Members Folder Posted August 30, 2012 Members Share Posted August 30, 2012 The whole PC DAW approach to recording, especially the total ITB thing is like the Blob sucking everyone in and in the process their whole world is the Blob, everything happens in the Blob and no one can imagine life outside the Blob. You said it brother ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JeffLearman Posted August 30, 2012 Members Share Posted August 30, 2012 It's not an opinion question, it's a fact question. Either the algorithm is the same or it isn't. Wellllll ... a given algorithm can be coded different ways, with different tradeoffs on execution time required and sound quality produced. (Likewise, a better coder can code the same algorithm with the same quality in fewer instructions. Would the results be identical? Yes or no, depending on the nature of the optimization.) Also, a given algorithm can be implemented on hardware with different bit depths, producing different results. Part of the impetus behind IEEE floating point was that people would code scientific numeric algorithms and publish results, and other researchers would run the same code compiled on a different machine, with the same data set, and get different results. For science, it's very important to minimize that kind of thing! But in the case of the Lexicon reverb running in hardware versus a computer, the results might even be bit-identical. If so, using it in the box or in harware via S/PDIF would produce the exact same results, except for latency. Beck talks about a device being designed for one purpose rather than general purpose. In the case of DSP boxes like reverbs, that difference applies to things like latency and hiccups. We know that our DAWs can hiccup or have high latency (and we know bunches of ways to address that). On a hardware unit, it is what it is and there's no fuss. But if the DSP code produces bit-identical results, then that robustness/simplicity, and the quality of analog and conversion components, are the only differences. If the results aren't bit-identical, then either hardware or software could sound better, and it's entirely up to the DSP coding and the math model of the DSP chip. There's no advantage to the "purpose-built" aspect of hardware, other than that the DSP chip might have a higher bit width. Likewise, the computer might. Usually, the computer has the edge here, at least, until recently when DSPs have caught up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JeffLearman Posted August 30, 2012 Members Share Posted August 30, 2012 Each host treats plug-ins a little bit differently. You Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted August 30, 2012 Members Share Posted August 30, 2012 It's a bigger bonus for compressors, I'll warrant. Yeah, this and EQ are really handy. Well, I guess on a console you'd already have EQ, but still.... I'm not saying plugins are better. They are really damn convenient, though, and bang for the buck is high. Yup. I do use hardware compressors for tracking, and sometimes use them for mixing as well, especially with vocals and bass. Otherwise, for simple stuff, my plugin compressors seem to be up to the task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Philter Posted August 30, 2012 Members Share Posted August 30, 2012 The Hardware maintains its superiority in the same environment.So the plugs must be flawed in creation comparatively. Sounds like all you need to do is put your DAT recorder from 1996 inline before your in-the-box reverb, and presto, you'll get that classic sound of analog distortion and crappy AD/DA converters that you're missing from the ITB experience. Instant mojo. What a lark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members roomjello Posted August 30, 2012 Members Share Posted August 30, 2012 Sounds like all you need to do is put your DAT recorder from 1996 inline before your in-the-box reverb, and presto, you'll get that classic sound of analog distortion and crappy AD/DA converters that you're missing from the ITB experience. Instant mojo. What a lark. There you go, look at all the time and money u just saved yourself. Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted August 30, 2012 Members Share Posted August 30, 2012 The Hardware maintains its superiority in the same environment.So the plugs must be flawed in creation comparatively. It wasn't clear from the post I was responding to whether the hardware was used as a channel insert in the same manner as a plug-in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted August 31, 2012 Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 Sounds like all you need to do is put your DAT recorder from 1996 inline before your in-the-box reverb, and presto, you'll get that classic sound of analog distortion and crappy AD/DA converters that you're missing from the ITB experience. Instant mojo. What a lark. I know you're kidding, but...the Slate console emulation, which I expected to be snake oil, is actually pretty effective at giving an analog console sound. That's because it models the non-linearities of the originals, which digital doesn't do inherently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted August 31, 2012 Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 Breaking news: Temnov sent me some files of a drum loop through different reverbs. The WAV file is too big to attach here, so I've created a video-less video with the files as the soundtrack, and embedded it. He was basically looking for a good plate sound for a project, so he went through several reverbs, both hardware and plug-in IR-based (as well as some algorithmic ones), and recorded the results for comparison. As he was willing to share the recording, it would make an interesting exercise for people to make comments on the various sounds - which they prefer, which ones sound like hardware or IR, etc. If we can get a consensus (e.g., if everyone has a particular favorite, or identifies hardware as hardware, or plugs as plugs, or whatever), that should make it easier to define the characteristics that differentiate one from the other. Also, if you want maximum fidelity, you can download the original WAV file from YouSendIt until September 6th: https://www.yousendit.com/download/TEhWM25CSU9oeWFKUmNUQw Let the comments begin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted August 31, 2012 Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 Let the comments begin! Hands down, the dry reference track smokes 'em all. Forced to use one of the others, I'd go with door number four. Disclaimer:I am not an expert in reverb to say the least.I just listened twice, and that only 'cause I forgot the number of the one I liked.I have old ears and listened through a generic PC soundcard. nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Philter Posted August 31, 2012 Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 I know you're kidding, but...the Slate console emulation, which I expected to be snake oil, is actually pretty effective at giving an analog console sound. That's because it models the non-linearities of the originals, which digital doesn't do inherently. Well that does it, I had to beat them to this idea: Proudly introducing the Digital Interconnect Modeler v 1.0, or DIM 1.