signaltonoize.com » Analysis

480L or LX 480

rhythminmind — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 23:59:53 +0000

Well RELAB DEVELOPMENT has changed the view of ITB verb with some great creations like X-verb & now the LX 480.

Is A or B the hardware? You decide. (Answer @ bottom of the post)

Update : FYI – this is a preliminary BETA test comparison. I’ll be conducting additional comparisons shortly as CODE optimizations occur.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll. Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll. 480L or LX 480 by Rhythm In Mind

———————————————————————————————-

Part Two

Additional Set/Poll created from the latest version of the LX 480 containing more authentic/improved parameter values in relation to the hardware.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

480L or LX 480 Part Two by Rhythm In Mind

————————————————————————————————————————————-

Answer (Read Right to Left) = L084 erawdraH = .B / nigulP XL084 = .A

Polls often change once people know the answer. I’ve captured a screenshot of the polls pre reveal & the project window.

dlM sixtyfive & DBX 165a comparison.

rhythminmind — Tue, 11 May 2010 20:03:14 +0000

I’ve had all of just a single morning with the SixtyFive & i’m impressed.
Is it “exactly” the same as the hardware?, no.
Is it a great sounding compressor with the DBX vibe?, yes for sure. With it’s feature set & sound I highly recommend & the price makes it a no brainer.

I’ve upload a few quick comparison files. AUTO = AUTO setting. MAN = Manual settings

I’ve also included the blind test files from Mr. de la Mancha himself
“you get the dry audio first, then 2 wet samples, one is the hardware dbx165A, the other the software sixtyfive (not necessarily in that order) I’d be really interested to see how you think they compare. Can you tell which is the hardware?”

dlM sixtyfive & DBX 165a comparison. by Rhythm In Mind

Native Instruments FM8 vs Hardware FM operator synth the TX-802 (rack version of the DX7mkII)

rhythminmind — Sun, 02 May 2010 08:46:19 +0000

What happens when you record the output of the TX-802 & the FM8 playing the same sysex patch?

A small comparison between modern & classic FM synthesis.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Native Instruments FM8 vs Hardware FM operator synth the TX-802 (rack version of the DX7mkII) by Rhythm In Mind

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Test info -

Exact patch & midi file used for both sources
Silence trimmed tops & tails
Level normalization
24/48 .wav Source file download

PCM 90 / PCM Native comparison

rhythminmind — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:18:58 +0000

My curiosity built up enough to run a native bundle vs hardware box comparison. Out of the 70, 300, 480, & 80/90′s I have available the 90 is the closest unit I have at hand to this native lineage. It’s also the box that would get replaced 1st. I did a rough numerical parameter match just to see how close it came without further tweaking. This is the result.

PCM 90 / PCM Native comparison by Rhythm In Mind

Let there be noise.

rhythminmind — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:47:20 +0000

Having calibrated utility & test files is a must for any audio engineer. The corner stone being pink noise. I have found most DAW to be severely lacking in this area. After much frustration with Protools incorrectly calibrated “Pink” from it’s built in signal generator. I’ve captured 45 sec of full range -20 ref 0vu true random pink noise from a Dolby SDU4.

Let there be noise. by Rhythm In Mind

Red Type B / R8 vs AKG C 414 B-ULS

rhythminmind — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:47:22 +0000

After recently acquiring a Red Type B / R8 I wanted to compare it’s sound to the ole faithful 414. I also wanted to compare the mics on different sources, that gives this drummer an excuse to noodle around on instruments I have no business otherwise touching . So keep that in mind while listening to these. I find I prefer the RED overall. It’s a brighter mic. The 414 was darker in color with a greater Low end/Low Mid response.

I kept the mic positioning as balanced as possible.

Signal chain = Mic – Hardy M1 – DomII – DAW. Dry recording/No EQ.

