Analogue sounds warmer

[davepermen]

I agree that I can't.. !
but that wasn't my argument to begin with

well, sort of, it is your argument you can't hear it, but still, somehow, you think you can detect it. even while it can be proven to not be true.

oh, and about all the spiritual talk. the "frequencies of warmth" you talk about are about as useful as homeopathic sleep pills: http://www.ted.com/talks/james_randi.html

[3dot...]

but I'll do it for the sake of science...

[davepermen]

but I'll do it for the sake of science...

OFF TO MYTHBUSTERS!!!!

they test it, and in the end they blow everything up. it'll be AWESOME!!

[3dot...]

but I'll do it for the sake of science...

OFF TO MYTHBUSTERS!!!!

they test it, and in the end they blow everything up. it'll be AWESOME!!

that's a great idea !!
but..
how will they test it ... if it's a subconscious process ?!

[davepermen]

that's a great idea !!
but..
how will they test it ... if it's a subconscious process ?!

put you into a room, locked in, silent (one of those silent rooms, they're awesome anyways), and give you 4 buttons. when ever you think you hear nothing, you press the blue one. when you hear the sine, press the green one. square, the yellow one. once you went crazy, you can blow the room up with the red one, and we can check if we can hear the explosion of a completely silenced room..

(and watch the video link above.. it's fun )

[3dot...]

but that will test your auditory senses..
and besides a pure sine at 25Khz probly doesn't exist in nature..
we'll have to devise a better one..
one to do with 'sensations'/ 'feelings'...

yeah.. anechoic rooms are crazy.. it's amazing how much silence HURTS !
I've seen this video.. but this can work both ways..
very funny btw...

very hard not to make assumptions.. but assumptions are the child of imagination.. and without that.. we're fucked...

[davepermen]

but that will test your auditory senses..
and besides a pure sine at 25Khz probly doesn't exist in nature..
we'll have to devise a better one..
one to do with 'sensations'/ 'feelings'...

which got tested quite much and does not have to do with any unhearable audio signals (lots of subliminal message research from the army and all that to try to control humans with something invisible non-hearable)

yeah.. anechoic rooms are crazy.. it's amazing how much silence HURTS !

indeed. they are somehow not "warm" digital audio by itself is like in an anechoic room, you have to add all the surroundings to it (f.e. reverbs). maybe that is the whole thing about the analogue issue (and was, before the issue from instruments to synths, too..)

I've seen this video.. but this can work both ways..
very funny btw...

no, can't really work both ways. there, though, is some issue about placebos to have physical reactions, based on expectations (which would explain your "issue" ). it's some other video on ted, where they explain how placebos have physical measurable effect, and how they try to explore that now to trigger those reactions without the "lying to yourself" issues. body regenerates faster from damages or illnesses when fed with a placebo, even if the placebo never reaches anywhere (similar to how your hungriness turns off the moment you chew a bubblegum). this could lead to much help esp. on first aid.

but even while those placebos trigger real effects on the body, they don't mean that anything is there. it's like once traktor got a new ui that looked more pro, everyone had the feel of a more stable better sounding app. it's not true, but just that placebo of ui change lead to users believing it so much, that they felt that experience.

so i might put on a vinyl, and play you back some cd, and as long as you don't notice it (i have to be good at acting), you would experience the excitement of analogue.

(oh, and, such tests where made where people got fooled into believing some hifi audio stuff.. they hear that difference.. till you tell them it isn't.. then they hear THAT.. all big talkers that try to appeal the one who asks to look intelligent and 'worthy')

[Angstrom]

all this talk about frequencies is completely in the wrong department if you want to talk about what people perceive as the benefits of analogue anyway.

I don't know why you guys even think that frequency range is where it's at.
I'm sat here listening to Captain Beefheart A& M sessions - Diddy Wah Diddy
Now that record has a very analogue warm sound, but am I hearing 10hz or 96khz ? No, and I don't need to either, thanks all the same.

