Possible "coloration" of SSL mixer vs. 14:2 mixer?

[8cros]

Can I just remind everyone that a null test will fail not only if there is a color (spectral) difference, but also if there is even the slightest volume OR timing difference. So if the test fails you really have NO idea what the actual difference might be nor which signal is the one that is different (or it could be both signals differ from the original or from each other).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, it is similar to the difference in volume.
Effects and mixer have 32-bit, but the master and bus have 64 bits.
It apparently affects the volume.

8cros, could you remove Flower and post the song file?

[selig]

8cros - do this for me please...

1. add dr rex and loop of your choice

2. add splitter and add a 6:2 or 14:2 - doesnt matter

3 make mix channel and split signal between 14:2 and mix channel

4. keep everything at "Unity Gain" which will be default level

5. Inverse the phase on one of them and look at the master meter - dead silent

You can't see "dead silence" with the big meter since it only goes down to -96 or so (can't remember exactly). So it's entirely possible that when it "LOOKS" like dead silence there is still some low level signal present.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[selig]

Can I just remind everyone that a null test will fail not only if there is a color (spectral) difference, but also if there is even the slightest volume OR timing difference. So if the test fails you really have NO idea what the actual difference might be nor which signal is the one that is different (or it could be both signals differ from the original or from each other).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. I figured the hunt for those differences would be fun, hence the request for the file

When I run the Fuzz Measure tests on both the Mix Channel and the 14:2 mixer, the plots for every data type are EXACTLY the same. That tells me more than a null test would ever reveal.

[EDIT: almost forgot to add that the Props long ago (in the old PUF) confirmed there was NO coloration going on throughout the SSL mixer path.]
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[WongoTheSane]

Can I just remind everyone that a null test will fail not only if there is a color (spectral) difference, but also if there is even the slightest volume OR timing difference. So if the test fails you really have NO idea what the actual difference might be nor which signal is the one that is different (or it could be both signals differ from the original or from each other).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, it is similar to the difference in volume.
Effects and mixer have 32-bit, but the master and bus have 64 bits.
It apparently affects the volume.

8cros, could you remove Flower and post the song file?

Ok, I think I got it, more or less. Your way of testing whether there is still residual signal after inverting one channel... is the thing that introduces the residual signal (computer people call that a "Heisenbug"). To make sure, I did this:

- Removed all compressors.
- Removed the strange feedback loop you made by merging the Master Out and the output of the line mixer (did not understand the point?).
- Created another Mix channel.
- Plugged everything this way:

Octorex -> Spider
Spider -> A) Mix Channel 1, B) Line Mixer Input 1.
Line Mixer Output -> Mix Channel 2.

Phase invert one of the two channels. Here's the trick now to check whether there's residual signal without amplifying anything or measuring anything. Export the loop as audio (VERY IMPORTANT: disable dither). Import it back in Reason (or Audacity or anything), and then normalize the clip. Now, if there was even one sample in the file that was different from zero, it would appear as a spike. No spikes = no differences, and there are none here.

(FWIW, you can check the normalize function does that by exporting a silent loop with dither ENABLED, importing it and normalizing the clip. It'll show you the two least significant bits dancing aroung).

I'm not 100% sure what created the "color" your test does, but I think your feedback loop with the master section introduced a delay, which is what you are measuring/hearing.

[8cros]

I have found pure color.
It was not difficult. I suspect that the signal was not from the solar system.

At the top the big mixer.

Mixer 6:2 colored.

[Biolumin3sc3nt]

8cros - do this for me please...

1. add dr rex and loop of your choice

2. add splitter and add a 6:2 or 14:2 - doesnt matter

3 make mix channel and split signal between 14:2 and mix channel

4. keep everything at "Unity Gain" which will be default level

5. Inverse the phase on one of them and look at the master meter - dead silent

You can't see "dead silence" with the big meter since it only goes down to -96 or so (can't remember exactly). So it's entirely possible that when it "LOOKS" like dead silence there is still some low level signal present.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is true Selig, my measurements were on the 16 bit big meter, which will only register 96db of headroom. I imagine it would be the same at least on 24 bits (144 db) and so forth. I would like to be proven wrong

[8cros]

Can I just remind everyone that a null test will fail not only if there is a color (spectral) difference, but also if there is even the slightest volume OR timing difference. So if the test fails you really have NO idea what the actual difference might be nor which signal is the one that is different (or it could be both signals differ from the original or from each other).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, it is similar to the difference in volume.
Effects and mixer have 32-bit, but the master and bus have 64 bits.
It apparently affects the volume.