Red Type B / R8 vs AKG C 414 B-ULS by Rhythm In Mind

X-Verb Lexicon inspired?

rhythminmind — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:35:59 +0000

While demoing the SSL Duende X-verb I noticed the preset names seemed very familiar. I noticed the similarity to the Lexicon gear that i’m used to dealing with. That got my curiosity churning. Time for a comparison I say. I pulled up some multitrack drum noodling & a verb bus comparing both the X-verb & Lexicon m300. The result? It’s now of my opinion the X-verb team was influenced if not down right trying to replace the classic Lexicon hardware we know.

For the comparison I pulled up similar named presets on both the X-verb/ m300 & recorded the results @ 24/48.

MP3 Examples -

300 – Live Drum Room 300 – Live Drum Room
X – Live Drum Room X – Live Drum Room

300 Studio A 300 Studio A
X – Studio A X – Studio A

300 – Small hall 300 – Small hall
X – Small hall X – Small hall

300 – Rich Plate 300 – Rich Plate
X – Rich Plate X – Rich Plate

300 – rehearsal room 300 – rehearsal room
X – rehearsal room X – rehearsal room

300 – large hall 300 – large hall
X – large hall X – large hall

300 – Hanger 300 – Hanger
X – Hanger X – Hanger

300 – Glossy Plate 300 – Glossy Plate
X – Glossy Plate X – Glossy Plate

300 – Deep End 300 – Deep End
X – Deep Space X – Deep Space

300 – Dance Hall 300 – Dance Hall
X – Dance Hall X – Dance Hall

300 – Church 300 – Church
X – gothic Church X – gothic Church

300 – chamber 300 – chamber
X – Natural chamber X – Natural chamber

300 – Brick Wall 300 – Brick Wall
X – Brick Wall X – Brick Wall

Rough manual settings match -

300m 300m
Xm Xm

pcm70 pcm70
x70 x70

After spending sometime with the inner control of X-Verb I feel one can re-create all of the “magic” of the hardware we have come to expect. I didn’t find a “hole/limitation” of control or feature set. Good stuff.

original drum noodle. 24/48 .wav drum-noodle.wav

3 on 3 – Hardware or Plugin? (Reverb Shootout)

rhythminmind — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:33:19 +0000

I have processed some drum noodling with 3 highend hardware reverbs & 3 algorithm based plugin verbs. Are you able to tell the hardware from the plugin? In each section three examples are processed with hardware, three are processed with plugins.

Hardware = Lexicon m300, Lexicon PCM 70, & TC M5000

Plugins = CSR , Sonitus Reverb, & Fabrik R Studio

Hall Presets

verb test, 1a (5410) verb test, 1a (5410)
verb test, 2a (5411) verb test, 2a (5411)
verb test, 3a (5412) verb test, 3a (5412)
verb test, 4a (5413) verb test, 4a (5413)
verb test, 5a (5414) verb test, 5a (5414)
verb test, 6a (5415) verb test, 6a (5415)

Room Presets

verb test, 1b (5416) verb test, 1b (5416)
verb test, 2b (5417) verb test, 2b (5417)
verb test, 3b (5418) verb test, 3b (5418)
verb test, 4b (5419) verb test, 4b (5419)
verb test, 5b (5420) verb test, 5b (5420)
verb test, 6b (5421) verb test, 6b (5421)

Phase null in Sonar How-To

rhythminmind — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:14:18 +0000

Video displaying how to setup a phase cancellation test in Sonar.

Sonar Null – Video – null.wmv

Duende Ver 3 / Ver 2 Signal analysis

rhythminmind — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:04:19 +0000

Signal analysis testing the differences between the SSL Duende Ver 3 & 2 software.

