BBE sonic maximizer software

[AliAlexandre]

Hi chaps, The Cakewalk site sells a soft version of BBE sonic maximizer. Anyone tried it? is it equal as the hardware version? I know it is based on the fact that frequencies don't travel same speed and that bass sometimes reaches theear later than high frequencies,( or the contrary? ) and it corrects that in order to make a mix sound more punchy and cohesive. I have some demos previously recorded on Cakewalk that are OK, but not as good as what I can do know, with better material, experience etc. The problem comes from the source itself, with instruments recorded at rather too low level, or with cheap microphones. Again, the demos are decent however. At this stage, I know the perfect solution would be re-recording the whole thing, but I don't have time for that, and I don't want to lose this first "drop" feeling that exists on them. Would the BBE be the saver? I actually already have the T-Racks. It embellishes things, but it is supposed to work on something already very good. Is it a good idea to spent again $99 for the BBe or can I do that with T-Racks? Thanks This message has been edited by AliAlexandre on 09-26-2001 at 08:55 AM

[Ethan Winer]

Ali, > I know it is based on the fact that frequencies don't travel same speed and that bass sometimes reaches the ear later than high frequencies < That's a load of nonsense. Such outright lying is the main reason I have no respect for BBE or their products. > The problem comes from the source itself, with instruments recorded at rather too low level, or with cheap microphones. < You can often fix these problems - use noise reduction software on hissy tracks, and EQ to tailor the frequency response. The BBE software or hardware will not "fix" anything, nor will it improve a track better than you could using regular EQ. --Ethan

[masternfool]

Ali, get the waves c4 demo.... free from "waves.com" it looks scarry at first but this thing is a killer!! 4 bands of comp/lim/eq/expansion/gain etc. be careful with your levels it will boost....Harry

[AliAlexandre]

Thanks for your kind answer. Seems you made me save $99 Regards Al

[vintagevibe]

Ethan Winer wrote: > I know it is based on the fact that frequencies don't travel same speed and that bass sometimes reaches the ear later than high frequencies < "That's a load of nonsense. Such outright lying is the main reason I have no respect for BBE or their products." Please explain this. Ethan Winer wrote: "The BBE software or hardware will not "fix" anything, nor will it improve a track better than you could using regular EQ." I've used one for years and this is simply not true. Although it's not needed nearly as much with digital recording the Sonic Maximizer (hardware version - never tried the software) will brighten and clarify a signal in a way that is not possible with EQ. I'm curious Ethan. How much have you used one to come to your opinion? AliAlexandre, Get the BBE at a store with a return policy and try it for your self. In my long experience withn Sonic Maximizers they can do exactly what you need. It's not the solution to all problems but I highly recomend you give it a try. This message has been edited by dino321 on 09-27-2001 at 08:58 AM

[Ethan Winer]

Dino, > Please explain this. Sure. When I auditioned the Sonic Maximizer (hardware) a few years ago, I clearly heard an increase in high frequencies. I think it was also "riding" the treble boost (like a multi-band compressor), though I can't swear to that. I also can't say for sure if it was generating high frequencies via distortion the way Aphex does. But there is no question that the "enhanced clarity" is created by manipulting the high end, much as you could do manually with an EQ or a multi-band compressor. What I resent so much about BBE is the outright lying. Aphex did that for many years when their Aural Exciter was first released in the late 70s. I remember a review in Recording Engineer/Producer magazine (now defunct) with a full page graph showing how the unit shifts the phase at different frequencies to create its "magic" effect. Years later Aphex finally admitted that all they really do is separate out the high frequencies, distort that, and then mix it back in with the original. There is plenty of nonsense that parades as fact in the audio world, and companies like BBE that create or perpetuate such nonsense to sell more products do the entire audio community a huge disservice. See my Audio Myths article on my webs site: [url=http://www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html]www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html[/url] > I've used one for years and this is simply not true. I won't dispute that a Sonic Maximizer, Aphex Aural Exciter, or any other such device can be useful. But I contend you can achieve pretty much the same results by applying 3-4 dB. of shelf treble boost with an EQ. Or EQ in conjunction with an analog tape simulator. Too many people buy a Sonic Maximizer thinking "[i]This[/i] is what I need to make my mixes sound more professional," and BBE is happy to stretch the truth and obfuscate the facts to appeal to their limited knowledge. --Ethan

