jumping in.
I do think at some point we’ll see dramatic feature films created – or at least attempted – using only artificial intelligence as the production method. I’m not optimistic that the process will be worth the effort, nor that it will be financially successful. Naturally, I’m talking about a straightforward, dialogue-driven indie film. If the vision is fantastical or something that would get extraordinarily expensive in sets, VFX, and costumes, then AI can be a legitimate alternative in the future. The potential might seem appealing to some and frightening to others. Regardless, no one should view it as a ‘cheaper alternative’ to working on a real project with a team of creative, like-minded filmmakers.
The 1176 Limiting Amplifier is one of the more famous hardware units prized by today’s mixers. It was first developed in 1967 by Bill Putman Sr. as a peak-limiting compressor using fast field-effect transistors (FET). The hardware went through several revisions that have come to be known by the color of the face plate – Bluestripe, Silverface, and Blackface. Original hardware units in good condition fetch crazy prices. Modern hardware versions aren’t cheap either.
The main characteristic of the 1176 compressor is its fast compression and punchiness thanks to the FET circuit design. The Bluestripe models were some of the earliest and thus the grittiest 1176 models. MixWave has stayed true to the aggression of the Bluestripe units, using Teezio’s 1176 to model the plugin. But they have also added some of the later refinements. Modern digital emulations come closer than ever to the sound of analog hardware systems, thanks in part to newer approaches, such as machine learning. (MixWave doesn’t specify their proprietary method in developing plugins.)
As with other MixWave plugins, Teezio Azul features a top bar with presets, input and output gain, filtering, a wet/dry mix control, and up to 8X oversampling. Standard and Clean modes give you two flavors in one plugin. When set to Standard, the plugin retains the 1176 harmonics. This adds more ‘color’ as the signal is driven through the circuit. The Clean mode is more neutral. The GUI faceplate of the plugin holds the 1176 controls, including Input, Output, Compression Ratio, and VU meter settings. When the meter is set to OFF, the compressor/limiter section is disengaged, but the gain and filter controls on the top bar are still active.
Unlike other compressors, there are no threshold or knee settings on an 1176. Both functions are combined as part of the Input control. Crank up the Input dial to start compressing and turn down the Output to offset the level change. Holding Shift as you increase Input will simultaneously move the Output dial in the opposite direction. Turn the Attack and Release dials in the clockwise direction for increasingly shorter reaction times. That’s also a trait of an 1176. This is the opposite direction of rotation compared with other compressors.
The Azul has four compression ratio settings – 4:1, 8:1, 12:1, and 20:1. With none of the buttons engaged, the signal simply passes through without compression. Technically, anything over a 10:1 ratio is considered limiting, hence the 1176’s designation as a Limiting Amplifier. One of the legendary features of 1176 hardware was an All Buttons mode. It turned out to be a design fluke discovered by engineers when they started using it. If you pressed in all of the ratio buttons, the 1176 hardware would compress in a fast and very punchy manner. This feature is often left off of other 1176 emulations, but the Teezio Azul has it. Hold Shift and click any of the ratio buttons to engage the All Buttons mode for a very fast, aggressive style of compression. I wish the MixWave GUI designers had used more visual contrast with these buttons. That would make them appear more distinct when any of these virtual buttons are active.
I have several different plugins that emulate or are inspired by the 1176 hardware. MixWave’s Teezio Azul sounds the best of the bunch to me and is the only one of mine with the All Buttons feature. This works great on drums, as most mixers will tell you. I’ve never used the real hardware, so I have no direct comparison to the vintage gear. Nevertheless, the Azul sounds like I would expect it to sound.
You can definitely make it react in a super-punchy manner, but it’s not a one-trick pony. Dial back on the settings and you’ll get more subtle results that are appropriate for vocals, instruments, or your mix bus. A trick that many mixers like to use is to apply two stages of compression on a track, like a lead vocal. For example, you could use the Teezio Azul as the first compressor set to a higher ratio and faster attack, in order to shave off the peaks. Then follow it with a different compressor, like MixWave’s D.W. Fearn VT-7, to control the overall level and smooth things out.