Bus Compressor

Summary

Test	BC 2.57	BC 3.00
Frequency response, dB:	+0.81, -0.96	+1.61, -1.59
Noise level, dB (A):	-144.8	-144.4
Dynamic range, dB (A):	130.2	129.6
THD, %:	0.157	0.277
IMD + Noise, %:	1.965	3.622
Stereo crosstalk, dB:	-146.3	-144.3

Frequency response

Noise level

Dynamic range

THD + Noise (at -3 dB FS)

Intermodulation distortion

———————————————————————————————

Channel Strip

Summary

Channel Strip	CS 2.57	CS 3.00
Frequency response, dB:	+2.24, -1.72	+2.24, -1.72
Noise level, dB (A):	-144.5	-144.5
Dynamic range, dB (A):	133.1	133.1
THD, %:	0.0090	0.0089
IMD + Noise, %:	0.685	0.685
Stereo crosstalk, dB:	-151.2	-151.6

Frequency response

Noise level

Dynamic range

THD + Noise (at -3 dB FS)

Intermodulation distortion

This report was generated by RightMark Audio Analyzer 6.0

Moog Voyager / Minimonsta comparison

rhythminmind — Mon, 25 May 2009 04:54:07 +0000

Out of nothing more then curiosity I wanted to know the fundamental differences between the Moog Voyager & Minimonsta. The filter is obvious so I didn’t even want to have that in the equation. I wanted to look at the raw building blocks, the oscillator waveforms. These are my results.
FYI – Download the uncompressed .wavs for proper comparison.

Moog Voyager / Minimonsta comparison by Rhythm In Mind

Visuals

Voyager-Saw

Minimonsta -Saw

——————————————————————————————————-

Voyager-tri

Minimonsta-tri

——————————————————————————————————-

Voyager-Square

Minimonsta -Square

_______________________________________________________________________________

The original test has the filters set to wide open on both synths. I don’t think the original ever fully takes the filter out of the picture. So with some further knob twiddling I have found if you add a little resonance on the voyager the wave shapes get pretty damn close. I’m thinking the voyager just has a wider filter range.

Voyager Saw + filter res

Voyager Square + filter res

Compressor Examples, Tests, & Comparisons.

rhythminmind — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:54:42 +0000

I often find myself comparing/testing my arsenal of compressors of both hardware & plugins to find just the right tool for the sound. I have decided to organize an ever-growing collective pool of these examples as i create them. The intention is to have a audible reference of the different compressor characteristics.

For those that want to contribute, the more the better. Upload a before & after examples of the compressor being used. Or download my raw wav files & contribute to the list. Feel free to upload the examples into my drop box & I’ll post the results.

Upload

Drum Bus Comp Comparisons

No buss compression MP3 No buss compression MP3
No buss compression WAV
SSl Duende Listen Mic Comp SSl Duende Listen Mic Comp
SSL Duende Bus Comp.wav
SSL Duende Bus Comp.mp3 SSL Duende Bus Comp.mp3
UAD SSL Bus Comp.wav
UAD SSL Bus Comp.mp3 UAD SSL Bus Comp.mp3
WAVES SSL Bus Comp.wav
WAVES SSL Bus Comp.mp3 WAVES SSL Bus Comp.mp3
SSL Duende Channel Strip Comp SSL Duende Channel Strip Comp
URS 1975 URS 1975
URS CSP URS CSP
emi TG 12413 plugin emi TG 12413 plugin
FMR RNLA FMR RNLA

I usually use parallel compression so the listen mic & X-Comp are my most used for that task.

———————————————————————————————————————————-

Track Compression for Kick, Snare, & synth Bass

compressor-comparison-kick-raw-189.mp3 compressor-comparison-kick-raw-189.mp3
compressor-comparison-kick-raw-189.wav
compressor-comparison-snare-raw-190.mp3 compressor-comparison-snare-raw-190.mp3
compressor-comparison-snare-raw-190.wav
compressor-comparison-synth-bass-raw-191.mp3 compressor-comparison-synth-bass-raw-191.mp3
compressor-comparison-synth-bass-raw-191.wav

DBX 165a

compressor-comparison-dbx-165a-kick-196.mp3 compressor-comparison-dbx-165a-kick-196.mp3
compressor-comparison-dbx-165a-snare-197.mp3 compressor-comparison-dbx-165a-snare-197.mp3
compressor-comparison-dbx-165a-synth-bass-195.mp3 compressor-comparison-dbx-165a-synth-bass-195.mp3

