KVR Audio

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:43 am

kmonkey wrote:
Ch00rD wrote: In fact, that zero-delay feedback thing that contributes to the awesome sound of Diva's filter was implemented in UA's Moog plug-in a couple of years before u-he managed to pull off that trick.

I am curious on how can you claim that about UAD implementing zero delay in their Moog filter? Never heard it before.

Me neither. references please.

digidennis · Post by **digidennis** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:32 am

http://www.uaudio.com/blog/moog-multimode-filter-design

As mentioned earlier, "stable" self-oscillation of the filter depends on the fact that some element of the structure saturates, or "clips." This requires inclusion of some form of nonlinearity within the filter's feedback loop. Because of the presence of this nonlinearity, and because of the special one-pole filter structures used, pre-calculation of closed-loop behavior could not be carried out, and the filter had to be implemented directly as a feedback structure. Special techniques were developed to implement this feedback structure without incurring the one sample of delay usually encountered

Lotuzia · Post by **Lotuzia** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 12:17 pm

Hmmm I don't know.

Besides all the valid examples given by other people, Xils-lab ChorX has been decribed as very close to several buckect brigade vintage chorus units, by owners of the real thing. As the LX series have been recently by Computer Music/Music radar as "the best" -its their words not mine - Leslie emulation, closest to the real thing once again. As for 0df filters, Le Masque delay have it, and odf filters were implemented in Xils synths for a long long time.

There are indeed a lot of choices for this or that effect, and between the gazillion delays, chorus etc available, its difficult to make a choice, and a lot of them have their personal merits and a precise sound signature. Its the same in the hardware world, where two chorus wont sound the same at all. Except that there's way more offers in the soft department.

Try the most possible different units would be my answer. And just use what you think fit the best your music.

And then it might appear that hardware emulation is just a parameter between others, in the sense that emulating an hardware machine whose sound you would not like will not make you like the emulation. It might be crucial for some people, and less relevant for others. Emulation is merely a niche market for those who both know the original sound of these machines, AND like it, or for people that have these hardware machines and look for a software alternative, and for those who want to have the comfort of a wide choice of different units, AND can afford it. Its not a holy graal in se. Some effects that dont emulate HW machines are really beautiful, like some AD delays, Le Masque, or the Exponential Audio reverbs, to add a few examples to the list.

fwiw,

LtZ

digidennis · Post by **digidennis** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:09 pm

whyterabbyt wrote:
kmonkey wrote:
Ch00rD wrote: In fact, that zero-delay feedback thing that contributes to the awesome sound of Diva's filter was implemented in UA's Moog plug-in a couple of years before u-he managed to pull off that trick.

I am curious on how can you claim that about UAD implementing zero delay in their Moog filter? Never heard it before.
Me neither. references please.

you are welcome btw.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:14 pm

digidennis wrote:
whyterabbyt wrote:
kmonkey wrote:
Ch00rD wrote: In fact, that zero-delay feedback thing that contributes to the awesome sound of Diva's filter was implemented in UA's Moog plug-in a couple of years before u-he managed to pull off that trick.

I am curious on how can you claim that about UAD implementing zero delay in their Moog filter? Never heard it before.
Me neither. references please.
you are welcome btw.

cheers. i'd started a reply and got interrupted.

Kineticsoundprism · Post by **Kineticsoundprism** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:34 pm

personally i dont think hardware can be fully emulated 100% , the flaws in its design , noise in the dac , mixer its run through etc etc all play a part and you can engineer in wow and flutter and some elements of this but compare it to a real tape / fx and somehow its still lacking or sounds' engineered 'in a subtle way to some.

I think even the best emulations will always be missing the ' air ' that comes from even cheap gear , reverbs being a classic example , the best ive managed to do is emulate reverbs with convolution .

I just feel its a bit like trying to emulate anything , it will have an element of # synthetic about it no matter what but personally its why i like the sound of vst fx as they have this slight artificial and perfect sound .

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:37 pm

Kineticsoundprism wrote:I think even the best emulations will always be missing the ' air ' that comes from even cheap gear , reverbs being a classic example , the best ive managed to do is emulate reverbs with convolution .

digital reverbs?

what part of emulating a digital system on another digital system do you think is the stubling block?

and didnt the 'nobody can run digital reverb properly on a general-purpose processor' argument get blown out of the water with Lexicon Native?

Burillo · Post by **Burillo** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:02 pm

why do we have to have close to hardware FX?

Kineticsoundprism · Post by **Kineticsoundprism** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:12 pm

what part of emulating a digital system on another digital system do you think is the stubling block?

the dac , the flaws in Every individual hardware fx circuits , heat of the room effecting chips in hardware , the hardware mixer its run through , the saturation from the inputs when a send is driving them , the saturation from the returns when the mixer processes the fx sound , the way the hardware fx when combined in a live signal combine in a mixer .Its not a + or - arguement but i just think there are more factors than anyone can admit to somedaysin emulating the realworld.