The MixWave Teezio Azul is available in all of the usual plugin formats and is activated using iLok. MixWave offers a free trial period and there’s currently a discounted introductory price.
FxFactory has a long history with post users. Noise Industries’ first effort was developing effects for Avid Media Composer on the Mac. The company quickly transitioned to primarily supporting the original version of Apple Final Cut Pro with its original FxFactory product. Since those early days, FxFactory has evolved into a broad platform of audio and video effects supporting a range of Mac applications. It serves as a central management platform to install and support these plugins on your system.
Noise Industries now supports Premiere, Resolve, and others on the Mac with FxFactory, but the effects and templates specifically designed for Final Cut Pro and Motion still exceed the others. You might be using FxFactory because of its many partnerships with effects developers, such as Hawaiki, Sheffield Softworks, Ripple Training, PremiumVFX, SUGARfx, and countless others. However, unless you’ve purchased the separate FxFactory Pro bundle, you may be unaware that the company also offers its own advanced plugins. If you only purchased FxFactory Pro and none of the others, you would certainly have a comprehensive set of video effects plugins. These would greatly expand the stylistic options of your NLE or compositing application. And if you have several of these editing applications installed, then the FxFactory effects will be available in each.
FxFactory Pro 7 isn’t just a simple version update. The engineers have done a major overhaul of its thousand or so effects templates. These are now optimized to work in a wide gamut color space. New AI-based, depth mapping features have been included, along with additional effects. The effect templates have been organized into 13 different groups: Blur, Color Correction, Distortion, Dot Array, Edge Work, Glow, Halftones, Sharpen, Spot Light, Stylize, Tiling, Video, and Vignette. Some older plugins still appear in the FxFactory Pro 5 group until they get redesigned.
Audio effects plugins tend to come in two flavors. Either they emulate vintage analog gear with sonic character and skeuomorphic interfaces to match. Or they take a modern design approach that might have the vintage sonic character, but with interfaces designed for the era of in-the-box mixing. KIT Plugins lives in both camps. They have vintage covered thanks to their collaborations with Blackbird Studio and Norman Petty Studios. But if you want something with a modern look and feel, then there’s NOIZ Hub, as well as the separate KIT Plugins collection.
KIT’s NOIZ Hub collection includes four plugins: NOIZ 80s Lush (a guitar tone processor), NOIZ One Vox (a vocal channel strip), NOIZ One Series D (a set of three preamps), and NOIZ One Series C (a set of two compressors). I’ve reviewed NOIZ One Vox and find it quite useful on vocals. Now it’s time to dive a bit deeper with some testing of NOIZ One Series C.
NOIZ One C-54 and C-66
The NOIZ One Series C bundle includes two compressor plugins. The C-66 was inspired by the BB F66 compressor from KIT’s Blackbird category. The BB F66 is a faithful emulation of Blackbird Studio’s classic Fairchild 660 compressor. The C-54 was inspired by the BB N54 plugin. That in turn is based upon the Neve 2254 hardware compressor.
Both Series C compression plugins use the one-knob design philosophy. This simplifies and combines the dials and functions of a hardware device into a modern, streamlined interface and workflow. If you don’t care about ‘authentic’ skeuomorphism – or those knobs simply get confusing – then plugins that use the one-knob layout are a better choice. In the case of the C-54 and C-66, the developers have retained the character of the vintage hardware that’s inspired these plugins. The graphical look of the main knob is a nod to the plug that inspired this variation.
The C-54 and C-66 seem very similar at first glance. Both offer light and dark modes, global input/output controls, a wet/dry mix percentage, and one central Amount knob for all of the compression functions. The three Mode presets are how you change some of the compression character of each.
The C-54 is based on the original Neve’s diode-bridge design. The C-54 Mode presets are Low, Mid, and High to control how aggressive you want the compression to be. Turn up the Amount knob to control the compression. Attack and release times appear to be fixed with the Mode settings changing mainly the compression ratio. I don’t hear any active auto gain or make-up gain. Therefore, as you crank up Amount, you’ll need to compensate for the level change with the Output control. Unlike the BB N54, there is no separate limiter setting.