8cros, could you remove Flower and post the song file?

Ok, I think I got it, more or less. Your way of testing whether there is still residual signal after inverting one channel... is the thing that introduces the residual signal (computer people call that a "Heisenbug"). To make sure, I did this:

- Removed all compressors.
- Removed the strange feedback loop you made by merging the Master Out and the output of the line mixer (did not understand the point?).
- Created another Mix channel.
- Plugged everything this way:

Octorex -> Spider
Spider -> A) Mix Channel 1, B) Line Mixer Input 1.
Line Mixer Output -> Mix Channel 2.

Phase invert one of the two channels. Here's the trick now to check whether there's residual signal without amplifying anything or measuring anything. Export the loop as audio (VERY IMPORTANT: disable dither). Import it back in Reason (or Audacity or anything), and then normalize the clip. Now, if there was even one sample in the file that was different from zero, it would appear as a spike. No spikes = no differences, and there are none here.

(FWIW, you can check the normalize function does that by exporting a silent loop with dither ENABLED, importing it and normalizing the clip. It'll show you the two least significant bits dancing aroung).

I'm not 100% sure what created the "color" your test does, but I think your feedback loop with the master section introduced a delay, which is what you are measuring/hearing.

See project file by Stranger. "Break Master Compressor".
There's same method.

[selig]

I have found pure color.
It was not difficult. I suspect that the signal was not from the solar system.

At the top the big mixer.

Mixer 6:2 colored.

Here's where I have a problem with this statement. I can show that all the Reason mixers are totally flat and digitally perfect. But you say there's "color", but can you describe this color?

Is it a different frequency response? Is it a phase shift? Is it distortion? My tests reveal none of these qualities, and I'm left wondering what else there could be that would possibly "color" the sound as you're hearing or measuring it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[8cros]

Here's where I have a problem with this statement. I can show that all the Reason mixers are totally flat and digitally perfect. But you say there's "color", but can you describe this color?

Is it a different frequency response? Is it a phase shift? Is it distortion? My tests reveal none of these qualities, and I'm left wondering what else there could be that would possibly "color" the sound as you're hearing or measuring it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It is a pure color. Those it wet and dry sounds in antiphase.
I will prepare a project file in the evening, if necessary. I would not like to make mistakes.

[selig]

Here's where I have a problem with this statement. I can show that all the Reason mixers are totally flat and digitally perfect. But you say there's "color", but can you describe this color?

Is it a different frequency response? Is it a phase shift? Is it distortion? My tests reveal none of these qualities, and I'm left wondering what else there could be that would possibly "color" the sound as you're hearing or measuring it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It is a pure color. Those it wet and dry sounds in antiphase.
I will prepare a project file in the evening, if necessary. I would not like to make mistakes.

Here's another problem I have: color isn't a clearly defined term in audio - it's intentionally vague and usually implies some altered frequency response or additional harmonics (or both). But it COULD be anything you want it to mean because it's not clearly defined. So to say "pure color" is even more meanness since that's like saying "pure artifacts" or "pure bugs" (in the code world). Both phrases have no meaning - is there any other way you can describe what you're hearing/measuring?

IF on the other hand you mean it's totally "un-colored" (the opposite of pure-color?), then as it relates to a null test this would imply the only difference you are measuring is a delay.

[8cros]

Here's where I have a problem with this statement. I can show that all the Reason mixers are totally flat and digitally perfect. But you say there's "color", but can you describe this color?

Is it a different frequency response? Is it a phase shift? Is it distortion? My tests reveal none of these qualities, and I'm left wondering what else there could be that would possibly "color" the sound as you're hearing or measuring it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It is a pure color. Those it wet and dry sounds in antiphase.
I will prepare a project file in the evening, if necessary. I would not like to make mistakes.

Here's another problem I have: color isn't a clearly defined term in audio - it's intentionally vague and usually implies some altered frequency response or additional harmonics (or both). But it COULD be anything you want it to mean because it's not clearly defined. So to say "pure color" is even more meanness since that's like saying "pure artifacts" or "pure bugs" (in the code world). Both phrases have no meaning - is there any other way you can describe what you're hearing/measuring?

