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

[househoppin09]

Impossible, Marco! If that were true, how could there be an entire industry of people successfully making lots of money selling analog equipment?

[Marco Raaphorst]

Impossible, Marco! If that were true, how could there be an entire industry of people successfully making lots of money selling analog equipment?

So you are saying digital can't do even an uneven harmonics? It can do that perfectly!

Why people are buying expensive stuff? Because they THINK it must be great. It's all about numbers. 24 bit versus 16. Higher numbers make people think something is better. Which is often not the case.

There are many audio myths. Interesting stuff. People are weird

[househoppin09]

Sorry, I was joking, LOL. Yes, obviously people buy expensive stuff for all kinds of reasons other than the actual results they can get from it, which was the point I was trying to make--I think you and I are fully in agreement

[SA Studio]

Well, many guitar players are aware of the "odd harmonics" that occur with tubes...and only with tubes. This is WHY tube amps are so sought after = the inherent harmonic richness, as well as the fabled "tube sag" that happens when dynamically picking - the subtle yet amazing changes in sound that only tubes provide. There's no way to get those harmonics any other way. I currently play through a 4x10 Fender DeVille. It's really heavy, but worth it. Roland JC amps are wonderful products, but will never sound like a tube amp and vice versa - the tube amp will never be as clean as a solid state amp.

The subject of Odd-order and Even-order harmonics is a lengthy discussion and one I'd rather just put up a link for than have to explain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound = Check out the part about "Harmonic Content and Distortion".

Odd harmonics are very much possible in digital. Uneven harmonics as well.

I own a few tube amps (Marshall, Vox, Koch). If I create 10 files are you sure you will be able to pick the ones using a tube amp and the ones using digital simulation?

I am working on analog simulation for a long time. Some of the things I have done are sounding warmer than any analog device I have ever heard. Tubes can sound warm and pleasing. But you can go beyond that in digital. Way beyond that.

You should read up on that link. There's simply certain characteristics people have sought, for literally decades, with tubes that aren't achievable elsewhere. You're not "debunking any myth" or anything close to that by not agreeing. There's literally millions of engineers and musicians would will quickly tell you the virtues of tubes. If you would like to stand on the other side of the fence, so to speak, and say that digital guitar amps are every bit as good as tube amps, you're entitled to that opinion. It's just not at all a widely held sentiment by, again, literally millions of players and producers.

You might be very surprised in what I can hear in a recording, especially regarding guitars. Nothing beats mic'ing a real tube amp in my opinion.

And very factually, an ITB Pultec plug-in simply does NOT do the same thing a real Pultec does to audio when set even at it's neutral setting, which is what someone commented about and that I'm agreeing with and trying to explain why.

Outboard Pultecs aren't $4000 because of "nostalgia"....at all. There's reasons for it, and researching what those reasons are is a good study

[Marco Raaphorst]

For your information:
Bipulse Shaper in Thor
OVDR of The Echo
They will give you only ODD harmonics

Unipulse or Rectify Shapers in Thor
They will give you only UNEVEN harmonics

You can mix ODD with UNEVEN very precisely in Reason using the above devices.

Most Reason devices though will give you both even and uneven harmonics like most analoge overdrive devices and tubes will give you. There's nothing digital about them soundwise except when they are causing aliasing noises (which can be a cool effect btw).

[Marco Raaphorst]

Well, many guitar players are aware of the "odd harmonics" that occur with tubes...and only with tubes. This is WHY tube amps are so sought after = the inherent harmonic richness, as well as the fabled "tube sag" that happens when dynamically picking - the subtle yet amazing changes in sound that only tubes provide. There's no way to get those harmonics any other way. I currently play through a 4x10 Fender DeVille. It's really heavy, but worth it. Roland JC amps are wonderful products, but will never sound like a tube amp and vice versa - the tube amp will never be as clean as a solid state amp.

The subject of Odd-order and Even-order harmonics is a lengthy discussion and one I'd rather just put up a link for than have to explain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound = Check out the part about "Harmonic Content and Distortion".

Odd harmonics are very much possible in digital. Uneven harmonics as well.

I own a few tube amps (Marshall, Vox, Koch). If I create 10 files are you sure you will be able to pick the ones using a tube amp and the ones using digital simulation?

I am working on analog simulation for a long time. Some of the things I have done are sounding warmer than any analog device I have ever heard. Tubes can sound warm and pleasing. But you can go beyond that in digital. Way beyond that.

