# I don't trust WAVES......here's why



## SvK (Jan 26, 2011)

I don't trust WAVES......here's why

dont get me wrong. I use L2 and bread and butter waves plugs......ALOT,

BUT

lately (last 2-3 years) they have been busting out sooooo many modeled gear EQs., Comps etc.

And it all does all look just like the original hardware gear, but they bust these sets out so fast and charge suckers another 2000$ for a set, I can't help but think they take say the "Renaissance EQ" give it a new graphic and resell it as the "API eq"....


am i the only one that has thought about this?

best,
SvK


----------



## tripit (Jan 26, 2011)

I can understand...I have not been particularly fond of Waves over the years. The whole WUP thing left a bad taste for me. Waves has never been a popular customer service type company. 

But, I think that Waves would stand to lose way too much if they in fact did just take a plug and slap a new GUI on it. Somebody, no make that whole lot of somebody would catch on to it, of that I'm sure. And I imagine the aftermath would probably destroy Waves. 

That isn't to say that they don't share parts of the code for things - I'm sure they do that all the time. I think they've as well as others have figured out better and quicker methods to capture the sound of a piece of gear. Just look at the advances in all the audio stuff from sample scripted libraries to all the different plugs - huge leap in the last five years.

Waves has always charged top dollar for their stuff. I still think most all of it is WAY over priced - but people still buy it. But get someone like CLA to make artist products and every Joe mixing out of his house is going to buy it. It's marketing. 

But I think the market is changing with more and more lower priced products (performing as well as Waves) coming out all the time. This is going to force Waves to lower prices, and in fact, they have already been constantly offering 20 to 50% off this last year or so. 

Still, I would rather put my money with UAD or URS or the many other new and great sounding plugs being offered. I still detest the whole WUP concept, even though they modified it after a huge backlash.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jan 26, 2011)

That reminds me of a Simpsons episode where they visited the Duff Beer factory and this pipe coming from the same source split into three pipes, which filled Duff, Duff Light, and Duff Genuine Draft barrels all at the same time. :mrgreen: 

That's an interesting theory. I doubt they're as blatant as you describe, but I wouldn't be surprised if the basic engines "borrowed" from other plugins they already have. Ultimately, the difference in analog EQs is mostly where the little peaks are and how they handle phasing. I suppose slight compression and distortion might come into play as well. It seems like they could design a Master EQ Building engine that has all these parameters and program settings into it so you could duplicate characteristics of an API or a Neve or a Trident or whatever. Maybe they've done something similar. Although if they did, the RenEQ wouldn't be the foundation. (However, the RenEQ could be a _product_ of this EQ building engine.)

Funny to think about.

I stopped caring about emulations, by the way. I suppose if I cut my teeth on an API console, then I might want a good emulation since I'm so used to a prticular sound and knob layout, but otherwise I find it weird how people talk about whether the plug-in accurately sounds like the original, rather than "does the plug in sound _good?"_ Kinda like how a girl might look sorta like Megan Fox, but that doesn't necessarily mean she's pretty.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 26, 2011)

SvK @ 2011-01-26 said:


> lately (last 2-3 years) they have been busting out sooooo many modeled gear EQs., Comps etc.
> 
> And it all does all look just like the original hardware gear, but they bust these sets out so fast and charge suckers another 2000$ for a set, I can't help but think they take say the "Renaissance EQ" give it a new graphic and resell it as the "API eq"....


It guess, they have a standardized method and a decent development-environment.

Generally it's not hard to model EQs/Comps with the right tools. You measure their different responses/characteristics and mathematically approximate them.
They don't have to be worse (or better) than let's say UAD-plugins for example. It depends on how deep the modeling is and how accurate their ideas for the capturing of the characteristics are.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 26, 2011)

Opssss, I know a company who wrote 100 different computer programms, and they did it all *on a same MAC Computer*!

Yeah, I think they have a standardized method! :roll:


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 26, 2011)

SvK @ Wed Jan 26 said:


> I don't trust WAVES......here's why
> 
> dont get me wrong. I use L2 and bread and butter waves plugs......ALOT,
> 
> ...



nope i thought about it too. well, not that specifically but something worst... 
that their 2000 dollar plugings will sounds as good as the free AU that come with logic but will have a different sound to them but adding the GUI of a old piece of gear will make it sell at that price and even pros will be like oh wow it sounds like the original (and give me a paychek for saying that please.)  


maybe all EQ and comp come from the same code and make a few tweaks add a nice GUI of a vintage gear and thats it.

there was one official video of some professional mixers doing a mix using a real ssl vs the waves ssl plugins and both mixes sounded exactly the same. so who knows if we are thinking that because its vintage and hardware is good and plugins will never do the same no matter the tests behind it.. like a 1st love thing or that we just dont know how advance digital audio has become that it can do the same and better than vintage audio did. 
still we want a neuman u47 and its the rave thing to have for engineers when i cannot believe 60 or so years later we cannot have a better technology. 



but in their defense, the vintage stuff has not come out as much as i think u perceive it.. they also put out a lot of those signatuyre series that are not related to vintage gear but more about manageable presets. 
but yes, the ssl and api and neve came out suspiciouly close to one another. 
if the argument is that theyy haveit streamlined so they can check the original gear fast then why not continue on to the hundreds of vintage gear that all engineers covet so much. 

i havbe the waves SSL and like a lot, i love the EQ. it make the audio seems like its getting compressed also.. its wierd to explain but it flattens and tames it inside the mix. very nice. i definitly cannot do the same with any other EQ. 
i did not have the same experience with the compressor, as it sounded just like the logic stock one. 

also, there is a video comparing UAD plugins to antress free plugins and both sounded the same. so i dunno if one company is giving away money or the other one scamming folks.

wishy washy topic imo. i dont know the details of how an audio plugin is made and most us neither if not there where way more plugins out there  
but reading airwindows post in gearlusts i can see there is a lot of things going on that we dont know of and dont see it that way. 
so i dont think its an easy topic to grasp and that there is no right or wrong answer. 
pros use those tools but dont know if for example the pensados and bob kats of the biz use logic stock plugins, will reach a same profesional outcome.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 26, 2011)

btw, check pensados corner youtube videocast where he shows his plugins.