[davepermen]

all this talk about frequencies is completely in the wrong department if you want to talk about what people perceive as the benefits of analogue anyway.

I don't know why you guys even think that frequency range is where it's at.
I'm sat here listening to Captain Beefheart A& M sessions - Diddy Wah Diddy
Now that record has a very analogue warm sound, but am I hearing 10hz or 96khz ? No, and I don't need to either, thanks all the same.

what you perceive doesn't matter. if there is physically nothing different, the rest is your brain making it up for some reason (and that reason is interesting to explore).

the question is, does analogue stuff HAVE a physical different sound. devices, yes, signal on it's own (so a record on vinyl or cd), no. not in the regions where you can perceive any difference.

still, each analogue device sounds unique (and so does every digital one). which is why i can't get a 100% copy of an analogue synth on pc (but one can emulate to the point where, again, there is no perceived difference), and i can't get a 100% copy of operator on an analogue device (and there, you can't even emulate it).

[Angstrom]

all this talk about frequencies is completely in the wrong department if you want to talk about what people perceive as the benefits of analogue anyway.

I don't know why you guys even think that frequency range is where it's at.
I'm sat here listening to Captain Beefheart A& M sessions - Diddy Wah Diddy
Now that record has a very analogue warm sound, but am I hearing 10hz or 96khz ? No, and I don't need to either, thanks all the same.

what you perceive doesn't matter. if there is physically nothing different, the rest is your brain making it up for some reason (and that reason is interesting to explore).

You are on the wrong track, it is not about imagination here - it is about a perceived reality. A subtle human difference.

I can perceive that the bass amp is under powered and so they have run the speakers it at the wrong impedance ... so making the cone flap about. It may even be torn. This means when the bassist hits lower notes the speaker flaps more, and higher notes less. It would be hard to model that response, not impossible - but you would have to perceive it and understand it first - not just slap a Saturator on a bass sound. So perception is very important, and analysis. Also - the correct tools to model a complex harmonic and resonant inter-relationship would be required to re-build that (or an old bass cab)

Similarly, a very common 'band' recording sound is that of un-isolated snares being rattled by the bass when it hits a related resonance. Often this is subtle but useful audio cue to the brain and in fact in real life all of our audio environment has inter-realted foibles which produce this harmonically rich sound.

Engineers in the 1970s began to isolate the instruments more and more, eventually obtained the super-clean isolated technically perfect sound we now have, with the intention of clinical perfection leading to Hi-Fidelity. But in fact some of those everyone-in-one-room 'holistic' recording set-ups had some great advantages, not all of them were in the successes of the engineers and equipment(although that plays a large part).

Of course the 'vintage' optical compressors and the valve EQs all added something, but it is the same something - as captured in a box. That something is a coherent and satisfying harmonic and transient interplay, similar to that which we are used to from real life. "Reverb" is a very simple example of this, a sound starts and some resonances emanate. But in reality - everything might resonate anything else!

We can model the responses of the devices perfectly well, but unless we address the psychology of the interplay of musical components we will not understand this bullshit now known as "warmth". I would call it 'reality'

[3dot...]

in both ways.. I mean.. you would make further assumptions.. to any system you can imagine..
if I present you with 1 fact... you would assume certain things /rules about/in relation to that system..
not all will be true..

such is the manner in physics...
(especially relating to Quantum Mechanics / Astro Physics... the common ground being.. things outside of our scope)

that geezer was warning us about people who take advantage of this trait we have.. and also the bad aspects of assuming..

also... the placebo effect is well documented and studied ..
but the faith-healing part had never been explained (factually) to this day...
of course it doesn't work if you don't believe .. that's the whole point..no use for him to swallow water pills in front of an audience..
take note that he also went through lengths to CONVINCE you..

I for one don't believe so.. it's worthless to me as well..

that's a big philosophical issue right there.. perceived reality vs. truth/natural reality...
and the true powers of the brain/body (of which we still are pretty early in exploring) to create those realities..
I hardly think we'll get to the bottom of that now..

