Any science to explain the “weight” or “3D depth” of hardware audio vs software that some people claim?

DSP, Plugin and Host development discussion.
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

zerocrossing wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:29 pm
Kongru wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:28 pm The weight comes from the fact that analog waves weigh more than digital ones :shrug:
I just lugged my all digital GEM S2 to the repair shop, and that sucker was pretty damn heavy.
the weight is added by the dac ;)

Post

perpetual3 wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:23 pmWe’re talking about ITB...
... Just adding little differences can create a large impact.
What has any of that got to do with answering the original question?
NOVAkILL : Asus RoG Flow Z13, Core i9, 16GB RAM, Win11 | EVO 16 | Studio One | bx_oberhausen, GR-8, JP6K, Union, Hexeract, Olga, TRK-01, SEM, BA-1, Thorn, Prestige, Spire, Legend-HZ, ANA-2, VG Iron 2 | Uno Pro, Rocket.

Post

1. One of the reason why analog hardware (e.g. mixer channels, tape) sounds the way it does (“weight, 3D depth”) is via nonlinearities and differences between channels (such as right and left channels), for example EQ and saturation/distortion.

2. I explained a way of doing that in the DAW. It won’t necessarily emulate an existing product, if it can emulate the effect, I.e. creating 3D weight.

3. You dismissed the idea because you incorrectly asserted that it wouldn’t work with a mono synth.

4. I explained how to it could work with a mono synth.

Post

Bump this interesting topic.

I'd not just ask what is depth or weight but also what is science. Seems so clear but isn't.

How ever - the term Hardware and the following holistic approach are the main problem here. We have many different pieces of Hardware that are made of often unique elements (e.g. z-plane filters, rvrb algos, ...).

The sound WE Gear is the sum of its elements + uncontrolled factors (listening Environment, ... ).

If you look closer you'll quickly learn that certain characteristics of the hardware make a lot of its sound (waveform, filter, sample rate, ...) as die the techniques used for sound design. And the sounddesigner himself as Rob Papens or Eric Persing May prove with their vsts.

Buzzwords: saturation, dynamic range, loudness, bandwidth, frequency balance, bit depth + sample rate, mixing, bus architecture, layering, ....

And smearing for sure. You'll have to smear all the makeup all over that Divas face and make her do things she's not made for 😂

Post

Stirring muddy water :shrug:
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Image
My MusicCalc is served over https!!

Post

BertKoor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:57 am Stirring muddy water :shrug:
Not really. Answer: non linearities, slight differences between L/R channels.

Post

perpetual3 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:52 pm
BertKoor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:57 am Stirring muddy water :shrug:
Not really. Answer: non linearities, slight differences between L/R channels.
References to the actual science for that please.
my other modular synth is a bugbrand

Post

whyterabbyt wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:49 pm
perpetual3 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:52 pm
BertKoor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:57 am Stirring muddy water :shrug:
Not really. Answer: non linearities, slight differences between L/R channels.
References to the actual science for that please.
There are lots of papers. Google Scholar.

Post

perpetual3 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:13 pm
whyterabbyt wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:49 pm
perpetual3 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:52 pm
BertKoor wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:57 am Stirring muddy water :shrug:
Not really. Answer: non linearities, slight differences between L/R channels.
References to the actual science for that please.
There are lots of papers. Google Scholar.
That's not how it works. If you want to make a claim based on actual science, you need to provide some actual science (eg. specific papers) as reference, so that other can then evaluate whether or not those specific papers are actually credible and reproducible.

Post

Oh no you don't, KVR
I'm not getting roped in to reading all that mess
Unless there were funny bits. Were there funny bits?
Don't feed the gators,y'all
https://m.soundcloud.com/tonedeadj

Post

perpetual3 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:13 pm There are lots of papers.
Should be easy for you then. Just a couple will do.
my other modular synth is a bugbrand

Post

More weight and 3D stuff is often also attributed to digital hardware though, even new ones with pretty good DAC.
My guess is then it just might have to do with the fact, that it got recorded / went through actual amps inbetween. Maybe even through a mixer with hot settings. Otherwise it makes no sense. Oh and placebo could also be a factor, of course.

At least i seem to remember when the Virus TI came out, that some people claimed that it sounded lame in comparison through USB or S/PDIF compared to it's analog outs.
The GAS is always greener on the other side!

Post

FapFilter wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:48 pm Oh and placebo could also be a factor, of course.
Confirmation bias is so strong that any audio study that doesn't involve some sort of blind testing is completely worthless. In fact it's so strong that if you tell people you're testing hardware vs. software, you're probably not going to get useful results, because people are just trying to figure out which sample is the one they already have decided they prefer.

Post

I know too well...
It happens every now and then when i'm EQing when i realize that the plugin has been bypassed. It usually “just“ takes a few moments until i realize, but for a while i was confident i actually heard the changes :oops:
The GAS is always greener on the other side!

Post

Just take the time to compare with Hardware and/or HW recordings and you´ll quickly realize that the placebo discussion might result from a lack of sensitivity.

I have bever heard "that VST high freuqency foggy noise" from a piece of hardware ort a HW sample (And I don´t (just) mean aliasing). Just the opposite. Even the Virus A (1997) "shines" with a well defined, vivid high frequency spectrum.

But I´d like to push the discussion into an other doirection. We should better focus on aspects like weight. Or better 3D - what is one of the most interesting topics imho. Stereo dimension + what you might also call "presence".

As far as I know there is "physically" no "3D room" or measure. Right?

Post Reply

Return to “DSP and Plugin Development”