----------



## SvK (Jan 26, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Wed Jan 26 said:


> I find it weird how people talk about whether the plug-in accurately sounds like the original, rather than "does the plug in sound _good?"_ Kinda like how a girl might look sorta like Megan Fox, but that doesn't necessarily mean she's pretty.



haha
that was funny and to the point!

SvK


----------



## synthetic (Jan 26, 2011)

Good test for these plug-ins is to switch off the GUI and use the default Logic UI. Then you can use your EARS to decide. I'm with you, I don't hear much difference between software EQs. Certainly not $2000 worth of difference.


----------



## sevaels (Jan 26, 2011)

The best description I have found thus far regarding digital parametric EQ debates resides in the Uhbik manual by Urs.

To quote a literary Irish friend, "The altercation is so bitter because so little is at stake!"

If you really want to dig deep - http://rhythminmind.net/1313/?p=361

That sums it up.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 26, 2011)

synthetic @ Wed Jan 26 said:


> Good test for these plug-ins is to switch off the GUI and use the default Logic UI. Then you can use your EARS to decide. I'm with you, I don't hear much difference between software EQs. Certainly not $2000 worth of difference.



thats what i think about the lexicon pcm plugin. (but $1000 not 2k)


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 26, 2011)

btw...

airwindows.com plugins are a good alternative but only come in audio unit.. (and no GUI)


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jan 26, 2011)

Devil's advocate here...

How much fun is to pay $1500 or $2000 for a UAD dongle - on top of the high price of the plugs?

That equals 7-10 years of WUP.


.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 26, 2011)

sevaels @ Thu Jan 27 said:


> The best description I have found thus far regarding digital parametric EQ debates resides in the Uhbik manual by Urs.
> 
> To quote a literary Irish friend, "The altercation is so bitter because so little is at stake!"
> 
> ...



All I did was read the first two lines:

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

All Digital Parametric EQ’s are the same._

I do not need to read the rest of the article, as it is irrelevant. The second line is completely false; all one need do is a null test, which will prove that All Digital Parametric EQ’s are NOT the same regardless of what some internet article says.

Cheers.


----------



## sevaels (Jan 26, 2011)

Wow. *facepalm*

You mention a null test - which happens to be the very test that he uses to prove his point.

Maybe you should read an article before commenting on it in a public forum.

If you really want to educate yourself on the fine details than read this as well: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much- ... -myth.html

A lot of people comment on that thread that have much more experience than you in developing digital parametric EQ's. Please also know that I don't stand on any side. I just found the debate interesting and informative.

Note also that the debate isn't about user interface or workflow. 

If you prefer the smooth Neve style boost over an SSL or API boost than your ears aren't playing tricks on you either. These have merit. His point is to show that very little mojo is actually going on besides emulating the curves with a standard parametric design. That with a fully parametric EQ you can achieve the same results with the right curves. 

For me I'd rather grab a 1073 emulation and go to work as I just know how to work it. That doesn't mean though that with the right effort I couldn't get the same result with a stock DAW EQ.

Other differences occur up near Nyquist with cramping etc. 

Developers often introduce very light saturation - he emulates this as well and nearly nulls it (Maybe he did I don't remember).

IR based solutions (Nebula, Tritone) are of course a different beast.

Kudos to anyone who actually sat down and read the article. It can be illuminating.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 26, 2011)

hmmm.. 

ima little puzzled as i did the last test with the ssl waves vs live EQ and mimicking the exact 
settings i could not get close at all between the sound. didnt do the graph thing but the sounds between these two where very different no matter how much i tweaked.


----------



## sevaels (Jan 26, 2011)

I won't claim to be an expert on this stuff but here's what I've gathered and understood from guys with much more knowledge than I.....as usual YMMV 

You'll notice he isn't using identical settings to null them....

In most cases he's showing its the same thing reacting differently. There is no universal Q-range. Often times on the vintage as well as the 'vintage plugin' EQ's you'll notice the frequency value is actually not the true frequency boosted. This is normal and exists in the hardware units as well. 

The old EQ's often times were doing something slightly (sometimes not so slight) different than shown on the panel. This behavior is emulated by 'analog plugin' EQ's. Its still standard EQ curves though.

Instead of it being a 4db boost at 8k on the analog model it could be actually more like 6db at 8.5k. If you don't believe me you can do some research. The Abbey Road units are serious culprits of this. If you were to use a scope you'd notice that they can be quite off. This isn't 'wrong' or an error. It's simply apart of the hardware units behavior.

All this is sort of redundant in the end. It's about what you hear.

Old units were labored over pretty intensely to create the most musical sounding curves. This is what is most important IMO in regards to the new emulations available. Certain boosts on Neve, API, SSL, A-Range EQ's sound a certain way because they are often times doing something odd. They may not be symmetrical or they may introduce a dip at the turn like Pultecs. This gives them a musical character.

Fully parametric limitless band EQ's in the digital realm can emulate these curves easily but it requires a lot of know how.

This is sort of why the Oxford EQ's are so flexible. The types are meant to represent these differences.

This is also why I wouldn't say anyone wasted money by purchasing a vintage model. They will give you something that sounds similar in many regards by emulating the same type of curve. Often times the frequency select/Q value limitations alone gives them a certain sound as that requires you to stick within certain confines.

It goes on and on but you get my point. Of course even at this depth we aren't discussing analog saturation and the seemingly infinite variables present to the point where even the same outboard models sound different.

Anyways, I'm certainly not the man to talk to about this stuff. If you have questions like this I would send them to Paul Frindle: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-co ... -myth.html

He helped develop the OXF-R3 which had units that cropped up in software form now known as Sonnox. Amazing guy and a true digital Jedi :D 

He might answer. He can offer you more solid advice than I or say...oh....RiffWraith?

Dave Gamble also comments on the Myth & Fact article. He's the developer for Sonalksis and he provides some really great info.

