KVR Audio

twister · Post by **twister** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:46 pm

The reason for sending them e-mail, of course, so they can put you on their mailing list. Just got a reply back with a CLAS link and TONS of other "product info" in there. They are also talking about a paid version of CLAS-NR. Which makes me think regular class is a cut-down freebie

Anybody got NR version? How different is it? Will have to check out their link for it...

Username is taken · Post by **Username is taken** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:52 am

kritikon wrote:So it just goes to show that there is no empirical way to say any enhancer is better than another. Because I absolutely hate Vitalisers. I would throw it away or sell it if anyone gave one to me for free. They're nasty grating music degraders IMO. I can spot them a mile away even at low settings and I don't like it.

So then they made tube Vitalisers to tempt the retro wannabes...and they just distort an already nasty sound. I never knew why anyone would waste their money on those things...but some people just love 'em.

well, i use the big vitalizer since years. and i don't really understand your experiences with the vitalizer (did you try the cheapest?). i have a pair of B&W 802 speakers with bryston amps and serious acoustic treatment. i think it's pretty accurate... ...i can't say the vitalizer is a sound degrader or even nasty. your opinion is really strange, because most mastering facilities have such a unit in their studio. i have some doubts about the precision of your monitoring system. the BBE exciters have been build to "undo" (future) bad-sounding speaker "processing" - so the worst your speakers, the better an BBE will work. read the manual, it's all there.

the vitalizer sounds often even better than my massive passive EQ - nasty is really the wrong word. as i said before, it's just a more intelligent EQ.

and beside your personal preferences, tubes don't distort the sound more than anything else. tube circuits have obvious advantages in audio if they are build right (excellent low level performance, even harmonics, instant rise speed, ect). tube=distortion is just a myth spread by exactly these "retro wannabes" you mentioned. read more about electronics.

kritikon wrote:See...it's pointless arguing about whether one enhancement process is better than another one...it will ALWAYS be down to personal taste. Psychoaccoustic gives the game away in the name..the "psycho" bit.

well, i wasn't arguing, i just explained the different methods. of course, use what you want. but the word "psychoacoustic" is more a marketing word than a technical description. these are a well known sonic effects, there's no magic used during development. that's pure, logical processing you can even measure without any problems. they work the same in every ear - but not in every speaker.

kritikon wrote:And all the garbage I read about "make a good mix instead" is just that...garbage. Of course we always do that. The whole point with any enhancer is that if you use it properly on the right material, it will always (in your own personal opinion) improve that mix. If I make a crap mix, it might make it tolerable. If I make a mediocre mix, it might make it above average. If I make a stellar mix it might make it just that little bit more stellar.

you sound like an advertisment... ...reading catalogues?

hell! no! it's no garbage at all. make the recording as good as possible, mix wisely and you will never need an exciter/enhancer. as i already said above, these things work fine with cheap speakers. but usually sound horrible on an accurate monitoring system - and i would NEVER EVER advice someone to use these things on a ready mixed track. perhaps on an individual track, and only if i cannot record it again. you obviously done something wrong before if you need such an extreme processing later. that's not the way to make great sounding records.

kritikon wrote:If you shouldn't use an enhancer because you should be able to mix it better...then you can strecth that argument out to not using Eq, or not using master compression or any tool. The tools are there, so use them if you like them.

well that important discussion exists since years - and it's more and more important to talk about this with the "plug-in" generation (using 30 effect on every track to fill their lack of creativity and music-knowledge). but the "exciter use during mastering" discussion 25 years ago was very clear: don't use them at all - you've obviously done something wrong before if you need them. there was even an "aural exciter free" sticker on many records. so even the customers didn't like it. there are many papers about that topic in the web.

twister · Post by **twister** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:01 am

Just read more about CLAS/NoiseReduction version. If I understand correctly, they add NR infront of actual CLAS processing which is kind of strange cause I would imagine that treble enhancement will cause additional hiss and noise. Not sure why they wouldn't add NR after CLAS enhacement. Maybe it has to do with "conditioning" of input to cut out the noise and hiss before it gets enhanced?

After A/B BBE and CLAS, I can hear that CLAS has a definite edge over BBE. Now, I can really understand what everybody is talking about regarding too much in your face with BBE.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:09 am

twister wrote:Maybe it has to do with "conditioning" of input to cut out the noise and hiss before it gets enhanced?

nah. it's just an odd combination. Kind of like fish an ice cream.

Lee702 · Post by **Lee702** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:12 am

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:25 am

I have used BBE in sound reinforcement but it never lasted too long on a remaster - either the DX plugin or the hardware. I hate to say that I don't find CLAS too enjoyable either - to my ears it's like a little Milk of Magnesia got spilled into the speakers. With the BBE it's a little like needles got poured into mix somehow. I've got a JVC TV with BBE built in and it's not bad on TV grade audio but it depends what's coming thru.

The BBE unit I have is a BBE 462 so there are other models that may even sound pretty good - they're all pretty different if you look at the specs and manuals over at the BBE website. Mine doesn't have the 3 bands and the expander stuff the other fellow was talking about so there ya go! Keep 'em in the PA is my 2 cents.

kritikon · Post by **kritikon** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:06 am

but the "exciter use during mastering" discussion 25 years ago was very clear: don't use them at all - you've obviously done something wrong before if you need them.

OK....soooooooooo...why this?

i can't say the vitalizer is a sound degrader or even nasty. your opinion is really strange, because most mastering facilities have such a unit in their studio.