>and didnt the 'nobody can run digital reverb properly on a general-purpose >processor' argument get blown out of the water with Lexicon Native?[/quote]

i tried lexicon native alongside a real pcm81 or an lxp5 and they sounded worlds apart to my ears , there is just something in the sound of the hardware but the i think the lexicon native was an emulation of their new pcm96 that many people say sounds like software anyway.

The closest i could get with lexicon native was running the vstfx back through hardware and even then there is this perfection to the lexicon native that i didnt like compared to the hardware .

I am not saying you cant run digital reverb properly on a general processor but that it will still lack all the factors above and to my ears they all make a difference but on some level its all subjective as some people swear Valhalla is as good as a pcm70 or 224 but man i cant hear it , i hear stunning vsti reverb but i dont hear hardware and i do wish i could.

Kineticsoundprism · Post by **Kineticsoundprism** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:21 pm

Burillo wrote:why do we have to have close to hardware FX?

thats entirely it ......i think software has its own sound and thats why i use it , a clearness and purity that hardware doesnt have or most .But when i want something unpure and sounding old and worn they i use old and worn old technology if i can afford to !

penguinfromdeep · Post by **penguinfromdeep** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:35 pm

Kineticsoundprism, Have you tried Relab Lx480? It's 1:1 emu of the lexicon reverb, even the converters were modeled and the controls match with the hardware. The guy who made it really went the 'extra mile' modeling that hardware. There's thread on Gearslutz where there is also some comparisons posted, can't hear any difference!

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:39 pm

Kineticsoundprism wrote:
what part of emulating a digital system on another digital system do you think is the stubling block?

the dac , the flaws in Every individual hardware fx circuits , heat of the room effecting chips in hardware , the hardware mixer its run through , the saturation from the inputs when a send is driving them , the saturation from the returns when the mixer processes the fx sound , the way the hardware fx when combined in a live signal combine in a mixer .Its not a + or - arguement but i just think there are more factors than anyone can admit to somedaysin emulating the realworld.

i dont really think its a question of 'more factors than anyone can admit to', more a question of a different opinion on which factors are negligible.
If its not on a below-noise-floor level, then its a given that someone is working on emulating that right now (cf console and tape bus plugins) even if that's being done separately from the actual effects processing.

And you get some of it for free anyway in your computer/DAC/monitor chain.

i tried lexicon native alongside a real pcm81 or an lxp5 and they sounded worlds apart to my ears , there is just something in the sound of the hardware but the i think the lexicon native was an emulation of their new pcm96 that many people say sounds like software anyway.

The closest i could get with lexicon native was running the vstfx back through hardware and even then there is this perfection to the lexicon native that i didnt like compared to the hardware .

Proper ABX testing? Because otherwis confirmation bias can be a more important factor than those you've listed.

as some people swear Valhalla is as good as a pcm70 or 224 but man i cant hear it , i hear stunning vsti reverb but i dont hear hardware and i do wish i could.

If you can genuinely hear the 'heat of the room effecting chips in hardware' on a digital reverb, then I wish you well with that. But I find it really hard to believe that it would have any detectable impact on the actual final sonic footprint of e.g. a complex reverberation algorithm.

Burillo · Post by **Burillo** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:47 pm

whyterabbyt wrote:If you can genuinely hear the 'heat of the room effecting chips in hardware' on a digital reverb, then I wish you well with that. But I find it really hard to believe that it would have any detectable impact on the actual final sonic footprint of e.g. a complex reverberation algorithm.

it won't. that's why we have digital in the first place

valhallasound · Post by **valhallasound** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:46 pm

Kineticsoundprism wrote:
what part of emulating a digital system on another digital system do you think is the stubling block?

the dac , the flaws in Every individual hardware fx circuits , heat of the room effecting chips in hardware , the hardware mixer its run through , the saturation from the inputs when a send is driving them , the saturation from the returns when the mixer processes the fx sound , the way the hardware fx when combined in a live signal combine in a mixer .Its not a + or - arguement but i just think there are more factors than anyone can admit to somedaysin emulating the realworld.

There is nothing stopping people from combining plugins and hardware. If you want the sound of a hardware mixer, use a hardware mixer. Since every mixer or mixer emulation has its own sound, it shouldn't be up to the digital effects to make those decisions.

Last night, I heard ValhallaVintageVerb running through an original Trident A-Range console. It sounded REALLY F***ING GOOD. Granted, I'd have to take out a mortgage for that console, but it was still cool to hear my plugin through that hardware, in an amazing control room.

Other engineers I know mix in the box, and then send everything out through a 2-bus compressor to add mojo. If you have an audio interface with enough sends and returns, you can always put an analog something or other on a send/return path.

I'm not convinced that digital can emulate all the little aspects of analog hardware that make things "sound like a record," but I'm pretty convinced that digital software can sound like digital hardware.

Sean Costello

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:04 pm

If at first you don't succeed..........

Some people can make good sound from a can opener and a box of kleenex, some people have waves mercury and can't do anything. But these threads are fun.

Why are there no close to hardware native vst effects?