bx_console E 4K console emulation
-
do_androids_dream do_androids_dream https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=164034
- KVRAF
- 2908 posts since 26 Oct, 2007 from Kent, UK
'Turn your DAW into a classic, high-end mixing console! bx_console E is a stunning 72-channel emulation (yes, that´s 72 different channels!) of the world-famous British E Series mixing console, introduced in 1979. Heard on countless hit records by marquee artists including Beyoncé, Kendrick Lamar, Metallica, Sting and Genesis, the E Series is the preferred console of celebrated mix engineers Chris Lord Alge, Bob Clearmountain and innumerable others...'
This kind of marketing irritates the f**k out of me lately...
This kind of marketing irritates the f**k out of me lately...
-
do_androids_dream do_androids_dream https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=164034
- KVRAF
- 2908 posts since 26 Oct, 2007 from Kent, UK
Then you are fooling yourself. If they null (down beyond what you can hear) then, for all intents and purposes, they are the same. It could be the gui fooling you..AC222 wrote:And no, your null tests are not proof that they are all the same. It's funny that I've seen many tests with completely different eqs from different developers and different levels of aliasing and somehow they sound totally different and yet they null.
-
simon.a.billington simon.a.billington https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=341278
- KVRAF
- 2365 posts since 12 Nov, 2014
Most marketing annoys the f$&k out of me. I even hate store personnel who want to offer their "assistance". Some are good, most just want to market you something as well!!do_androids_dream wrote:This kind of marketing irritates the f**k out of me lately...
Just give me the facts, I don't need to be sold to.
- KVRAF
- 4427 posts since 15 Nov, 2006 from Hell
that's because a misunderstanding of such magnitude casts doubt on everything else the poster has said regarding minutia of processing (fixed vs floating point, etc.). that's like writing a paper on physics, and claim that 3rd law of motion does not apply to anything other than solid bodies as your introduction.Everglide wrote:AC222 made a great post and everyone focuses on the null comment.
I don't know what to write here that won't be censored, as I can only speak in profanity.
- KVRist
- 486 posts since 6 Mar, 2013
Nebula v4 is free, download the demo profiles from AlexB: purchase for higher quality.Thavma wrote:I don't know I am very confused to if I should buy a bx_console or nebula plugins or nothing out of plugins...and rather buy hardware.
-
- KVRAF
- 2084 posts since 24 Jun, 2006 from London, England
Or grab one of AirWindows lovely plugins (like http://www.airwindows.com/console4/ )
- KVRAF
- 23288 posts since 12 Jul, 2003 from West Caprazumia
Because - unlike our hearing and sound reproduction equipment - the null test includes all these frequencies too.Everglide wrote:How can a null test be 100% valid when there are frequencies that are beyond our perception and measuring devices?
(as long as they exist, that is, of course. )
"Preamps have literally one job: when you turn up the gain, it gets louder." Jamcat, talking about presmp-emulation plugins.
-
- KVRist
- 488 posts since 16 Jun, 2013 from Morocco
There are no frequencies beyond what the sample rate allows.Everglide wrote:How can a null test be 100% valid when there are frequencies that are beyond our perception and measuring devices?
-
- KVRAF
- 2084 posts since 24 Jun, 2006 from London, England
You say that, but I only use irrational sample rates nowadays - If you null two (44i+10) kHz sine waves it comes up with Stock, Aitken & Waterman's greatest hits.
Last edited by mcbpete on Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
simon.a.billington simon.a.billington https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=341278
- KVRAF
- 2365 posts since 12 Nov, 2014
Wow!! That was a reference from the past!! haha!!mcbpete wrote:You say that, but I only use irrational sample rates nowadays - If you null two (44i+10) Hz saw waves it comes up with Stock, Aitken & Waterman's greatest hits.
-
- KVRian
- 1086 posts since 17 Jun, 2012
I welcome the passive aggressive smart ass comments here. They are entertainment for me. Anyhow, for anyone that actually wants to hear the difference, you can check out this link with files to download for comparison while they are still up. On page three, scroll down (it's close to the bottom of the page). Here are 10 files of different SSL compressors (hardware and software) compared and below are the answers. You can compare directly on the site or even better download the .wav files. You can compare the RTAS version versus the TDM versions for both Waves and URS. Good headphones are recommended.
If you really can't hear the difference, you are likely either hard of hearing or insist on holding onto what are prejudgments are in your head. The RTAS versions when compared directly to the TDM versions sound more veiled, cloudy, less dimensional, and perhaps most noticeably less alive due to smearing of transients.
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-c ... ssl-3.html
Here are the answers:
01_Norm.wav = Waves SSL RTAS
02_Norm.wav = URS 1980 RTAS
03_Norm.wav = Smart C2
04_Norm.wav = URS 1980 TDM
05_Norm.wav = SSL Xlogic G Compressor
06_Norm.wav = Smart C1
07_Norm.wav = SSL Duende
08_Norm.wav = Focusrite Liquid Mix with SSL compressor sample
09_Norm.wav = Waves SSL TDM
10_Norm.wav = Digidesign Impact TDM
If you really can't hear the difference, you are likely either hard of hearing or insist on holding onto what are prejudgments are in your head. The RTAS versions when compared directly to the TDM versions sound more veiled, cloudy, less dimensional, and perhaps most noticeably less alive due to smearing of transients.
