No problem. I will adapt to kindergarten standards.1wob2many wrote:We're all very sorry that KVR doesn't meet up to your high standards. We promise to try harder and hope that in time you'll come to forgive us.pascal020 wrote:This thread is flooding with fanboi and off-topic crap.
Are you sleeping mods?
Waves SSL E-Channel for just $29!
-
- KVRer
- 24 posts since 19 May, 2017
-
- KVRian
- 662 posts since 12 Jul, 2013
- KVRAF
- 4870 posts since 4 Aug, 2006 from Helsinki
How much did you think one could chat aboutkrabbencutter wrote:
"...its just $29!, wow, can you imagine, and even less if you... etc.".
I think the discourse has so far worderfully supported the topic.
- KVRAF
- 4427 posts since 15 Nov, 2006 from Hell
no, that's not a frequency response graph, that's a spectrogram of a sine sweep (so frequency plotted against time - hence not static). the bold pink line is the base (up then down, 0 to Niquist, default REAPER sine sweep JS effect), the green ones are harmonics, etc. i'm sure you know what spectrogram is. no harmonics in T-Racks, plus you can clearly see the antialiasing lowpass there (the sweep doesn't reach the very top end), but in Waves plugin you can see the sweep reaching the very top (so no filtering up to the Nyquist), and you can clearly see a (third-order) harmonic making past the spectrograph's gate (i think it was set at -100dB), although as i already pointed out, it's subtle.Compyfox wrote:At which frequency were you? You said "sweep", yet this image is obviously from a static position?Burillo wrote:actually, Waves SSL actually does model some kind of saturation (there's a third-order harmonic at around -80dB), and it does alias because of this. see this frequency sweep:
I'm not disregarding that this plugin aliases (should be easy to unveil with a sweep nearby the Nyquist frequency) - it is "old code" after all and oversampling technology has improved over the years. Just for the record.
that said, whether oversampling technology has improved over the years is irrelevant - it doesn't have any oversampling in the first place
I don't know what to write here that won't be censored, as I can only speak in profanity.
-
- KVRAF
- 14656 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
I'm... er... "aware" of what a Spectogram is. Guess I misinterpreted that one with the frequency analysis for a moment...
-
- KVRist
- 275 posts since 7 Apr, 2015
-
- KVRAF
- 15507 posts since 13 Oct, 2009
I was going to post this earlier, but it's a little slow. Whatever differences are there, it's certainly not night and day to me.
-
simon.a.billington simon.a.billington https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=341278
- KVRAF
- 2365 posts since 12 Nov, 2014
To be honest, I find the NLS a good companion for their SSL. It means you're not using the same "tone" on everything, as Andrew Scheps like to word it. Which also means it doesn't lead to other potential issues.
- KVRAF
- 4870 posts since 4 Aug, 2006 from Helsinki
These kind of "comparisons" are more or less useless, the case material here is mainly a dull drumloop. How could you hear differencies of the fine tone colors, frequencies etc. No adjustions done during the "test". In addition to that, I bet most of the people listen this with computer speakers.
On the other hand, that's how the music is often consumpted today, which leads to the question how much more important is how you use your tools, how you put your sounds together (how much less do we debate of that),
the role of a good source material, a good mix, and a good mastering. Nice tools are good to have, but more than half of the hype is just software developers hype$busibess.
How useful null test etc. theoretical measurements with audio spectrometers etc. are in the big picture - how much the music maker/producer is worth concentrating on these (othet than an intellectual excercise).
-
- KVRist
- 275 posts since 7 Apr, 2015
Highettosynth wrote:I was going to post this earlier, but it's a little slow. Whatever differences are there, it's certainly not night and day to me.
It depends on your listening equipment and room.
The best way to make a decision is to take demo of Acustica Audio Sand plugin, and Waves E/Channel demo.
http://www.acustica-audio.com/index.php ... Itemid=189
- KVRAF
- 2110 posts since 5 Oct, 2015 from Swedish / Living in Hong Kong
No channel strip in the world is going to make my music sound worse or better. In the end it's up to the skills of the user ...as always. I actually wish there were a channel strip that you can just slap on to your track, without any tweaking, and by magic make the track sound wonderful. :p
Win 10 -64bit, CPU i7-7700K, 32Gb, Focusrite 2i2, FL-studio 20, Studio One 4, Reason 10
- KVRian
- 714 posts since 22 Nov, 2016 from Tokyo, Japan
Neutron supposedly does thatATN69 wrote:No channel strip in the world is going to make my music sound worse or better. In the end it's up to the skills of the user ...as always. I actually wish there were a channel strip that you can just slap on to your track, without any tweaking, and by magic make the track sound wonderful. :p
- KVRAF
- 2110 posts since 5 Oct, 2015 from Swedish / Living in Hong Kong
Yeah, I tried the demo and it sure can give guidance and help, but it still needs some manual tweaking to get it right.shidostrife wrote:Neutron supposedly does thatATN69 wrote:No channel strip in the world is going to make my music sound worse or better. In the end it's up to the skills of the user ...as always. I actually wish there were a channel strip that you can just slap on to your track, without any tweaking, and by magic make the track sound wonderful. :p
Win 10 -64bit, CPU i7-7700K, 32Gb, Focusrite 2i2, FL-studio 20, Studio One 4, Reason 10
- KVRian
- 1091 posts since 8 Feb, 2012 from South - Africa
Proof is always better than theory. Here are some pics of a real m6 silicon steel transformer that is in my diy re-amp box. All transformers will have somewhat similar responses, whether it be silicon steel, permalloy or radio-metal. They would have little to none saturation @1kHz compared to 50Hz. The 3rd Harmonic usually dominates.Compyfox wrote:IMO 50Hz in plugin form usually gives no suitable results, but that doesn't mean that you can't measure it regardless.Ichad.c wrote:A better test for analog modelling(for filters not comps) is too test if the transformers are modeled or not. First test 1kHz for distortion, then test 50Hz, if the transformers are modeled, there will be more distortion @50Hz.
where to host images
Cheers