Meffy wrote:Yes. I posted it, straight from Wholly Scripture. It's... erm, somewhere back there. *waves a paw vaguely* Yeah. There.
the analog warmth myth
-
- KVRAF
- 7886 posts since 24 Feb, 2003 from Earth, USA
Doing a digital mixdown won't matter which card you use, a Sound Blaster or an RME. It will when you listen to it afterwards, but the mix is identical, but the DAC's are different. Or you mean something different?jmh wrote:Coming later on: same tune rendered from my host, rendered from Ableton Live, rendered from Live with summing done on a RME card, and then a couple of summing mixes with different mixers (funky old Studer, track-at-a-time mix with an Amek preamp)...
Devon
Simple music philosophy - Those who can, make music. Those who can't, make excuses.
Read my VST reviews at Traxmusic!
Read my VST reviews at Traxmusic!
-
- KVRian
- 1398 posts since 9 Dec, 2002
Actually, listening tests so far have pretty much proved that rendering direct from a host with an RME card sounds markedly different when individual tracks are fed to the RME card and the card does the summing.
I just feel like getting a few renderings done, at least to show myself there is a difference - and after that, my ESI Juli@ will eventually be replaced by an RME card. However, the reasons for that are 1) better drivers (meaning that the same tracks played back by these two tracks result in LESS CPU usage when playing through a RME card) and 2) better sound quality on a RME card.
I hope it's clearer now
I know, most people refuse to hear the subtle difference, and others will outright deny it =)
And doing the summing with RME's mixer software is a pain in the ass... however, the way better clock on RME cards is one thing I'm prepared to pay for - yet another thing most people refuse to hear but is rather obvious when you do some serious comparison.
Not to mention that people with good ears DO hear differences between mixdowns performed on different hosts, down to a degree that they can spot them with 99% accuracy with something like ABX - however, I'm not one of those people
* edit * Of course, listening to a mixdown on various cards sounds different, depending on the card used forf the listening - however, I'm talking about the difference between doing the summing on a couple of different hosts, and also comparing a mix where the summing is done by the card, compared to a raw mixdown done inside a host.
* anothe edit * a few missing words should added should make things more readable =)
Regards,
JMH
I just feel like getting a few renderings done, at least to show myself there is a difference - and after that, my ESI Juli@ will eventually be replaced by an RME card. However, the reasons for that are 1) better drivers (meaning that the same tracks played back by these two tracks result in LESS CPU usage when playing through a RME card) and 2) better sound quality on a RME card.
I hope it's clearer now
I know, most people refuse to hear the subtle difference, and others will outright deny it =)
And doing the summing with RME's mixer software is a pain in the ass... however, the way better clock on RME cards is one thing I'm prepared to pay for - yet another thing most people refuse to hear but is rather obvious when you do some serious comparison.
Not to mention that people with good ears DO hear differences between mixdowns performed on different hosts, down to a degree that they can spot them with 99% accuracy with something like ABX - however, I'm not one of those people
* edit * Of course, listening to a mixdown on various cards sounds different, depending on the card used forf the listening - however, I'm talking about the difference between doing the summing on a couple of different hosts, and also comparing a mix where the summing is done by the card, compared to a raw mixdown done inside a host.
* anothe edit * a few missing words should added should make things more readable =)
Regards,
JMH
Now available with added Inherently Suspect Justification!
-
- KVRAF
- 7316 posts since 7 Mar, 2003
The sheer pomposity and arrogance displayed in this thread now makes me understand why the world is as filth ridden and decaying as it is. You have all shown me why I hate humanity with such a passion that I would sooner kiss a cockroach, thankyou.
My Youtube Channel - Wires Dream Disasters
-
- Banned
- 4073 posts since 15 Mar, 2004
MHO is that the whole approach by sw devs is wrong with regard to 'reproducing analog warmth', etc.
This whole thing was resolved many years ago to a property in audio amplifier valves called 'Transient Intermodulation Distortion' (TIM).
First and foremost, they all need to sit down and go over the actual hardware engineering characteristics of valves instead of trying to emulate a very subjective sound with their ears.
I think it can be done -- that is, I think valve-type sounds can be achieved within a solid state domain, but it's all pure emulation, so essentially it boils down to whose emulation actually tries to faithfully reproduce an audio amplifier valve and it's associated componentry in an analog domain.