You should read up on that link. There's simply certain characteristics people have sought, for literally decades, with tubes that aren't achievable elsewhere. You're not "debunking any myth" or anything close to that by not agreeing. There's literally millions of engineers and musicians would will quickly tell you the virtues of tubes. If you would like to stand on the other side of the fence, so to speak, and say that digital guitar amps are every bit as good as tube amps, you're entitled to that opinion. It's just not at all a widely held sentiment by, again, literally millions of players and producers.

You might be very surprised in what I can hear in a recording, especially regarding guitars. Nothing beats mic'ing a real tube amp in my opinion.

And very factually, an ITB Pultec plug-in simply does NOT do the same thing a real Pultec does to audio when set even at it's neutral setting, which is what someone commented about and that I'm agreeing with and trying to explain why.

Outboard Pultecs aren't $4000 because of "nostalgia"....at all. There's reasons for it, and researching what those reasons are is a good study

I am very much aware of all this. I am researching this since the early 90s and have used many guitar amps over the years. Speaker simulators. And digital simulation.

You say "Nothing beats mic'ing a real tube amp in my opinion. " So if I set up a listening test for you using a SM57 and a Palmer Speaker Simulator PDI-03 you will be able detect the SM57?

[househoppin09]

For your information:
Bipulse Shaper in Thor
OVDR of The Echo
They will give you only ODD harmonics

Unipulse or Rectify Shapers in Thor
They will give you only UNEVEN harmonics

You can mix ODD with UNEVEN very precisely in Reason using the above devices.

Most Reason devices though will give you both even and uneven harmonics like most analoge overdrive devices and tubes will give you. There's nothing digital about them soundwise except when they are causing aliasing noises (which can be a cool effect btw).

Thanks for this info--but how are you defining the difference between "odd" and "uneven" harmonics?

[SA Studio]

I think you're missing the point about the musicality of the harmonics that happen naturally.....NATURALLY, not faked or simulated....with tubes and that is why they are sought after and why audiophiles consider them to sound better.

As well as home stereo audiophiles who own very expensive McIntosh tube amps for their systems = Because they have inherent qualities from the tubes themselves. Maybe you should disagree with those people too?

:You say "Nothing beats mic'ing a real tube amp in my opinion. " So if I set up a listening test for you using a SM57 and a Palmer Speaker Simulator PDI-03 you will be able detect the SM57?"

Yes, in my opinion and millions of other engineers and producers, a mic'd tube amp sounds better than digital and is the "way to go" when you can do it. This is all such simple stuff, it's hard to believe it's being refuted, but you're entitled to your opinion.

[Marco Raaphorst]

check out for example these files here:
http://melodiefabriek.com/blog/oh-my-tu ... s-amazing/

It uses a very expensive hand made Koch KV-50 with a Palmer Speaker Simulator PDI-3. I compared it to a patch I did for Softube Amp. Well no matter what I did, the Koch sounded like a transistor amp in comparising with the Softube. Weird right? Tubes and the Koch is very expensive. Well money doesn't say anything here. Software is just a bunch of cool code.

[Marco Raaphorst]

For your information:
Bipulse Shaper in Thor
OVDR of The Echo
They will give you only ODD harmonics

Unipulse or Rectify Shapers in Thor
They will give you only UNEVEN harmonics

You can mix ODD with UNEVEN very precisely in Reason using the above devices.

Most Reason devices though will give you both even and uneven harmonics like most analoge overdrive devices and tubes will give you. There's nothing digital about them soundwise except when they are causing aliasing noises (which can be a cool effect btw).

Thanks for this info--but how are you defining the difference between "odd" and "uneven" harmonics?

Sorry typo. Unipulse or Rectify Shapers give you EVEN harmonics.

[Marco Raaphorst]

I think you're missing the point about the musicality of the harmonics that happen naturally.....NATURALLY, not faked or simulated....with tubes and that is why they are sought after and why audiophiles consider them to sound better.

As well as home stereo audiophiles who own very expensive McIntosh tube amps for their systems = Because they have inherent qualities from the tubes themselves. Maybe you should disagree with those people too?

:You say "Nothing beats mic'ing a real tube amp in my opinion. " So if I set up a listening test for you using a SM57 and a Palmer Speaker Simulator PDI-03 you will be able detect the SM57?"

Yes, in my opinion and millions of other engineers and producers, a mic'd tube amp sounds better than digital and is the "way to go" when you can do it. This is all such simple stuff, it's hard to believe it's being refuted, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Back in the day, 1984, mr Ivor Tiefenbrun of bloody expensive Linn Systems said ADDA convertors sucked. To make a long story short: he couldn't detect them when they were put between his expensive turntable and a NAC power amp. 1984! See http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_s ... sting2.htm

There are so many myths. Start here http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing ... -and-myths

Believe me: our ears are not that great. And it's not voodoo or magic. I do know though that guitar players and many engineers are purists. And very conservative. I love my laptop but sure if you have a large mixing board it might feels strange that someone with a laptop can do exactly the same thing but without much of the hassle. Well, this is reality.