At least you took the time to read the article :wink:


----------



## Dan Mott (Jan 27, 2011)

I'm going to be a bat of an ass and say that I don't care what anyone thinks, I love the WAVES plugins.

I've tried out pretty much all their EQs and they all sound different and all give a certain tone and sound. Then let's go to the compressors, once again, they all sound different and sound fantastic, expecially the CLA compressors.

The Ren Bundle is a no brainer IMO, and how could you go past the studio classic series. Once I tried, I was happy to purchase.

I trust WAVES.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 27, 2011)

germancomponist @ 2011-01-26 said:


> Opssss, I know a company who wrote 100 different computer programms, and they did it all *on a same MAC Computer*!
> 
> Yeah, I think they have a standardized method! :roll:


"Opssss", you are no engineer and have no fucking clue, what I'm talking about.



gsilbers @ 2011-01-26 said:


> i havbe the waves SSL and like a lot, i love the EQ. it make the audio seems like its getting compressed also.. its wierd to explain but it flattens and tames it inside the mix. very nice. i definitly cannot do the same with any other EQ.


The EQ is actually very generic and its sound can be easily copied by other EQs.

The curve-handling + GUI is really the main important thing for matching the sound/feeling of an analog EQ, and often it's actually the only thing simulated in those "vintage-analog-emu"-plugins.
Newer ones usually also introduce some kind of saturation (which you might like or not), but this doesn't have to mean, that they actually matched the kind of saturation the original device is doing.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 27, 2011)

WOW, I am very impressed about your knowledge, EnTaroAdun! :roll: 

Good to know someone like you, who knows all the secrets how companies are doing their plugs. Have you worked with some engeneers from Waves and/or other companies, or do you know these secrets from your student books and other forums? :mrgreen:


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jan 27, 2011)

Jack Weaver @ Wed Jan 26 said:


> Devil's advocate here...
> How much fun is to pay $1500 or $2000 for a UAD dongle - on top of the high price of the plugs?
> That equals 7-10 years of WUP.
> .



I got my UAD 2 Quad for $1,100 and with it came a $600 voucher that i used to get the Massive Passive and the Fatso.
The Quad is extremely powerful and allows me to totally spare my computer's CPU.
It isn't just a dongle...

UAD plugs are top notch. Pricing is fair and they offer sales at the same rate as East West.

Just saying...


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jan 27, 2011)

Agree Patrick - the new UAD2 plug-ins are really superb. The two plugs you mentioned are not easily emulated without a large spike in CPU usage so the card is working for its keep. Personally I think their new plugs are stellar - Trident A Range, Studer A800, Massive Passive EQ, EL7 Fatso, and their Fairchild, LA-2A and 1176 emulations are a favorite here.

Conscientious objection to a company's policy is a personal choice each needs to make. But just to be clear, Waves plug-ins are still some of the best in the industry. They're not the only player these days but still presents a very valid consideration for developing your personal sound.

The cool thing about native plugs though are that they're a nice alternative to maxing out a UAD card. There are a lot of new players in the native market (Softtube, Flux, Sonnox, URS, etc). Regarding Waves, their emulations of API and SSL 4000 are great (UAD2 also came out recently with an SSL 4000 version which compares favorably to the Waves version). In the Waves department, I tend to use those not easily emulated by the other players such as S1, Center, C6, L2 and of course the dozens of sound effects Waves offers as starting points for sound design. Their API emulations are superb; coupled with Slate Digital VCC API console channel and buss emulation for modern epic is lovely (same goes for their SSL4000 coupled with VCC SSL 4000 console channel and buss emulation).


----------



## sevaels (Jan 27, 2011)

RiffWraith @ Thu Jan 27 said:


> sevaels @ Thu Jan 27 said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



Oh so null tests don't matter anymore now that they're not convenient for your argument?

He gets most EQ's that he has to null (Even EQ's that rely on external DSP). You mention one EQ which is again completely misleading.

Since you obviously are either incapable or unwilling to read the findings ill break this down for you. 

EQ's that he nulled: 

SSL XEQ

WAVES SSL

OXFORD

DUENDE

SONALKSIS

VC-64

ABBEY ROAD EQ's

SONAR EQ

ABLETON EQ

EIOSIS AIR EQ


*The images proving the null are on the website I posted - http://rhythminmind.net/1313/?p=361*

Most often he did it with the basic Sonar EQ.

Here's a video of how to do it yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi4OTqgCF28&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi4OTqgC ... r_embedded)

*RiffWraith:*



> I do not need to read the rest of the article, as it is irrelevant. The second line is completely false; *all one need do is a null test, which will prove that All Digital Parametric EQ’s are NOT the same* regardless of what some internet article says.




o-[][]-o


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 27, 2011)

EnTaroAdun @ Thu Jan 27 said:


> @germancomponist
> I won't bother answering your ignorant questions.
> You have absolutely zero understanding of engineering, and I have not the motivation to give a fail-safe explaination to you, as I know you're actually not interested but just trolling.



Kkuno, please: Don`t try to do it agin!!!
We all know that you german student know all audio engeneering things much better than any other people do. :mrgreen: :D


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 27, 2011)

Your ignorance of sicence, engineering and hard work is disgusting. Nothing more to say about it.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 27, 2011)

Just a couple of points...

First, I have a love/hate relationship with Waves based on past behavior. They do appear to understand that they need to show some respect for their customers lately, and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that.

There is no doubt, in my mind, that they have some really fantastic plug-ins. I limit myself to the native Gold bundle at the moment, and I find that I use quite a few of them often, in addition to UAD, PSP and a handful of other plugins. Really would not like to do without any of them!

I did stop using Waves plugins for a while. When they switched from Challenge/Response to iLok they pretty much told customers that they must update or stop using the plugins. Turns out this was not part of the EULA, and I took exception to it. I didn't need V4 (I think that's where the switch happened, really can't remember anymore) because there were no improvements that benefited me. I've skipped updates from other companies (e.g. Finale) without penalty, and I did not appreciate being blackmailed.

