Why no DP/4 emulation?

[GRUMP]

I wonder if anyone in this thread, with access to a DP/4, has A/B'd Ubiks to see if the collection plus routing meets their needs?

There's a DP4/ASR10 Phaser Programm in Nebula. Give it a try to get a feeling for the differences. And - no. You won't find someone who will generally prefer apples over peaches - and the DP4 had a quiet distintive sound that is yet unmatched as the JV2080. The DP4 is the horse I learned ob btw and still my measure.

[ghettosynth]

Urs has one, has the chops, and has even stated that he's developed several products inspired by it. So ask him, maybe he'll make one for you?

It's been a topic that pre-dates the 2012 "announcement" of Zebra3, and it was called Uhbik-X for a short time. Mind you, at that time my DP was broken, so Uhbik's have not gone through direct comparisons. It was only restored in 2011 when I wrote the effects for Diva.

A lot of the things it does are available for studies in the so-called "Dattorro Papers", which I guess is a must-read for any music-DSP dev.

So it sounds like you had a plan to make a DP/4 like multieffect from Uhbiks then? Or am I reading that incorrectly? It also sounds like the project is shelved, no?

[ghettosynth]

I wonder if anyone in this thread, with access to a DP/4, has A/B'd Ubiks to see if the collection plus routing meets their needs?

There's a DP4/ASR10 Phaser Programm in Nebula. Give it a try to get a feeling for the differences. And - no. You won't find someone who will generally prefer apples over peaches - and the DP4 had a quiet distintive sound that is yet unmatched as the JV2080. The DP4 is the horse I learned ob btw and still my measure.

Describe the differences. What do you think makes the DP4 phasor unmatched by existing products?

[FrettedSynth]

Shame that Ensoniq was lost, IMHO it was their AudioPCI card that caused the buyout

[Ichad.c]

There is probably quite a couple of DP4-ish reverbs out there, due to Dattorro's papers, he got into quite a legal pickle with Lexicon at the time, it was apparently too close for comfort to the Lexicon 224. Example:https://www.nongnu.org/freeverb3/ This excludes any fixed point math issues, but the DP4+ used the ESP2 chips, which was pretty dang good chip design IMHO(fun patent to read if you're a reverb nerd). He also definetely preffered allpass interpolation - and stated that it is in fact used in the DP4, probably not in the verb though. Oh and by fixed point issues, I mean noise and clipping, and by clipping I don't mean the cool kind, clipping as in full on digital clip plus aliasing. Sean Costello explains it better: https://valhalladsp.com/2011/07/07/algo ... and-noise/

[Urs]

So it sounds like you had a plan to make a DP/4 like multieffect from Uhbiks then? Or am I reading that incorrectly? It also sounds like the project is shelved, no?

Don't ask

[ghettosynth]

There is probably quite a couple of DP4-ish reverbs out there, due to Dattorro's papers, he got into quite a legal pickle with Lexicon at the time, it was apparently too close for comfort to the Lexicon 224. Example:

Was this in relation to the DP4, per se? Or because of what he was publishing?

He also definetely preffered allpass interpolation - and stated that it is in fact used in the DP4

https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~dattorro/DP4.htm

It is interesting that his attitude about algorithms seems more open than one might expect.

[AnX]

how many of the bands used that unit, and how many of the audience noticed and/or cared enough to want a software emulation of it?

How many people who listened to records made in a major studio knew or cared about the gear used to make that album or even know what a software emulation is ?

no idea, but I'm not claiming I sold loads to bands in a bingo hall....

[ghettosynth]

how many of the bands used that unit, and how many of the audience noticed and/or cared enough to want a software emulation of it?

How many people who listened to records made in a major studio knew or cared about the gear used to make that album or even know what a software emulation is ?

You're missing the point. If it didn't matter, then it wouldn't be so prominent in sales copy. Vendors use this to sell plugins. Consider, for example, the entire Waves Abbey Roads collection or their various Producer/Engineer collections.

UAD also uses this language. From the EMT250 page:

Used on Countless Classics
The EMT 250’s distinctive clear and open reverb sound has appeared on countless records, including Prince & The Revolution’s Purple Rain, Elvis Costello’s Spike, and modern classics like The Red Hot Chili Pepper’s Stadium Arcadium.

So you can debate all day about whether customers care, but, it's reasonable to believe that vendors like UAD think that they do and that this factors into their choices of what to bring to market. I looked, but I didn't see any references to hardware being used in casinos on any of their products.

Think about it for a minute. JBL speakers are used in college classrooms everywhere. Would that be enough to get you to buy JBL over a different brand?

"Which speaker should we buy for our band?
I dunno, the local college uses JBL?
Oh shit, let's definitely go with JBL then!"

But no worries, it seems that the DP/4 reverbs are just/mostly/sortof a lexicon 224 clone and Urs has the rest on lock, so just be patient and your dreams may come true.

[zerocrossing]

how many of the bands used that unit, and how many of the audience noticed and/or cared enough to want a software emulation of it?

How many people who listened to records made in a major studio knew or cared about the gear used to make that album or even know what a software emulation is ?

You're missing the point. If it didn't matter, then it wouldn't be so prominent in sales copy. Vendors use this to sell plugins. Consider, for example, the entire Waves Abbey Roads collection or their various Producer/Engineer collections.

UAD also uses this language. From the EMT250 page:

Used on Countless Classics
The EMT 250’s distinctive clear and open reverb sound has appeared on countless records, including Prince & The Revolution’s Purple Rain, Elvis Costello’s Spike, and modern classics like The Red Hot Chili Pepper’s Stadium Arcadium.

So you can debate all day about whether customers care, but, it's reasonable to believe that vendors like UAD think that they do and that this factors into their choices of what to bring to market. I looked, but I didn't see any references to hardware being used in casinos on any of their products.

