Looking for the closest thing to Softube Weiss DS1. SOLVED!

[Obsolete462444]

Yes, sample and bit rate: the Weiss DS is operating in 96kHz 40bit. Kotelnikov in precision mode is even higher in resolution, so factually the Weiss DS is inferior in sound quality. This is just the facts, without any personal opinion.

But this discussion has reached the point where you are rigidly trying to win a non-existing dispute, this is not international politics mate, we are talking about audio plugins after all, which for you most likely is just a hobby, so why so bitter?

Just because the parameter ranges in Kotelnikov are not identical to the Weiss, doesn't make Kotelnikov inferior. In fact: the parameter ranges in Kotelnikov are very cleverly chosen by the developers. My goal is not to null Weiss with Kotelnikov, as I consider Kotelnikov (GE) superior to the Weiss.

Congratulations: you made a screenshot of a description of Kotelnikov using the term "topology"! Sorry, I can't find the facepalm emoji.

By the way: I never mentioned "old tech", I referred to early generation, old DSP code. You are comparing apples with oranges, by saying that me comparing first generation audio DSP with current audio DSP is equivalent to suggesting that there is no room for analog gear like the LA2A, which is of course absurd. Again: yes, you can compare computer code performing a specific task from 25 years ago (Weiss and it's port) to a recent computer code doing the same task and come to the conclusion that the recent program does it better. Imagine a 25 year old early audio DSP days code would outperform modern audio DSP - wouldn't that practically mean that there has been absolutely no evolution in audio technology for the last quarter century? Because this is essentially what you are suggesting at the core of your argument!

[Ploki]

Yes, sample and bit rate: the Weiss DS is operating in 96kHz 40bit. Kotelnikov in precision mode is even higher in resolution, so factually the Weiss DS is inferior in sound quality. This is just the facts, without any personal opinion.

But this discussion has reached the point where you are rigidly trying to win a non-existing dispute, this is not international politics mate, we are talking about audio plugins after all, which for you most likely is just a hobby, so why so bitter?

Just because the parameter ranges in Kotelnikov are not identical to the Weiss, doesn't make Kotelnikov inferior. In fact: the parameter ranges in Kotelnikov are very cleverly chosen by the developers. My goal is not to null Weiss with Kotelnikov, as I consider Kotelnikov (GE) superior to the Weiss.

Congratulations: you made a screenshot of a description of Kotelnikov using the term "topology"! Sorry, I can't find the facepalm emoji.

By the way: I never mentioned "old tech", I referred to early generation, old DSP code. You are comparing apples with oranges, by saying that me comparing first generation audio DSP with current audio DSP is equivalent to suggesting that there is no room for analog gear like the LA2A, which is of course absurd. Again: yes, you can compare computer code performing a specific task from 25 years ago (Weiss and it's port) to a recent computer code doing the same task and come to the conclusion that the recent program does it better. Imagine a 25 year old early audio DSP days code would outperform modern audio DSP - wouldn't that practically mean that there has been absolutely no evolution in audio technology for the last quarter century? Because this is essentially what you are suggesting at the core of your argument!

Bit depth*

I never implied that Kotelnikov is inferior!
You may consider Kotelnikov superior to Weiss and in a lot of ways it really is superior, i'm not even arguing that.
But it cannot sound like Weiss, and Weiss is the sound of countless late 90s and early 00s records.
It doesn't matter whether its inferior or not, it's an iconic compressor with a unique sound signature.

LA2A is in a lot of ways inferior to modern compressors because we have better material, better component tolerances and better technology.
But is it worse from a musical perspective?

What i'm suggesting at my core argument is that Weiss DS1mk3 has a unique character.

Unisum is no worse than kotelnikov, but they don't sound similar at all. Pro-C2 is imo also not worse than Kotelnikov or Unisum, but it doesn't sound similar to either.
All three are clean digital compressors. All three are new generation DSP code. None is even superior to other. All sound different.

Just like modern soft-synth non-aliasing supersaw sound is technically superior in every way to JP8000, the aliasing part is what makes the sound iconic.

[briefcasemanx]

Lol, one processor having higher bit depth or sample rate doesn't make it have better sound quality than something with lower specs.

Maybe it has higher sound quantity.

[gaggle of hermits]

Congratulations: you made a screenshot of a description of Kotelnikov using the term "topology"! Sorry, I can't find the facepalm emoji.

you're aware the words "feed" and "forward" appear just in front of topology in that screenshot, right? this is a pretty common usage of the term "topology".

it's possibly just as well you couldn't find that emoji. it might be worth easing up on the "only i know what i'm talking about" schtick. just sayin'

[Obsolete462444]

Yes, bit depth is the correct term, I'm fully aware of that. So we have to agree to disagree. You (if I interpret correctly) believe 25 years old audio DSP code that is "ported" into plugin format is worthwhile and special, while I prefer to use recent audio DSP such as free Kotelnikov and Fircomp. I stick to the core of my argument: 25 year old first generation audio DSP is nothing to write home about. The fact that this DSP code was once packaged into a hardware box and used to cost (still does) thousands of dollars / € doesn't change anything.

[Obsolete462444]

Lol, one processor having higher bit depth or sample rate doesn't make it have better sound quality than something with lower specs.

Maybe it has higher sound quantity.

It's actually a major aspect in sound quality. Lower bit depth and sample rate = potentially more issues with aliasing and interharmonic distortion (= undesirable digital artefacts). Since we are talking about clean, digital compressors here, we can take other aspects determining sound quality, such as saturation and analog behaviour largely out of the equation. So what we are left with is the compression behavior and sample rate / bit depth of the processing.