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Philter Posted August 31, 2012 Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 Let the comments begin! I feel like if I could reach in and tweak the knobs on each one, they could all end up pretty much the same. The eq is different in some of them, one of them is way louder than all the others, etc. The way they are presented, I like 3 the least since the decay time is too long. 4 and 5 are much darker, 5 is also louder. I like 2 the best as presented. But if I were mixing it I bet I could pretty much do the same thing with any of them, unless their controls are really rudimentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted August 31, 2012 Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 Cool idea temnov! I liked 3 and 5 the best overall - they have the most dimension and depth, especially 5 (I wouldn't crank it up as much as in the example, but I realize it's exaggerated to emphasize the differences). 1 and 2 are a bit muffled to me, especially 1. 2 and 3 are fairly similar but I think 3 has more depth. 4 is subtle but good, and I'd be happy to use it. Any of em would be fine with me depending on the song - the only one I really didn't think much of was 1. I agree with Philter that they probably could all sound pretty similar if you tweaked the settings for that purpose. I don't know if you could get 1 to sound like 5, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted August 31, 2012 Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 Forced to use one of the others, I'd go with door number four. That's the Danelectro spring reverb! just kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted August 31, 2012 Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 That says volumes about me!nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members temnov Posted August 31, 2012 Author Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 Thanks, Craig. The eq is different in some of them, one of them is way louder than all the others, etc.Philter, you are correct that one is louder. But the way I did it was the simular way when I'm trying to find something quick - I go through several plate presets or options or hardware which have about the same reverb time (RT60), but not the same. I'm looking for different character, depth, tail, grainess or smoothness, etc. There is nothing scientific about it. It's a real-life example. You check them out, you like them or not, that' it. If you like it then you start tweaking it.All the sends were identical, all the FXs were on the separate FX tracks on 0, some of them reacted a little bit different, but I think it's normal. I didn't touch EQ.btw, Philter, I liked you sound samples on the web-site, very cool! Especially very reverby 1st example on the left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted August 31, 2012 Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 I feel like if I could reach in and tweak the knobs on each one, they could all end up pretty much the same. I think that's where I'm at as well. I feel like they're all usable. I think either 1 or 4 is my least favorite, and 3 is my favorite, although the tail seems extra long. 5 is good as well, but again, the tail seems longer than the others except 3. But I feel like with some tweaking, any one could be usable and effective in a song. But wow, the EQ is really different on each one, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members roomjello Posted August 31, 2012 Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 It wasn't clear from the post I was responding to whether the hardware was used as a channel insert in the same manner as a plug-in. Why would it matter when the sound of the verbs are compared in the daw platform still? You record the HW verb to a track and it still sounds better than the plug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members roomjello Posted August 31, 2012 Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 Let the comments begin! ex 1 is the only hardware verb from what i can hear. The rest sound flat.I'm listening for an expensivey rack type sound not a pedal though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Folder Posted August 31, 2012 Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 I agree with nat whilk II. I prefer them dry. But if I had to choose one it would probably be number five mainly because it doesn't accentuate that annoying ring in the snare drum as much as the others. I would also strap a high pass filter over the reverb return and filter out most of the lows. I don't like the sound of the drum kit. The kick is pitched too high for my taste. Also there is too much resonance and not enough snare in the snare drum IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted August 31, 2012 Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 Why would it matter when the sound of the verbs are compared in the daw platform still? You record the HW verb to a track and it still sounds better than the plug. I just figured he was talking absolutes - you plug something into a hardware reverb and into a mixer, and compare it to going through a plug-in in a DAW, and the hardware would sound better. But now you're talking about recording the HW to a track and then comparing the sound, not just monitoring the output in real time or doing an A/B with hardware environment vs. DAW environment. Unless the HW uses S/PDIF, I think that sending a signal out through an interface output, into a reverb, and back into an interface input is a considerably different process than inserting a plug-in into a virtual channel strip. Apples and oranges, and all that. So I guess we need Beck to describe more accurately the circumstances under which he prefers hardware to software, as there are many options and I'm not really sure which one he's talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted August 31, 2012 Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 ex 1 is the only hardware verb from what i can hear. The rest sound flat. I'm listening for an expensivey rack type sound not a pedal though. None of them are pedals, I assure you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members temnov Posted August 31, 2012 Author Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 I don't like the sound of the drum kit. It's SSD 4 Steven Slate sampler, Platinum, Rock 1 with the MIDI groove from the same package. Nothing tweaked at all. I removed OV and Room though, it's just a dry kick, snare and hat. that annoying ring in the snare drum Real life situation - I just finished a mix with a snare ringing all over. I didn't recorded it, somebody else did. So, we have to deal with this, too, as is. Hardware I used was connected via AES/EBU to UFX RME as well as PCIe. By the way I understand why Roomjello prefers #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted August 31, 2012 Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 ex 1 is the only hardware verb from what i can hear. The rest sound flat. Funny how that's the complete opposite of what I hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted August 31, 2012 Members Share Posted August 31, 2012 I agree with nat whilk II. I prefer them dry. But if I had to choose one it would probably be number five mainly because it doesn't accentuate that annoying ring in the snare drum as much as the others.I would also strap a high pass filter over the reverb return and filter out most of the lows.I don't like the sound of the drum kit.The kick is pitched too high for my taste. Also there is too much resonance and not enough snare in the snare drum IMHO. We're not critiquing the sound of the drum kit here, nor how the reverbs are EQ'd etc. Just the character of the verbs themselves by comparison with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.