Eventually I heard from a Waves sales person, and he agreed that perhaps their stance was a bit rigid. Not only that, but they upgraded me from V3 to V4 at no charge (except for the iLok of course) as a courtesy. That is pretty impressive.

I do not use WUP, but I think it is a fair program for those that do. Once upon a time all software was subscription based, and it is a reasonable approach. I also think that their pricing is in line with the quality of the tools. Every few years I do sign up for WUP, which is my way of getting current code. I'll have to do that when I switch to Win7 x64 I suppose.

Would I like everything for free? Part of me says yes, but part of me wants companies that provide tools that I use to stay in business, so no, that's not a reasonable approach. I'll take advantage of group buys and sales when they align with my needs. I don't buy stuff I don't need (or try not to) and I don't wait for deals, but I am happy when the stars align.

On the second argument... it is specious at best.

It is absolutely true that a digital filter can be coded to emulate a specific piece of gear, or to be completely flexible. The later case can, with sufficient controls, emulate anything. This is the whole basis of DSP, it isn't magic, and it isn't a trick.

There is a place for an emulation of a Neve or Trident or Pultec filter. It saves me the time required to make probably hundreds of adjustments to model the original filter. It's also somewhat comfortable... if I used some specific settings as my starting point with the hardware it's lovely to be able to do so!

There really is no debate... if you know the transfer function you can emulate it, it's easier with DSP, but in fact you can often do the same thing with analog circuits. Further, you can target either measurement or sound as your goal<G>.

I really don't understand what all the fuss is! I like more targeted emulations most of the time, but then my hair is turning gray, so yeah, I spent a good part of my time thus far using hardware... and not always world class hardware<G>! Someone who doesn't have that experience will see the world differently. What a surprise!

If I was limited to processor building blocks which I had to assemble each time I wanted to do something it'd drive me nuts. If I was not given access to such things I'd go nuts. Both approaches work.


----------



## sevaels (Jan 27, 2011)

Great post wst3.

I completely agree.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 27, 2011)

EnTaroAdun @ Thu Jan 27 said:


> Your ignorance of sicence, engineering and hard work is disgusting.



What? 

It is always and in all forums the same with you. With answers in this way you would like to impress the other readers. A nice tactic, but everyone sees through!

I think I have much more knowledge about this than you, young Mr. student!



> Nothing more to say about it.



So please!


----------



## Stevie (Jan 27, 2011)

Great posts Sevaels! Had the null-test article on my screen some months ago. Have to check it again more thoroughly.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 27, 2011)

I think that with any plugin it's either hit or miss. I've tried the API waves stuff and found it to be horrible. I didn't think it sounded anything like API. On the other hand I tried the SSL stuff and found it to be so close to the original and delightfully good. I've later found out that SSL uses software EQ on their boards so it makes sense that and native version of their EQ would be pretty authentic. API of course is analog so it's going to be harder to make it sound like the original. But, in all fairness to Waves I find it hard to believe that they're just repackaging their original stuff and selling it with a new GUI.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 27, 2011)

josejherring @ Thu Jan 27 said:


> But, in all fairness to Waves I find it hard to believe that they're just repackaging their original stuff and selling it with a new GUI.



+1


----------



## cc64 (Jan 27, 2011)

I found this site. Caveat, it's in French and you have to register to watch the free videos.

They did a comparison between 6 Parametric EQs (2 from Logic,1 from PSP, Sonalksis,Sonnox, SSL Duende)

The premise was is it worth to spend the big buck for some EQ plugs or are they all the same?

You can hear major differences, don't need to understand french for that part ; )

The tests seem to have been well and honestly done. 

http://www.mjtutoriels.com/modules/videos/playerFreeVideo.php?id_product=41 (http://www.mjtutoriels.com/modules/vide ... product=41)

Claude


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2011)

EnTaroAdun @ Thu Jan 27 said:


> germancomponist @ 2011-01-26 said:
> 
> 
> > Opssss, I know a company who wrote 100 different computer programms, and they did it all *on a same MAC Computer*!
> ...



again. i matched the settings exactly as the picture in the article which it says that its the same sound and has the graph to prove it. the eq sound was very different between the ssl and the live eq when i tried it. what i am talking about is just in the digital domain, the live EQ+sat vs ssl. i m not talking about the real ssl and plugin ssl.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 27, 2011)

Regarding null tests for EQ testing:

While it may _look _impressive if one spectrum visually matches another we still have to _measure _how big their difference still is and also use our ears and knowledge. One of the keywords is distortion. For example one EQ might add -80 dB of h3, the second adds - 100 dB while PLParEQ and the like are very clean. All of that is not visible in the mentioned null test but yet the sound of those three will be very different if applied to a first violins section.

In order to explain what I mean here please look at this graph:







You'll see that for a test wave @ 1 kHz with 0 dB the EQ adds - 80 dB @ 2 kHz and - 100 dB @ 4 kHz. Mind you, this is a EQ well known for coloring much (sampled with Nebula in this case). Other EQs will be much tamer.

This means our ear is very sensitive to harmonic additions that are in the range of 80, 90 or 100 dB lower than the original signal! This is far below the resolution of the mentioned null test.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 27, 2011)

If you can prove to actually hear harmonics buried 80dB below the usage level, I'm seriously impressed.
You might want to check out this video:
Audio Myths Workshop

@gsilbers
I can only say, that I measured the plugin and compared it to other EQ-plugins, and well .. it didn't do anything fancy. Maybe they made an update and now it's different .. would surprise me though.
You can measure dynamics/harmonics/curves/etc. of the plugin with the VSTPluginAnalyser from Christian Budde (that's the tool, Hannes_F made his screenshot with) if you're interested.
I already did it in the past, and there was nothing special.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 27, 2011)

EnTaroAdun @ Thu Jan 27 said:


> If you can prove to actually hear harmonics buried 80dB below the usage level, I'm seriously impressed.



Yep, I can hear the effect of those harmonics very well on certain material, especially if it was recorded cleanly so far. If you already have a lot of distortion going on in the recording then it does not make much difference. 



