john12ax7

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #60 on: June 22, 2020, 05:19:04 PM »
100% agree with that. There is so much imitation and so little innovation.

Things posted are often taken and then mass produced by others for profit. So now the innovation happens behind closed doors.


john12ax7

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #61 on: June 22, 2020, 06:08:34 PM »
Not all recordings would benefit from this of course.  Sometimes you want absolute realism.

Interesting side note,  my favorite clean pre for realistic capture is Forssell.  It's a transformerless discrete jfet based design. It's not however ultra low distortion.  My guess is he traded a little harmonic distortion in order to minimize the more unmusical imperfections.  Fred has posted on here before,  would be interesting to hear his take on things.

Newmarket

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #62 on: June 22, 2020, 06:45:02 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?


A few interesting points here.  There's often a focus on mixing rather than tracking. I recall many years back talking with Cyril Jones of Raindirk when he was saying that people really liked his desks for tracking but the subsequent mixing would likely be on SSL / Neve etc - Automation etc - and that got the attention.
Also interested in what is the general opinion on Helios. Just because I met and dealt with Richard Swettenham a few times when he was 'babysitting' the assets of the never got to market Novation Digitally controlled Analogue desk post liquidation in Bristol (UK). I recall several anecdotes re Rolling Stones / Olympic Studios / Chris Blackwell.

JohnRoberts

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #63 on: June 22, 2020, 07:03:56 PM »
What's that like, a real job?  I've heard about them but...  ?    :D
it involves having a boss.....

 I quit my last real job when I was arguing with the man whose name was on all the buildings and my paycheck.  ::)  Now I work for myself and my boss is an ahole.
Quote
Seriously, John, Abbey - I hear what you guys say, I understand where you're coming from,  and apologise if I came across as rude.  Wasn't what I intended but reading back, I can see how it looks otherwise.
At the end of it, we all have a common, albeit nerdish, goal - the interest in and pursuit of audio excellence.   Whatever that means.

I stopped having, or even thinking I had, anything original to post on here years ago.  I'm still optimistic that there's a lot left to learn though.
no worries.

In my judgement we attained audio excellence years ago...  but better is always better even if not much.

JR
Don't only half-ass tune your drums. Visit https://circularscience.com to hear what properly "cleared" drums sound like.

fazer

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #64 on: June 22, 2020, 07:17:02 PM »
Quote
    I once watched Ken push up the faders on the desk - it was a master of an older recording -  make a couple of adjustments re. level and eq., and that was it.  10 minutes.
.

Who was the artist?

I’ve loved his work over the years.  Great artist.   That always helps.

fazer

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #65 on: June 22, 2020, 09:01:29 PM »
I think he (Scott) engineered  Birds of Fire
1973 studio album by Mahavishnu Orchestra.   That album especial “Birds of Fire,  song one. sounded great.

I’ll bet it had few overdubs.  I wish I was home I would look on the album.  Done At CBS New York and Trident London.   Nice rooms.

Maybe back to EQ design now.

fazer

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #66 on: June 23, 2020, 02:41:38 PM »
Quote
A lot of these subtleties seems more evident to me when comparing hardware to software on a live signal rather than in the box and looped back through the hardware. 


This is a very important point.   Once it’s captured it seems harder to hear uniqueness in the hardware versions.  It has an affect on the performer in the way they sing.  Or voice over for a spot.   

     

abbey road d enfer

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #67 on: June 23, 2020, 04:53:52 PM »
Dunno?  What stuff do you think is missing that we could do here?
There's not much left to invent in analog audio but I would encourage someone that thinks they would have a custom piece of gear based on what they think they need, instead of a servile copy of  brand X.
I may start working on Gold's request for a multi-band comp because it's exactly that: a new product based on existing building blocks and proven usability. https://groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=73604.msg956667#msg956667
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 #68 on: June 23, 2020, 05:59:01 PM »
There's not much left to invent in analog audio but I would encourage someone that thinks they would have a custom piece of gear based on what they think they need, instead of a servile copy of  brand X.
I may start working on Gold's request for a multi-band comp because it's exactly that: a new product based on existing building blocks and proven usability. https://groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=73604.msg956667#msg956667
multi-band comps are not exactly new either...

just combine crossovers with dynamics. Pick your tradeoffs.

JR
Don't only half-ass tune your drums. Visit https://circularscience.com to hear what properly "cleared" drums sound like.

ruairioflaherty

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #69 on: June 23, 2020, 06:40:43 PM »
I've never been fortunate enough to own a Masselec or GML EQ,  but digital emulations of this type of eq- what I've  considered 'corrective' type rather than 'enhancing' larger-than-life type -   seem to be pretty decent to me.  Others may disagree, dunno?

Owned a Maselec forever (and worked with Leif doing U.S. repairs) and had daily access to a GML for many years too.  I think your broad intuition is right, the closer to the hardware is to ideal (low distortion etc), the easier its behavior is to model. 

In reality both units deviate from the ideal a little, and then of course you have the UI - which is excellent on the Maselec and ....ahem....less so on the GML

Dynamic processes are much more challenging in digital, you're caught in a trade off between aliasing and the sound of mitigating techniques like oversampling (much less benign than vendors would have you believe).

And once we get into transformers and inductors I've yet to hear anything digital that survives detailed comparison.  Useful?  For sure, but the same as the hardware?  I've yet to hear that.




gyraf

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #70 on: June 24, 2020, 07:01:20 AM »
Agreed. It is this effect that we stretch ad absurdum in the G24 - most of what makes it so invisible while working is that variation in transformer loading almost completely mask out the first couple of dB's GR :-)

/Jakob E.
..note to self: don't let Harman run your company..

abbey road d enfer

Re: Analog EQs
« Reply #71 on: June 24, 2020, 07:48:56 AM »
Forgot: I already agreed earlier on with what Jakob wrote in this thread and wanted to add that, in my humble opinion, you  detect the same on the venerable LA-2A.   
The loading on the input transformer secondary at idle is about spot on for an HA-100 or A-10.  But the loading decreases when it's actively compressing.   This damps the transformer more and the response changes. 
Actually the loading varies from 41kohms to 34k - for an improbable 40dB of GR.
Does this signal a significant change in response?
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
Star ground is for electricians.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
9935 Views
Last post February 14, 2014, 02:55:46 PM
by ravachol
4 Replies
3222 Views
Last post January 15, 2007, 02:25:09 PM
by lvg_stn
10 Replies
2981 Views
Last post February 14, 2007, 09:11:08 AM
by SSLtech
8 Replies
4044 Views
Last post July 02, 2015, 01:11:38 AM
by Youngwhisk