So no commercial mixes should have an enhancer over them, but every mastering facility has one? I think you just argued yourself into one big circle there.

And it's bollocks anyway...there were an awful lot of 80s and 90s commercial dance tracks that had Vitalisers all over them, and then the Aphexes got into the fray too. As you say...I never walked into any label studio that released its own mixes that didn't have an enhancer of some sort...and they used them with a vengeance.

i can't say the vitalizer is a sound degrader or even nasty. your opinion is really strange,

Exactly. You like them, I don't. It's pointless arguing about which one is better because you just proved my argument that it is ONLY down to personal taste. And although my mixing environment is not as good as I'd like it to be, my monitoring is fine thanks. I just don't like Vitalisers. Last time I heard one it was in a custom built (very expensive) studio environment on a Trident desk and Genelec monitors...and guess what? I still thought it sounded awful. I think they bugger up mixes, you don't...we won't ever agree, whatever monitors you get me to listen on and vice versa. I don't like Vitalisers, you like them; you like the colour red and I prefer blue. Absolutely pointless trying to tell me that you're sonically right. Neither of us is...we just have different preferences.

the vitalizer sounds often even better than my massive passive EQ - nasty is really the wrong word.

No...nasty IS the right word. I simply think they're nasty. Donate me your Massive Passive and I'll leave you to your Vitaliser. In fact...donate me your Massive Passive and I'll agree to anything you say.

dalor · Post by **dalor** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:15 am

4Front (George Yohong's) Countour Max is a good exciter as well, check it out
http://www.fi.opensound.com/mb.html#contourmax
http://www.fi.opensound.com/contourmax_shot.png

Username is taken · Post by **Username is taken** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:41 pm

"No...nasty IS the right word. I simply think they're nasty. Donate me your Massive Passive and I'll leave you to your Vitaliser. In fact...donate me your Massive Passive and I'll agree to anything you say. HiHi"

I'll think about that...

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:10 pm

kritikon wrote:
but the "exciter use during mastering" discussion 25 years ago was very clear: don't use them at all - you've obviously done something wrong before if you need them.
OK....soooooooooo...why this?

It's not like an exciter is totally "bad" or a "nono" in 90% of the time. If you use it while mastering a well mixed track, it "should be" a nono (depending on the source of course).

I see exciters as sound creation tool. For example vocals that lack some lower ends, but you can't fix that with EQ, so you add harmonics (with an exciter, or bass enhancer/saturator) - it's that simple. So you do it in the mix, not while mastering.

Exciters have it's good and bad sides. One of the bad ones is being lazy while engineering (in this case mastering) which is directly followed by the second bad one - you overdo it. Just roll it over and the track sounds nice - uhuh, don't do that. But if, let's say, only an instrument needs some spice, it sure can be a timesaver on this particular channel.

Else I also say it's overrated and overused.

Paul @ Micro · Post by **Paul @ Micro** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:27 pm

Compyfox wrote:
kritikon wrote:
but the "exciter use during mastering" discussion 25 years ago was very clear: don't use them at all - you've obviously done something wrong before if you need them.
OK....soooooooooo...why this?
It's not like an exciter is totally "bad" or a "nono" in 90% of the time. If you use it while mastering a well mixed track, it "should be" a nono (depending on the source of course).

All things being equal, a well mixed track doesn't even need mastering.

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:17 pm

If it's standing for itself, and we're talking about mixes in the K-System standard, true that. But if it's for a CD, you need to do some editing work for sure.

But this is a different issue.

kritikon · Post by **kritikon** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:28 pm

All things being equal, a well mixed track doesn't even need mastering.
Razz

All things being mastered, a well mixed track doesn't even need Eq.

I see exciters as sound creation tool. For example vocals that lack some lower ends, but you can't fix that with EQ, so you add harmonics (with an exciter, or bass enhancer/saturator) - it's that simple. So you do it in the mix, not while mastering.

I don't see how adding harmonics can add lower end. Must be some mighty magical harmonics you're adding there.

No...actually I do know how some harmonics can psychoaccoustically give the impression of bass...but I really don't think that's what you meant.

kritikon · Post by **kritikon** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:35 pm

Exciters have it's good and bad sides. One of the bad ones is being lazy while engineering (in this case mastering) which is directly followed by the second bad one - you overdo it.

I also don't see how that follows either.

1) I wouldn't mix or premaster with an enhancer turned on anyway, so I don't see how it can make me lazy.

2) Why should I necessarily overdo it? An enhancer is like absolutely any other tool. The user chooses how much they use it. I've used enhancers in many ways, and mostly I never go above 33% setting on anything...and even that is at the top end of how I use them. I generally don't like bass enhancers, so I don't use them at all (no reason why others shouldn't though). I won't use harmonic enhancers because I simply don't like them. i prefer my moderate enhancement useage over the heavy-handed compression and slabs of Eq that others use. Fair go to them....they can master how they like and I'll master how I like. But I can tell you this...I abuse my enhancers far less than I see many others abusing their dynamics control and Eq.

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:35 pm

Well like you said for yourself, there're exceptions. But the majority who bought this stuff, rides it to no end. And therefore overdo it. We just need to listen to most pop and chart shit released in the last 5 years.

Subtle used, it can add a lot to tracks that lack some lower or higher end, but overused you don't only kill your ears with it.

BBE Sonic Maximizer blows my ears off... no, literally!