IF on the other hand you mean it's totally "un-colored" (the opposite of pure-color?), then as it relates to a null test this would imply the only difference you are measuring is a delay.

These artifacts very saturated. They have a lot of influence on the sound in the mix even at a very low level. I did not expect to get such a noisy results.

[selig]

Here's where I have a problem with this statement. I can show that all the Reason mixers are totally flat and digitally perfect. But you say there's "color", but can you describe this color?

Is it a different frequency response? Is it a phase shift? Is it distortion? My tests reveal none of these qualities, and I'm left wondering what else there could be that would possibly "color" the sound as you're hearing or measuring it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It is a pure color. Those it wet and dry sounds in antiphase.
I will prepare a project file in the evening, if necessary. I would not like to make mistakes.

Here's another problem I have: color isn't a clearly defined term in audio - it's intentionally vague and usually implies some altered frequency response or additional harmonics (or both). But it COULD be anything you want it to mean because it's not clearly defined. So to say "pure color" is even more meanness since that's like saying "pure artifacts" or "pure bugs" (in the code world). Both phrases have no meaning - is there any other way you can describe what you're hearing/measuring?

IF on the other hand you mean it's totally "un-colored" (the opposite of pure-color?), then as it relates to a null test this would imply the only difference you are measuring is a delay.

These artifacts very saturated. They have a lot of influence on the sound in the mix even at a very low level. I did not expect to get such a noisy results.

Questions:
The artifacts were clean but saturation was added, or the artifacts had additional harmonics that indicated saturation is added (I've not measured any fwiw)? How low of a level were the artifacts, and how low of a level have to tested your ability to detect them reliably? Or are you talking about the low level of the results of your null test, (which is something COMPLETELY different)? What is a "noisy result" you describe - noise is different from saturation, so are you talking about the same thing or something different"?

[8cros]

Here's where I have a problem with this statement. I can show that all the Reason mixers are totally flat and digitally perfect. But you say there's "color", but can you describe this color?

Is it a different frequency response? Is it a phase shift? Is it distortion? My tests reveal none of these qualities, and I'm left wondering what else there could be that would possibly "color" the sound as you're hearing or measuring it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It is a pure color. Those it wet and dry sounds in antiphase.
I will prepare a project file in the evening, if necessary. I would not like to make mistakes.

Here's another problem I have: color isn't a clearly defined term in audio - it's intentionally vague and usually implies some altered frequency response or additional harmonics (or both). But it COULD be anything you want it to mean because it's not clearly defined. So to say "pure color" is even more meanness since that's like saying "pure artifacts" or "pure bugs" (in the code world). Both phrases have no meaning - is there any other way you can describe what you're hearing/measuring?

IF on the other hand you mean it's totally "un-colored" (the opposite of pure-color?), then as it relates to a null test this would imply the only difference you are measuring is a delay.

These artifacts very saturated. They have a lot of influence on the sound in the mix even at a very low level. I did not expect to get such a noisy results.

Questions:
The artifacts were clean but saturation was added, or the artifacts had additional harmonics that indicated saturation is added (I've not measured any fwiw)? How low of a level were the artifacts, and how low of a level have to tested your ability to detect them reliably? Or are you talking about the low level of the results of your null test, (which is something COMPLETELY different)? What is a "noisy result" you describe - noise is different from saturation, so are you talking about the same thing or something different"?

Maybe it's my fault.
I'm trying to check all the details.

[selig]

Harmonic content is not 1's and 0's, my friend.

Wait - quick question: if harmonic content is not 1s and 0s, then you're say it can't be represented digitally as 1s and 0s, right? Meaning it can't be recorded as 1s and 0s?

If OTOH, it CAN be faithfully and accurately represented by 1s and 0s, (as in "recorded digitally"), what explains this apparent contradiction? What am I missing here?

This is a question that's come up before and never quite answered to my knowledge, so maybe it's more a point of discussion rather than a literal question to be answered. But either way, thoughts?