[Marco Raaphorst]

For your information:
Bipulse Shaper in Thor
OVDR of The Echo
They will give you only ODD harmonics

Unipulse or Rectify Shapers in Thor
They will give you only UNEVEN harmonics

You can mix ODD with UNEVEN very precisely in Reason using the above devices.

Most Reason devices though will give you both even and uneven harmonics like most analoge overdrive devices and tubes will give you. There's nothing digital about them soundwise except when they are causing aliasing noises (which can be a cool effect btw).

Thanks for this info--but how are you defining the difference between "odd" and "uneven" harmonics?

By looking at a spectrum analyser. Often I will use a sine wave as source at 440 hz. If I find A3 as 1st a E5 (oct+5th) as 3rd a
C#6 (2 oct +3rd) as 5th and a G6 (2 oct +7th) as 7th I know these are the ODDs And even numbers for the EVEN harmonics of course.

[SA Studio]

" love my laptop but sure if you have a large mixing board it might feels strange that someone with a laptop can do exactly the same thing but without much of the hassle. Well, this is reality."

If you want to feel that way, that a laptop is just as capable as a top-end studio console, you're entitled to that opinion. I most certainly do not agree that a laptop being able to produce a final product every bit as good as a professional studio console is "reality". We'll have to agree to disagree there.

[Marco Raaphorst]

I think you're missing the point about the musicality of the harmonics that happen naturally.....NATURALLY, not faked or simulated....with tubes and that is why they are sought after and why audiophiles consider them to sound better.

As well as home stereo audiophiles who own very expensive McIntosh tube amps for their systems = Because they have inherent qualities from the tubes themselves. Maybe you should disagree with those people too?

:You say "Nothing beats mic'ing a real tube amp in my opinion. " So if I set up a listening test for you using a SM57 and a Palmer Speaker Simulator PDI-03 you will be able detect the SM57?"

Yes, in my opinion and millions of other engineers and producers, a mic'd tube amp sounds better than digital and is the "way to go" when you can do it. This is all such simple stuff, it's hard to believe it's being refuted, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Tell me if you can pick the real amps and/or the digital amps:

[Marco Raaphorst]

Well, many guitar players are aware of the "odd harmonics" that occur with tubes...and only with tubes. This is WHY tube amps are so sought after = the inherent harmonic richness, as well as the fabled "tube sag" that happens when dynamically picking - the subtle yet amazing changes in sound that only tubes provide. There's no way to get those harmonics any other way. I currently play through a 4x10 Fender DeVille. It's really heavy, but worth it. Roland JC amps are wonderful products, but will never sound like a tube amp and vice versa - the tube amp will never be as clean as a solid state amp.

The subject of Odd-order and Even-order harmonics is a lengthy discussion and one I'd rather just put up a link for than have to explain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound = Check out the part about "Harmonic Content and Distortion".

Odd harmonics are very much possible in digital. Uneven harmonics as well.

I own a few tube amps (Marshall, Vox, Koch). If I create 10 files are you sure you will be able to pick the ones using a tube amp and the ones using digital simulation?

I am working on analog simulation for a long time. Some of the things I have done are sounding warmer than any analog device I have ever heard. Tubes can sound warm and pleasing. But you can go beyond that in digital. Way beyond that.

You should read up on that link. There's simply certain characteristics people have sought, for literally decades, with tubes that aren't achievable elsewhere. You're not "debunking any myth" or anything close to that by not agreeing. There's literally millions of engineers and musicians would will quickly tell you the virtues of tubes. If you would like to stand on the other side of the fence, so to speak, and say that digital guitar amps are every bit as good as tube amps, you're entitled to that opinion. It's just not at all a widely held sentiment by, again, literally millions of players and producers.

You might be very surprised in what I can hear in a recording, especially regarding guitars. Nothing beats mic'ing a real tube amp in my opinion.

And very factually, an ITB Pultec plug-in simply does NOT do the same thing a real Pultec does to audio when set even at it's neutral setting, which is what someone commented about and that I'm agreeing with and trying to explain why.

Outboard Pultecs aren't $4000 because of "nostalgia"....at all. There's reasons for it, and researching what those reasons are is a good study

I have a friend who has a Pultec. I can set up a listening test for you. Would be cool right?

