Music Player Network
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
S
MP Hall of Fame Member
OP Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
S
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
GM, \:\)

I was just wondering if anyone had one, but I guess I could check it out somehow. I thought I'd come to the master and see what he said. In fact, I'd trust your opinion more than I would my own. But I guess you have already spoken, sorry. \:\)

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
gm Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny B:
GM, \:\)

I was just wondering if anyone had one, but I guess I could check it out somehow. I thought I'd come to the master and see what he said. In fact, I'd trust your opinion more than I would my own. But I guess you have already spoken. Sorry. \:\)
No, man. It's up to you.

George


George Massenburg

http://www.massenburg.com
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
S
MP Hall of Fame Member
OP Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
S
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
Someone just pointed out to me what may be a glaring problem with some of this modeling stuff.

Let's say you are trying to model a vintage analogue box of some kind, to do so in some systems, you have to look at the box's output's after the signals have gone thru a degraded signal chain (converters, op amps, and whatnot) Thus, you could easily end up with data that models the additional bad parts of the signal chain which you needed to use to capture the data. It's an interesting and valid point.

I've also heard some other funny names being bandied about, such as "Focuswrong, Liquered Chunnel, and Fluid Fools." No comment there.

So if we are really honest, there ain't no substitute for the genuine article, and the real deal still rules.

I got this advice from that same "someone"(who shall remain nameless): "Just keep it simple with a good mic thru a good pre, good eq, and a good comp."

I guess it's always been that way and will continue to be that way for the foreseeable future. That is, if you want "That" sound. LOL

Thanks to all who posted.

And have a Merry X-mas. \:\)

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 148
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 148
I too would love to hear that I could have $1,000,000 worth of outboard for only a few hundred bucks. There always has and always will be people who make fantastic claims about how they can show you "the easy way". Whether it's a fast cash scam or a lose 100 lbs in one week infomercial, you have to be able to distinguish fact from fiction. The simple fact is that these emulation devices (even the ones which are usefull), do not perform like their "real" counterparts. Nor is there any sort of standard to compare them by. In my opinion these companies are taking advantage of young wide eyed kids with dreams of rock and roll. I hate to see kids who might be the future of recording, blow all their cash on junk. I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it if the companies wouldn't make the dishonest (unreallistic at best) claims and perhaps put that B.S. marketing money into R&D for something with a unique sound to take us into the next generation of gear.

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Once you use the real stuff (like George's mic pre's, and other's) I can see not being interested in these boxes that copy the sound of high end gear. I think it will appeal more to people who cannot afford to get several great mic pre's and their budget forces them to get it.

Overall they will be pleased with it, just as the users of UAD and Powercore are with the compressors that it comes with. With they rather have a real 1176 or LA2, of course they would. I am also convinced the real deal sounds better as well.

The big question is, is the dedicated high end units so much better than the copy boxes that it's sound is justify-able on cost over quality. If you have a pro studio, the answer is yes. If you are in your basement working for fun, well you have to make your own decision on that.

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 866
A
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
A
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally posted by System 8:
Once you use the real stuff (like George's mic pre's, and other's) I can see not being interested in these boxes that copy the sound of high end gear. I think it will appeal more to people who cannot afford to get several great mic pre's and their budget forces them to get it.
System 8,

While I agree greatly with you on the fact that "Once you use the real stuff"...I..eer would like to turn the thing about "not beeing able to afford several great mic pres" around..!!

I think if one is serius about audio..Hmmm I can not see how one can " afford not to buy the highend stuff"..*S'

Kind regards

Peter


Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.>>S
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally posted by axis:
[QB
While I agree greatly with you on the fact that "Once you use the real stuff"...I..eer would like to turn the thing about "not beeing able to afford several great mic pres" around..!!