[submonsterz]

standard null test .
this test was done in this sequence.
all test done and bounced at 44.1 and 24 bit.
1.octorex wired direct to io and bounced to give original source bounced as above.
2.octorex wired to input 1 on 14.2 mixer and 14.2 mixer wired direct to io and bounced as above.
3.octorex wired to input 1 on 6.2 mixer and 6.2 mixer out wired direct to io and bounced as above.
4.octorex wired to reasons mixer channel and wired to io and bounced as above.
all files re imported and null test done .
on this test I did straight null first lot of clips.
second lot of clips with gain on all maxed.
third lot all gains to lowest.
(colours of clips are the different stages in above order).
all nulled but show a problem with automation spikes on big meter...
file is here for reference (reason 9 file). http://www.mediafire.com/download/6qwcp ... est.reason
video here.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/i4518 ... .28.57.rar

I looked strangers file and agree there is something going where the gain is raised to show what is going on under reasons big meter floor .
I see nothing wrong in the routing and at unity on his file it nulls but at boosted gains you can see and if you turn up your system to full like I did its definitely very very audible. not shure how loud you can go your end but mine can go pretty damn loud so it was loud enough to have to turn it down when inverted with the gains boosted.

unless selig has an answer to the even gain boost creating this I'm at the conclusion there is more going on at the low floor levels under reasons radar.
hence also why izotope meter tap and other programs can register this as well as they go a way lot lower than reasons big meter can go.
so on standard reason null test all seems good until gains are raised to show the abnormalities lying below.

an update please add two selig gains to each channel and boost them each to 24 db ie in total to each channel 48db gain.
why because it confirms strangers tests . the gain increase by adding just the 48db gain you can clearly see on my file it has a signal coming through on the big meter with the increased gain case closed for me
unless selig or anyone can argue or prove the fact that the extra gain on my properly done null test file is wrong

[jonheal]

Something just occurs to me, and it's somewhat related to my previous pontificating. I wonder if the (somewhat) growing fascination with analog (including the — at least niche — resurgence of vinyl) has anything to do with a subconscious reaction to the "surgical" precision of today's productions. Music is engineered to perfection. Every slightly flatly sung note is re-tuned to perfection. The frequency bands of every instrument carefully sculpted so that they blend perfectly.

Back in the 80s, we thought we had grown weary of grit and pops and clicks and we flocked to CDs. But maybe deep down, we crave a little grit and noise because life and nature are noisy.

[SA Studio]

Harmonic content is not 1's and 0's, my friend.

Wait - quick question: if harmonic content is not 1s and 0s, then you're say it can't be represented digitally as 1s and 0s, right? Meaning it can't be recorded as 1s and 0s?

If OTOH, it CAN be faithfully and accurately represented by 1s and 0s, (as in "recorded digitally"), what explains this apparent contradiction? What am I missing here?

This is a question that's come up before and never quite answered to my knowledge, so maybe it's more a point of discussion rather than a literal question to be answered. But either way, thoughts?

Certainly not going to argue or even reply after the last interaction, my friend. I have already exited this conversation. I feel like I'm clearly damned if I do and damned if I don't, is the impression I'm getting. If I say one wrong thing, you're going to give me a "warning". Sorry, I'm just not here to argue or get "warnings". I politely digress.

[selig]

Harmonic content is not 1's and 0's, my friend.

Wait - quick question: if harmonic content is not 1s and 0s, then you're say it can't be represented digitally as 1s and 0s, right? Meaning it can't be recorded as 1s and 0s?

If OTOH, it CAN be faithfully and accurately represented by 1s and 0s, (as in "recorded digitally"), what explains this apparent contradiction? What am I missing here?

This is a question that's come up before and never quite answered to my knowledge, so maybe it's more a point of discussion rather than a literal question to be answered. But either way, thoughts?

Certainly not going to argue or even reply after the last interaction, my friend. I have already exited this conversation. I feel like there's subtle insults and am clearly damned if I do and damned if I don't, is the impression I'm getting. If I say one wrong thing, you're going to give me a "warning". Like earlier in the thread when you quoted me and implied I was leaving without explaining anything. Sorry, I'm just not here to argue.

PLEASE don't waste space telling us all how you are not going to respond. And you're correct that if you or anyone says one wrong thing you will get a warning. That's how rules work. Please respect the others here and stick to the topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SA Studio]

I'm certainly respecting everyone here. Feels like you kind of have it out for me, so I'm just not going to interact. I'd rather not be quoted anymore in this thread, or be a part of it. Politely trying to exit is all. The null tests seem interesting. Not trying to waste space.

