The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Which plugin does the best job of creating that magic 3D depth that hardware imparts? Dynamics Plugins
Old 12th January 2019
  #91
Lives for gear
 
teebaum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamelesssounds View Post
Trying to mix here: yesterday, i could achieve very nice sounds by using
the El Rey and Taupe (A0 in parallel) (plus Essence) from a non-full-range-material
with a bit excessive HM and HF.
turned 2.0D to 2.7D nicely. ;- )
the remaining 0.3D would be achieved by HW, hopefully.

The Question : Hardware vs "The Real Thing" would be imaginable soon (?) ;- )
I can't understand your judgment.
he rey may be nice on a single signal or a submix - on the sum he shows the typical weakness of all acoustica-plugins in dynamic processing.
taube is an effect, far away from being suitable for mastering.
i think it goes from 2d to 2.25d, but hardware is something completely different - proper, really good hardware.
Old 12th January 2019
  #92
Gear Maniac
 

When we speak about Taupe, what is the opinion about Taupe program A8? It colors a lot, but for me it creates a space for the signal. Would just the space effect be desireable for you? That said, tt's probably also more related mixing than mastering.
Old 12th January 2019
  #93
Quote:
Originally Posted by teebaum View Post
I can't understand your judgment.
he rey may be nice on a single signal or a submix - on the sum he shows the typical weakness of all acoustica-plugins in dynamic processing.
taube is an effect, far away from being suitable for mastering.
i think it goes from 2d to 2.25d, but hardware is something completely different - proper, really good hardware.
Hi Dan,
as i wrote, i am mixing my project at the moment. i'm not mastering.
until yesterday i used no plugin processor in mixing (and mastering), except equilibrium, Kotelnikov and recently Essence (which i like very much) and left my wish for a 3d sound to my HW chain (Hendyamps, Elysia, Tube Tech, Black Box Audio etc.).

but yesterday, i used these acustica's two plugins in mixing. it was a very nice experience. if it goes from 2.0D to 2.25D or to 2.7D sounds to me negotiable ;- ) yes, they may not be still unquestionably up there, but the two plugins have really some edges compared to any "colorful"-plugins i've ever encountered. I could never like "color" in software-lands until today.

but i still think, with some proper dosage of fantasy from developers, musicians and engineers, softwares can step un-accessible lands. it's just a matter of time, i would say. let's not forget what Weiss did in 90s! even today in 2019 many are discovering its capabilities or even trying to copy it with some pepper added.
Old 12th January 2019
  #94
Lives for gear
 
teebaum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamelesssounds View Post
Hi Dan,
as i wrote, i am mixing my project at the moment. i'm not mastering.
until yesterday i used no plugin processor in mixing (and mastering), except equilibrium, Kotelnikov and recently Essence (which i like very much) and left my wish for a 3d sound to my HW chain (Hendyamps, Elysia, Tube Tech, Black Box Audio etc.).

but yesterday, i used these acustica's two plugins in mixing. it was a very nice experience. if it goes from 2.0D to 2.25D or to 2.7D sounds to me negotiable ;- ) yes, they may not be still unquestionably up there, but the two plugins have really some edges compared to any "colorful"-plugins i've ever encountered. I could never like "color" in software-lands until today.

but i still think, with some proper dosage of fantasy from developers, musicians and engineers, softwares can step un-accessible lands. it's just a matter of time, i would say. let's not forget what Weiss did in 90s! even today in 2019 many are discovering its capabilities or even trying to copy it with some pepper added.
to mix - yes
to master - no
i ask myself this question 2500 times a year and maybe in 100 cases wins digitally.

a question of time?
sure.
but when i see what moved in the last 10 years, it looks more like after 20 than after 2 h years, until someone really got closer.
Old 12th January 2019
  #95
Quote:
Originally Posted by teebaum View Post
a question of time?
sure.
but when i see what moved in the last 10 years, it looks more like after 20 than after 2 h years, until someone really got closer.

right.
Old 12th January 2019
  #96
Quote:
Originally Posted by AreYouHuman View Post
When we speak about Taupe, what is the opinion about Taupe program A8? It colors a lot, but for me it creates a space for the signal. Would just the space effect be desireable for you? That said, tt's probably also more related mixing than mastering.

the cool thing is that even such prominent effect like the A8 could be inspiring. i say to myself: hmmm this direction would be also nice, but i may achieve a better sound, in this direction, using other tools?

edit:

2nd day with El Rey: like the 1st day, I tend to use it only in the mix with signals that contain excessive High-Mid/Highs, and yes = i can't imagine using it in a mastering context, as well.