DBX 903
903-kick.wav
903-kick.mp3 903-kick.mp3
903-snare.wav
903-snare.mp3 903-snare.mp3
903-synth-bass.wav
903-synth-bass.mp3 903-synth-bass.mp3

DBX 160X
dbx-comparison-dbx-160x-kick.wav
dbx-comparison-dbx-160x-kick.mp3 dbx-comparison-dbx-160x-kick.mp3
dbx-comparison-dbx-160x-snare.wav
dbx-comparison-dbx-160x-snare.mp3 dbx-comparison-dbx-160x-snare.mp3
dbx-comparison-dbx-160x-synth-bass.wav
dbx-comparison-dbx-160x-synth-bass.mp3 dbx-comparison-dbx-160x-synth-bass.mp3

DBX 166 blackface

compressor-comparison-dbx-166-kick-193.mp3 compressor-comparison-dbx-166-kick-193.mp3
compressor-comparison-dbx-166-snare-192.mp3 compressor-comparison-dbx-166-snare-192.mp3
compressor-comparison-dbx-166-synth-bass-194.mp3 compressor-comparison-dbx-166-synth-bass-194.mp3

DBX 586

compressor-comparison-dbx-586-kick-198.mp3 compressor-comparison-dbx-586-kick-198.mp3
compressor-comparison-dbx-586-snare-199.mp3 compressor-comparison-dbx-586-snare-199.mp3
compressor-comparison-dbx-586-synth-bass-200.mp3 compressor-comparison-dbx-586-synth-bass-200.mp3

Duende Channel comp

kick-duende.wav
kick-duende.mp3 kick-duende.mp3
snare-duende.wav
snare-duende.mp3 snare-duende.mp3
compressor-comparison-duende-channel-comp-synth-bass-209.mp3 compressor-comparison-duende-channel-comp-synth-bass-209.mp3

UAD SSL Channel comp

uad_kick.wav
uad_kick.mp3 uad_kick.mp3
uad_snare.wav
uad_snare.mp3 uad_snare.mp3

FMR RNLA

compressor-comparison-rnla-kick-204.mp3 compressor-comparison-rnla-kick-204.mp3
compressor-comparison-rnla-snare-205.mp3 compressor-comparison-rnla-snare-205.mp3
compressor-comparison-rnla-synth-bass-206.mp3 compressor-comparison-rnla-synth-bass-206.mp3

URS 1970

compressor-comparison-urs-1970-kick-210.mp3 compressor-comparison-urs-1970-kick-210.mp3
compressor-comparison-urs-1970-snare-211.mp3 compressor-comparison-urs-1970-snare-211.mp3
compressor-comparison-urs-1970-synth-bass-212.mp3 compressor-comparison-urs-1970-synth-bass-212.mp3

URS 1975

compressor-comparison-urs-1975-kick-213.mp3 compressor-comparison-urs-1975-kick-213.mp3
compressor-comparison-urs-1975-snare-214.mp3 compressor-comparison-urs-1975-snare-214.mp3
compressor-comparison-urs-1975-synth-bass-215.mp3 compressor-comparison-urs-1975-synth-bass-215.mp3

URS 1980

compressor-comparison-urs-1980-kick-216.mp3 compressor-comparison-urs-1980-kick-216.mp3
compressor-comparison-urs-1980-snare-217.mp3 compressor-comparison-urs-1980-snare-217.mp3
compressor-comparison-urs-1980-synth-bass-218.mp3 compressor-comparison-urs-1980-synth-bass-218.mp3

AM-Track

compressor-comparison-am-track-kick-219.mp3 compressor-comparison-am-track-kick-219.mp3
compressor-comparison-am-track-snare-220.mp3 compressor-comparison-am-track-snare-220.mp3
compressor-comparison-am-track-synth-bass-221.mp3 compressor-comparison-am-track-synth-bass-221.mp3

———————————————————————————————————————————-

Digital EQ Fact & Myth.

rhythminmind — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:57:35 +0000

I’m going to make a broad statement that seems to cause some to fret.