I say..

another TED talk Bjorn sent me on is with the dude who invented those UltraSonic "spotlight" speakers..
he said he belives "Virtually NOTHING has been invented yet" which is an direct assumption based on "virtually nothing has been discovered yet"..
still... I believe him..

it's my choice.. and there goes another question : "will"

hehe .. I've been dragged into very weird conversations here lately..you guys are usually a fun lot to talk with

[tw1nstates]

While I agree that plugins like Soundtoys & Waves signature series yield great results, there's still a noticeable difference to me. Depends on how nice the hardware is though. A friend recently got a bunch of Shadow Hills Audio stuff, ridiculous. As nice as Cytomics the Glue & Waves SSL are, and they're fantastic, they still don't hold a candle to Shadow Hills Dual Vandergraph stereo bus compressor. I've never heard anything like it. There's a reason people covet hardware, in a word, transformers. I still use my soft synths but not near as much since I got a Tetra a while back. And amp sims don't even register compared to my Matchless DC30. I've sworn off software except for updates/upgrades for the time being. Nowadays the plugins are excellent so it's nice to have both in combination but in no way would I say analogue hardware is overrated. Quite the opposite.

Double blind test - otherwise you are giving it the same my analogue is better that everyone else does.

Interestingly enough no one could conclusively tell on gearslutz with the release of the massive passive UAd EQ between that and the hardware.

Yes of course your recording chain makes a difference - transformers nice etc. i just don't believe these people who say, I got xxx it's made such a difference.

My main reasoning being that I picked up some pretty nice analogue stuff, was AMAZED by how much better everything sounded. Went back a little while later and yes it sounds good, but not the night and day difference my several thousand pounds of expenditure convinced me it was.

Would i sell my gear, not until there is a good software model. And, I am becoming more and more aware that with some of the new emulations I can get excellent results from pluugs - not the same, but it's like saying that my fluorescent paint is better than this fluorescent paint. We all know it's not normal paint and it's significantly different to the normal paint however my point is there isn't the night and day difference between analogue and digital these days.

in fact, this is going to be my next project. I am going to do one track with all analogue synths, distortion and drum machines) and the other is going to be done with all digital synths, drum machines and distortion. the delay and reverb will both be digital cos I don't have a reverb chamber.

If nothing else it will amuse myself!

[davepermen]

You are on the wrong track, it is not about imagination here - it is about a perceived reality. A subtle human difference.

if there is a real difference perceived, then it is measurable. if it's not, it's a placebo. and believe me, there are TONS such placebos in the industry.

I can perceive that the bass amp is under powered and so they have run the speakers it at the wrong impedance ... so making the cone flap about. It may even be torn. This means when the bassist hits lower notes the speaker flaps more, and higher notes less. It would be hard to model that response, not impossible - but you would have to perceive it and understand it first - not just slap a Saturator on a bass sound. So perception is very important, and analysis. Also - the correct tools to model a complex harmonic and resonant inter-relationship would be required to re-build that (or an old bass cab)

which is a physical behavior, and thus can be simulated, if wished. and yes, just dropping a saturator on it might not be it. at least a frequency based saturator would be needed as a first step to approach it.

Similarly, a very common 'band' recording sound is that of un-isolated snares being rattled by the bass when it hits a related resonance. Often this is subtle but useful audio cue to the brain and in fact in real life all of our audio environment has inter-realted foibles which produce this harmonically rich sound.

if it's there, it's measurable. if it's measurable, it's simulate-able.

Engineers in the 1970s began to isolate the instruments more and more, eventually obtained the super-clean isolated technically perfect sound we now have, with the intention of clinical perfection leading to Hi-Fidelity. But in fact some of those everyone-in-one-room 'holistic' recording set-ups had some great advantages, not all of them were in the successes of the engineers and equipment(although that plays a part).

i prefer the isolated recordings by far. personal opinion. it's nice to have the options.