[vintagevibe]

Ethan, Your explanation contains no actually proof other than your own subjective opinion. My opinion after many years of use is that is is definately not and eq. I have never been able to duplicate the Sonic Maximizer effect with an EQ although I have tried. A search on BBE on your site only returned retail outlets that sell them. Dean

[Ethan Winer]

Dino, > Your explanation contains no actually proof other than your own subjective opinion. < Proof of what? That the Sonic Maximzer does not work by manipulating the phase of audio? It surely does not! > My opinion after many years of use is that it is definately not an eq. I have never been able to duplicate the Sonic Maximizer effect with an EQ although I have tried. < That's why I added that it sounds like the highs are compressed separately from the rest (as in a multi-band compressor), and it may also add grunge in the same way an Aphex Aural Exciter does. And that's why I also said I won't dispute that it can be useful. Again, my real objection is the way BBE promotes this device, by counting on ignorance and distorting the facts. If they said, "The Sonic Maximizer makes your tracks sparkle by applying a level-dependant high-frequency boost, with an added touch of high frequency distortion" (or whatever) I would have no problem with them. But to say they can [i]restore[/i] clarity that is lost due to speaker time misalignment is an outright lie. > A search on BBE on your site only returned retail outlets that sell them. < I guess the free search engine I use also returns ads. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Just go to my magazine articles page at [url=http://www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html]www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html[/url] and then scroll down a bit until you find Dispelling Popular Audio Myths. It's the fourth article in the list. --Ethan

[not Cereal]

i think ethan's comments are well founded as i have found most if not all of his comments to be. that said, i use a bbe sonic maximizer for FOH. not every band, but a few. not only does it do something to the high end, it has a 'low contour' knob. i usually set the knobs (when i use the unit) to just barely a difference when switching to bypass/effect. i think the high end can get very harsh very fast if used too much, like a shelving eq into a compressor. the low end can get very muddy, thuddy, and rumbly if used to much; kind of like a 120-350hz boost into a compressor. these are not scientific observations, just my own. if i use the unit just barely adding something, sometimes it sounds good. sometimes not. i like it for what little it does. it does not fix anything, just adds a "sheen" to the mix. if you are on a daw, try t-racks for that extra edge. i think this is a GREAT application. NO voodoo involved, but a nasty challenge/response authorizing system. t-racks sounds like what you need. eq, comp, lim, saturation, clipping, all adjustable. i like it a lot better than waves c4; i dont use c4much anymore.

[vintagevibe]

Ethan, The proof on your web site is still dependant on your conjecture and does not convince me. How a Sonic Maximizer technically works, however, is much less important to me than the end result. Your dogmatic disdain for them does a disservice to others who may benefit from them IMO.

[chessparov]

AliAlexander, although I'm just a recording novice, I occasionally use my (outboard) bbe unit so here are a couple of observations; 1) You'd better have a good set of monitors because otherwise what sounds good on your system might not work as someone's car, home stereo's, etc. 2) My understanding is that the sonic maximizers work well for live work to "tweak" the sound system. 3) I read something by Craig Anderton where he said (to parphrase) sonic maximizers, exciters, etc., can contribute maybe around 5% to your overall sound. So you may want to modify your expectations or re-record.

[AliAlexandre]

Thanks for you various points of views which helped me indeed clarify the matter. Alex

[Alndln]

"Bass sometimes reaches the ear later than higher frequencies",an oughtright lie??I guess every nearfield monitor manufacturer has some explaining to do.