2nd day with Taupe: i tend not to use it much. my HW chain (i do not have any hw compressor at the moment to compare with El rey) does a much greater job. Taupe was inspiring (as explained above), but not in the 2nd day, because now, when i think e.g. on A0 or C3, i know how it would sound (+/-), so i do not need to turn it on at all. ;- )

is a license transfer possible? ;- ) (Taupe)
Old 14th January 2019
  #97
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
I’m finding the nebula libraries are where it’s at. The aquas all kinda sound cloudy and closed by comparison. I’ll try stage one!
Old 14th January 2019
  #98
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermos View Post
I’m finding the nebula libraries are where it’s at. The aquas all kinda sound cloudy and closed by comparison. I’ll try stage one!
Have you listened to Azure-HQ EQ ?
Old 14th January 2019
  #99
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJHollins View Post
Have you listened to Azure-HQ EQ ?
Yep! I own it. Same opinion.
Old 14th January 2019
  #100
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermos View Post
Yep! I own it. Same opinion.
Interesting.

ACQUAs come from a variety of different Developers, each with there own particular Converters used in sampling.

As we know ... ACQUA's are built from multiple 'Nebulas'.

I do agree [to a point] of the sonics of certain Nebula Libraries. In particular, I really like AlexB's creations. His new S-432 equalizer has found a strong position in my collection choice. Also his BFE BP1 Filters.

In the hybrid area, I like the sound of SoundDrops 'BRONZE-eQ' ... even if only to use the PreAmp section. [clear, transparent, depth].

We are beta-testing the new IVORY-4 package. I'm still doing comparisons as we continue fine-tuning the plugins function. I'm also a strong proponent for releasing HQ versions for those of us in Mastering.
Old 14th January 2019
  #101
Quote:
Originally Posted by AreYouHuman View Post
Would be interesting to have a understanding what 3d means. Best with samples. But I'm seeing more the education part.

[...]

In most engineering disciplines you can buy good books to get the knowledge. In audio engineering it's not the case.

[...]

Therefore I would love to see more serious sources for knowledge in this regard.
The whole idea to give a wishi washi term like "3D" such a great weight is likely the main mistake. Using it as an adjective in technical debates leads nowhere. I suspect that this rather obvious fact is the reason why the term provokes such a buzz.

The documentation/literature aspect is much deeper imho. It's more a matter of formulating the right questions. Of course it will be difficult to find much technically useful info about 3D-ness of analogue gear. But you can find a good amount of literature surrounding the effect of early reflections and reverb. i.e. Exactly how all these mysteriously impressively sounding vintage records have been made, but almost nobody likes to talk about!

Another point greatly affecting documentation is the nature of analogue audio gear design. In school, engineers learn to plan "small signal" behavior of their circuits. Once things go into the complex nonlinearity found in most analogue components, math becomes almost impossible to calculate or even understand - at least without computer and the precise measurement tools that we have today. So, most analogue audio designers simply relied on try and error. "Matching" components until they fit into some defined tolerances, "trying" different component brands to find the best sounding option, etc. Problem is, documentation wise, this is no more than a collection of anecdotes about what seemed to work best for whatever at some point in time. Not predictable, useful data.

The digital guys are currently working on documenting these 50 years, they have no other choice than fully understanding these mechanisms. Give them some time! (blackbox approaches work to some extent, but also don't help understanding and really mastering the relevant underlying mechanisms).


