ok guys here it is:
I took a few samples,played them from wavelab through Echo layla 3G straight to BBE 862 sonic maximizer,then to digidesign digi003r DI / Pro Tools 7.4LE.
these are wave files containing 3 waveforms.First is clean unprocessed file,second is through software plugin and the third is hardware processed.
setting are approximately adjusted since there's no scale with numbers on hardware unit so I put all knobs on half (5 on software plugin).
I processed vocal,drums,house beat and rock final unmastered mix.
everything is 96kHz-24bit
The difference is noticeable and in my opinion hardware does a better job.
hear for yourself>
http://rapidshare.com/files/211601615/kvr_bbe_test.rar
BBE Sonic Maximizer Software vs. Hardware
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1050 posts since 4 Nov, 2003 from Washington DC
Well done mate! Great examples. After listening to the samples repeatedly I have come to the following (possibly controversial) conclusion: the hardware is not necessarily better than the software, it's just more intense at a lower setting than the software. In other words, the software needs slightly higher settings in order to replicate the same effect. Try it and maybe if you are not too busy post the results. If you had the hardware's knobs at 5, try setting the software at maybe 6 or 7. I have a strong feeling it will match the hardware. I feel so enlightened after that, I think I'm gonna lie down!
-
- KVRAF
- 11839 posts since 23 Nov, 2004 from west of east
Agreed wrote:Here's all the relevant info on the topic that I've gathered:
No one seems to have noticed how much effort you have gone to in this endeavor, so I'm going to point it out. Thanks for this.
We escape the trap of our own subjectivity by
perceiving neither black nor white but shades of grey
perceiving neither black nor white but shades of grey
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1050 posts since 4 Nov, 2003 from Washington DC
Yes! Excellent stuff here! Thanks!eduardo_b wrote:Agreed wrote:Here's all the relevant info on the topic that I've gathered:
No one seems to have noticed how much effort you have gone to in this endeavor, so I'm going to point it out. Thanks for this.
-
- KVRAF
- 1655 posts since 3 Mar, 2009 from Colorado Springs
Thanks, you two, just remember that I didn't write any of it, I just saved a whole bunch of discussion from a few different forums where knowledgeable folks were talking. I'm always eager to learn about this stuff, especially since I make use of the BBE "process" in my own work sometimes (got a great deal on a 482i box awhile back, it's a simple but elegantly designed circuit with some really effective signal alteration).
Especially since BBE is like Bose, marketing marketing marketing, absolute geniuses!
I love my BBE Orange Squash compressor and BBE Freq Boost treble booster, I've got no complaints about what the company does... By now they've been around long enough that everyone's had plenty of time with the units to figure out if they're useful or not, and even though the process isn't nearly as arcane as they would have you believe the effect is real and immediately noticeable. Although if it actually happened as they describe it, it sure wouldn't make sense for them to make a Sonic Stomp pedal for guitar since guitar cabs are wired in what are essentially single-speaker configurations (scaled up, but not crossed over, which is what they claim causes the big mess). And yet they make one, many guitarists like it... If everything was as BBE said, one wouldn't notice much of a difference on a single-speaker configuration
Especially since BBE is like Bose, marketing marketing marketing, absolute geniuses!
BBE Sound, Inc. conducted extensive studies of numerous speaker systems over a ten year period. With this knowledge, it became possible to identify the characteristics of an ideal speaker and to distill the corrections necessary to return the fundamental and harmonic frequency structures to their correct order. While there are differences among various speaker designs in the magnitude of their correction, the overall pattern of correction needed is remarkably consistent.
The BBE Process is so unique that 42 patents have been awarded by the U.S. Patent Office.