[Ploki]

Yes, bit depth is the correct term, I'm fully aware of that. So we have to agree to disagree. You (if I interpret correctly) believe 25 years old audio DSP code that is "ported" into plugin format is worthwhile and special, while I prefer to use recent audio DSP such as free Kotelnikov and Fircomp. I stick to the core of my argument: 25 year old first generation audio DSP is nothing to write home about. The fact that this DSP code was once packaged into a hardware box and used to cost (still does) thousands of dollars / € doesn't change anything.

So you believe that any processor (digital or analog doesn't really play a role here) that is succeeded by the next processor immediately becomes irrelevant and not worthwhile, and not special?
I'm saying its special because its every bit as historic as LA2A, 1176, 670, DBX160, SSL G,...
It's as special (or not special) as those.
So is Waves L2, and it's primarily a plugin, not a hardware unit, and i absolutely despise waves.

It's actually a major aspect in sound quality. Lower bit depth and sample rate = potentially more issues with aliasing and interharmonic distortion (= undesirable digital artefacts). Since we are talking about clean, digital compressors here, we can take other aspects determining sound quality, such as saturation and analog behaviour largely out of the equation. So what we are left with is the compression behavior and sample rate / bit depth of the processing.

Bit depth affects dynamic range. 40bit or 64bit or 32bit fp or 64bit fp doesn't make a perceptible difference aside lowering/raising noise floor. It won't affect aliasing at all. It also won't cause artefacts aside raising noise floor.
Since you were being extremely pedantic from the get go, keep it that way.

Sampling rate also affects timing of dynamic processors.
Any nonlinear system will produce harmonics, even if its not deliberately saturating.

And yes, key here is compression behaviour which is very subjective and material dependent and is extremely hard to quantify.
How much (or how little) sampling rate affects sound quality is easily tested with TDR, Voxengo and FabFilter compressor that have switchable oversampling.

[Obsolete462444]

Okay, I should have realized much earlier that I'm dealing with a OCD person here. Is there any value in continuing a discussion that is based on the premise that you repeatedly try to pin statements onto me, statements I never made or implied? You keep going back to analog hardware, which is a completely separate discussion.

Ultimately you don't want to admit that you were wrong when you suggested that the Softube Weiss was special, because as you mentioned and highlighted, it's code was "directly ported" from the 'hardware'. I had to explain to you in detail, why your assumption is wrong: because a 25 year old digital compression algorithm will most likely not outperform current generation digital processors, who have evolved over the course of a quarter century. So, the fact that it's a direct port makes it even a less attractive product, not a better one, because that means that none of the milestones in 25 years of digital audio technology have benefitted the development of the plugin version, it's the same first generation digital compressor as the hardware. Is that right? Mind you: we are not talking about vintage analog gear here!

Personally I don't see the point in using or even paying a premium for a 25 years old compression algorithm, when we have Kotelnikov, DynOne, FirComp and Unisum available, but to each his own. If using directly ported 25 years old compression algorithms from the early days of audio DSP satisfies your psychological needs, go for it.

Sure, even decades old software can still perform the job that it was coded for (in that sense: even the Waves C1 can still be used for compression tasks) and the Weiss DS was probably ahead of it's time as a pioneering device in digital audio. But it's not something that would stand out today.

P.S. please don't t respond with another illogical debate about LA2A's or other unrelated topics. I think I made it clear what my point was about!

[plexuss]

[snip]I had to explain to you in detail, why your assumption is wrong: because a 25 year old digital compression algorithm will most likely not outperform current generation digital processors, who have evolved over the course of a quarter century. [snip]

That's a wild assumption that has as much chance of being right as being wrong. It's also the foundational premise of your whole thesis. Therefore, I can't take it seriously unless there is tangible proof that said code is somehow inferior now.

If someone doesn't think the code works very well for compression now, that's their perogative - as is a person who think its works great now. Apparently some think it works great and some think it doesn't. Nothing new there.

You guys are arguing into the wind.

[Ploki]

oh... he's gone.

[plexuss]

oh... he's gone.

Wow. Another one on my ignore list gone. The reason I read his posts were because I could see them in your posts. Oy.

[Ploki]

I should reaaalllly learn how to back off sooner

[pixel85]

Is MM-1 Maximizer also from the same "ancient hardware"? I must admit that I didn't research original hardware and I thought that it's some new piece of gear. For me, MM-1 beats iZotope 9 Maximizer in heavy-duty tasks like bass-heavy Techno. If it's really that old piece of code then huge respect for coders for what they did.

[Ploki]

Its a derivative - extension from the ds1 yes.
I.e it has parallel knob- ds1 only has a button.

All weiss shootoffs you get with ds1 are based on ds1 and expanded. Deess has more bands for example.

I think his argument is flawed anyway. DSP advancement brought new tools mostly and more features because CPU is available. but weiss had dedicated DSP chips so it wasn’t as limited as native compressors of the time, and it still uses a fuckton of cpu native

[dionenoid]

The original Weiss is outdated, early generation digital DSP. Sure, it was a new approach at the time compared to analog-circuit based compressors, but there is no superiority in an early generation software based compression algorithm over recent, well-coded software compressors.

Sure, if you are susceptible to marketing and unable to apply common sense, go and invest hundreds of bucks into a "code port" of outdated DSP. Meanwhile I will stick to my freebie FirComp and Kotelnikov.

The Weiss DS-1 was first made in 1998, but the mk3 version (which is ported by Softube) is much younger (around 10 years old now). It is still being produced and sold today, the hardware version still costs around 8500$.

Weiss DS-1 is known for its sound and precision, and nowadays it's still used a lot, in many studios and mastering houses, but also in PA systems and radio/tv.

So, it's not outdated as you suggest.