The C-66 is based on the Fairchild’s vari-mu tube circuitry. Its Mode presets are based on reaction speed: Slow, Medium, Fast. This equates to the Time Constant control on the BB F66 plugin. As a vari-mu style compressor, neither the BB F66 nor the C-66 offer a compression ratio setting. As you crack up Threshold on the F66 or Amount on the C-66 the ratio increases accordingly.
Finally, each includes a sidechain filter to control which frequencies are excluded from impacting the compressor. Most compressors only sidechain the low end so that bass information doesn’t prematurely kick on the compression. The C-54 and C-66 offer both high-pass and low-pass settings, which isn’t as common. Therefore, high-frequency spikes can also be excluded as triggers. Click SC Solo and you can preview the portion of the signal that’s impacting the compressor.
As you’d expect, the C-66 tends to react more smoothly, especially on the Slo Mode setting. With either plugin, if you leave the Input gain at a nominal level and then crank up both Amount and Output, you’ll still get a very clean result. Both plugins come with a useful set of curated presets for various types of tracks. But, you can certainly use the C-54 or C-66 on stems and buses, too.
NOIZ One C-54 and C-66 are designed to provide smooth compression with a simple and fast workflow. This makes them especially useful to video editors, as well as mixers. Editors usually try to avoid complex audio effects, so these two compressors are ideal and work well in most NLEs. Add C-66 to dialogue tracks to smooth them out. Then add C-54 onto the mix bus to tighten everything up.
Blackbird Studio BB Chamber D
Before digital reverb hardware was even a thing, recording studios often built dedicated reverb chambers. These ranged from iso booths to stairwells to attics. Contemporary software engineers have developed plugins that emulate the sonic character of various reverb chambers found in iconic recording studios worldwide.
KIT Plugins is no exception. Their Blackbird Studio collection includes BB Chamber A, which is a virtual copy of the Studio A chamber at Blackbird Studio in Nashville. One of the room’s unique features that’s reproduced in the plugin is a moveable ceiling. Raising or lowering it changes the response of the chamber. BB Chamber A is great on a variety of tracks, especially drums.
Now KIT Plugins has added BB Chamber D, which is based on the iso booth/chamber that’s part of Studio D at Blackbird. It’s a 79 sq. ft. room with a fixed 22 ft. 5 in. ceiling height. Just as with the BB Chamber A plugin, you have three source options: Direct (as if in the space, no speaker), PA (a PA style speaker), and Hi-Fi (full-range speaker). There are also three mic choices based on microphones commonly used in Blackbird’s chamber. Speaker types and mic selections are the same between the two chamber plugins. One key difference, aside from the ceiling, is that with Chamber A the mic position can be on the floor or mounted on the ceiling. The Chamber D position is only on the floor.
Several new items have been added. This plugin includes four levels of dampening within the room. That simulates adding sound cushions in the room to change its decay time and character – no cushions up to three cushions. You can alter the size and width of this virtual reverb chamber, which isn’t possible in the physical space.
Since the real Studio D reverb chamber is adjacent to the live recording space, another way the Blackbird engineers use it is to prop the door open and capture the acoustics from the main studio as they reverberate inside the chamber. This is replicated in the plugin by switching from Chamber to Live – just as if you are opening the door from the live room into the chamber. This becomes a very effective way to add natural reverb to any specific track or for the whole mix across the board.
You also have input/output gain, wet/dry mix percentage, saturation, filters, a 4-band EQ, and compression. The saturation and EQ character of BB Chamber D is based on KIT’s BB A5 plugin. That plugin was modeled after the real 96-input API Legacy console in the Studio D control room.
Overall, either Chamber A or Chamber D will yield good results. At their defaults, Chamber D has a slightly longer decay time. With their width controls at maximum, Chamber D also sounds slightly wider. As you’d expect, when you switch from Chamber to Live you get a huge difference in sound. I noticed some distortion when listening to Live at 100% wet, even though the meters were at nominal levels. The same settings in Chamber were clean. So if you use the Live setting, be sure to check your levels and compensate as needed.
KIT Plugins offers a 14-day free trial. You can purchase any of their effects outright or get a NOIZ Hub subscription. Activation is via iLok.
digitalfilms 