JohnRoberts

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #40 on: May 16, 2020, 11:33:40 AM »
Abbey has been very generous with his knowledge and his extensive experience.

I do not perceive any of the slights attributed to him, but like beauty, affronts are in the eyes of the beholder, so I hope that beholder can get over it. I seriously doubt any was intended (but I still cannot read minds, sending or receiving). 

Complaining about free advice is rarely productive.

JR

PS: Yes I miss Brad (RIP) too, he was a tremendous resource for all of us. 
It's nice to be nice....


Gold

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #41 on: May 16, 2020, 12:32:52 PM »
He also has enough class not to ‘defend himself’.

john12ax7

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #42 on: May 16, 2020, 10:04:11 PM »
This is one of the best places for audio related electronics discussion and knowledge,  in part due to Abbey,  along with others.  So I really don't understand the notion that he is not helpful.

abbey road d enfer

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #43 on: May 17, 2020, 04:01:10 AM »
https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/2018/12/20/using-the-warm-audio-wa273-eq-to-create-a-stereo-image-from-a-mono-signal-we-show-you-how

Have a listen and see what you think. I surprised UAD haven't questioned this as the software example sounds terrible in comparison with the hardware.
What a disappointment! The title wets your appetite, and it turns out to be a so-called "expert" showing you how to apply different EQ's and panning hard L&R. That was news in the 60's, at the advent of stereo records. There were dedicated boxes, "stereoizers" (Orban 245F Stereo Synthesizer).
You don't need to do that, because your L&R speakers do not sound the same for a start, and your L&R ears do not hear the same.
Once you've applied a touch of reverb on the track, the effect is lost.
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
Star ground is for electricians.

cpsmusic

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #44 on: May 17, 2020, 04:08:35 AM »
What a disappointment! The title wets your appetite, and it turns out to be a so-called "expert" showing you how to apply different EQ's and panning hard L&R. That was news in the 60's, at the advent of stereo records. There were dedicated boxes, "stereoizers" (Orban 245F Stereo Synthesizer).
You don't need to do that, because your L&R speakers do not sound the same for a start, and your L&R ears do not hear the same.
Once you've applied a touch of reverb on the track, the effect is lost.

What do you think about the different EQs? Do you think the hardware sounds different or "better"?

abbey road d enfer

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #45 on: May 17, 2020, 04:26:39 AM »
What do you think about the different EQs? Do you think the hardware sounds different or "better"?
I don't like the "hard-driven" take, but not to a point where I would be embarassed to use it in a mix. The other takes seem equally neutral to me. I don't perceive any additional dimension in the "stereoized" versions.
If it was my gig, I would have another take and pan the two tracks L&R; that's how you get dimension. IMO (as always).
And if I couldn't, I would add a tad of reverb, maybe some tempo-sync'ed delay. Well, I would do it anyway...  :D
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
Star ground is for electricians.

cpsmusic

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #46 on: June 20, 2020, 01:18:56 AM »
Hi Folks,

My original thought was that differences between the L/R channels of a stereo device were creating the effect I described in my original post. I came across this article:

https://www.youraudiosolutions.com/interview-articles/an-in-depth-conversation-about-plugins-with-nikolay-georgiev-from-acustica-audio

In it the author says the following:
Quote
Another thing that separates hardware from plugins is something I discovered when working on the Acustica Cream plugin, where I sampled 24 channels of a vintage British console. I found that some of the channels will have an almost identical frequency response and harmonic distortion levels but their phase will be different at certain frequencies. Well, for one, this will make each channel sound different and these differences may be obvious to a trained ear. Some might wonder if this is bad, but let’s say you have a kick drum on channel 1 and a bass guitar on channel 2, does it matter that there is a phase difference? The channels will be coloured in a slightly different way but your signals are not correlated, as they are of two different sources. However, when you have a stereo source there’s a very big difference because all of a sudden you have correlated material. Your left and right channel share a lot of the same information, so when you have a difference in phase between the two channels all of sudden you de-correlate further the left and the right channels. The results of that, and you can hear it, is that if you have a mono bass panned right in the centre that bass is no longer a dot in the middle, it expands a little bit to the sides of the stereo spectrum and it sounds a little bit “stereo”. And if you have a stereo source, such as overheads, all of sudden they are starting to sound a bit wider, people might say, “You know what, I ran my music through this analogue thing and now it sounds bigger” and I think this is one of the reasons for it.