> You might want to check out this video:
> Audio Myths Workshop



I know and appreciate this video since it came out and am doing blind tests with myself often. But it does not prove me wrong in this case, apples are apples and oranges are oranges.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 27, 2011)

Hannes_F @ Fri Jan 28 said:


> EnTaroAdun @ Thu Jan 27 said:
> 
> 
> > If you can prove to actually hear harmonics buried 80dB below the usage level, I'm seriously impressed.
> ...



Same here.



> > You might want to check out this video:
> > Audio Myths Workshop
> 
> 
> ...



Also the same here.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 27, 2011)

In order to put some proof into this:

- 80 dB distortion would be 1/10,000 of the signal or 0.0001 (three zeroes behind the dot.

This is equal to 0.01 % (one zero behind the dot).

Distortion is where preamps differ. I use the D.A.V. Broadhurst Gardens

http://www.davelectronics.com/bg1.htm

which typically has 0.001 % distortion @ 1 kHz. Another widely used model is the Milennia that has half of that. While typical consumer products can have around 0.01 %. There is where the money goes, and we would not do this if we could not hear any difference.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 27, 2011)

sevaels @ Thu Jan 27 said:


> Oh so null tests don't matter anymore now that they're not convenient for your argument?



I never said that. In fact, if i felt that null tests don't matter, I would not have brought that up in the first place.

So, I read the article. He says "All Digital Parametric EQ’s are the same." I say "All Digital Parametric EQ’s are not the same."

"You mention one EQ which is again completely misleading"

How? If I mention one, (well, technically two; you need two to do a null test) and they don't null, doesn't that mean that "All are the same" is not exactly accurate?


----------



## sevaels (Jan 27, 2011)

You let me know which one you found. :wink: 

I'll be patient.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 27, 2011)

sevaels, perhaps read my posts. There is no way you could see even - 65 dB distortion in the graph of these null tests. However everything that we call the character of a Neve vs. the character of a SSL vs. the character of a Focusrite lives there.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 27, 2011)

Hannes_F @ 2011-01-27 said:


> In order to put some proof into this:
> ...
> There is where the money goes, and we would not do this if we could not hear any difference.


Good one. :lol:


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 27, 2011)

EnTaroAdun,

I see where you are coming from. Obviously you are on a crusade against placebo effects and I agree to a certain amount.

However everything can be overdone and furthermore it is not in order if you edit out parts of my post and make your own edition of it just to win an argument. I don't care a rat's **s whether you agree with me and don't need to prove you anything but don't mess with my logics.

At least you should read and understand what you edited out. I generally suspect you are using the cold side of your intellect too much in this regard and that can be a barricade, especially if you want to be or become a musician or an engineer that is worth its salt if I may say so.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 27, 2011)

I have to say that in order to really hear whats going on, you need a really good room and extremely high resolution monitors. 

You will definitely not hear many things on your Mackies, Tannoys or Dynaudios in your bedrooms or garage converted studio.


These tests can only come out with real results if done in a very very good room and high resolution monitors. I believe, Hans has a such a facility.


I dont even take part in such tests yet because I know for a fact that I cannot hear things properly because of lack of a professional control room and high resolution monitors.


Of course, Marketing is a huge issue. Every year companies want to churn out new emulations because they have to sell more stuff and make more money. Waves is no exception. I would not be too surprised if they are just changing a few things and re-releasing a lot of these plug ins. This is standard marketing gimick. 

We dont need to keep buying stuff. Once you have a decent set of plug ins - its really down to good composition, arrangement, excellent control room, good monitoring and knowledge of how to mix and use effects prò U   ™ªá U   ›òõ U   ›ó U   ›ôb U   ›ôy U   œžå U   œŸ U   îÙ U   ï U   ž´ U   žÐ¶ U   žÐá U   Ÿd¨ U   Ÿdí U   Ÿ¹ U   Ÿ¹: U   ŸÂ	 U   ŸÂQ U   ŸÔä U   ŸÕ U   £¹ U   £² U   £6 U   £´ U


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 28, 2011)

Hannes_F @ 2011-01-28 said:


> However everything can be overdone and furthermore it is not in order if you edit out parts of my post and make your own edition of it just to win an argument. I don't care a rat's **s whether you agree with me and don't need to prove you anything but don't mess with my logics.


Calm down man.
You have to admit, it's a bit funny to answer an indirect request for a proof with "here's the proof .. people wouldn't pay money, if it wasn't true".

Of course, you don't have to prove anything, but don't expect to be taken seriously on this point then. All blindtests of that matter clearly showed, that there's no human, who can hear harmonics at -80dB.
You are like the 100th person in a forum claiming it, and when you make a blindtest you fail like the 99 persons before you.



Hannes_F @ 2011-01-28 said:


> At least you should read and understand what you edited out.


What you wrote in between doesn't influence the point, so I cut it out.
You're right about the numbers, but preamps might also introduce a non-linear frequency response. And then there's indeed a lot of wasted money in tools, which are more accurate than needed.
"There would not go money into it, if we could not hear it." is a very weak argument and not a proof by any means.



http://www.box.net/shared/ot3om4np5j
If you care to do a test, download those files and try to find out, which of which is the original one. There is always one original and two with added harmonics (at a much louder level than -80dB).


----------



## cc64 (Jan 28, 2011)

SvK @ Wed Jan 26 said:


> And it all does all look just like the original hardware gear, but they bust these sets out so fast and charge suckers another 2000$ for a set, I can't help but think they take say the "Renaissance EQ" give it a new graphic and resell it as the "API eq"....
> 
> 
> am i the only one that has thought about this?
> ...



Hi Steven,

maybe i'm naive but wouldn't Neve, API, SSL have a say in this? I don't think that they would happily and knowingly license their brand name and technology on a fraud?