This aside, it's not too difficult to explain many of the effects specifically related to analogue gear, no matter the price: Production tolerances (and aging effects) between stereo channels is well known to spread the stereo image. Amps, EQs for example will never fully match L and R, so of course they will widen and rotate the stereo image in a complex manner. A perfect mono signal spread over the L and R channels will end up having different levels, frequency and phase magnitudes for the L and R channel. Further, the nonlinearities also most likely will introduce gross stereo matching "errors", such as complex signal dependent auto-pan.

Only problem with this, it's really just a bug relabeled as a feature! The "3D" created by the mechanisms above is the exact opposite of "sharp stereo imaging". Hardest part is getting a stable stereo center, messing it up is easy!



You also have the banal fact that any dual mono nonlinearity automatically decorrelates the stereo image of any stereo input. A saturated stereo signal is not only audibly, but also measurably wider. Now given the sexy, super nicely complex nonlinearities found in high end gear, you'll also "see" them deeply massage the stereo image.

Last edited by FabienTDR; 14th January 2019 at 06:47 PM..
Old 14th January 2019
  #102
Quote:
Originally Posted by thermos View Post
I’m finding the nebula libraries are where it’s at. The aquas all kinda sound cloudy and closed by comparison. I’ll try stage one!
backed.
i think Acustica apparently addresses some "special" kind of customers :- )
as everything, music, movies, paintings, clothes, cars, foods, intellectual "products" etc. is produced, today, for a "special majority". you are special when you a wear a special clothes that everybody can wear/wears. you are special when you have a car that everybody can have/has. etc. yes not a good comparison with Acustica, maybe. : ))))

i was a little too euphoric (being a newcomer with aqua (i had experience only with Nebula for years)) when i demoed the taupe 3 days ago. but then i discovered its veil by using it on different material.

you can achieve some 2.3-2.4D by it, but what you achieve costs sonically a lot!
(I can have a 3.0D or even 3.3D sound ;-) by my HW, and the sound remains absolutely open.)

so the Taupe will be replaced by Anamod Hardware soon. : ) (being inspired by Teebaum)


the El Rey is good, i would still say (at the beginning of the 3rd day), but on a (very) limited type of material. it saturates like crazy, but works sometimes.
Old 14th January 2019
  #103
Lives for gear
 
teebaum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamelesssounds View Post
backed.
i think Acustica apparently addresses some "special" kind of customers :- )
as everything, music, movies, paintings, clothes, cars, foods, intellectual "products" etc. is produced, today, for a "special majority". you are special when you a wear a special clothes that everybody can wear/wears. you are special when you have a car that everybody can have/has. etc. yes not a good comparison with Acustica, maybe. : ))))

i was a little too euphoric (being a newcomer with aqua (i had experience only with Nebula for years)) when i demoed the taupe 3 days ago. but then i discovered its veil by using it on different material.

you can achieve some 2.3-2.4D by it, but what you achieve costs sonically a lot!
(I can have a 3.0D or even 3.3D sound ;-) by my HW, and the sound remains absolutely open.)

so the Taupe will be replaced by Anamod Hardware soon. : ) (being inspired by Teebaum)


the El Rey is good, i would still say (at the beginning of the 3rd day), but on a (very) limited type of material. it saturates like crazy, but works sometimes.
we should not forget - with nebula there is actually a kind of "ad/da-conversion" with every device - sometimes several times - during capturing.

if you have several instances or even several bands of an eq in use, your signal is decimated similarly to multiple conversions - a bit like if you would convert each device of your hardware- chain individually d/a-a/d, which no serious mastering technician would do.
Old 14th January 2019
  #104
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamelesssounds View Post
backed.
i think Acustica apparently addresses some "special" kind of customers :- )
as everything, music, movies, paintings, clothes, cars, foods, intellectual "products" etc. is produced, today, for a "special majority". you are special when you a wear a special clothes that everybody can wear/wears. you are special when you have a car that everybody can have/has. etc. yes not a good comparison with Acustica, maybe. : ))))

i was a little too euphoric (being a newcomer with aqua (i had experience only with Nebula for years)) when i demoed the taupe 3 days ago. but then i discovered its veil by using it on different material.