I think if one is serius about audio..Hmmm I can not see how one can " afford not to buy the highend stuff"..*S'

Kind regards

Peter[/QB]
I had a hard enough time getting my Langevin DVC without me wife knowing the full cost. Since Guitar Center had no interest for 16 months, I can swing the $150 a month payments with no interest. But unless I get customers coming in on a regular basis, I most likely will not be able to do a big purchase like that again. \:\(

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 168
F
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 168
Quote:
Overall they will be pleased with it, just as the users of UAD and Powercore are with the compressors that it comes with. With they rather have a real 1176 or LA2, of course they would. I am also convinced the real deal sounds better as well.
I am a happy owner of a stack of vintage gear.
I am also a happy owner of UAD-Card.

The bottom line is that the UAD 1176 and LA2 are some of the very best plugins available.
Every time I use them, I am not comparing them with the real stuff.

It is my guess that 99% of the users don't care if it sounds close to the original or not.
As long as these things sound better than other plugins, it will make people happy.

I agree that marketing is wrong/dishonest by selling them as perfect replicas.


Fredo Gevaert
Temple Of Tune
fredo@temple.be
http://www.temple.be
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
Quote:
Originally posted by patrox247:
I too would love to hear that I could have $1,000,000 worth of outboard for only a few hundred bucks. There always has and always will be people who make fantastic claims about how they can show you "the easy way". Whether it's a fast cash scam or a lose 100 lbs in one week infomercial, you have to be able to distinguish fact from fiction. The simple fact is that these emulation devices (even the ones which are usefull), do not perform like their "real" counterparts. Nor is there any sort of standard to compare them by. In my opinion these companies are taking advantage of young wide eyed kids with dreams of rock and roll. I hate to see kids who might be the future of recording, blow all their cash on junk. I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it if the companies wouldn't make the dishonest (unreallistic at best) claims and perhaps put that B.S. marketing money into R&D for something with a unique sound to take us into the next generation of gear.
It kills me to think of all the people slaving at whatever mcjob to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars, hard earned under usually quite degrading circumstances, on *expensive* knock-offs of what ought to be durable high-quality equipment. People going way into debt (no payments until 2006!) for mediocre ultimately disposable gear... and when they find out how they've been burnt, they will not be able to sell it for much and they won't likely be able to pursue worthwhile durable gear of lasting value.

Not to say anything in particular about the Liquid Channel, which I know little about, but all this *very expensive* compromised gear optomized mainly for marketing...


A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!

"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 93
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 93
I'd like to point out that convolution as a means of reproducing the transfer function of what happens to *sound* as it reflects off of a complex surface is more likely to be successful at reproducing that characteristic than reproducing a complex system that is interactive.

It would be akin to trying to model the ambience of a room whose walls are changing dimension, texture and contour constantly and interdependently. Walls are immobile as is their construction. Parts of a circuit are effectively dependent on each other to determine their state, there's the hysteresis of the whole as well as the individual components to take into account. Impulse convolution can't do that by it's very nature.

Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 107
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 107
Having given it further thought, I'm confident that Moore's law will prevail within a relatively short period of time, therefore making the mips argument a non-issue with regards to actually having the processing power available to accurately replicate analogue behaviour.

Jim Novak wrote:
Quote:

I'd like to point out that convolution as a means of reproducing the transfer function of what happens to *sound* as it reflects off of a complex surface is more likely to be successful at reproducing that characteristic than reproducing a complex system that is interactive.

It would be akin to trying to model the ambience of a room whose walls are changing dimension, texture and contour constantly and interdependently. Walls are immobile as is their construction. Parts of a circuit are effectively dependent on each other to determine their state, there's the hysteresis of the whole as well as the individual components to take into account. Impulse convolution can't do that by it's very nature.
Thing is, if you take the above points into consideration, the code required may have to be so complex that one could argue it could be more commercially prudent for a company to build a unit from a bunch of coils and transistors...

Regards,
Justin

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
gm Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
Ray Kurzweil presented this at the Heyser Lecture at the last AES. I don't agree with all of his conclusions (spiritual? give me a break) but his numbers expressing how evolution in technology is speeding up are pretty clear.