Claude


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 28, 2011)

Even if we accept that premise that theoretically all digital EQs ( other than linear phase) are capable of achieving the same sound (and largely I do) the practical reality is that when you make an adjustment in the GUIs that appears to be adjusting the same frequencies with the same Q, etc. even in the controls view, because the designers like UA go to great lengths to pre-program bells, curves, etc. to make it sound like a specific hardware EQ, for 90% of users, it is going to make the task of achieving a certain sound much easier.

For some, much easier = worth spending my money, for others not.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 28, 2011)

EnTaroAdun @ 28th January 2011 said:


> "There would not go money into it, if we could not hear it." is a very weak argument and not a proof by any means.



Actually, I think it is the opposite. I think the evidence of many people buying a product is one of the strongest arguments there is that there is some value to the product. I believe that people collectively are very canny when it comes to parting with money. 

So even if, as some argue (or maybe "concede"), any EQ can theoretically emulate any other, the various versions nevertheless deliver some value to the buyer, possibly limited to the GUI, familiarity with the original hardware version, and / or technical quirks and idiosyncracies that each popular plugin provides -- even if they could be regarded as errors.

And when this "vote with your pocketbook" is corroborated further by composers and engineers whose sound is undeniably interesting, lively, and attractive, I think the evidence mounts in favour of some reality to the distinctions you're discounting. Even those who don't like Hans Zimmer's music must surely admire the SOUND he gets. And he's endorsed a number of products freely -- without some kind of financial inducement, at least in the case of UAD.

You can believe in your blind tests and that's totally cool; I believe in the market, and in my ears. I don't want to spend time with an oscilloscope and am very happy that there are presets I can use on all these EQs and delays and what-not, so I can get somethò U   ËÅ U   ËÅ$ U   ËÍ@ U


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 28, 2011)

JohnG @ 2011-01-28 said:


> ..., the various versions nevertheless deliver some value to the buyer, possibly limited to the GUI, familiarity with the original hardware version, and / or technical quirks and idiosyncracies that each popular plugin provides ...


Of course. Never said anything different.
It already makes a difference, if you have a parametric standard-EQ with or without the display of the curve. That alone can actually make a huge difference already ... so can do curve-handling.
Different handling leads to different results (in most cases).



JohnG @ 2011-01-28 said:


> Actually, I think it is the opposite. I think the evidence of many people buying a product is one of the strongest arguments there is that there is some value to the product.


So if something sells good, it is good?
Please tell me, you don't _really_ think that.

And Hans Zimmer does some great work ... still this doesn't make him failsafe.
He likes the UAD plugins, because they work good for him. This doesn't mean, he's knows or even cares what's going on under the hood. And why should he?
It's irrelevant, if he could get the same results with something else, or if those tools only work that good because of their GUI/handling. The tools work for him better than the compitition, so he's happy with them.

And if you say "I don't need to care either." then that's perfectly fine. From a users point of view, that's actually a rather good mindset. You don't have to analyse everything, and you don't have to fiddle around with some tools trying to match the sound of other tools .. he doesn't need to care about anything else.

But _if_ someone doesn't care to analyse, blindtest, etc., he shouldn't vigorously discuss about it. He can express his impressions -nothing wrong about it-, but if then someone else, who took the time to do valid tests, says "No, it's different .. I actually tested it.", he should do some testing hisself before getting into a heated discussion.



JohnG @ 2011-01-28 said:


> You can believe in your blind tests and that's totally cool; I believe in the market, and in my ears.


Doing a blindtest actually _is_ "believing in your ears".


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 29, 2011)

EnTaroAdun @ Fri Jan 28 said:


> http://www.box.net/shared/ot3om4np5j
> If you care to do a test, download those files and try to find out, which of which is the original one. There is always one original and two with added harmonics (at a much louder level than -80dB).



EnTaroAdun, with all respect but I think your examples are not very suited for a critical listening test regarding distortion/drive. The piano is full of rattling, the voice recording is quite driven, probably due to the used mic/preamp/compressor combination and the guitar strumming is far from clean. I sincerely hope that you have listening conditions in which you can hear that and it is no wonder people have problems to hear where a little distortion is added to quite some that is already there (mechanical and /or electrical).

That is not to say it were bad recordings per se since they might work well in the context of their use, especially the voice. However that does not mean that they are the best examples for hearing or not hearing added harmonics.

I just checked for myself that I can identify - 80 dB of distortion easily in my own recordings but I suggest I open a new thread about that on monday when I have more time.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 29, 2011)

I don't know, how you have checked it, but I assume, your test is flawed.
To be sure, you have to do a blindtest, and the levels of the files have to be carefully matched.

The examples I posted might not be optimal, but the harmonics are in a range of -30dB to -50dB.
And while it's possible to hear harmonics at that level and even below on certain (rather "theoretical") signals, I'd be very surprised, if anyone manages it to hear them at -80dB in any *real world signal*.
With a clean sine tone it's probably possible, but not with anything recorded.

There's not a single person, who could ever prove that .. not a single one. But there are hundrets, who pretended to be able and failed.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 29, 2011)

Hannes_F @ Sat Jan 29 said:


> EnTaroAdun @ Fri Jan 28 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.box.net/shared/ot3om4np5j
> ...



I agree, Hannes. These examples arn`t the best. :roll: 

But, I did a blind test and I hear differences. If my ears are ok, then I would say: Gitarre "b", Kraut "a" and Piano "b" are the originals. The coolest recording here is the voice..... . :mrgreen:


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 29, 2011)

Don't be afraid ... even though you didn't hit the originals, your ears might still be ok.
Like I said .. nobody can hear it .. or at least nobody could prove to do so yet .. and there were many, who pretended to.

There are many common misconceptions about, what humans can perceive and what not ... in both directions (overestimation and underestimation).


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 29, 2011)

I was sure to get this answer.

So, tell us what are the originals, but don`t exchange them on the downloadlink!


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 29, 2011)

Maybe John Rodd will chime in and tell us what his ears are telling him? Would be cool, John!


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 29, 2011)

If noone else wants to give it a try, I'll post the answer.
Maybe I should wait till tomorrow at least.



Edit:
If you guys are in for a better test, what kind of signals would you suggest as sources?