you can achieve some 2.3-2.4D by it, but what you achieve costs sonically a lot!
(I can have a 3.0D or even 3.3D sound ;-) by my HW, and the sound remains absolutely open.)

so the Taupe will be replaced by Anamod Hardware soon. : ) (being inspired by Teebaum)


the El Rey is good, i would still say (at the beginning of the 3rd day), but on a (very) limited type of material. it saturates like crazy, but works sometimes.
I played around with the Nebula stuff since many years and since the Aquas gets a big hype I occasionally test those new releases as well. The tech overall is really interesting and I still think its in some cases the closest to analog from all kind of emulations out there.
But: with every new release all the fan boys are raving that it finally sounds absolute authentic and in reality it never has (its just a snapshot with all its limitations still). But it is at a point where the individual sampling setup (studio setup, chain, ADDAs etc) playes a role as big as the restrictions of tech to my ears (especially with the none Acustica Audio stuff). Which to me its a good sign.
Saying this I wouldnt use their stuff for serious mastering anymore. But for mixing ITB it can offer some cool, additional colors on busses especially when just using their preamps (boxtone) and maybe one band of EQ here and there.
Old 14th January 2019
  #105
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by teebaum View Post
we should not forget - with nebula there is actually a kind of "ad/da-conversion" with every device - sometimes several times - during capturing.
Thats a very good point and counts for their complex plug ins like multiband EQ or Comps even more. A pure boxtone should not need than one stage of DAAD.
Still, as everyone with some deeper experience with Nebula knows, there are many parameters for finetuning under the hood. And you can still very easily **** off every CPU with a HQ nebula instance. The Aquas, that are so popular these days, are much more CPU-friendly, for a reason...
Old 14th January 2019
  #106
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamelesssounds View Post
backed.
i think Acustica apparently addresses some "special" kind of customers :- )
as everything, music, movies, paintings, clothes, cars, foods, intellectual "products" etc. is produced, today, for a "special majority". you are special when you a wear a special clothes that everybody can wear/wears. you are special when you have a car that everybody can have/has. etc. yes not a good comparison with Acustica, maybe. : ))))

i was a little too euphoric (being a newcomer with aqua (i had experience only with Nebula for years)) when i demoed the taupe 3 days ago. but then i discovered its veil by using it on different material.

you can achieve some 2.3-2.4D by it, but what you achieve costs sonically a lot!
(I can have a 3.0D or even 3.3D sound ;-) by my HW, and the sound remains absolutely open.)

so the Taupe will be replaced by Anamod Hardware soon. : ) (being inspired by Teebaum)


the El Rey is good, i would still say (at the beginning of the 3rd day), but on a (very) limited type of material. it saturates like crazy, but works sometimes.
Try AlexB's anamod. Sick.

Edit: I also had the same thing about Taupe. Until I found I wasn't using it. Anamod has already made the cut multiple times.
Old 14th January 2019
  #107
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by teebaum View Post
we should not forget - with nebula there is actually a kind of "ad/da-conversion" with every device - sometimes several times - during capturing.

if you have several instances or even several bands of an eq in use, your signal is decimated similarly to multiple conversions - a bit like if you would convert each device of your hardware- chain individually d/a-a/d, which no serious mastering technician would do.
The 3rd party library creators have some techniques to get around this apparently, and also use WAY better converters. If you haven't taken a listen to Nebula 4 with AlexB libraries, you should.
Old 14th January 2019
  #108
Lives for gear
 

also ... AlexB describes the usage of 'multi-kernel' and single kernel to properly replicate the hardware.
Old 14th January 2019
  #109
Quote:
Originally Posted by thermos View Post
Try AlexB's anamod. Sick.
no euphoria? ;- )

yes, i was asking in another thread if someone compared the anamod to the alexB, but no one has answered. so i will compare them myself in a few days ;- )
Old 15th January 2019
  #110
Thank you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0se View Post
I've been testing this also, very nice indeed, it can add subtle depth to an entire mix very easily.
Old 18th January 2019
  #111
Lives for gear
 
Silvertone's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
The whole idea to give a wishi washi term like "3D" such a great weight is likely the main mistake. Using it as an adjective in technical debates leads nowhere. I suspect that this rather obvious fact is the reason why the term provokes such a buzz.