All Digital Parametric EQ’s are the same.

Read the entire post to fully understand the statement.

Ok now time to explain.

I know your sitting there saying but hey my Waves , URS, Oxy, UAD, Vox, blah blah sound completely different. This is why. With emulation plugins you have EQ+X. X can = Saturation, bandwidth limits, softclips, & so on. Now take away X what do you have? The EQ algorithm.
Lets look at Digital EQ types.

1. Parametric/Series – “PEQ”.
(These are the most common track EQ’s, Most channelstrip EQ’s, Most Plugin EQ’s, Native DAW eq’s, it’s never ending. )

2. Parallel – More uncommon in the digital world. Algorithmix has one.

3. Linear phase – Mastering EQ

These 3 types will be different. But PEQ’s are the most commonly used/emulated.
You can take any respectable PEQ and create all of the curve/phase characteristics of any other digital PEQ. It is the “X” that is the variable. The Q & Gain numerical value settings are a developer decision. You can’t compare EQ’s by matching dials & numbers. You have to use analyzers & match curves.

Digital emulations for the most part are marketing hype. If you use a fully variable PEQ like the one that comes native with your host & saturation plugins/tools. You will be able to recreate just about any classic console EQ you have heard.

Don’t just take my word for it, listen to the developers.

Read this from Algorithmix

Quote:

The truth is that with a properly designed, fully parametric analytic PEQ, every amplitude and phase characteristic of any other equalizer setup can be recreated. Of course, the contribution of distortions to the specific sound of a particular analog equalizer caused by the respective electronics has to be considered. If the distortions are ‘good’, they may make certain applications sound better.

So spend your $ on the tools that actually make a difference.

Here is an EQ example.

Everyone likes null tests right =)

So I took two supposedly “drastically different classed” Digital parametric EQ’s.
The external DSP hosted SSL Duende X-EQ, & compared it with Sonars native Sonitus EQ. You can get them to null.

The test signal was pink noise, tone & a drum mix. FYI – Noise is far from lacking dynamics. It’s actually extremely dynamic. The full bandwidth signal gives the impression of a common static level. Use a bandpass & you will see how chaotically dynamic it is. Pink noise will stress any test much harder then a typical mastered music track. & yes it nulls with music as well.

This was the X-eq setup.

This is the Sonar EQ with the setting I tweaked to null.

To get the settings I panned the channels hard L&R and matched the frequency response. You can see the 2 overlapping lines. Blue = X-eq, Orange = Sonar. You can see single orange pixels if you look close.

This is a bunch of stereo image meters that show the lack of phase differences. I mean LACK of differences.

This is what happens if you bypass one of the EQ’s for comparison.

So whats this mean?

As I said I’ve found emulation plugins for the most part to be hype. But you might find the interface more creative, Or you might like the type of saturation the plugin uses in it’s design, Most don’t have a saturation stage.

All in all your better better off using a fully variable EQ & a saturater tool/plug-in.

But all is not lost if you have invested in a “vintage” plug-in bundle. Most plug-in bundles included compressors. Unlike EQ’s compressors come in many shapes and forms. & tools like the URS CSP with it’s input stage really can change a compressors quality/reaction.

In the end the quality variables are down to internal resolution, oversampling capabilities, & so on. There is no magic in the emulation.

—————

Other comparisons.

——————————————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————————————————————–

I decided to take it a step further.
How close could I match the waves SSL with analog on.
So instead of using sonar & my usual URS saturation I decided to try it with all native Ableton Live plugins. At 1st I was having a hell of a time trying to match the EQ Phase. That is until I turned off Live’s Hi quality EQ mode.
Live oversamples with Hi quality on.

Here are the EQ setups.

Frequency Response with saturation.

The left measures frequency differences & the right is phase. Not bad, it’s near mono. Pretty cool for completely different tools.