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 29, 2011)

So, after reading that my listening results were wrong, I did what I normally do not on a late saturday evening: I jumped into my car and drove to my studio. There, I've listened to the files again.

And, opsssss, here in my acoustic treated room I came to other results than at home in my little studio. :roll: 

So now, I think the originals are: 
Gitarre = c
Kraut = b
Piano = a

If this is wrong...., then I don`t know what is going on with my ears. ( I drank a glass of red wine at dinner ) :mrgreen: o/~


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 30, 2011)

The answer is:

gitarre_A original
gitarre_B SPL
gitarre_C VCS

piano_A VCS
piano_B SPL
piano_C original

kraut_A SPL
kraut_B VCS
kraut_C original


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2011)

Interesting. When I listend in my studio I first voted exactly for those, but because I noticed that they are also the loudest (in RMS peak) I thought huch, the files where some harmonics are added must be the loudest..... . :roll: 

So my question is: Have you normalized or done level adjustment on the other files?


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 30, 2011)

I corrected the levels to minimize the differences.
You should always do this for a test, because otherwise there might be obvious differences just coming from different loudness.

The easiest way to do so, is to swap the polarity of one signal and listen to the boosted differences between the two files. That way you can adjust the levels, until you hit the minimum difference.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 30, 2011)

Which is what I did.
I normalized the level of loudness.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 30, 2011)

It's been a long time since I did any research into blind testing of any kind, but I believe if you look at the literature it is generally agreed that normalization is not the proper way to do level matching. Level matching must be done according to the way the human ear/brain interprets sound (something we don't understand, but that's a different topic<G>).

The sort of test proposed here is insanely difficult to do accurately. The content of the output is necessarily different because the relationship between harmonics will be different IF the hypothesis is correct. Other non-linearities will also exist, some we can quantify, some we can't.

If we could remove (perceived) level differences then we could more accurately analyze the effect of the processor, but the process of removing level differences would likely remove perceivable differences. It's a "catch-22"!

There are a number of controlled studies that suggest that the human ear/brain can 'hear' signals that are 60dB or more below the peak level of the signal. Most of these studies investigated the effects of dithering, but the same science can be used to explain why a harmonic 80 dB below the fundamental can change one's perception of a sound.

All of this, by the way, assumes that the listening environment is not hampering the analysis. It requires a quiet room free of early reflections (we know that early reflections change our perception), and a monitoring system that does not introduce significant noise or other non-linearities, and more to the point, harmonically related signals. When you consider that most loudspeakers are far above the THD rating of even the worst amplifier, well, you have have a problem already. 

It isn't that the experiment is impossible, but now you have a "harmonic generator" that will be affected by the harmonics present in the test signal.

If you search either the AES or ASA libraries you will find no shortage of peer-reviewed research on the topic - and an almost equal number of dissenting views!


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 30, 2011)

wst3 @ 2011-01-30 said:


> There are a number of controlled studies that suggest that the human ear/brain can 'hear' signals that are 60dB or more below the peak level of the signal. Most of these studies investigated the effects of dithering, but the same science can be used to explain why a harmonic 80 dB below the fundamental can change one's perception of a sound.


So is there actually a scientific study, which proved, that humans could hear harmonics down at 80dB below peak level?



Anyways ... could we just finally agree, that the following statement was simply false:

"One of the keywords is distortion. For example one EQ might add -80 dB of h3, the second adds - 100 dB while PLParEQ and the like are very clean. All of that *is not visible in the mentioned null test* but yet *the sound of those three will be very different if applied to a first violins section*."

First:
It actually is clearly visible by using a null test.

Second:
On complex material like a violin section it's very unlikely to hear harmonics significantly better than on the examples I posted. And the harmonics in those examples were much louder than -80dB.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2011)

> Which is what I did.
> I normalized the level of loudness.



And why then do they have different peaks in dB ?



EnTaroAdun @ Sun Jan 30 said:


> I corrected the levels to minimize the differences.
> You should always do this for a test, because otherwise there might be obvious differences just coming from different loudness.
> 
> The easiest way to do so, is to swap the polarity of one signal and listen to the boosted differences between the two files. That way you can adjust the levels, until you hit the minimum difference.



So you did it by hand and used no normalizing, what explains, why there are different peaks dB wise.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 30, 2011)

Yes, exactly.

Loudness can only be normalized by hand and ear.
(Or well .. there are some different concepts to measure loudness, but I'm not sure how good they actually are. After all "loudness" is a psycho-acoustic parameter and not a physical one.)


----------



## wst3 (Jan 30, 2011)

not to be picky here, but if two audio files are different, then you can either match them for peak levels, or for RMS levels (which approximates how we hear - we think<G>), but by definition, you can't do both. Changing the crest factor so that both peak and RMS values are the same will change the content of the files.

It's a problem...


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 30, 2011)

You probably understood me wrong.

I did *no peak normalization* as it makes no sense.
I leveled the signals by hand/ear to get comparable levels of loudness. Probably "normalization" was the wrong word to use for this.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 30, 2011)

EnTaroAdun @ Sun Jan 30 said:


> You probably understood me wrong.


Apparently<G>...

[quote="EnTaroAdun]I did *no peak normalization* as it makes no sense.
I leveled the signals by hand/ear to get comparable levels of loudness. Probably "normalization" was the wrong word to use for this.[/quote]
Normalization has a well understood definition - with respect to audio processing at least. It involves finding the maximum peak value in a file and then applying gain so that all levels are increased such that the original maximum value is set to FS, and all other values are increased by the same amount (boy there has to be a better way to say that!)

Using your own ear to match your perception of loudness might work, but then it really only works for your ears.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2011)

wst3 @ Sun Jan 30 said:


> Using your own ear to match your perception of loudness might work, but then it really only works for your ears.



+1

I wrote:



> Interesting. When I listend in my studio I first voted exactly for those, but because I noticed that they are also the loudest (in RMS peak) I thought huch, the files where some harmonics are added must be the loudest..... .
> 
> So my question is: Have you normalized or done level adjustment on the other files?