The documentation/literature aspect is much deeper imho. It's more a matter of formulating the right questions. Of course it will be difficult to find much technically useful info about 3D-ness of analogue gear. But you can find a good amount of literature surrounding the effect of early reflections and reverb. i.e. Exactly how all these mysteriously impressively sounding vintage records have been made, but almost nobody likes to talk about!

Another point greatly affecting documentation is the nature of analogue audio gear design. In school, engineers learn to plan "small signal" behavior of their circuits. Once things go into the complex nonlinearity found in most analogue components, math becomes almost impossible to calculate or even understand - at least without computer and the precise measurement tools that we have today. So, most analogue audio designers simply relied on try and error. "Matching" components until they fit into some defined tolerances, "trying" different component brands to find the best sounding option, etc. Problem is, documentation wise, this is no more than a collection of anecdotes about what seemed to work best for whatever at some point in time. Not predictable, useful data.

The digital guys are currently working on documenting these 50 years, they have no other choice than fully understanding these mechanisms. Give them some time! (blackbox approaches work to some extent, but also don't help understanding and really mastering the relevant underlying mechanisms).


This aside, it's not too difficult to explain many of the effects specifically related to analogue gear, no matter the price: Production tolerances (and aging effects) between stereo channels is well known to spread the stereo image. Amps, EQs for example will never fully match L and R, so of course they will widen and rotate the stereo image in a complex manner. A perfect mono signal spread over the L and R channels will end up having different levels, frequency and phase magnitudes for the L and R channel. Further, the nonlinearities also most likely will introduce gross stereo matching "errors", such as complex signal dependent auto-pan.

Only problem with this, it's really just a bug relabeled as a feature! The "3D" created by the mechanisms above is the exact opposite of "sharp stereo imaging". Hardest part is getting a stable stereo center, messing it up is easy!



You also have the banal fact that any dual mono nonlinearity automatically decorrelates the stereo image of any stereo input. A saturated stereo signal is not only audibly, but also measurably wider. Now given the sexy, super nicely complex nonlinearities found in high end gear, you'll also "see" them deeply massage the stereo image.

Ding ding ding... we have a winner here.

Thank you for explaining it the way I was going to try.

3D is an illusion in stereo audio, as it’s suppose to be.
Old 18th January 2019
  #112
Lives for gear
 
teebaum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
This aside, it's not too difficult to explain many of the effects specifically related to analogue gear, no matter the price: Production tolerances (and aging effects) between stereo channels is well known to spread the stereo image. Amps, EQs for example will never fully match L and R, so of course they will widen and rotate the stereo image in a complex manner. A perfect mono signal spread over the L and R channels will end up having different levels, frequency and phase magnitudes for the L and R channel. Further, the nonlinearities also most likely will introduce gross stereo matching "errors", such as complex signal dependent auto-pan.

Only problem with this, it's really just a bug relabeled as a feature! The "3D" created by the mechanisms above is the exact opposite of "sharp stereo imaging". Hardest part is getting a stable stereo center, messing it up is easy!

You also have the banal fact that any dual mono nonlinearity automatically decorrelates the stereo image of any stereo input. A saturated stereo signal is not only audibly, but also measurably wider. Now given the sexy, super nicely complex nonlinearities found in high end gear, you'll also "see" them deeply massage the stereo image.
... and because you explained it so beautifully to us, we are looking forward to the 3D-maker from TDR, which strangely enough doesn't sound like analog gear - like we know it from as example many digital saturation tools.

which is a pitfall of your theory right now:
bad, cheap gear has bigger variations and is not as well matched - so there should be more 3D effect.
strangely enough it is the other way round in everyday life.

at the end of the day you can see the differences of technician/programmer and sound engineers - one knows that it have to sounds the same, the other hears that it doesn't sound the same.