[SA Studio]

You seem extremely adamant. This isn't worth even discussing, honestly. Not as guitar players, or as producers. You seem to be convinced of many, many of your own thoughts being somehow "law" in the engineering/production world. Like thinking a laptop is every bit as capable as a professional studio console. I simply can't agree with that, nor do I think digital is superior to analog, especially considering guitar amplification. We simply have to disagree.

Having to explain and justify why tubes and outboard analog gear is valuable.....well, that's a serious waste of time. I shouldn't have to explain it. If you want to think it's all lies and snake-oil, you can feel that way. But I'll repeat one thing: Outboard Pultecs (for one example) aren't $4000 because of "nostalgia"....at all. There's reasons for it, and researching what those reasons are is a good study

[jonheal]

I'm not a C++/DSP programmer, so I am not terribly familiar with the methods and effort that go into modeling an analog audio experience. But I can imagine that while the general, and even highly specific characteristics of an analog waveform can be modeled mathematically, I can also imagine that there is a fairly infinite amount of highly subtle random information in an analog waveform that is exceedingly difficult to model. Stuff that is the result of varying levels of heat in the circuitry, and the variances in the physical and chemical properties of the actual electronics creating the waveform. Stuff that by its very nature is to whatever small extent, Inherently unstable and unpredictable.

I know that when I listen to an analog synthesizer sweeping a saw wave through low frequencies — even in a crummy YouTube mp3 — something about it sounds ... more raw ... then what I am able to coax out of Subtractor or Thor. Is it all in my head? Maybe so. I don't know. Or maybe the human mind really is able to cue into the subtle randomness interwoven into "natural" patterns. The randomness that makes those patterns "real" and not artificial.

One could conjecture that even pure analog itself can be broken down into discrete chunks. When you hear a sound, that smooth wave in your head is the result of a theoretically measurable number air molecules striking your eardrum — rat-a-tat-tat. Except that when you go even smaller, it gets all cloudy again. Suddenly stuff is there and it isn't there at the same time. Quantum shenanigans.

[Raveshaper]

Digital will always be a convincing oversimplification that will satisfy the casual listener. But to sound designers it is obvious and nowhere near the same. That's how I feel, and I can hear the difference between 96k and 192k. Not everyone is an audiophile.

[selig]

You seem extremely adamant. This isn't worth even discussing, honestly. Not as guitar players, or as producers. You seem to be convinced of many, many of your own thoughts being somehow "law" in the engineering/production world. Like thinking a laptop is every bit as capable as a professional studio console. I simply can't agree with that, nor do I think digital is superior to analog, especially considering guitar amplification. We simply have to disagree.

Having to explain and justify why tubes and outboard analog gear is valuable.....well, that's a serious waste of time. I shouldn't have to explain it. If you want to think it's all lies and snake-oil, you can feel that way. But I'll repeat one thing: Outboard Pultecs (for one example) aren't $4000 because of "nostalgia"....at all. There's reasons for it, and researching what those reasons are is a good study

You both are being adamant, and that's a good thing IMO because it means you care about the subject. But thankfully you're both remaining civil, so please do carry on!

However, if anyone feels this is truly not worth discussing, or that they shouldn't have to explain it, then PLEASE by all means don't discuss it and don't explain it!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SA Studio]

That's not passive aggressive at all haha

[selig]

That's not passive aggressive at all haha

Dude, you are so off base - again. Don't even start or I'll end it quick this time. Seriously.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[8cros]

Digital will always be a convincing oversimplification that will satisfy the casual listener. But to sound designers it is obvious and nowhere near the same. That's how I feel, and I can hear the difference between 96k and 192k. Not everyone is an audiophile.

You will be able to hear the changes 96k and 192k for example, in Subtractor. Not being a audiophile. Because it has artifacts. Big artifacts in the higher frequencies.

[SA Studio]

"However, if anyone feels this is truly not worth discussing, or that they shouldn't have to explain it, then PLEASE by all means don't discuss it and don't explain it!
"

Sorry. This seems to be directed at me. I was just trying to exit the conversation, not avoid explaining anything.

[selig]

"However, if anyone feels this is truly not worth discussing, or that they shouldn't have to explain it, then PLEASE by all means don't discuss it and don't explain it!
"

Sorry. This seems to be directed at me. I was just trying to exit the conversation, not avoid explaining anything.

No need to be sorry. I wasn't trying to be subtle, I quoted you! Please contact me or any other mod Via PM if you have further concerns or questions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jonheal]

Tell me if you can pick the real amps and/or the digital amps:

If one of more of the tracks really includes analog amplifiers/effects, and If I were going to guess, I would guess "4teeuwen2."

But if I am wrong, then my whole "quantum fluctuations/natural randomness" theory is probably BS.