I think this difference is what I'm hearing in my hardware 1073 clone that isn't present in the plug-in.

abbey road d enfer

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #47 on: June 20, 2020, 03:00:24 AM »
In it the author says the following: "I found that some of the channels will have an almost identical frequency response and harmonic distortion levels but their phase will be different at certain frequencies. "
Phase is a very common BS argument. A console's signal path is a minimum-phase system, where the phase and frequency response are intimately and bi-univocally correlated. In simpler words, a phase difference always translate as frequency response difference and conversely.
What's more, the hearing process is not very sensitive to phase per se, but quite sensitive to frequency response.
However, it is sensitive to the difference in information arrival time, so, yes, possible phase differences will be heard as a displacement of the source.
But it would occur only with significant differences in frequency response.

Actually, what can happen in a mixer is multiple paths; let's say a signal is routed direct to the main bus and simultaneaously to a sub-group that is also routed to the main bus. This is not anymore a minimum-phase path! It ispossible that the relationship between phase and frequency response becomes more complex. In a "modern" mixer, it should not result in audible artefacts, because it would happen at ultrasonic frequencies.
In less "modern" mixers, because of transformers, these artefacts fall within the hearing range.
Vintage Neve mixers, that include several xfmrs in the signal path, are notable for these effects.
It was one of the first things Allan Archer (Neve tech) warned me of when I worked on the Barclay Studio A646.

Quote
I think this difference is what I'm hearing in my hardware 1073 clone that isn't present in the plug-in.
If you have a notable difference between two 1073, it should be measurable as a different frequency response.
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
Star ground is for electricians.

ruairioflaherty

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #48 on: June 22, 2020, 01:35:44 AM »
Phase is a very common BS argument. A console's signal path is a minimum-phase system, where the phase and frequency response are intimately and bi-univocally correlated. In simpler words, a phase difference always translate as frequency response difference and conversely.
What's more, the hearing process is not very sensitive to phase per se, but quite sensitive to frequency response.
However, it is sensitive to the difference in information arrival time, so, yes, possible phase differences will be heard as a displacement of the source.
But it would occur only with significant differences in frequency response.

Actually, what can happen in a mixer is multiple paths; let's say a signal is routed direct to the main bus and simultaneaously to a sub-group that is also routed to the main bus. This is not anymore a minimum-phase path! It ispossible that the relationship between phase and frequency response becomes more complex. In a "modern" mixer, it should not result in audible artefacts, because it would happen at ultrasonic frequencies.
In less "modern" mixers, because of transformers, these artefacts fall within the hearing range.
Vintage Neve mixers, that include several xfmrs in the signal path, are notable for these effects.
It was one of the first things Allan Archer (Neve tech) warned me of when I worked on the Barclay Studio A646.
 

Agree 100% with the critique of phase hand waving that is seemingly everywhere.

Quote
If you have a notable difference between two 1073, it should be measurable as a different frequency response.

In this case CPSmusic is comparing a plug in with the hardware.  In my experience plug in designers tend to nail the frequency response pretty well (and why wouldn't they, it's trivial) but the non linearities caused by transformers and inductors are much hard to emulate effectively.

I alternate between a digital and analog mastering chain, and am far from an analog absolutist but for certain sounds a hardware compressor will do things software cannot yet.

abbey road d enfer

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #49 on: June 22, 2020, 05:09:51 AM »
In reference to "If you have a notable difference between two 1073, it should be measurable as a different frequency response."

In this case CPSmusic is comparing a plug in with the hardware.  In my experience plug in designers tend to nail the frequency response pretty well (and why wouldn't they, it's trivial) but the non linearities caused by transformers and inductors are much hard to emulate effectively.
I agree. My comment should have mentioned differences in distortion characteristics too, but since the blame was pointed at phase response, I got carried away.

Quote
  I alternate between a digital and analog mastering chain, and am far from an analog absolutist but for certain sounds a hardware compressor will do things software cannot yet.
Indeed. All equipment has its sonic signature, but dynamics-based effects even more.
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
Star ground is for electricians.