KurzweilAI Web page (www.kurzweilAI.net)

Just to reiterate: I'm completely convinced with convolution as a methodology, and an increasingly useful tool given the extraordinary power that's becoming available. I have a very hard time believing the more extraordinary claims make for the Liquid Channel, especially for the modeling of dynamic processes.

George


George Massenburg

http://www.massenburg.com
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 440
E
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 440
George,

I think it would be nearly impossible to model any of the more sophisticated analog circuits. I say that because I have used a great many of the emulations, and while they can be quite useful, thinking that they are the same would be a big mistake.

I always keep in mind how hard it is to reset a gml eq and comp to sound the same during a mix recall. Even with the same units and very accurate notes, it's nearly impossible to get it exactly the same next time around. It seems there is an infinite amount of variety available between the tolerance of the pots and the interrelationships that are created inside the devices. It would be very hard to model that because nothing happens in isolation. EVERYTHING is interrelated and nothing is set exactly like you think it is because you can't trust the paint.

Plugins are useful. Good sounds can be gotten from them and they will keep getting better. I am pretty bored with most of the emulations that I have used. Can't we just get some original new stuff that sounds great?

Steve

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
S
MP Hall of Fame Member
OP Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
S
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,836
Well the AI and Expert System guys have been hard at work over the last 25 years or so, they have made some significant inroads. So I would never go off and say it was impossible to do, difficult yes, not impossible. It's fun to future trip, but we have to come back down to reality and live in the "here and now" world of today.

And the current consensus seems to be that some claims are false and misleading marketing hype.

Convolution does seem to work well in modeling spaces like halls to do reverbs, but may not have reached its full potential as to other applications.

GM, thanks for the link to R.K's and J.L's articles. Zoo-heads often change the world don't they. Maybe we need more of them. \:\)

Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 334
B
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
B
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 334
With all this talk of the Sintefex / Focusrite collaboration on the Liquid project, I found a quote that is rather telling and somewhat amusing. While thumbing through my annual "Pro Sound News" calendar, I noticed that they have various quotes from different audio personalities scattered throughout the months. One of November's quotes is from Rob Jenkins of Focusrite. He says, "You can't simply make a model of a mic pre; it's too complex."

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 702
L
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
L
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 702
I would venture this in reference to the other part of the puzzle of the Focusrite, the input section which is doing the loading and transformer characteristics, etc. It is their claim that is what is unique to the Liquid Channel, using both of these technologies together. In the interest of pure science I will be very much interested in what this *combination* will yield.


Chris R. Gibson
aka Loopy C
Micworks
Ken Tamplin Mastering
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
gm Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
Quote:
Originally posted by blairl:
With all this talk of the Sintefex / Focusrite collaboration on the Liquid project, I found a quote that is rather telling and somewhat amusing. While thumbing through my annual "Pro Sound News" calendar, I noticed that they have various quotes from different audio personalities scattered throughout the months. One of November's quotes is from Rob Jenkins of Focusrite. He says, "You can't simply make a model of a mic pre; it's too complex."
I will send this immediately to my old, old friend Phil Dudderidge. He and I don't see eye to eye on this, to say the least.

George


George Massenburg

http://www.massenburg.com
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7
Quote:

You say that plugins and emulation are "close enough for people to buy" but sales figures would indicate otherwise. People are not buying music as much as they used to.
It seems that in the UK they are buying more albums than ever:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3391979.stm

Back to the topic: why don't plugin developers spend more time on NEW sounds and NEW possibilities instead of trying to recreate vintage glories? I know there are wonderful "preamp sounds" out there waiting to be invented, but too much time is wasted recreating the sounds of the past.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE vintage gear. But slavishly copying it as best one can is NOT the way forward. Modern technology is wonderful. Please developers - USE IT!

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 479
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 479
You probably can't make an exact model of a particular room with a digital reverb either. But it's still probably "CLOSE" enough to be useable. I am sure that most everyone here has used a digital reverb/ Amp Farm (or something similar) at some point. I really think that's the point that people are missing it may not be exact BUT it's still usable.

Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  gm 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5