[DougP]

Not really relavent to the debate part of this thread, but to (sort of) answer the original question, I bought my BBE Sonic Maximizer from a guy who said he didn't need it anymore because he had plug-ins that worked just as well, although I have no idea whether or not they were the Cakewalk versions or not. Having said that, I haven't found the Sonic Maximizer to be all that useful for studio mixing, unless something was recorded badly to begin with (and I don't do "live" sound, so I don't have any experience in that application). It now sits in my home stereo rack, where it EXCELS at "un-muddying" multi-generational lo-fi audience recordings of live performances (I'll refrain from using the b-----g word here, but I recommend it to "tape trader" types every chance I get). It does a fantastic job of making those listenable (previously "lost" instruments become audible again etc.) in a way that merely boosting the treble eq would never do (had already tried that!), although it DOES boost treble, so you're still forced to make a choice between muddy sonics versus hissy, but more clear, ones. Multi-band phase shifting (not polarity reversal i.e. 180 degree phase shift!) and compression sound like plausible explanations to me, but I'm hardly an expert.

[Ethan Winer]

Dino, > The proof on your web site is still dependant on your conjecture and does not convince me. How a Sonic Maximizer technically works, however, is much less important to me than the end result. < It's not really a matter of "proof" of anything. The truth is such devices do not work by manipulating phase, even though they say they do. You are correct that how it works is of little relevance, as long as you are happy with the result. But if you look at Al's original post, he was under the illusion that the BBE works by correcting time delays. And that was what I addressed. > Your dogmatic disdain for them does a disservice to others who may benefit from them IMO. < Whatever floats your boat. I only call them as I see them. --Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Al, > "Bass sometimes reaches the ear later than higher frequencies", an oughtright lie?? I guess every nearfield monitor manufacturer has some explaining to do. < That's not really relevant to this discussion. And that's not what the Sonic Maximizer does anyway, no matter how many BBE ads you read to the contrary. If it does time-shift anything (I doubt it), that's not what I hear as the [i]primary[/i] effect. But you bring up a valid point. The reason tweeters are set back in relation to the woofer is to minimize cancellation of program material in the vicintity of the crossover point. If a note that's sounding is coming out of both the woofer and the tweeter, the two sources combine in the air in front of the speaker. And if the arrival times are not aligned the frequency response will suffer. But aligning the woofer and tweeter is the responsibility of the speaker manufacturer, not some add-on vendor! Further, and this is a big one, how many speakers use the same crossover frequency? If the BBE did attempt to delay the highs with respect to the lows, at what frequency would it cross? What slope (dB. per octave) would it use? How could it possibly compensate for different brands of speakers? And what happens when you play the music through a speaker that's already properly time-aligned? Wouldn't the BBE then make the problem worse? Again, it is the way BBE lies that really bothers me. There's enough misinformation in the pro audio community about how things really work, without BBE contributing to the confusion. --Ethan

[Alndln]

I thought that's what you meant.Obviously crossovers are designed to correct this whith different results.BBE's claim is another story all together.It seems the general concensus is that that the Sonic maximizer seems most useful in bringing out details in noisy tapes,maybe they should market it that way.

[Master Zap]

Although I agree with Ethan ( I dont think the BBE delays sheiit ) I think the REASONING behind it is that [i]psycho-acoustically[/i], you "hear" bass a bit later than treble... and shifting the bass slightly later will not be "audible". Example: A kickdrum is a "snap" and a "boom". If "Snap" and "Boom" comes at the SAME tiME it consumes all the available headroom. If you can delay "Boom" ever so slightly so it becomes a "snap" FOLLOWED by a "boom", the ear will "hear" the same thing, but it takes up less headroom. Anyway, wanna know what BLOWS ALL THESE "enhancers" OUT OF THE F-ING WATER!? I tell you. Our dear Moderator wrote it. [b]Q U A D R A F U Z Z ! ! ![/b] Quadrafuzz on the gentlest distorsion setting and judicious tinkering with the frequencies makes highs SIZZLE and lows THUNDER, creates PHATNESS like NOTHING I EVER TRIED. I master everything via Quadrafuzz these days. /Z