Audiorealism ABL3

[Wibbler]

When treble is set at 0% one would assume it's not cutting, in this case it is (model 2 , emu switch on )
If you switch between improved an not improved ( model 2 ) bass @ 0% , treble @ 50 % the difference is hardly noticeable
BUt , when treble is 0% , the difference is night and day

When the treble is set to 50% that is the neutral position; more than 50% and it boosts the highs; less than 50% then it cuts the highs.

So if the treble control does not work in model 2 when the Improved Emulation is switched off, then in the first instance the loop is unaffected by the treble control; and in the second instance the treble control is removing the highs.

And that's why there is hardly any difference when the treble is set to 50% - the treble control is in its neutral position.

[gentleclockdivider]

When treble is set at 0% one would assume it's not cutting, in this case it is (model 2 , emu switch on )
If you switch between improved an not improved ( model 2 ) bass @ 0% , treble @ 50 % the difference is hardly noticeable
BUt , when treble is 0% , the difference is night and day

When the treble is set to 50% that is the neutral position; more than 50% and it boosts the highs; less than 50% then it cuts the highs.

So if the treble control does not work in model 2 when the Improved Emulation is switched off, then in the first instance the loop is unaffected by the treble control; and in the second instance the treble control is removing the highs.

And that's why there is hardly any difference when the treble is set to 50% - the treble control is neutral.

50 % is neutral position , and less then 50% is cutting , more then 50 is boosting ??
You know how illogical that sounds , no ?

It's a gain knob , positive percentage adds gain , if it cuts below 50% ( which it clearly does ) the gui should read treble cut and not boost





If it's neutral , then the middle position should read 0%

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

If it's neutral , then the middle position should read 0%

I always assumed the knob was bi-polar because the default value was dead center. I wouldn't expect that to add 50% more treble and 50% more bass at a default setting.

But I totally agree that if it's bi-polar the center value should also be 0% because it's confusing otherwise. The range should be -100% to +100% with 0% at the center. But changing that now could potentially break things. If it could be done without causing havoc though, I agree it should be changed.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Why not just call it what the last version was of ABL that used it:
ABL2
ABL3.2.2
ABL3.3 (Model 1)
ABL3.3 (Model 2)

And then deactivate the Improved Emu or whatever else doesn't apply to a specific model?

I say go even simpler:

Model 1 (ABL 2x)
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4

Models 2-4 are basically just variations on the engine built for the ABL3 plugin. Use the manual to document to document which is the ABL 3.2.2 engine but keep it clean and simple on the GUI. Will force users to use their ears to pick their favorites.

I don't see an issue with one more model considering the current menu-based implementation.

[Echoes in the Attic]

Why not just call it what the last version was of ABL that used it:
ABL2
ABL3.2.2
ABL3.3 (Model 1)
ABL3.3 (Model 2)

And then deactivate the Improved Emu or whatever else doesn't apply to a specific model?

I say go even simpler:

Model 1 (ABL 2x)
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4

Models 2-4 are basically just variations on the engine built for the ABL3 plugin. Use the manual to document to document which is the ABL 3.2.2 engine but keep it clean and simple on the GUI. Will force users to use their ears to pick their favorites.

I don't see an issue with one more model considering the current menu-based implementation.

Unless there is a setting that is pretty much the same. Sounds like there is a setting with treble at mid way with one of the current models that is basically the same.

[antic604]

Considering they don't actively work on any other product and upgrades to ABL3 were pretty few & far between, it's stunning how inconsistent, confusing and riddled with questionable design choices it is...

And still no answer to my question about update to the RE version

I think I'm gonna request a refund on my crossgrade that I bought yesterday and stick to the RE version and Phoscyon

[midi_transmission]

Thanks for joining the discussion Mike! Very much appreciated, what ever the solution will be.

My vote is also one ABL3 with a engine switch for backwards compatibility, but to keep the plugin technically up to date (i.e. M1, vst3 at some point?).

ABL is really that good that I don't want to miss the things of the past, but I also want to keep it working in the future.

I wouldn't mind to pay a resonable update fee for that btw.

[Wibbler]

50 % is neutral position , and less then 50% is cutting , more then 50 is boosting ??
You know how illogical that sounds , no ?

It's a gain knob , positive percentage adds gain , if it cuts below 50% ( which it clearly does ) the gui should read treble cut and not boost

...


If it's neutral , then the middle position should read 0%

Yes it would make sense for it to read 0% at the 12 O'Clock position for the treble and some of the other knobs, but the percentage figure is the default for all the knobs in ABL3.