Think about it for a minute. JBL speakers are used in college classrooms everywhere. Would that be enough to get you to buy JBL over a different brand.

"Which speaker should we buy for our band?
I dunno, the local college uses JBL?
Oh shit, let's definitely go with JBL then!"

But no worries, it seems that the DP/4 reverbs are just/mostly/sortof a lexicon 224 clone and Urs has the rest on lock, so just be patient and your dreams may come true.

One of my favorite plugin developers is Valhalla. Sean doesn’t use a single name in any of his marketing, yet when I hear some of the algorithms, they sound... familiar...

ValhallaVintageVerb is a postmodern reverb plugin, inspired by the classic hardware digital reverbs of the 1970s and 1980s.

My IK Tape Echo says nothing about the brand or model it’s emulating, but we all know it.

The best Model D emulation doesn’t mention Moog.. or even the letter D. (Should they have called it The LegenD? )

Frankly, I’d suggest that using licensing is a trick that only fools n00bs and neophytes. It only feeds that idea that “if I had the tools of the greats my stuff will sound like that too!” Name the thing “Soundsoniq FX/4: Vintage MultiFX” and if it’s good, people will buy it regardless as to whether or not they get the reference or ever owned the original hardware.

Lastly, you will always find purists who will denounce any emulation, even if it’s running the same algorithms, like the Lexicon software plugins, as “less than” the original. If you listened to those people we’d never have any emulations of anything. They’re super worried that their exclusive club will be no longer exclusive. Pay no attention. I even saw someone swearing his System 8 sounded better than the System 8 software. Turns out he was slamming his mixer input and getting a bit of saturation.

[AnX]

One of my favorite plugin developers is Valhalla. Sean doesn’t use a single name in any of his marketing, yet when I hear some of the algorithms, they sound... familiar...

not marketing, but he has here.... its not really a secret... or a problem

[ghettosynth]

One of my favorite plugin developers is Valhalla. Sean doesn’t use a single name in any of his marketing, yet when I hear some of the algorithms, they sound... familiar...

Many don't. What's your point? This is derived from an attempt to answer the question and there were several assumptions.

1) Reverse engineering would be required.
2) This would be a long and complex project, hence, with a large budget.
3) The large budget would mean that it would take a big player.

Big players go for famous products with pedigrees Sean isn't a big player with big budgets. AFAIK, he's a one man shop. He also doesn't make licensed projects, see point one.

Frankly, I’d suggest that using licensing is a trick that only fools n00bs and neophytes. It only feeds that idea that “if I had the tools of the greats my stuff will sound like that too!” Name the thing “Soundsoniq FX/4: Vintage MultiFX” and if it’s good, people will buy it regardless as to whether or not they get the reference or ever owned the original hardware.

Tell that to UAD. I'm sure that they're interested in your ideas about how they can save on licensing fees.

[tehlord]

There's a DP-4 on my desk. A lot of our stuff is heavily inspired by it.

[Ichad.c]

There is probably quite a couple of DP4-ish reverbs out there, due to Dattorro's papers, he got into quite a legal pickle with Lexicon at the time, it was apparently too close for comfort to the Lexicon 224. Example:

Was this in relation to the DP4, per se? Or because of what he was publishing?

That is the general assumption, the DP4 reverb sound old-lexicon-ish. Nobody would ever be able to tell for sure except Dattorro himself or Lexicon. Fun fact about reverb, there are only 2 to 4 components used, delays, filters, allpasses(optional), modulation(optional -for delays usually) for algorithmic reverbs of that era. So the difference between the Eventide Blackhole vs Lexicon 224/480L/70/80 vs Alesis Quadraverb/Midiverb vs Kurzweil KSP8 vs Ensoniq DP4 etc etc. is just that the components are arranged differently. This is also why reverb is so extraordinary hard to reverse engineer without the input of the original designer, because all the reverse engineer has is an impulse response! It can probably be done, never say never, but not worth it IMHO, it's way more effort than people make it out to be.

[ghettosynth]

There is probably quite a couple of DP4-ish reverbs out there, due to Dattorro's papers, he got into quite a legal pickle with Lexicon at the time, it was apparently too close for comfort to the Lexicon 224. Example:

Was this in relation to the DP4, per se? Or because of what he was publishing?

That is the general assumption, the DP4 reverb sound old-lexicon-ish. Nobody would ever be able to tell for sure except Dattorro himself or Lexicon.

I see, this puts the Lexicon letter in an interesting light, i.e., that Dattorro's claim, that the algorithms were well known in the "underground" even if they were supposed to be a trade secret.

Fun fact about reverb, there are only 2 to 4 components used, delays, filters, allpasses(optional), modulation(optional -for delays usually) for algorithmic reverbs of that era. So the difference between the Eventide Blackhole vs Lexicon 224/480L/70/80 vs Alesis Quadraverb/Midiverb vs Kurzweil KSP8 vs Ensoniq DP4 etc etc. is just that the components are arranged differently. This is also why reverb is so extraordinary hard to reverse engineer without the input of the original designer, because all the reverse engineer has is an impulse response! It can probably be done, never say never, but not worth it IMHO, it's way more effort than people make it out to be.

Right. This has been discussed quite a bit on here by Urs, Sean, and others. Dattarro, even refers himself to the idea that reverb design is as much art as science. If, however, a reverb implementation is for a DSP processor and the machine code is accessible, that one could reverse engineer the algorithm the hard way. As long as the reverse engineering team for that algorithm isolates any code from the implementation team, it's possible to avoid copyright infringement. You don't necessarily have to disassemble the code entirely in order to learn details of the algorithm (as software pirates well know). This might still be a possible approach for some gear from that era. Of course, this is very tedious, time consuming, and expensive.