If a dev actually started to try this, it would be a long road, but it could work out. Even so, they'd have to start researching somewhere in these:
Fundamentals of Vacuum Tubes
by Austin V. Eastman
(McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., NY)
Eastman was Head of the Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Washington. Despite its title, Eastman’s book emphasizes applications. Contains a thorough discussion of distortion in amplifiers; with special emphasis on intermodulation distortion.
Graphical Constructions for Vacuum Tube Circuits
by Albert Preisman
(McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., NY)
Preisman was Director of Engineering Texts at the Capitol Radio Engineering Institute when he wrote this book. He was previously a teacher at the RCA Institute. While there he specialized in audio engineering and vacuum tube theory. A very in-depth look at the complexities of amplifier design. Recommended for anyone interested in an advanced understanding of push-pull theory or distortion theory. Elegantly explains the most obscure points of amplifier design.
Engineering Electronics
by John D. Ryder
(McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., NY)
Ryder was Dean of Engineering at Michigan State University. This meticulous book contains a step-by-step procedure for the design of a class-B or AB amplifier output stage, as well as a thorough presentation of general distortion theory. This book, together with the other starred titles, will provide unerring guidance for the aspiring designer.
Principles of Vacuum Tubes
by J.W. Gewartowski and H.A. Watson
(D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ)
One of the last of the large-scale textbooks to be published on the subject of vacuum tubes, this book was originally used as the basis for a training course at Bell Labs for newly recruited engineers and physicists. Although oriented toward industry, much of the material presented in this book was derived from Bell Labs’ research archives; and is thus valuable from that standpoint. Bell Labs did a monumental amount of research on vacuum tubes and tube amplifier design (beginning at Western Electric, a precursor of Bell Labs). Of particular interest is the excellent chapter on noise that includes a rare discussion of partition noise in pentodes.
Amplifier Handbook
by Richard F. Shea, Editor-in-Chief
(McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., NY)
A huge book written purely about amplifiers...an excellent section on tubes that covers many of the last innovations in tube design, such as frame grids and specialized beam formers. Factors governing tube life are thoroughly discussed.14 There is also an excellent discussion of noise in tubes. Various kinds of unusual electrode currents are discussed in much more detail than is usually encountered; including contact potential bias and grid leakage currents. In addition, there are charts that show the variation in tube parameters for lots of 100 raw tubes (as the manufacturer might encounter them).
Amplifying Devices and Low-Pass Amplifier Design
by E.M. Cherry and D.E. Hooper
(John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY)
This book caps a long and distinguished tradition of "hands-on" audio research in Australia (as inaugurated by the great F. Langford-Smith). Cherry and Hooper’s book is among the very few written specifically about audio amplifiers; and it is surely one of the largest. Weighing in at just over 1000 pages, this book is a paragon of formalized, yet accessible, design theory. It addresses solid-state as well as tube circuits. Unquestionably strong on feedback theory; practical compensation techniques; noise theory; and distortion theory. There is also an extensive treatment of differential amplifiers. The final section of the book shows construction techniques for hand-wired prototypes. Provides a thorough theoretical base while emphasizing "proven rules for circuit design...of immediate use to practicing engineers." Cherry was later to formalize the theory of TIM.15
===========================================
Anyway -- I kinda like all that 'digital coldness' sound sometimes...
Cheers,
Alex
This whole thing was resolved many years ago to a property in audio amplifier valves called 'Transient Intermodulation Distortion' (TIM).
First and foremost, they all need to sit down and go over the actual hardware engineering characteristics of valves instead of trying to emulate a very subjective sound with their ears.
I think it can be done -- that is, I think valve-type sounds can be achieved within a solid state domain, but it's all pure emulation, so essentially it boils down to whose emulation actually tries to faithfully reproduce an audio amplifier valve and it's associated componentry in an analog domain.
If a dev actually started to try this, it would be a long road, but it could work out. Even so, they'd have to start researching somewhere in these:
Fundamentals of Vacuum Tubes
by Austin V. Eastman
(McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., NY)
Eastman was Head of the Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Washington. Despite its title, Eastman’s book emphasizes applications. Contains a thorough discussion of distortion in amplifiers; with special emphasis on intermodulation distortion.
Graphical Constructions for Vacuum Tube Circuits
by Albert Preisman
(McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., NY)
Preisman was Director of Engineering Texts at the Capitol Radio Engineering Institute when he wrote this book. He was previously a teacher at the RCA Institute. While there he specialized in audio engineering and vacuum tube theory. A very in-depth look at the complexities of amplifier design. Recommended for anyone interested in an advanced understanding of push-pull theory or distortion theory. Elegantly explains the most obscure points of amplifier design.
