Sony Oxford at NAMM...going native!

[kritikon]

Sony. Spawn of Satan. The only worse thing I could imagine is Sony with PACE or an iLok. That company is also the Spawn of Satan. So that would make a dongled Sony plugin, either the Grandspawn of Satan...or the Spawn-squared of Satan. Although...if that's Spawn-squared, wouldn't that make it the GreatGrandSpawn of Satan? Inverse square being 1/4 and all that?
Hmmm....complicated but still very nasty, anyway.


It's a shame really. Sony do occasionally make some nice stuff. But I won't buy anything from them ever again.

[original flipper]

HI

'Dafjamm' - do you really feel that using a test program that plots a curve (to be compared with others)is the only way to choose a plug-in?

I will always trust my eye/ear combo to decide what suits my needs.

Flipper.

[defjamm]

HI

'Dafjamm' - do you really feel that using a test program that plots a curve (to be compared with others)is the only way to choose a plug-in?

I will always trust my eye/ear combo to decide what suits my needs.

Flipper.

it's not only the curve, you get phase and other things...your test alone will be flawed. and it's only for eqs...it's not only the eyes, you'll understand what you hear if you see what the eq is doing.

+10db with one eq and +10 db with the other are meaningless, if you don't know that the tuning of the eq is doing. you simply could be comparing different curves.

once the oxford eq is released let's compare with electri-q and match them closely.

i don't have anything against the oxford eq, just i doubt it's special in quality compared to what we already have.

[bmanic]

Not to mention that a +10dB boost on Oxford might be a +20dB boost in reality..

Cheers!
bManic

[Igor 4000]

i don't have anything against the oxford eq, just i doubt it's special in quality compared to what we already have.

If it's modelled accurately after the Sony Oxford desk's eq then I'd say, yeah, it's going to be pretty special.

[mirco@acusticaudio]

Have some of these critics here of Sony Oxford actually HEARD the plugins ?
I did a lot of testing in A/B situations, and the only native thing coming somewhat close was Sonalksis, except some Scope plugins which were on that level.
High-priced they are, but not without reason, i fear.

Eh? Of course. I've used and heard them all (as TDM plugins and also as powercore plugins) except the dynamics, which may be very good for all I know, but especially the hype for the EQ baffles me. I'd say Electri-Q posihfopit edition (not to mention the commercial version!) is of a higher quality and infinitely more flexible. Then there are low cost, superior offerings from voxengo. Elio sound Air EQ beats it down also (though that one is actually expensive as well).

.. then there are the future offerings from Nebula..

EDIT: and before you guys read too much into what I say and throw me in the same burning pile with Kingston, all this is IN MY OWN HUMBLE OPINION. Go out and try the plugins, do some comparisons. If you like em and like spending that wad of cash then by all means, go right ahead!

Cheers!
bManic

i'd find the dynamics very usefull, everytime i used them on a protools tdm system.

ciao

[bmanic]

Yeah. I've heard a lot of good things about the dynamics plugins and indeed they do look quite powerful. However, I've so far been a bit disappointed with the Oxford plugins (well, mainly the EQ actually) so I will not keep my hopes up.

(to be fair, we were quite impressed by the transient shaper thingy)

Cheers!
bManic

[bduffy]

"We"?

[bmanic]

I'm Smeagol in disguise..

- bManic

[bduffy]

Gives us our preccccious Oxfords!!! We loves it!!

[original flipper]

HI

Well at £200 I don't think I will be doing any comparing: but if I did - I would discuss it relative to pushing the eq in as many configurations as I am likely to use and how pleasing I find the results; irrelative of a particular amount of db boost or eq curve.

An eq doesn't all of a sudden 'improve' (once the sound breaks up) - my 'hearing' tests simply tell me if a sound is pleasant; that really is all I need to know.

For people who want/need to 'test/analyze' sound; great! - but that is of no interest to me.

That's why I only posted once in the MEGA PLP thread!

Flipper.

[Kingston]

An eq doesn't all of a sudden 'improve' (once the sound breaks up) - my 'hearing' tests simply tell me if a sound is pleasant; that really is all I need to know.

hearing based A/B tests still have their place, no doubt. there simply isn't any other meaningful way to compare transient performance. filter graphs will tell very little, if at all on this.

and it's in my opinion the most important aspect of all filtering as well. although surprisingly phase shape walks hand in hand with it (and somewhat eases filter design because of it).

[bmanic]

Kingston.. didn't you guys have access to the Oxford desk at your school in England? Or was it the smaller mixer? Well anyways.. do you recall if the EQ on the mixer sounds different to this current Sony Oxford version of the plugin?

I really have a hard time believing that they would put such a normal, textbook EQ (which it is IHMO!) into such an expensive console with so much dsp power..

Cheers!
bManic

[Kingston]

Kingston.. didn't you guys have access to the Oxford desk at your school in England? Or was it the smaller mixer? Well anyways.. do you recall if the EQ on the mixer sounds different to this current Sony Oxford version of the plugin?

I really have a hard time believing that they would put such a normal, textbook EQ (which it is IHMO!) into such an expensive console with so much dsp power..

Cheers!
bManic

from my first post in this thread, referring to the mixer we used a plenty,

to those who may care, Sony DMX-R100 mixer does not contain the Oxford algorithms, contrary to the popular belief.

yes, it sounds different. it's a lower powered version, and so is the dynamics section. The Oxfords are probably thrice as expensive. The DMX sound is more reminiscent of the Yamaha's you know so well. The DMX-R100 isn't a DSP monster by any standards, but an embedded linux control OS running a bunch of standard low power motorola or sharc (can't remember which anymore). Heck, the mixer cuts available DSP channels to half in 96khz mode! Not so high end at all. And it used to crash mid session!

I was never impressed with the sound. As a tool and I/O it's incredible, and the interface is the best I've ever used on *any* mixer (including analogs).

[defjamm]

An eq doesn't all of a sudden 'improve' (once the sound breaks up) - my 'hearing' tests simply tell me if a sound is pleasant; that really is all I need to know.

hearing based A/B tests still have their place, no doubt. there simply isn't any other meaningful way to compare transient performance. filter graphs will tell very little, if at all on this.

and it's in my opinion the most important aspect of all filtering as well. although surprisingly phase shape walks hand in hand with it (and somewhat eases filter design because of it).

let's say 2 eqs use the same implementation. if you match the curves, it's highly logical that the phase response will be pretty similar. this should result in a similar sound.

sure you should use your ears as a final judgement...but if the curve and phase are the same (and both don't have any kind of distortion or noise) then i doubt that the ears won't confirm that they sound the same.