Analog summing emulation idea

[jens]

Got it. You're the knob who wrote...

Remember, another heavily overlooked factor is cables and leads. More expensive cable tends to add less colour than cheap cable. Cheaper cable tends to sound more muddy and bass heavy.

... and was, rightly, treated like the nutter on the bus. Even by the other nutters.

[Aleksey Vaneev]

Kingston, check out Voxengo Vintage Modulator - it can work as a phaser and it has got oversampling.

[deaf dunderkwac]

Direction perception is about the time interval between the arrival of the soundwave at your left and right ear...

I tend to abbreviate what I'm saying, because I hate typing that much.... , but since you said it I edit-ted my statement.
to me, time-lag means something is 'lagging' behind something else. Much like how I am when it comes to housework.

[ericj23]

Got it. You're the knob who wrote...

Remember, another heavily overlooked factor is cables and leads. More expensive cable tends to add less colour than cheap cable. Cheaper cable tends to sound more muddy and bass heavy.

... and was, rightly, treated like the nutter on the bus. Even by the other nutters.

as someone who recently went from nice thick copper cable for my speakers (you know a low resistance low capicitance kinda thing) to thinner posher cable (single cell UFC copper kinda thing) and noticed a VAST improvement in sound quality I would not dismiss cables lightly

[Kingston]

Kingston, check out Voxengo Vintage Modulator - it can work as a phaser and it has got oversampling.

Hi,

I actually almost wrote to my answer, like I did to a similar one last week that "voxengo vintage modulator can achieve similar results".
I've tried it, and liked it too, but since I already have analogflux pack chorus, it's pretty much the same (well, not quite, but close enough for me). I've actually been using PLpar EQ allpass filter as a high end phaser (modulation done using parameter automation).

[friteuse]

The point to be made is... who gives a rats ass, when the bulk of your audience was using cassettes and now mp3 players. (and cd's)

Me!

I prefer making music that I like (including its sound) and the audience will feel it, when I liked it making this music, no matter in which quality they will hear it. See also kritikons post...

[arroncx]

I suspect the issues around analogue summing are centered around the mutiple channels interacting subtly to create extra dynamic movement in the channels.

I know that with some really cheap analogue mixers I have, if I have a quiet pad on say channel 1, and then have some drums on channel 2, which are really hot to the point of distortion, it caused the signal to pump on channel 1.

On a digital system this wouldnt happen. As we all know, this can sometimes be nice effect, but normally you would acheive it /on purpose/ with a side chained compressor on channel 1 being fed signal from channel 2.

In this instance it may or may not be what you want, but it is likely that analogue summing adds extra signal complexity you didnt have to engineer yourself.

The downside is that this just means that analogue is more unpredictable, not better. I have heard a lot of nasty analogue mixes (and have created my fair share).

How pleasent the results of this variance probably are unit and instance specific though.

This example really just deals with dynamics : im sure their will also be consequences at the phase, frequency and time domains.

This probably means that there will never be a real answer to the question, as the reults of any test would only valid for a particular unit under a singe set of conditions.

Its a difficult subject to generalise, as the effect by definiton is variable with regard to the number of tracks used, track content, and the device used to sum.

At least with digital, you know where your heads at

[deaf dunderkwac]

The point to be made is... who gives a rats ass, when the bulk of your audience was using cassettes and now mp3 players. (and cd's)

Me!

I prefer making music that I like (including its sound) and the audience will feel it, when I liked it making this music, no matter in which quality they will hear it. See also kritikons post...

Shure I understand your point, my pov is slightly different because I work in broadcast. (HDTV and FM radio) Even the links to our FM transmitters is via Sat transmission with Dolby AC-3 encoding (Dolby Digital, the great equalizer)
The one thing I would NEVER discourage though, is anyone from making music or sounds because they don't have the [insert name brand here]. If you believe your audience will benifit from the slightest nuances of difference, then you are absolutely right. Please notice that I really like the 'non-sound' of a 192kHz @ 24 bit encoding. Working at 96kHz is very good but you will probably gain nothing by working beyond 24 bits.
The most important part to creating a clean signal is at the beginning.
So I have to assume that your work can only be had on DVD? (just curious, mind you)

[friteuse]