Engineering Electronics
by John D. Ryder
(McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., NY)
Ryder was Dean of Engineering at Michigan State University. This meticulous book contains a step-by-step procedure for the design of a class-B or AB amplifier output stage, as well as a thorough presentation of general distortion theory. This book, together with the other starred titles, will provide unerring guidance for the aspiring designer.
Principles of Vacuum Tubes
by J.W. Gewartowski and H.A. Watson
(D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ)
One of the last of the large-scale textbooks to be published on the subject of vacuum tubes, this book was originally used as the basis for a training course at Bell Labs for newly recruited engineers and physicists. Although oriented toward industry, much of the material presented in this book was derived from Bell Labs’ research archives; and is thus valuable from that standpoint. Bell Labs did a monumental amount of research on vacuum tubes and tube amplifier design (beginning at Western Electric, a precursor of Bell Labs). Of particular interest is the excellent chapter on noise that includes a rare discussion of partition noise in pentodes.
Amplifier Handbook
by Richard F. Shea, Editor-in-Chief
(McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., NY)
A huge book written purely about amplifiers...an excellent section on tubes that covers many of the last innovations in tube design, such as frame grids and specialized beam formers. Factors governing tube life are thoroughly discussed.14 There is also an excellent discussion of noise in tubes. Various kinds of unusual electrode currents are discussed in much more detail than is usually encountered; including contact potential bias and grid leakage currents. In addition, there are charts that show the variation in tube parameters for lots of 100 raw tubes (as the manufacturer might encounter them).
Amplifying Devices and Low-Pass Amplifier Design
by E.M. Cherry and D.E. Hooper
(John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY)
This book caps a long and distinguished tradition of "hands-on" audio research in Australia (as inaugurated by the great F. Langford-Smith). Cherry and Hooper’s book is among the very few written specifically about audio amplifiers; and it is surely one of the largest. Weighing in at just over 1000 pages, this book is a paragon of formalized, yet accessible, design theory. It addresses solid-state as well as tube circuits. Unquestionably strong on feedback theory; practical compensation techniques; noise theory; and distortion theory. There is also an extensive treatment of differential amplifiers. The final section of the book shows construction techniques for hand-wired prototypes. Provides a thorough theoretical base while emphasizing "proven rules for circuit design...of immediate use to practicing engineers." Cherry was later to formalize the theory of TIM.15
===========================================
Anyway -- I kinda like all that 'digital coldness' sound sometimes...
Cheers,
Alex
-
- Banned
- 4073 posts since 15 Mar, 2004
Huh?Andrew Vernon wrote:The sheer pomposity and arrogance displayed in this thread now makes me understand why the world is as filth ridden and decaying as it is. You have all shown me why I hate humanity with such a passion that I would sooner kiss a cockroach, thankyou.
You have all shown me...
Not guilty yer honour!!
Be that as it may -- I'd sooner you kiss a cockroach than kiss me anyday...
-
- KVRian
- 1118 posts since 31 Aug, 2001 from Los Angeles, CA
Considering both are digital and 32 bits or more, you are most likely hearing a different panning law if what you hear is anything more than impercievable..Actually, listening tests so far have pretty much proved that rendering direct from a host with an RME card sounds markedly different when individual tracks are fed to the RME card and the card does the summing.
Same with between hosts for the most part - some may soft-clip at 0 dB, some may use a different gain/headroom mixer, or a different panning law.
I believe in theory, anything in the analog domain can (and probably will) be done in the digital domain, but we're not quite there in terms of research or available horsepower.
Reverb and Distortion have a long ways to go, and are still greatly restricted by current available DSP horsepower and even input signal bit resolution.
I think Minimonsta, Korg Legacy, and the UA 1176 plugin are great examples of sim-hardware done well. They are all items I could have a rather hard time distingushing from the real deal, used contextually.
-
- KVRAF
- 7316 posts since 7 Mar, 2003
-
- KVRian
- 1398 posts since 9 Dec, 2002
bitcrusher wrote:Considering both are digital and 32 bits or more, you are most likely hearing a different panning law if what you hear is anything more than impercievable..
I wish it came down to just that, but it doesn't. We excluded such factors from our little tests, we're simply doing summing with unity gain to find out what differences there might be. Subtle as it is, it's there.
Ditto for this - I do have to remind me that I don't have the hearing to tell different hosts apart. But as it's been proven over and over, some people do. The importance of this however is insignificant to me. I'm happy with my current software as it isbitcrusher wrote:Same with between hosts for the most part - some may soft-clip at 0 dB, some may use a different gain/headroom mixer, or a different panning law.