JohnRoberts

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #50 on: June 22, 2020, 08:35:06 AM »

I alternate between a digital and analog mastering chain, and am far from an analog absolutist but for certain sounds a hardware compressor will do things software cannot yet.
Ironic perhaps that a digital signal processor could do everything that an analog compressor does even better (zero VCA noise or distortion).  That said the sundry dynamics processor side chains can impress unique sonic signatures. DSP could replicate those but does not cover all bases.

Decades ago I speculated about a programmable dynamics processor that could  mimic the sundry unique sound signatures. This predated plug-ins by so much that I was going to save the presets to magnetic tape.  :o

JR 
It's nice to be nice....

JohnRoberts

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #51 on: June 22, 2020, 12:13:42 PM »
I  think that's valid. 
A Neve, compared to Doug Self's Soundcraft boards has really, really sh*tty crosstalk .  But guys that play on records consistently want an old Neve desk to record through. How many great sounding records were recorded through a Peavey or Soundcraft?
Maybe some of it is gear snobbery or 'blinded by the light' on the part of musicians that drives them to play better through the Neve but I dunno, most have no clue about specs etc.  and couldn't tell you why they like what they like.  They just do.
Over the years I've heard about some, but I didn't keep a list. 

IIRC John Williams of the movie soundtrack fame used one in his personal studio. Several high profile customers in Nashville and LA... oddly the customers in smaller markets were too snobby to even consider Peavey. Established studio guys in major markets were more willing to kick the tires.

Consoles don't make music good or bad... but talent is easily jaded by brand image (Peavey is about as bad as that gets, at least before Behringer came along  ::))... I had studio owners cover up the brand/logo on their consoles with tape to avoid having that conversation with their studio customers.

=====

I recall a conversation I had with the Peavey company controller asking for an advertising budget for the big console. Mackie was spending $millions, my big console got $0.  The controller complained to me about how many consoles were being given away free to high profile endorsees. Giving away $10-20k SKUs kind of blows the ad budget, and I didn't even get to use them in ads. It turns out the puke in charge of artist relations was blowing my ad budget to make his job easier.  Of course people don't value free sh__ (like the free advice given here). Many of these free consoles ended up traded away or gifted to artist's friends and/or support staff.  Which further depressed the market for retail sales. >:(

JR
It's nice to be nice....

abbey road d enfer

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #52 on: June 22, 2020, 12:13:51 PM »
A Neve, compared to Doug Self's Soundcraft boards has really, really sh*tty crosstalk . 
AFAIK DS did not design "boards". He designed mixer parts, such as the active pan-pot, hybrid summing amps, PSU's.

Quote
But guys that play on records consistently want an old Neve desk to record through. How many great sounding records were recorded through a Peavey or Soundcraft?
Peavey I don't know, but Soundcraft, a lot, but those who did don't brag about it. It's just a matter of economics.
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
Star ground is for electricians.

cuelist

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #53 on: June 22, 2020, 12:24:56 PM »
Peavey I don't know, but Soundcraft, a lot, but those who did don't brag about it. It's just a matter of economics.

I would guess that Soundcraft over the years have outsold Neve by at least 100:1. Not an indication of their value but surely quite a few great sounding recordnings were made on Soundcraft consoles.  There is a huge amount of "brand snobbery" going on. So tiresome...

Mr K

cuelist

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #54 on: June 22, 2020, 02:52:58 PM »
Just enhances my feeling of a  diluted and dumbed down environment.  Selling to the masses is all well and good, but it also helped in the demise of an industry.

Soundcraft and many other manufacturers starting out in the early 1970's were able to build consoles to a much lower price point because they took a different manufacturing approach. Everything PCB mounted (no time consuming wiring looms), variable eq using pots rather than rotary switches (huge cost saving), betting on a (then) new and better grade of opamps (Texas TL07x, Signetics NE553x) rather than inhouse designed discrete amplifier modules and so on. Nothing of which would necessarily negatively impact sonic performance, if done right. However some took shortcuts such as using too small coupling capacitors, weak grounding and underrated power supplies.

But then you have the whole 'democratization' of record production. Starting with the 4-track Portastudio way back in the 70's and today just anyone can afford ProTools etc and create music on their laptop and publish online. Lots of junk being produced but a fair amount good stuff too - just harder to find.

I feel that recordnings from the 70's generally sound better but I think it's mostly about better prepared musicians play together (rather than track by track), less time being spent on "finessing" and a more 'live' approach.