[selig]

I'm certainly respecting everyone here. Feels like you kind of have it out for me, so I'm just not going to interact. I'd rather not be quoted anymore in this thread, or be a part of it.. Politely trying to exit is all. The null tests seem interesting. Not trying to waste space.

I just asked you not to do this. Seems you have it out for me. Are you trolling me to get a warning so you can say "told you so"? If yes, continue and I'll oblige you. If not, do what everyone else is doing and stick to the topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[8cros]

standard null test .
this test was done in this sequence.
all test done and bounced at 44.1 and 24 bit.
1.octorex wired direct to io and bounced to give original source bounced as above.
2.octorex wired to input 1 on 14.2 mixer and 14.2 mixer wired direct to io and bounced as above.
3.octorex wired to input 1 on 6.2 mixer and 6.2 mixer out wired direct to io and bounced as above.
4.octorex wired to reasons mixer channel and wired to io and bounced as above.
all files re imported and null test done .
on this test I did straight null first lot of clips.
second lot of clips with gain on all maxed.
third lot all gains to lowest.
(colours of clips are the different stages in above order).
all nulled but show a problem with automation spikes on big meter...
file is here for reference (reason 9 file). http://www.mediafire.com/download/6qwcp ... est.reason
video here.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/i4518 ... .28.57.rar

I looked strangers file and agree there is something going where the gain is raised to show what is going on under reasons big meter floor .
I see nothing wrong in the routing and at unity on his file it nulls but at boosted gains you can see and if you turn up your system to full like I did its definitely very very audible. not shure how loud you can go your end but mine can go pretty damn loud so it was loud enough to have to turn it down when inverted with the gains boosted.

unless selig has an answer to the even gain boost creating this I'm at the conclusion there is more going on at the low floor levels under reasons radar.
hence also why izotope meter tap and other programs can register this as well as they go a way lot lower than reasons big meter can go.
so on standard reason null test all seems good until gains are raised to show the abnormalities lying below.

an update please add two selig gains to each channel and boost them each to 24 db ie in total to each channel 48db gain.
why because it confirms strangers tests . the gain increase by adding just the 48db gain you can clearly see on my file it has a signal coming through on the big meter with the increased gain case closed for me
unless selig or anyone can argue or prove the fact that the extra gain on my properly done null test file is wrong

I have no Reason 9.
In the video did not hear anything.

Here's where I have a problem with this statement. I can show that all the Reason mixers are totally flat and digitally perfect. But you say there's "color", but can you describe this color?

Is it a different frequency response? Is it a phase shift? Is it distortion? My tests reveal none of these qualities, and I'm left wondering what else there could be that would possibly "color" the sound as you're hearing or measuring it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It is a pure color. Those it wet and dry sounds in antiphase.
I will prepare a project file in the evening, if necessary. I would not like to make mistakes.

Here's another problem I have: color isn't a clearly defined term in audio - it's intentionally vague and usually implies some altered frequency response or additional harmonics (or both). But it COULD be anything you want it to mean because it's not clearly defined. So to say "pure color" is even more meanness since that's like saying "pure artifacts" or "pure bugs" (in the code world). Both phrases have no meaning - is there any other way you can describe what you're hearing/measuring?

IF on the other hand you mean it's totally "un-colored" (the opposite of pure-color?), then as it relates to a null test this would imply the only difference you are measuring is a delay.

These artifacts very saturated. They have a lot of influence on the sound in the mix even at a very low level. I did not expect to get such a noisy results.

Questions:
The artifacts were clean but saturation was added, or the artifacts had additional harmonics that indicated saturation is added (I've not measured any fwiw)? How low of a level were the artifacts, and how low of a level have to tested your ability to detect them reliably? Or are you talking about the low level of the results of your null test, (which is something COMPLETELY different)? What is a "noisy result" you describe - noise is different from saturation, so are you talking about the same thing or something different"?

This is a project where you will find these artifacts.

It really is the color.
You can evaluate these artifacts themselves and say what it is.

Mix

Dry

[submonsterz]

Stranger, I've seen your Reason file and it made zero sense concerning the title of this thread. I can confirm that the 14:2 nulls completely against the SSl emulation Channel.

his test and mine tally
do as I added in my properly done null test and you will have to retract that statement I think cheers .