Likewise... I believe it can be done, I just haven't heard that many things that make me say "we're there now".bitcrusher wrote:I believe in theory, anything in the analog domain can (and probably will) be done in the digital domain, but we're not quite there in terms of research or available horsepower.
bitcrusher wrote:Reverb and Distortion have a long ways to go, and are still greatly restricted by current available DSP horsepower and even input signal bit resolution.
Yep, I agree here as well. No matter what everyone else says on forums, I still hear a distinctive difference between the current cream of the crop in VST-land compared to high end units from several companies. One reason for this seems to be that some of these companies started out in the 80s - how exactly a developer with 2-3 years of experience is going to better them just by reading up random things on the net and then developing a plugin?
(I know, this is an extreme example... but everybody, bear in mind that Lexicon, TC, Quantec etc. started their work in the beginning of 80s - or even earlier)They are. Until that part about contextuality. I still make a difference between musicians comparing their differences and "the end user (listener) being able to tell them apart" - and the same thing goes for listening things in a mix... comparing apples with apples is the only proper way to compare thingsbitcrusher wrote:I think Minimonsta, Korg Legacy, and the UA 1176 plugin are great examples of sim-hardware done well. They are all items I could have a rather hard time distingushing from the real deal, used contextually.
Regards,
JMH
Now available with added Inherently Suspect Justification!
-
- KVRian
- 951 posts since 11 Jan, 2004 from Netherlands
When comparing mixes, wouldn't it be more objective to simply load the two mixes to be compared as tracks in your favoutite DAW host, normalize, and perform a digital subtraction by inverting the phase of one track?
What's left is the difference.
Do an FFT and look at the spectrum of the difference and you may be able to spot the analog warmth - if it exists.
At least, if there is something to see, we can all do it without our ears.
What's left is the difference.
Do an FFT and look at the spectrum of the difference and you may be able to spot the analog warmth - if it exists.
At least, if there is something to see, we can all do it without our ears.
-
- KVRian
- 1398 posts since 9 Dec, 2002
Once I get around to mix my test piece on that lovely old Studer desk, that'll be naturally one of things I'll do
Regards,
JMH
Regards,
JMH
Now available with added Inherently Suspect Justification!
-
- KVRist
- 43 posts since 18 Oct, 2004
Well, umm.. to get power tubes to start to approach clipping, you generally do, unless you're using a pbrake or some such thing.You simply don't need 120dB of sound to record a huge guitar tone.
PodXt's etc, while all doing a fairly good job (I use an xtpro going through a hardware tube preamp, and record direct from there) are only simulations of the air a speaker moves. That is why they sound the way they do, and still lack that last little bit of richness. And even with my DI / modelling situation, if I crank up the monitors, the tone changes, gets a bit fatter, feedback gets induced, etc etc... all these things add up.
Though in the grand scheme of things, maybe its not missed when the mix is said and done, especially if its going to be down-converted to MP3 or something.
-
- Skunk Mod
- 21249 posts since 10 Jun, 2004 from Pony Pasture
Andrew Vernon wrote:You broke my heart!!!
The Contours wrote:...
'Cos I couldn't dance.
You didn't even want me around.
Now I'm back to let you know
I can really shake 'em down!
Do ya love me? (I can really move!)
Do ya love me? (I'm in the groove!)
Ah do ya love me? (Do you love me?)
Now... that I... can dance? (dance... dannnnce)
Watch me now! Oh... (work, work)
Ah, work it out, baby. (work, work)
Well, you're drivin' me crazy (work, work)
With a little bit of soul now! (work)
I can mashed potato (I can mashed potato)
And I can do the twist (do the twist)
Now tell me baby (tell me baby)
Mmm, do you like it like this? (do you like it like this)
Tell me... tell me...
Tell me...
Do ya love me?
-
- KVRAF
- 7886 posts since 24 Feb, 2003 from Earth, USA
Tell me the process of exactly how you're doing this? Rendering direct from the host (IE no actual sound is played during the process of creating the .WAV file) then the card has nothing to do with the sound.jmh wrote:Actually, listening tests so far have pretty much proved that rendering direct from a host with an RME card sounds markedly different when individual tracks are fed to the RME card and the card does the summing.
Devon
Simple music philosophy - Those who can, make music. Those who can't, make excuses.
Read my VST reviews at Traxmusic!
Read my VST reviews at Traxmusic!