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-c ... ssl-3.html
Here are the answers:
01_Norm.wav = Waves SSL RTAS
02_Norm.wav = URS 1980 RTAS
03_Norm.wav = Smart C2
04_Norm.wav = URS 1980 TDM
05_Norm.wav = SSL Xlogic G Compressor
06_Norm.wav = Smart C1
07_Norm.wav = SSL Duende
08_Norm.wav = Focusrite Liquid Mix with SSL compressor sample
09_Norm.wav = Waves SSL TDM
10_Norm.wav = Digidesign Impact TDM
-
- KVRist
- 137 posts since 22 May, 2017
I just compared TDM and RTAS for the Waves SSL. They nulled down to about more than -70dBFS once you adjust for the fact that they are not actually normalized properly. Check it for yourself. For whatever reason the Waves RTAS is normalized to a LUFS of -12.5, and the TDM is normalized to -12.6. Once you correct for that, they null almost entirely. What you're hearing is literally one being louder than the other because the original author somehow screwed up the normalizing. The normalizing process, if screwed up somehow, could also permanently alter the shape of one waveform irrespective of the plugins used. Like, if you put the same plugin on two tracks, then normalize them slightly differently, but then compensate in the DAW by adjusting the gain of the quieter one, they might not null either. The mismatched normalization can introduce artifacts like ISPs that the other might not have. This can show level on the VU that isn't actually audible. But hey, that's actually beside the point. If they null passed a certain point, there is no discernible difference. Period. End of discussion. At -70dBFS, I need to crank my system way past listening volume in order to hear it. Not only that, the remaining signal is not audible at listening volume, either. Because normal listening volume is approximately 60dB, so more than -70dBFS is literally inaudible. It's in your head man. Go get a cold facecloth and lie down on the couch for awhile, man.AC222 wrote:I welcome the passive aggressive smart ass comments here. They are entertainment for me. Anyhow, for anyone that actually wants to hear the difference, you can check out this link with files to download for comparison while they are still up. On page three, scroll down (it's close to the bottom of the page). Here are 10 files of different SSL compressors (hardware and software) compared and below are the answers. You can compare directly on the site or even better download the .wav files. You can compare the RTAS version versus the TDM versions for both Waves and URS. Good headphones are recommended.
If you really can't hear the difference, you are likely either hard of hearing or insist on holding onto what are prejudgments are in your head. The RTAS versions when compared directly to the TDM versions sound more veiled, cloudy, less dimensional, and perhaps most noticeably less alive due to smearing of transients.
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-c ... ssl-3.html
Here are the answers:
01_Norm.wav = Waves SSL RTAS
02_Norm.wav = URS 1980 RTAS
03_Norm.wav = Smart C2
04_Norm.wav = URS 1980 TDM
05_Norm.wav = SSL Xlogic G Compressor
06_Norm.wav = Smart C1
07_Norm.wav = SSL Duende
08_Norm.wav = Focusrite Liquid Mix with SSL compressor sample
09_Norm.wav = Waves SSL TDM
10_Norm.wav = Digidesign Impact TDM
Also, the original TDM and RTAS comparison wavs that the OP posted on Gearslutz did null to inf. So, give me another one.
EDIT:
Just did a quick test. I took two identical signals, two identical plugins with identical parameters, and I normalized one to 0dB and the other to -0.18dBFS (which corresponds to a .1 difference in LUFS for that signal). I rendered them, then tried to null them. They wouldn't null, and they stayed around -70dbFS no matter how I adjusted the gain to compensate. Exactly like the shootout wavs on Gearslutz. So, are you going to swallow your own rhetoric and "insist on holding onto what are prejudgments are in your head", or are you actually going to admit that you were mistaken? Because every measurement taken of the data provided says you're wrong.
-
- KVRian
- 1086 posts since 17 Jun, 2012
Posted by the same dude at the same db level. Very easy to check. What are you are hearing is the difference between 48-bit fixed point and the lack of precision and accumulated rounding errors of floating point.
And let's be real here. Protools isn't the only product where this phenomenon exists. It's the same deal with the TC Electronic stuff versus the native versions.
You say they null and yet acknowledge they are audibly different. I won't even elaborate on that. FLAME SUIT ON!!!! lol.
I don't think it's a question that the PTHD sounds clearly better. Even when I bump up the volume on the RTAS version, the PTHD STILL sounds better. When it comes to hearing better clarity and definition there is only so much you can do to fool the ears with bumping up the volume.
Long live this thread
And let's be real here. Protools isn't the only product where this phenomenon exists. It's the same deal with the TC Electronic stuff versus the native versions.
You say they null and yet acknowledge they are audibly different. I won't even elaborate on that. FLAME SUIT ON!!!! lol.
I don't think it's a question that the PTHD sounds clearly better. Even when I bump up the volume on the RTAS version, the PTHD STILL sounds better. When it comes to hearing better clarity and definition there is only so much you can do to fool the ears with bumping up the volume.
Long live this thread
-
- Banned
- 5357 posts since 7 May, 2015
I'm so confused, I'm using a philips to do standard head screws..................
Does it f**king sound good or not?
I hated bx console. HATED IT. I'm not usually that way with PA stuff, usually I fawn all over it.
Does it f**king sound good or not?
I hated bx console. HATED IT. I'm not usually that way with PA stuff, usually I fawn all over it.