Mr K

abbey road d enfer

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #55 on: June 22, 2020, 03:20:05 PM »
If anything, I detect a little reverse snobbery in that,  notwithstanding good musical and engineering talent, and a good space to record in, there should be nothing a big old Neve, Helios,  or API can bring to a recording that a Soundcraft, Peavey  can't yes?
I don't think I'm a snob, even in reverse, but who knows? Fools don't know they are fools, do they?  :)
I'm so used to use anything is put into my hands that I don't care much. The only thing that counts for me is the ergonomics, like how long will it take for me to route the mics to "tape", get the headphones working and get rolling.
As long as the signal path is reasonably clean I think it won't impact the final result, because after that, much of the quality is in the mix.
As always, IMO. (I should put that in my sig...)

Quote
If so, a helluva lot of folks have hold of the wrong end of the stick and reality. 
I certainly think that most SE's are too picky about their choice of gear. If they had mixed in Africa, Brazil and West Indies in the1980's, like I did they would know that their job is to make the show work, whatever the gear.
It reminds me of a time when lorry drivers in concert transportation companies did not want to drive anything else than a Volvo.  :o How ridiculous! A Volvo driver is like a Strat player, loses many job opportunities.

Quote
But I don't think what we have now produces better results. 
Define "better".  :D
« Last Edit: June 22, 2020, 03:29:54 PM by abbey road d enfer »
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
Star ground is for electricians.

abbey road d enfer

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #56 on: June 22, 2020, 03:34:14 PM »
By the way, this forum is GroupDIY.
 Going by some of the logic of others above,  almost everyone on here would be a snob.  Or is an idiot.  Or both.
Don't get it  :D
Neither do I...
Don't know what you're hinting at, cultural barrier probably.

[OT] Actually I am a tad bored at the fact that most of the posts are about rehashing circuits that were the result of the era's components (no good IC's) and the designers being trained in tubes and transformers.
For me DIY is much more than cloning, it's about designing and building things that can't be bought. I agree that starting with existing kits is a way to learn, but not an end. [/OT]
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
Star ground is for electricians.

john12ax7

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #57 on: June 22, 2020, 04:18:18 PM »
Musical sound isn't perfect.  instruments rely on distortion products to distinguish them from any other instrument.

This is an important point.  Instruments are already producing overtones.  Enhancing them a little can sometimes sound better.

Other forms of imperfections are much more objectionable.

cuelist

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #58 on: June 22, 2020, 04:30:03 PM »

[OT] Actually I am a tad bored at the fact that most of the posts are about rehashing circuits that were the result of the era's components (no good IC's) and the designers being trained in tubes and transformers.
For me DIY is much more than cloning, it's about designing and building things that can't be bought. I agree that starting with existing kits is a way to learn, but not an end. [/OT]

100% agree with that. There is so much imitation and so little innovation.
Mr K

JohnRoberts

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #59 on: June 22, 2020, 04:47:36 PM »
People DIY what they want but can't afford?  Little point in DIYing something generic that can be had off the shelf for peanuts. 
Back in the 70s I ran an audio kit business and that was the exact calculus, giving people products that they couldn't afford if they did the assembly labor themselves.  By the 80's machine assembly (automation) and offshore manufacturing (Japan) allowed a big brand to sell their version assembled (dbx NR) for my kit parts cost.... :o   

I read the writing on the wall and got a real job.    :(
Quote

Most folks on here probably aren't confident enough to "design" something afresh.
 
That doesn't stop some people. I will gladly help people seriously trying to stand on the shoulders of what went before to improve designs beyond that,  but people who just guess about circuits without doing any fundamental study is too time consuming.
Quote
Dunno?  What stuff do you think is missing that we could do here?

Nothing and anything.

JR

PS: There have been a handful of nice improvement designs done here over the years but not a lot. I too am bored by the clone du jour. BUT I am not the target audience, I just sweep up around here...
It's nice to be nice....


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
10425 Views
Last post February 14, 2014, 02:55:46 PM
by ravachol
4 Replies
3456 Views
Last post January 15, 2007, 02:25:09 PM
by lvg_stn
10 Replies
3175 Views
Last post February 14, 2007, 09:11:08 AM
by SSLtech
8 Replies
4324 Views
Last post July 02, 2015, 01:11:38 AM
by Youngwhisk