I love my BBE Orange Squash compressor and BBE Freq Boost treble booster, I've got no complaints about what the company does... By now they've been around long enough that everyone's had plenty of time with the units to figure out if they're useful or not, and even though the process isn't nearly as arcane as they would have you believe the effect is real and immediately noticeable. Although if it actually happened as they describe it, it sure wouldn't make sense for them to make a Sonic Stomp pedal for guitar since guitar cabs are wired in what are essentially single-speaker configurations (scaled up, but not crossed over, which is what they claim causes the big mess). And yet they make one, many guitarists like it... If everything was as BBE said, one wouldn't notice much of a difference on a single-speaker configuration
-
- KVRer
- 8 posts since 25 Dec, 2005
I presumed the same but after trying with different settings I came to conclusion that it can't be done.No matter what I tried I couldn't get the same result.dj ray wrote:Well done mate! Great examples. After listening to the samples repeatedly I have come to the following (possibly controversial) conclusion: the hardware is not necessarily better than the software, it's just more intense at a lower setting than the software. In other words, the software needs slightly higher settings in order to replicate the same effect. Try it and maybe if you are not too busy post the results. If you had the hardware's knobs at 5, try setting the software at maybe 6 or 7. I have a strong feeling it will match the hardware. I feel so enlightened after that, I think I'm gonna lie down!
here are the new files with the settings you suggested(software plugin at 6):
http://rapidshare.com/files/211734236/kvr_v2.rar
-
- KVRAF
- 2035 posts since 6 Sep, 2005
Just out of curiosity, which software plugin are you trying? the one made by Nomad Factory (D82) or the one made by Cakewalk?DJ Z wrote:I presumed the same but after trying with different settings I came to conclusion that it can't be done.No matter what I tried I couldn't get the same result.dj ray wrote:Well done mate! Great examples. After listening to the samples repeatedly I have come to the following (possibly controversial) conclusion: the hardware is not necessarily better than the software, it's just more intense at a lower setting than the software. In other words, the software needs slightly higher settings in order to replicate the same effect. Try it and maybe if you are not too busy post the results. If you had the hardware's knobs at 5, try setting the software at maybe 6 or 7. I have a strong feeling it will match the hardware. I feel so enlightened after that, I think I'm gonna lie down!
here are the new files with the settings you suggested(software plugin at 6):
http://rapidshare.com/files/211734236/kvr_v2.rar
-
Dean Aka Nekro Dean Aka Nekro https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=162100 - KVRAF
- 6178 posts since 4 Oct, 2007 from Escaped At Last
Intresting stuff. I did have a sonic stomp awhile ago, now i have a rack unit model but out of preference i dont use it on guitar as it does something to the tone im not keen on (the mid-range on my marshalls is just not the same when BBE'd). However i use it on bass guitars alot and especially so in live venues where it can work wonders and clean out that horrible low-mid boomy mud and for that reason it stays in the rack at all times! I have my eye on one of BBE's bass Pre-Amps with the Sonic Maximizer built-in for a flash D.I box for tracking but i have yet to try one out
Thanks for the investigation/audio results
BTW: i have even used the thing on nasty sounding toms to very good effect!
Nekro
Thanks for the investigation/audio results
BTW: i have even used the thing on nasty sounding toms to very good effect!
Nekro
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1050 posts since 4 Nov, 2003 from Washington DC
I am hearing them side by side and there's very little between them.DJ Z wrote:I presumed the same but after trying with different settings I came to conclusion that it can't be done.No matter what I tried I couldn't get the same result.dj ray wrote:Well done mate! Great examples. After listening to the samples repeatedly I have come to the following (possibly controversial) conclusion: the hardware is not necessarily better than the software, it's just more intense at a lower setting than the software. In other words, the software needs slightly higher settings in order to replicate the same effect. Try it and maybe if you are not too busy post the results. If you had the hardware's knobs at 5, try setting the software at maybe 6 or 7. I have a strong feeling it will match the hardware. I feel so enlightened after that, I think I'm gonna lie down!
here are the new files with the settings you suggested(software plugin at 6):
http://rapidshare.com/files/211734236/kvr_v2.rar
-
- KVRist
- 86 posts since 12 Dec, 2008
DJ Z wrote:ok guys here it is:
I took a few samples,played them from wavelab through Echo layla 3G straight to BBE 862 sonic maximizer,then to digidesign digi003r DI / Pro Tools 7.4LE.
these are wave files containing 3 waveforms.First is clean unprocessed file,second is through software plugin and the third is hardware processed.
setting are approximately adjusted since there's no scale with numbers on hardware unit so I put all knobs on half (5 on software plugin).