[submonsterz]

standard null test .
this test was done in this sequence.
all test done and bounced at 44.1 and 24 bit.
1.octorex wired direct to io and bounced to give original source bounced as above.
2.octorex wired to input 1 on 14.2 mixer and 14.2 mixer wired direct to io and bounced as above.
3.octorex wired to input 1 on 6.2 mixer and 6.2 mixer out wired direct to io and bounced as above.
4.octorex wired to reasons mixer channel and wired to io and bounced as above.
all files re imported and null test done .
on this test I did straight null first lot of clips.
second lot of clips with gain on all maxed.
third lot all gains to lowest.
(colours of clips are the different stages in above order).
all nulled but show a problem with automation spikes on big meter...
file is here for reference (reason 9 file). http://www.mediafire.com/download/6qwcp ... est.reason
video here.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/i4518 ... .28.57.rar

I looked strangers file and agree there is something going where the gain is raised to show what is going on under reasons big meter floor .
I see nothing wrong in the routing and at unity on his file it nulls but at boosted gains you can see and if you turn up your system to full like I did its definitely very very audible. not shure how loud you can go your end but mine can go pretty damn loud so it was loud enough to have to turn it down when inverted with the gains boosted.

unless selig has an answer to the even gain boost creating this I'm at the conclusion there is more going on at the low floor levels under reasons radar.
hence also why izotope meter tap and other programs can register this as well as they go a way lot lower than reasons big meter can go.
so on standard reason null test all seems good until gains are raised to show the abnormalities lying below.

an update please add two selig gains to each channel and boost them each to 24 db ie in total to each channel 48db gain.
why because it confirms strangers tests . the gain increase by adding just the 48db gain you can clearly see on my file it has a signal coming through on the big meter with the increased gain case closed for me
unless selig or anyone can argue or prove the fact that the extra gain on my properly done null test file is wrong

I have no Reason 9.
In the video did not hear anything.

Here's where I have a problem with this statement. I can show that all the Reason mixers are totally flat and digitally perfect. But you say there's "color", but can you describe this color?

Is it a different frequency response? Is it a phase shift? Is it distortion? My tests reveal none of these qualities, and I'm left wondering what else there could be that would possibly "color" the sound as you're hearing or measuring it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It is a pure color. Those it wet and dry sounds in antiphase.
I will prepare a project file in the evening, if necessary. I would not like to make mistakes.

Here's another problem I have: color isn't a clearly defined term in audio - it's intentionally vague and usually implies some altered frequency response or additional harmonics (or both). But it COULD be anything you want it to mean because it's not clearly defined. So to say "pure color" is even more meanness since that's like saying "pure artifacts" or "pure bugs" (in the code world). Both phrases have no meaning - is there any other way you can describe what you're hearing/measuring?

IF on the other hand you mean it's totally "un-colored" (the opposite of pure-color?), then as it relates to a null test this would imply the only difference you are measuring is a delay.

These artifacts very saturated. They have a lot of influence on the sound in the mix even at a very low level. I did not expect to get such a noisy results.

Questions:
The artifacts were clean but saturation was added, or the artifacts had additional harmonics that indicated saturation is added (I've not measured any fwiw)? How low of a level were the artifacts, and how low of a level have to tested your ability to detect them reliably? Or are you talking about the low level of the results of your null test, (which is something COMPLETELY different)? What is a "noisy result" you describe - noise is different from saturation, so are you talking about the same thing or something different"?

This is a project where you will find these artifacts.

It really is the color.
You can evaluate these artifacts themselves and say what it is.

Mix

Dry

you have reason 7 ? if so I can remake a file for you let me know if you want me to remake it for you.

[8cros]

you have reason 7 ? if so I can remake a file for you let me know if you want me to remake it for you.

R8. Reaason 7 it would be great.

I've updated the link And examples.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0By9ym ... HlDQUFRR3c

[submonsterz]

you have reason 7 ? if so I can remake a file for you let me know if you want me to remake it for you.

R8. Reaason 7 it would be great.

I've updated the link And examples.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0By9ym ... HlDQUFRR3c

here ya go an r7 file look at spectrum on master as playing file too especially the end clips where 48db gain added .

r7 null and gain test.rar

(2 MiB) Downloaded 356 times