Think of the knob as being neutral in the 12 O'Clock position, as it would on any bit of audio equipment.

[gentleclockdivider]

Anyone else notices how abl3.3 is a lot louder , easier to exceed 0dbFS .
I'm grabbing for a compressor a lot faster compared to 3.2.2

[midi_transmission]

I tried the distortion yesterday. Is this just basic distortion or should it be something special? For me it sound very basic. Not want to say that it's bad or not helpful for someone, but I prefer my guitar pedals to it. The pure ABL3 sound so good, that basic distortion rather harms the sound- yes that's a compliment.

Is the distortion really off when you have Drive + Distortion at 0%?

So far I mostly prefer 3.2.2 VCO2 to all 3.3.0 variants. Sorry! 3.2.2 VCO2 just sound right to me, I have zero desire to tweak anything, while I always feel the need to tweak in 3.3.0 to get the sound I want.

ABL 3.3.0 model2 VCO3/VCO2 can be really nice too sometimes. They have a nice sparkle or detail at the top end. ABL 3.30 model1 VCO3 works too sometimes, it's a more mellow sound.

Do we have information what 3.3.0 model1/2/3 emulates exactly?

[gentleclockdivider]

There is another thing that I have noticed and it's the actual sound of the build in clipper
Compare 3.2.2 and 3.3.0 (model 2 ) , and both vco model 2,load the same pattern , you will also have to lower the volume on 3.3.0 since it's louder by default.
Now activate the clipping on both and hear the difference
On 3.2.2 the clipper is almost transparent except for the hard clipping , on 3.3.0 it almost sounds like a distortion (yes distortion is OFF)
What's worse is even when lowering the output volume , the clipper still colours a lot .
This should be fixed , these bells and whistles are taking away the focus of the main concept " a pure 303 emulation .
Also curiouis if the distorion ( real effect ) can be 100% bypassed

[gentleclockdivider]

I tried the distortion yesterday. Is this just basic distortion or should it be something special?

Nothing special ,first type is probably tanh or atan shaper , the second type is a foldover distortion ( think 0 hz sineshaper ) which sounds nice ,
here's a file Abl3 second distortion (foldover ) , abl3 dry into zebrify ( fold effect ) , then reaktor using sine shaper
The foldover effect is also used in adm ( 1 of the 2 dist types )
https://app.box.com/s/92axupqr23cjhv7hr5x9qiiw89619yys

[midi_transmission]

Thanks gentleclockdivider. I didn't even think about the clipper, but I noticed I have it off all the even in 3.22.

Just had a session again comparing both. I'm at a point were I fully prefer 3.2.2 (VCO2). It just sounds perfect to me in a musical context. With ABL 3.3.0 I end in endless tweaking and EQ sessions, it seems to me as there is always a part of the sound too pronounced and needs to be compensated.

Is it possible that the envelope is different with 3.3.0? I have the impression that 3.2 VCO2 has more consistent 'pressure' (adsr) in the low end at each note. Might be wrong of course?

At the moment I really want to stay with 3.2.2. I'm really sorry audiorealism!

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I"ve never used the clipper (I keep my volume levels with plenty of headroom and use clipper plugins to shave peaks) and I quite like this particular distortion versus some guitar pedal emulations that get too bright IMO. So overall, I'm happy with those aspects. I too think there was something "just right" about the 3.2.2 audio engine but it sounds like Mike has already stated he's open to a return of it, which I hope we see. I appreciate his openness to suggestions and willingness to engage on these topics.

So thanks Audiorealism!

[Mike Janney]

Thanks gentleclockdivider. I didn't even think about the clipper, but I noticed I have it off all the even in 3.22.

Just had a session again comparing both. I'm at a point were I fully prefer 3.2.2 (VCO2). It just sounds perfect to me in a musical context. With ABL 3.3.0 I end in endless tweaking and EQ sessions, it seems to me as there is always a part of the sound too pronounced and needs to be compensated.

Is it possible that the envelope is different with 3.3.0? I have the impression that 3.2 VCO2 has more consistent 'pressure' (adsr) in the low end at each note. Might be wrong of course?

At the moment I really want to stay with 3.2.2. I'm really sorry audiorealism!

Hey don't be sorry. Preferences are preferences. I don't think there is a difference between the VCO models in 3.2.2 and 3.3.0 models.

I will add the 3.2.2 model back in a coming update if not else just to make sure we didn't mess something up.

The clipper was added because we were developing a stand alone version, and some audio interfaces do not have any limiter which meant if ABL3 output a sample too high it could result in nasty digital distortion in the audio interface..