Of course the 'vintage' optical compressors and the valve EQs all added something, but it is the same something - as captured in a bax. That something is a coherent and satisfying harmonic and transient interplay, similar to that which we are used to.
We can model the responses of the devices perfectly well, but unless we address the psychology of the interplay of musical components we will not understand this bullshit now known as "warmth". I would call it 'reality'

so what you say is, we can now have virtual analogue instruments, but not a virtual analogue "studio" in which we record. which is (might be) true (at least, i don't know of one, but i'm not into that kind of thing anyways). doesn't mean it's not doable.
i've at least seen exactly such developments done for video game audio processing, where the positional information of each sound source, as well as the materials surrounding, etc, all get accounted. sure, the simulation was crude, could be done much more physically accurate, but it's the idea you'd like to do.

i know at least one project for physical simulation of audio, based on raytracing. it simulates all the waves, how they distribute, interact with eachother and surfaces, etc.. used mainly for some concepts of wave distribution (earthquakes, too), but too, to simulate rooms and process how to set up speakers.

[davepermen]

also... the placebo effect is well documented and studied ..
but the faith-healing part had never been explained (factually) to this day...

actually, the faith-healing part by now got explained (at least measured) on where it sources, and how you can exactly measure it. now they try to trigger it. it's somewhere in the spinal, where it triggers and starts healing processes.

of course it doesn't work if you don't believe .. that's the whole point..no use for him to swallow water pills in front of an audience..
take note that he also went through lengths to CONVINCE you..

one talk is about the fact that we might be able to trigger placebo-reactions without having to believe.

I for one don't believe so.. it's worthless to me as well..

me, too. i believe in stuff that makes sense, in facts. which leads to much fun discussions in these boards (i use windows.. you know all the myths.. )

that's a big philosophical issue right there.. perceived reality vs. truth/natural reality...
and the true powers of the brain/body (of which we still are pretty early in exploring) to create those realities..
I hardly think we'll get to the bottom of that now..

bottom is, everything we percieve is based only on the truth/natural reality, and how we interpret them. if we think something analogue sounds better, something triggered it. what i care is, is that something just a lie of "i've heard from a pro that it sounds better, so it has to", or is it something that has to do with the actual sound.

another TED talk Bjorn sent me on is about the dude who invented those UltraSonic "spotlight" speakers..
he said he belives "Virtually NOTHING has been invented yet" which is an direct assumption based on "virtually nothing has been discovered yet"..
still... I believe him..

sadly his ultrasonics got debunked to not be scalable to something much better than waterfalls. but still, i believe him in that, too.

it's my choice.. and there goes another question : "will"

hehe .. I've been dragged into very weird conversations here lately..you guys are usually a fun lot to talk with

i prefer such talks to the typical rude crap talk. but that's just me

[anybody human]

"Warmth" is related to artifacts added by analogue devices, which can and have been modeled pretty well. The advantage of analogue is not so much about warmth for me, it's more about depth. It's a spacial thing, the shape of the percieved sound, not just that it's round but a particular shape. I realize this is an esoteric thing but as I said before, there's a reason people covet analogue. Not that software isn't awesome, cos it is, but there's something to be said for electricity going through transformers.

Operator is an FM synth, so has no relation to analogue since it's a descendant of the DX7 which was a digital synth. Comparing soft synths to hardware is not as instructive as compressors, preamps, and guitar amps where there is a more obvious difference. Still, would anyone rather have a Moog vst or a Voyager? Come on, just cos I can't afford something, and I can get decent results with what I have, doesn't mean high end hardware is overrated. It's underrated IMO.

Edit: I'm perfectly happy with my mostly software based setup, but I would love to be able to afford to augment it with more outboard gear like that Shadow Hills bus compressor. It's not the difference between a good track and a mediocre one, that's down to songwriting and engineering. Boutique analogue gear is just really nice, adds depth IMO.