Any science to explain the “weight” or “3D depth” of hardware audio vs software that some people claim?

[perpetual3]

Stirring muddy water

Not really. Answer: non linearities, slight differences between L/R channels.

References to the actual science for that please.

There are lots of papers. Google Scholar.

That's not how it works. If you want to make a claim based on actual science, you need to provide some actual science (eg. specific papers) as reference, so that other can then evaluate whether or not those specific papers are actually credible and reproducible.

If I were publishing a paper, sure. On a plugin forum on a Sunday, no. If it is so important for some to find out, they can spend the time to do the research themselves, rather than outsource to a request and avoid the work themselves.

[perpetual3]

There are lots of papers.

Should be easy for you then. Just a couple will do.

Same goes for you.

[excuse me please]

Oh come on, in that case I just have to grab a synth, put it on 2 tracks, one only left output, other only right output. And start messing with the right synth.

Something in the back of my mind tells me it's not that easy.

[ghettosynth]

,,,

[ghettosynth]

...

[quikquak]

An obsession with Mathematical precision is a programmer problem for simulations. Learn to love drift, man!

It's a bit more nuanced than that of course.
(but not a lot)

[ghettosynth]

...

[perpetual3]

Oh come on, in that case I just have to grab a synth, put it on 2 tracks, one only left output, other only right output. And start messing with the right synth.

Something in the back of my mind tells me it's not that easy.

I described a technique posts back. Try it. Split the channels into two mono channels. Gain match. Apply subtly different degrees of non linearities and frequency profiles. Hear what happens.

[excuse me please]

Oh come on, in that case I just have to grab a synth, put it on 2 tracks, one only left output, other only right output. And start messing with the right synth.

Something in the back of my mind tells me it's not that easy.

I described a technique posts back. Try it. Split the channels into two mono channels. Gain match. Apply subtly different degrees of non linearities and frequency profiles. Hear what happens.

Ok. Will take a look at it.

[GRUMP]

1. One of the reason why analog hardware (e.g. mixer channels, tape) sounds the way it does (“weight, 3D depth”) is via nonlinearities and differences between channels (such as right and left channels), for example EQ and saturation/distortion.

2. I explained a way of doing that in the DAW. It won’t necessarily emulate an existing product, if it can emulate the effect, I.e. creating 3D weight.

3. You dismissed the idea because you incorrectly asserted that it wouldn’t work with a mono synth.

4. I explained how to it could work with a mono synth.

It is important to mention that some Synths were mono back then. I think that most people did never think about how much was mono two decades ago.

We have several reasons for that - and some implications: a) usage of raw mono b) intensive usage of stereo spreading fx and different fx qualities c) usage of spreading techniques like the mentioned, haas-effect, slightly different pitch, start and what ever settings. And again: what ever. On what ever. (Sounds too thin? Hmmm - no seperate FX - just sample it, copy it to a new layer and pffrrz).

What perpetual says is no secret and simplay true.

The whole E-mu Rompler league was made with small mono samples (sample rate ~22-41 kHz) btw. The Engineetrs had a horrible job back then and wre damn creative

[whyterabbyt]

There are lots of papers.

Should be easy for you then. Just a couple will do.

Same goes for you.

Erm, no. Im asking for your evidence for your claim.

Since you're avoiding providing any, I think its safe to say you dont actually have any.

[perpetual3]

There are lots of papers.

Should be easy for you then. Just a couple will do.

Same goes for you.

Erm, no. Im asking for your evidence for your claim.

Since you're avoiding providing any, I think its safe to say you dont actually have any.

If you’re sufficiently interested and self motivated, you would do the research yourself. I’m not here to provide academic rigor to my claims or conversations. I do that for money. But if you want to frame it as “avoidance due to lack” that’s your prerogative and ultimately your loss not mine.

[Dasheesh]

analog is the sound of electricity flowing through circuits. digital is a close representation using 1 and 0's that is directly sent to the output. interesting to note that the more over sampling is used, the weightier it gets, but this is really about speaker busting electricity, versus subdued and toned down digital, which is made that why due to hardware constrictions, and people wanting everything premade for them. some really great digital distortions can help with cleaned up digital signals tho.

[ghettosynth]

...

[whyterabbyt]

I’m not here to provide academic rigor to my claims or conversations.

Or any other kind of rigor, clearly.

DSP forum is for sharing information. If you're not willing to do that, move on, take it to one of the other forums.