KVR Audio

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:26 am

kylen wrote:
bduffy wrote: So who was freakin' over Ferox? Was that Kylen? What are you lovin' so much about this thing?
Yep that was me. I kinda grew up with that kinda sound on my sound-on-sound decks and echoplex. It's a nice thick sweet sound that you get out of 1/4" reel tape. You can push into the "preamps" using RecLevel if you want some nasty grit but I don't usually.

For example I've got a Ferox set up like this:
Feedback 30%
Tapespeed 18%
Saturation 15%
Hysteresis 35%
Noise -58dB
I/II yellow switch == on
(green switch below it is on also)
RecLevel is set so the meter doesn't go into the red, that can add grit if you want.

I've tried a bunch of tape sat plugs and this is the 1st one that felt good and made sense to me...A+ at 96KHz sounds mighty fine.

Having said that I gotta compare Tapebus at 96KHz using Kingston's generous preset.

Hmmm...I must experiment more with this plug-in. Sounded pretty good to me! K's TapeBus preset was sounding great, I think, but I have to do some testing at home.

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:34 am

bduffy wrote:
kylen wrote:
bduffy wrote: So who was freakin' over Ferox? Was that Kylen? What are you lovin' so much about this thing?
Yep that was me. I kinda grew up with that kinda sound on my sound-on-sound decks and echoplex. It's a nice thick sweet sound that you get out of 1/4" reel tape. You can push into the "preamps" using RecLevel if you want some nasty grit but I don't usually.

For example I've got a Ferox set up like this:
Feedback 30%
Tapespeed 18%
Saturation 15%
Hysteresis 35%
Noise -58dB
I/II yellow switch == on
(green switch below it is on also)
RecLevel is set so the meter doesn't go into the red, that can add grit if you want.

I've tried a bunch of tape sat plugs and this is the 1st one that felt good and made sense to me...A+ at 96KHz sounds mighty fine.

Having said that I gotta compare Tapebus at 96KHz using Kingston's generous preset.
Hmmm...I must experiment more with this plug-in. Sounded pretty good to me! K's TapeBus preset was sounding great, I think, but I have to do some testing at home.

Yeah - I always wanted Tapebus to sound good in my hands but I seemed to end up with something a bit scratchy more or less. At 96KHz things might work out better...

Lagrange · Post by **Lagrange** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:04 am

kylen wrote:It's a nice thick sweet sound that you get out of 1/4" reel tape.

Dont remind me of the sound you get on reels! WHAAA

xander · Post by **xander** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:43 pm

Lagrange wrote:
kylen wrote:It's a nice thick sweet sound that you get out of 1/4" reel tape.
Dont remind me of the sound you get on reels! WHAAA

Geez -- you know, just the difference between that luscious sounding 1/4" 8-track and 3/16" cassette was enough to turn heads. Listening on vinyl and then to a 1/4" tape of Yes 'Starship Trooper' and the difference was amazing -- that tape sound just sort of grabbed me right in the guts in a way I'd never heard before.

I know nuffink might soon show up and harrass me endlessly about that but there IS a discernable, mighty and pleasurable difference between tape and *everything else* and it's very pleasing on the ears.

Lagrange · Post by **Lagrange** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:29 am

xander I could mix when I use to use error friendly tape

..

Hey not to keep this thread going for 9million pages but I just wanted to ask what effect if any upsampling would have on FFT converted wav to be time stretched (yes I will try it myself)? Maybe someone has tryed it already??

L

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:03 pm

bduffy wrote:
kylen wrote:
bduffy wrote: So who was freakin' over Ferox? Was that Kylen? What are you lovin' so much about this thing?
Yep that was me. I kinda grew up with that kinda sound on my sound-on-sound decks and echoplex. It's a nice thick sweet sound that you get out of 1/4" reel tape. You can push into the "preamps" using RecLevel if you want some nasty grit but I don't usually.

For example I've got a Ferox set up like this:
Feedback 30%
Tapespeed 18%
Saturation 15%
Hysteresis 35%
Noise -58dB
I/II yellow switch == on
(green switch below it is on also)
RecLevel is set so the meter doesn't go into the red, that can add grit if you want.

I've tried a bunch of tape sat plugs and this is the 1st one that felt good and made sense to me...A+ at 96KHz sounds mighty fine.