Yeah, I heared the originals, but ..... . o-[][]-o


----------



## JohnG (Jan 30, 2011)

Ah! What a fool I've been! I should have known to ignore Hans Zimmer and listen instead to someone posting anonymously on the internet who insists on results of tests he ran at his house, and who feverishly attempts to shout down or discredit anyone who questions anything he posts.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 30, 2011)

Cut the arrogance.
Also you should learn to not ignore arguments, which were already made.



germancomponist @ 2011-01-30 said:


> Yeah, I heared the originals, but ..... . o-[][]-o


And you had the chance to actually prove that, _before_ I posted the results. :roll:
Maybe you got it right (it might well be possible with harmonics at that level), but you have to admit, that it "looks not convincing" to miss two times and then afterwards say "yeah, that's what I _actually_ thought".



wst3 @ 2011-01-30 said:


> Using your own ear to match your perception of loudness might work, but then it really only works for your ears.


It's still the best way to do it. RMS levels are not as reliable.
And then the listener can still adjust the levels, if they're not be good enough in his opinion.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2011)

EnTaroAdun, so tell us what speakers, amps, software and other hardware do you use/have in your "*studio*"?!

I remember a thread here at VI-Control and in a german forum, where you have named me, Eric Persing, Peter Alexander, Jay Asher, John Rodd, Hans Zimmer and many many others as persons, who would have no idea about digital audio. You named us all as esoteric people, because we all say that we are able to hear the differences.
:roll: :mrgreen: o=<

Edit: I remember that you called us "idiots".


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 30, 2011)

Friends, give EnTaroAdun a break here. At the end of the day opinions of big names could even be wrong ... it has happened before that a whole branch had a blind spot and it will happen again (not that I think this is the case here but I don't rule it out). Also I feel a little uncomforteable if we get too personal with him because that are actually quite weak arguments.

Let us meet the topic on the factual level ... however if we use scientific methods let us be sure we use them right. The normalizing topic seems to be deeper than assumed (thanks wst3 for chiming in here), and certainly the program material and daytime contribute, too. I admit that after working a full day on music I can not differentiate - 60 dB of anything any more.

Whole in whole I would appreciate a little less assumptions (valid for EnTaroArun too imo). Real science is more about asking than about knowing (and the both have a bad step sibling called denying). And _if_ you ask (experiment) you gotta ask in the right way and then do a proper interpretation (and we are never too sure about both).


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 30, 2011)

I'm always in for some good tests.



germancomponist @ 2011-01-31 said:


> I remember a thread here at VI-Control and in a german forum, where you have named me, Eric Persing, Peter Alexander, Jay Asher, John Rodd, Hans Zimmer and many many others as persons, who would have no idea about digital audio. You named us all as esoteric people, because we all say that we are able to hear the differences.
> :roll: :mrgreen: o=<
> 
> Edit: I remember that you called us "idiots".


That's a very wrong picture of the discussion.
People, who are interested, how the discussion _really_ went, can look here:
http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16851


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2011)

EnTaroAdun @ Mon Jan 31 said:


> I'm always in for some good tests.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Opssss, you have forgotten to post the link to the german forum! o/~


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 30, 2011)

When you find it, feel free to post the link.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2011)

Smile! As I remember right, the owner of this german forum deleted the complete thread..... .


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 30, 2011)

Good night Gunther.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2011)

EnTaroAdun, theory is interesting, but believe me, the practice is still much more interesting! I am sure, in some years you will remember this sentence!

Have a good night!


----------



## Synesthesia (Jan 30, 2011)

JohnG @ Sun Jan 30 said:


> Ah! What a fool I've been! I should have known to ignore Hans Zimmer and listen instead to someone posting anonymously on the internet who insists on results of tests he ran at his house, and who feverishly attempts to shout down or discredit anyone who questions anything he posts.



ROFL!


----------



## Waywyn (Jan 31, 2011)

I honestly didn't read all posts, but what is always with that null test?
I fell for it too to be honest in the first moments, but lots of people always forget a very important point:

Yes, you might be able to recreate a EQ curve of a popular and expensive EQ with a cheap implemented EQ inside your sequencer, but that DOES NOT MEAN that you are able to automatically recreate the behaviour of a popular EQ plugin with a cheap one.

I am trying to say, you can take a photo of a landscape when you see the landscape you want to take the picture from, BUT you are NOT ABLE to take a picture of the landscape when you are not there/not seeing it.

Yes, you can use your ears and make a track sound good with a cheap EQ, but you are NOT able to recreate the behavior of e.g. an SSL only by using the cheap EQ and not having the SSL to compare what it does in the current situation


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jan 31, 2011)

That's true ... I already said it here in this thread:
http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... 514#258514


EnTaroAdun @ 2011-01-28 said:


> Different handling leads to different results (in most cases).





germancomponist @ 2011-01-31 said:


> Smile! As I remember right, the owner of this german forum deleted the complete thread..... .


That's a lie.
http://www.neotrax.de/technik-know-how-allgemein/1433-diskussion-klangunterschiede-bei-daw-s/ (http://www.neotrax.de/technik-know-how- ... bei-daw-s/)

The "us" in your post was also a lie.
You are not in one group with people like Hans Zimmer, and I've never called those people idiots.
I said: "Everybody, who aggressively propagates an opinion, without even having a single argument, is an idiot."



germancomponist @ 2011-01-31 said:


> EnTaroAdun, theory is interesting, but believe me, the practice is still much more interesting! I am sure, in some years you will remember this sentence!


The indication, that I'd only be doing theory, is a lie as well.
I was always asking for practical listening-tests as everyone can see.

Next time, when you're about to post some more lies, at least try to give some sources. I'm tired of wasting my time with your childish trolling.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 31, 2011)

I was talking about another thread, I think it was called "The Nulltest doesn`t improve it all" or something like this, and I did not lie.

EnTaroAdun or Kkuno or whatother names you are using; you always have to have the last words. Do you think in this way you are shining cool for all other forum members, or what? Your attempts to insult me are ridiculous! 

Leave it! o=<


----------