I processed vocal,drums,house beat and rock final unmastered mix.
everything is 96kHz-24bit
The difference is noticeable and in my opinion hardware does a better job.
hear for yourself>
http://rapidshare.com/files/211601615/kvr_bbe_test.rar
yes, i am sure the hw version sounds much better, especially in the house drums and the rock clip.
-
- KVRAF
- 8681 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
I quite liked the s/w - had access to it and thought it was really quite good, but ultimately I dusted off my h/w box a handful of times, and ended up preferring to use the h/w one. Describing enhancers is always difficult, but I'll give it a go anyway.
I thought the h/w box has brighter highs - more distinct and a bit more separation of the sounds. The plugin certainly brightens things up but it all sounded just that little bit mushier to me, whereas a h/w BBE makes the top end quite distinct. The bass end, I couldn't tell you, as I never really use the bass boost - as far as I know it's a straight Eq, so no point using it when I have access to Eqs I prefer more.
The other real difference I found was when you overdo it. On a h/w box, when you crank up the process to over 50% things start to get a bit syrupy. Difficult to express what I mean, but the delays get more pronounced and it's almost as if the sound is wading through treacle - it sounds like it's running late although the timing still actually sounds the same - it's a very psychoaccoustic thing. When you try to concentrate on what's happening, you don't actually hear the different bands being delayed as such, but it still feels as if the bass is trying to catch up with everything else. It's a weird effect. I never could get that specific effect on the s/w, even at full boost.
There's always debate about what BBEs do - Agreed's account tallies with what I know - the main effect being touted as the band delays. Maybe they did change the algorithms a bit with the s/w, because it doesn't abuse in the same way (it's always when you abuse a process that you find the real character IMO). I always hear about harmonics and compression etc - used to be that BBE denied ever using harmonics (and I believe them, because there's a certain scratchiness with harmonic enhancers that I hate, and BBEs don't do it). To me - the h/w and s/w sound very similar at low process, but at high levels beyond what you could use musically, they start to sound different.
Not sure how much of this is in the electronic insides of a BBE, because they sure can be noisy. If you boost up a BBE you hear noise, and I always wondered whether that was just poor shielding etc or an aspect of whatever the gubbins inside does. And as we all know - noise can affect what you hear. The right type of noise can actually be musical and sound like an improvement. So I don't know how much noisy components etc make a difference with the h/w.
And the other thing is volume level. Every time I write in a BBE thread I make pains to point out that you MUST match input and output volumes. Both the plugin and the h/w have a volume discrepancy on output. You can have no process, flick in the switch and it still sounds better - when you check your meters you'll see it's because there's a boost of between 1 and 2dB. Anything will initially make you think it sounds better when it's louder. It's a known psychoaccoustic trick. Certainly both BBEs do use enhancing processes, but also don't be fooled by the volume boost. TBH I never checked what the precise boosts are between the h/w and plugin - maybe one boosts a little more than the other?
You can only compare properly when you've matched output volume to input - a good tip when testing any enhancer is to simply set it as you like it and render a piece of music. Then normalise it to a specific figure - also render it unenhanced and render and normalise to the same figure - then you know you've got exactly the same peak output (may not be the same RMS etc, but the peaks are the same). You can't even do it by graphs, because none are that accurate. Even a tiny boost is audible.
Anyway - I liked the plugin, but for me, I got back to using the h/w. I had it packed away, and TBH it really quite surprised me how much more I liked the sound. I don't think it was h/w placebo (although you never can be sure...) because I was so pleased when the s/w came out that I could enhance without the inherent noise floor. And there's no benefit to be had from a physical set of knobs on a BBE - there's only two. So in terms if useage, I prefer the s/w.
