KVR Audio

The Chase · Post by **The Chase** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:29 am

eachother? they all pretty much said the same thing.

Amazing how arguements like these seem to never end until they are locked.

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:38 am

Chase wrote:eachother? they all pretty much said the same thing.

Amazing how arguements like these seem to never end until they are locked.

Or you could just stop looking at them and lock them yourself.

jmh · Post by **jmh** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 3:22 pm

Arguments like these tend to go own, in no small part thanks to people with lots of opinions. But when it comes to backing up those opinions, it's a different issue.

I for one am always surprised how about how strongly people feel about issues such as this without even possessing any knowledge - that means experience with both software and hardware... and even if they do, you have to push them to make them tell what sort of experience they have.

And then there's the KVR effect - the need to comment something, usually only a part of the thread or a particular post, without paying attention to what the thread is about or what relation the commented part/post is to the thread

(I'm as guilty of that as the next guy, I admit)

Regards,

JMH

mark77 · Post by **mark77** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:38 pm

ok, well thanks again for your replies everyone.. after reading all of them i think i am a little bit wiser. I'm not sure if wiser is the right word.. maybe comforted is the word i'm looking for. Comforted by the assurance that 'analog warmth' really is a tiny detail. As a final thought though (sorry i just absolutely have to bring this up) consider this; I have been listening to the best of Fleetwood Mac CD recently. I like many of their songs.. but here's the thing.. some of their songs are the THINNEST sounding recordings i've ever heard, (for example; 'little lies' and 'everywhere') when compared to many other artists/genres of music and recordings. Now what automatically pops into my head is; "they would have only had hardware and analog at the time" and also considering they had lots of $$$ i assume they used pro studios with pro equipment, with pro mastering, etc. so.. if all that stuff is so 'fat' then how come the songs sound so thin??? Oh i realise that today our ears are accustomed to overcompressed and L3'd music and these days louder is supposedly better.. but it gets back to my original point. For example, L3 is software, and digital, and it can make music sound much fuller, louder, and fatter and in your face than the fleetwood mac songs. So... the question begs to be asked.. is analog warmth a myth?

jmh · Post by **jmh** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:44 pm

A good counter question would be "does analog automatically make things warm?"

I'm rather certain you won't find an universal answer to your question, as there isn't one.

Maybe Fleetwood Mac wanted their material to sound that way

Regards,

JMH

Space Boy · Post by **Space Boy** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:27 pm

If you browse through the DAFx proceedings and any DSP related information available on the internet, you can find a lot of information with respect to digital processing of digital audio data. Everything you can think about, EXCEPT how to make your digital effects sound more analog.

I can think of non-linear exciters that add harmonics and distortion - is this what is implied by warmth?

Other than this, can anyone point me to a reference, or patent, on how to make digital sound more analog - or is it a big secret?

On a further note. I just bought a 'Level 42' Ultimate Collection II disc (before anyone starts, I like a broad range of music). This recording has a small label on it indicating that it has been mastered in 32-bit floating point (first time I've seen this). It contains a number of re-mixes which, in my opinion, sound considerably better than the original mixes. I was interested to note that the original 'Level 42' mixes were recorded AAD on the CD.

So, the fully digital re-mix sounds better to my ears than the original analog mixes. Do you think they used some plug-in to make the 32-bit digital re-mix sound more analog than the original analog mix?

By the way, my CD player is only working with 16-bits, but it has good analog filters after the D to A conversion (it's a Marantz from 1991). But this still doesn't explain why the digital re-mix is better than the original analog.

P.S. If anyone can point me to the formula for a 'analogizer' algorithm, I'll be happy to try my hand at making such a plug-in.