Having said that I gotta compare Tapebus at 96KHz using Kingston's generous preset.
Hmmm...I must experiment more with this plug-in. Sounded pretty good to me! K's TapeBus preset was sounding great, I think, but I have to do some testing at home.

Whoah! This Ferox thing is awesome!!

Thanks a bunch for the heads up on this one. Looks like all the plugins are interesting. Now check out that psychoacustic compressor thingy!

Cheers!
bManic

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:18 pm

The compressor rules. Man, it's a freakin' exciting time for plug-ins! You almost don't need to spend any money!

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:36 pm

The compressor is very weird.. but I've gotten some pretty useful sounds out of it in a "leveler" kind of setup. That is, very low ratio, around 1.1:1 and low threshold -30 or so, depending on source volume of course. Then set attack to around 30 or 40ms and release timed to the music (easiest way is to tweak it while doing ridiculous amounts of compression so that you hear the "rythm" of the release).

Oh and this is of course with complex mode engaged and sometimes look a head.

Cheers!
bManic

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:40 pm

bmanic wrote: Whoah! This Ferox thing is awesome!!

Thanks a bunch for the heads up on this one. Looks like all the plugins are interesting. Now check out that psychoacustic compressor thingy!

Cheers!
bManic

I love Ferox! The hysteresis knob is really fine. The psychoacoustic compressor was pretty cool too.

I'm in the middle of multi-node compressor heaven with the Mackie compressors from Tracktion2. Placing an expander node in the middle of the transfer curve is giving me a really uplifting feel and brings out the low-level detail. I used to get low details by crushing down from the top - the details are nice but the top was crushed...this is a way to push up from the middle

jackson · Post by **jackson** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:11 pm

Thank god the douchebags have left the thread, there's some stellar information here

Thanks all!

laputa_sync · Post by **laputa_sync** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:39 pm

jackson wrote:Thank god the douchebags have left the thread, there's some stellar information here

Thanks all!

um, i had left the thread.....

so that means i is a "douc.... whatever thing".

i never realized.

EoN604 · Post by **EoN604** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:30 am

I haven't gone through this whole thread, but I can't see how this 'upsampling' would gain any quality? I would have thought that would be like, say for example saving a .jpg image as a .psd? It's not going to improve things?

semiquaver wrote:bduffy - nothing is gained by upsampling a mix *after* rendering. on the contrary its destructive. Where you gain is by upsampling before effects (so that the effects work better) then downsampling after.

That's what I thought. But it all sounds interesting.

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:41 am

EoN604 wrote:I haven't gone through this whole thread, but I can't see how this 'upsampling' would gain any quality? I would have thought that would be like, say for example saving a .jpg image as a .psd? It's not going to improve things?

You should go through the thread.

In short: When you upsample an audiofile and then apply some FX to that upsampled version, chances are that those FX will sound quite a lot better at higher sample rates.
Further, when you deal with virtual instruments (especially samplers), you may notice less aliasing as well. But of course, you can't exactly upsample them, setting your project to a higher samplerate would be the only choice and then probably rendering the parts in question out and reimport them.

And yes, the differences are (at least very often) easily noticeable, even by persons with way less than golden ears and great monitoring equipment.

xander · Post by **xander** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:46 am

Nicely summed up Sascha.

EoN604 · Post by **EoN604** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:52 am

Sascha Franck wrote:In short: When you upsample an audiofile and then apply some FX to that upsampled version, chances are that those FX will sound quite a lot better at higher sample rates.

Yes that makes sense, that part I understand, it seems logical and obvious that applying FX on an 'upsampled' version would yield better results than a non upsampled one. BETTER STILL, I would have thought, would be applying FX on audio that was RENDERED at the higher samplerate, AND applied with the higher samplerate?

Sascha Franck wrote:Further, when you deal with virtual instruments (especially samplers), you may notice less aliasing as well. But of course, you can't exactly upsample them, setting your project to a higher samplerate would be the only choice and then probably rendering the parts in question out and reimport them.

Exactly, you can't 'upsample' them. That's what I was trying to say with the .jpg -> .psd analogy.

Anyway... resuming reading of thread

The Upsampling Your Mix Thread