I've now got CLAS but haven't even used it yet. Must get around to it soon. I hear good things about it - I like enhancers but not harmonic ones. Anyway - personally I think the h/w has got the edge - it doesn't necessarily show on very dense material, but on sparse mixes i find the h/w really shines up the highs and makes triangles and high instruments really tinkle. The s/w does brighten but not really tinkle (now I've got into silly descriptions, so I'll stop right here...)
I thought the h/w box has brighter highs - more distinct and a bit more separation of the sounds. The plugin certainly brightens things up but it all sounded just that little bit mushier to me, whereas a h/w BBE makes the top end quite distinct. The bass end, I couldn't tell you, as I never really use the bass boost - as far as I know it's a straight Eq, so no point using it when I have access to Eqs I prefer more.
The other real difference I found was when you overdo it. On a h/w box, when you crank up the process to over 50% things start to get a bit syrupy. Difficult to express what I mean, but the delays get more pronounced and it's almost as if the sound is wading through treacle - it sounds like it's running late although the timing still actually sounds the same - it's a very psychoaccoustic thing. When you try to concentrate on what's happening, you don't actually hear the different bands being delayed as such, but it still feels as if the bass is trying to catch up with everything else. It's a weird effect. I never could get that specific effect on the s/w, even at full boost.
There's always debate about what BBEs do - Agreed's account tallies with what I know - the main effect being touted as the band delays. Maybe they did change the algorithms a bit with the s/w, because it doesn't abuse in the same way (it's always when you abuse a process that you find the real character IMO). I always hear about harmonics and compression etc - used to be that BBE denied ever using harmonics (and I believe them, because there's a certain scratchiness with harmonic enhancers that I hate, and BBEs don't do it). To me - the h/w and s/w sound very similar at low process, but at high levels beyond what you could use musically, they start to sound different.
Not sure how much of this is in the electronic insides of a BBE, because they sure can be noisy. If you boost up a BBE you hear noise, and I always wondered whether that was just poor shielding etc or an aspect of whatever the gubbins inside does. And as we all know - noise can affect what you hear. The right type of noise can actually be musical and sound like an improvement. So I don't know how much noisy components etc make a difference with the h/w.
And the other thing is volume level. Every time I write in a BBE thread I make pains to point out that you MUST match input and output volumes. Both the plugin and the h/w have a volume discrepancy on output. You can have no process, flick in the switch and it still sounds better - when you check your meters you'll see it's because there's a boost of between 1 and 2dB. Anything will initially make you think it sounds better when it's louder. It's a known psychoaccoustic trick. Certainly both BBEs do use enhancing processes, but also don't be fooled by the volume boost. TBH I never checked what the precise boosts are between the h/w and plugin - maybe one boosts a little more than the other?
You can only compare properly when you've matched output volume to input - a good tip when testing any enhancer is to simply set it as you like it and render a piece of music. Then normalise it to a specific figure - also render it unenhanced and render and normalise to the same figure - then you know you've got exactly the same peak output (may not be the same RMS etc, but the peaks are the same). You can't even do it by graphs, because none are that accurate. Even a tiny boost is audible.
Anyway - I liked the plugin, but for me, I got back to using the h/w. I had it packed away, and TBH it really quite surprised me how much more I liked the sound. I don't think it was h/w placebo (although you never can be sure...) because I was so pleased when the s/w came out that I could enhance without the inherent noise floor. And there's no benefit to be had from a physical set of knobs on a BBE - there's only two. So in terms if useage, I prefer the s/w.
I've now got CLAS but haven't even used it yet. Must get around to it soon. I hear good things about it - I like enhancers but not harmonic ones. Anyway - personally I think the h/w has got the edge - it doesn't necessarily show on very dense material, but on sparse mixes i find the h/w really shines up the highs and makes triangles and high instruments really tinkle. The s/w does brighten but not really tinkle (now I've got into silly descriptions, so I'll stop right here...)