Shure I understand your point, my pov is slightly different because I work in broadcast. (HDTV and FM radio) Even the links to our FM transmitters is via Sat transmission with Dolby AC-3 encoding (Dolby Digital, the great equalizer)
The one thing I would NEVER discourage though, is anyone from making music or sounds because they don't have the [insert name brand here]. If you believe your audience will benifit from the slightest nuances of difference, then you are absolutely right. Please notice that I really like the 'non-sound' of a 192kHz @ 24 bit encoding. Working at 96kHz is very good but you will probably gain nothing by working beyond 24 bits.
The most important part to creating a clean signal is at the beginning.
So I have to assume that your work can only be had on DVD? (just curious, mind you)

No no, absolutly not - I spread my work mostly over TV, Cinema, Radio or even Internet... The point is, I do the sound satisfaction just for myself, because then I have more fun. And this is it, what people hear, the fun that *I* had, surely not the 96 kHz...

The depth of 24 bit is from my point of view enough, when you record. But processing is different, here it really makes a big difference if done with 32 or 64 bit float (or 48 bit fixedpoint). You can hear this impressivly with the ArtsAcoustic Reverb, they recently switched to 64 bit, but you can on the fly lower it to 32 bit.

Surest thing is the raw material you're working with. If you record a very good musician, even the worst mic sound good in a way... that's why old records sound so good because they often had so great musicians (think of the funk brothers at motown...).

So, good musicians, a good room, good mics, preamps, AD-Converters and a DAW working at high sample rates / bit depths will do the job!

[Kingston]

So, good musicians, a good room, good mics, preamps, AD-Converters and a DAW working at high sample rates / bit depths will do the job!

I have similar a tendency to dis everything that goes "below the bar" sound quality-wise. But it's mostly imaginary considering all the consumer formats. I'd have to conclude that if I can't produce and mix a great fully digital sound at 44.1khz 24bits, I'd be a failure as a professional.

[Aleksey Vaneev]

friteuse, no need to worry about that. Just asked if you have other alike information. It's interesting to know *how* we sense that phase (time) difference - is it perceived as skin chill or disorientation or something else?

[stefancrs]

Got it. You're the knob who wrote...

Remember, another heavily overlooked factor is cables and leads. More expensive cable tends to add less colour than cheap cable. Cheaper cable tends to sound more muddy and bass heavy.

... and was, rightly, treated like the nutter on the bus. Even by the other nutters.

as someone who recently went from nice thick copper cable for my speakers (you know a low resistance low capicitance kinda thing) to thinner posher cable (single cell UFC copper kinda thing) and noticed a VAST improvement in sound quality I would not dismiss cables lightly

Why did you change cables? And how much were the new ones?

[spaceman]

Being able to hear up to 24 kHz - not very likely but also not impossible, certainly at younger age.
But I can hardly imagine it making a lot of difference in a piece of music OTOH.

I think 21kHz is the highest audible recorded in humans (I'll see if I can find the article i read that it) for any age

with 24kHz you're talking mutations in hearing me thinks

[Rangtangtang]

my 2 cents worth.............,

Though you may not be able to hear above 21khz, it may add clarity to the sound. What is the sonic range of things, what microphone could measure it, any sound may have a very minute amount above 21khz?

In recording the best resolution counts when editing, processing and manipulating sound more acurately - smallest as possible devisable amount?

The playback CD does not need to be more than 44khz/16bit.

Anyway, why not bypass recorded audio whith playback of computer program. Say, you program your tune on a Music host whith builtin oscilators ect and save the preset along whith other presets of tunes to a CD. The Punter's home playback device may look like a CD player which you insert your CD disk, but infact it is a piece of hardware which contains the same Music program just for playback......? No rendering, an exact duplicate of what you composed..............something like that?

[nuffink]

Got it. You're the knob who wrote...

Remember, another heavily overlooked factor is cables and leads. More expensive cable tends to add less colour than cheap cable. Cheaper cable tends to sound more muddy and bass heavy.

... and was, rightly, treated like the nutter on the bus. Even by the other nutters.

as someone who recently went from nice thick copper cable for my speakers (you know a low resistance low capicitance kinda thing) to thinner posher cable (single cell UFC copper kinda thing) and noticed a VAST improvement in sound quality I would not dismiss cables lightly

Yeah, I've met hundreds, possibly thousands of people who could tell the difference between cables. Except in a double blind test. Then I've met, let me see now... none. Not one. What's more there's never been a double blind test where anybody could tell the difference.

That, of course proves nothing.


You might be the one.