Ploki wrote: ↑
Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:52 am
TV show excitement is subjective and is based on taste.
Maybe but the promos we make for them, where I work, are based on misdirection and lies. You can pretty much say anything you want when promoting a product and you'll almost always get away with it.
Authenticity of a replica is objective. It's literally measurable and can objectively evaluated.
No it's not and no it can't. To me something might sound close enough but to you it may not. We all have our expectations and that makes any assessment of these kinds of things completely subjective. With something like valve distortion, you could probably find a hundred different standards to compare it to and it would probably be close enough to one of them to justify the marketing boast.
If it says "it's an authentic emulation of X" while it's not at all, that means its false advertising and the seller is of dubious reputation.
But what is meant by "emulation"? Maybe they just mean that it has all the same features - 2 x Osc, 1 x SV Filter, 2 x LFO, 2 x ADSR envelopes - hooked up in the same way. Perhaps that was their only goal? There are certainly enough examples of that to make it feasible.
It has nothing to do with liking said emulation or not, it's simply the correlation between advertisement and reality.
What I'm trying to explain to you is that a good advertisement will have minimal correlation with reality. Think of the way a hamburger looks on a poster compared to how it looks when you buy one.
i.e. a car is advertised as "safest in its category" then crash test proves it's actually shit.
In that case the advertising standards board would have it removed and that company's competitors would make sure it was. Because it is an objective fact, easily proven in a court of law. Whether something sounds the way you expect it to is impossible to prove in any way. We all just have to take your word for it. OTOH, a car ad could claim it offers "the most incredible driving experience of your life" and even Lewis Hamilton could not get that ad banned. Even terms like "accurately modelled" can't be argued against because if the real item goes from 1 to 10 and your "emulation" also goes from 1 to 10, then that is, in fact, accurate, even if it sounds completely different. It's just how this stuff works and if you believe anything you read or hear or see in an advertisement, you're a fool.
i.e. a synth emulation is touted as best tube synth ever coded. But it aliases like hell, which no tube gear ever does. It can still sound good to you. But it's not what it says it is.
Impossible to prove, though, especially if other tube emulations also alias. The company could argue they were talking about a specific aspect of the emulation and they felt the trade-off with aliasing was worth it for the accuracy it gets elsewhere.
I have 6 or so synths of which manuals I read thoroughly and can navigate with ease.
You keep talking about having 100 one-knob synths. How am I adding stuff?
It's not about what you have so much as how you use it. Most of my songs have only 5 or 6 tracks, plus vocals. A few are a little more complex but my track count has never gone above 10. As in, never-ever. Similarly, with the 52 covers I've worked up over the last few months, I don't think any of them use more than 5 or 6 effects. Drums get a couple, I put a limiter on the master, plus FireCobra, but for most of the songs that's all they need. No EQ, no nothing, except for on-board effects. And they sound great, probably the best production work I've ever done. Maybe that's Studio One but I don't think so, I think it's making a conscious decision to do more with less and putting in the effort to make it work. Of course, having amazing sounding synths like Knifonium helps a lot, too.