Jaeson Merrill · Post by **Jaeson Merrill** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:34 pm

hmmm fleetwood mac is one of the best sounds

I love rumours.. well, not dont stop, second hand news, and i think another one.. but overall great sound.

jmh · Post by **jmh** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 12:40 am

Just back from an intensive plugin tweaking session... after hearing what bmanic and Kingston did to my new idm-ish track on a Sintefex... sometimes digital can sound pretty amazing too

Regards,

JMH

mark77 · Post by **mark77** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:29 am

I think this whole thing is all about "the grass is always greener on the other side". I'm too young to have been a recording musician back in the 70s and 80s, but i think i can safely assume that musicians at the time would have given all their money for a product that would have gotten rid of their hiss, crackles, pops, and hums. Now, finally all that is a reality, and now they want their crap side effects sound back. And all of todays music magazines go along with it, so all the newbies that get caught up in this thing, they start feeling insecure about their gear, and end up sopending ridiculous amounts of money for something that might as well be a placebo. These dinosaurs in the industry need to be booted out. Time to move on grandpa. I mean you dont trust your grandparents with the way you style your hair, or the clothes you wear.. so why listen to their outdated 'good old days' sound advice simply coz they're not willing to let go of their heyday?

defjamm · Post by **defjamm** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:45 am

^^analog doesn't automatically mean 'hiss, crackles, pops, and hums'

i think best of both worlds is the answer

use the strength and weakness of each platform to make the best music. and if you don't have the money, just don't waste time thinking about it, use the time to make better music with the tools you have.

xoxos · Post by **xoxos** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 8:05 am

Space Boy wrote:this still doesn't explain why the digital re-mix is better than the original analog.

erm.. cos they mastered it *differently* the other time..

mandolarian · Post by **mandolarian** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 8:11 am

Space Boy wrote:P.S. If anyone can point me to the formula for a 'analogizer' algorithm, I'll be happy to try my hand at making such a plug-in.

Ok, You need to add some 'iron' in your DSP! That is a big part of the 'sweet' analog sound. Not linear, not accurate, but 'transformed'... EM field algo is all you need! Or get some Jenson, Carnhill, Lundahl iron, run some impulses thru them, load up the IRs in ConvoBoy, *poof*, that unmistakable analog character!

Many people pre-process their signals with a Neve 72/73 and astoundingly once converted to digital it sounds just like a Neve 72/73!

For those who believe the analog recording world is/was all warmth and honey, I've got a few mixers from the 70s, that will spoil that party with their harsh, grungy, thin, amusical opamp edge. Of course analog tape helped round off some of the sharp edges, but you could still get some painful cuts!

There is/was, more bad analog gear than good. That fine tradition has survived the digital transition.

Same as it ever was. There's good and bad implementations on either side of the convertor.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 10:42 am

jmh wrote:Just back from an intensive plugin tweaking session... after hearing what bmanic and Kingston did to my new idm-ish track on a Sintefex... sometimes digital can sound pretty amazing too

Regards,

JMH

It wasn't me! Honest! I'm innocent! It's all Kingston's fault! Sue the bastard! .. right, I'm off to work (read: I'll get me coat)..

- bManic

martian · Post by **martian** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:43 pm

bmanic wrote:Here are the clips I promised. NOTE!: These are EXTREMELY SUBTLE so if you can't hear the effect, don't worry, it probably just means that your monitoring is not up to the task or you are not used to listening to small details. A little hint for the newbies: listen to the transients of the kick and snare and the 'breath' of the vocals. Also note the difference in low frequencies.

Clip1

Clip2

Clip3

Use PC ABX for doing a double blind test and easy switching.

Now then.. which is which?

- bManic

i tried this quickly and this is what i thought:

1. most flat (undynamic) and thin.
2. slightly deeper bass, warmer, hi hats more dynamic, vocal maybe slightly more low freq 'pop' on some words (that may be wrong couldnt decide with the vocal).
3. fullest sound, bass bubbles more dynamically, vocal is warmer around 200hz. feels louder.

am i anywhere near?!

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:08 pm

Ok, here are the results.

Clip 1 = Fairchild, no compression, just the unit itself. Fairchild has a audible bass roll off which makes it a bit "thin" but more clear. Do not just listen to the frequency domain but also to what it does to each 'hit', aka, transient.

Clip 2 = original bounce, recorded, mixed, composed in fruityloops

Clip 3 = trough APR5003 15ips tape sample on the sintefex, driven quite hard (audible distortion and pumping). It was in series with the SPL 2050 EQ sample (which provides subtle 'smoothing' characteristic and about +1dB of boost from 27kHz with a shallow shelf).

Personally, I like clip 3 the most also..

Cheers!
bManic

the analog warmth myth