Last edited by teebaum; 18th January 2019 at 04:31 PM..
Old 18th January 2019
  #113
Not sure what you mean here to be honest. I didn't value anything, just tried to explain the various mechanisms affecting stereo balance and width. "3D" appears because the original has been changed in a way or another, no matter how you like to value it (I haven't tried to). L and R tolerances are an enormous problem in stereo gear, likely the main technical challenge today, with "manually matched components" literally tripping the price (because it is difficult).

Throwing money at gear won't help reducing the aging effects, nor the naturally large L and R tolerances found in any complex circuit. If your circuit has 20 parts per channel, but every part has a production tolerance of one tenth percent (which would be excellent), how large is the total L R error at worst case? Something around 1-2% at least, a whole decibel (Zinseszins ).

Not saying this is bad. Just pointing out the trivial fact that this is "bought" by troubling the original stereo image. 3d is not a quality, it's an effect you can also get from any saturation, or dual mono EQ/comp. It can help, it can mess up, digital and analogue.
Old 18th January 2019
  #114
Lives for gear
 
teebaum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
Not sure what you mean here to be honest. I didn't value anything, just tried to explain the various mechanisms affecting stereo balance and width. "3D" appears because the original has been changed in a way or another, no matter how you like to value it (I haven't tried to). L and R tolerances are an enormous problem in stereo gear, likely the main technical challenge today, with "manually matched components" literally tripping the price (because it is difficult).

Throwing money at gear won't help reducing the aging effects, nor the naturally large L and R tolerances found in any complex circuit. If your circuit has 20 parts per channel, but every part has a production tolerance of one tenth percent (which would be excellent), how large is the total L R error at worst case? Something around 1-2% at least, a whole decibel (Zinseszins ).

Not saying this is bad. Just pointing out the trivial fact that this is "bought" by troubling the original stereo image. 3d is not a quality, it's an effect you can also get from any saturation, or dual mono EQ/comp. It can help, it can mess up, digital and analogue.

i measure my gear regularly and unfortunately have to tell you that measurable deviations l/r and 3D effects have hardly anything to do with each other.

especially mastering gear is almost always built stepped to minimize the differences.
in addition, the 3D effect would have to be massively different for l/r operation versus m/s operation - that can't be substantiated either.

devices with potentiometers are massively more difficult to match and if they would make so much 3D-mojo, they would be guaranteed super common in mastering studios. they are also cheaper - stepped gear would hardly have prevailed.
differences of channels is a small partial aspect of larger stereo width, but it is not the significant aspect of 3D.
you can easily test it - just adjust your gear a little bit wrong and see if you get great 3D!
Old 18th January 2019
  #115
In static, one frequency tests, it's easy. Over different freqs and levels, it's practically impossible! It's a multi-dimensional problem. That's why it sounds larger, deeper, wider than boring, perfectly centered digital stereo. It's a very relevant de-correlation of amplitude and phase between L and R. Not more, not less. Not black magic or money turning waves into "better" waves.
Old 18th January 2019
  #116
I doubt you are really saying the decorrelation I mentioned above doesn't happen, or doesn't have any relevant effect on a mix?

1-2% total production tolerance (for very best hand matched gear), is "not worth a discussion" and seems not welcome. But a thread later, we "seriously" debate and classify the sound of technically equivalent cables, EQ algorithms, SRCs and dither.. ..since decades?!
Old 18th January 2019
  #117
Lives for gear
 
teebaum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
I doubt you are really saying the decorrelation I mentioned above doesn't happen, or doesn't have any relevant effect on a mix?

1-2% total production tolerance (for very best hand matched gear), is "not worth a discussion" and unwelcomed. But a thread later, we "seriously" debate and classify the sound of technically equivalent cables, EQ algorithms, SRCs and dither?!
If we want to have a serious discussion here, I would like to ask you to disprove my points.

why isn't the resulting effect of intollerants at l/r vs m/s enormous?


why don't you consciously use decalibrated devices to increase it? it would be cheaper, after all

i don't deny the effect of intollerances, but it's not the 3D that everyone is looking for.
try it yourself - I have done it many times :-)
Old 18th January 2019
  #118
Quote:
why isn't the resulting effect of intollerants at l/r vs m/s enormous?
It is! In M/S, stereo is centered, width gets primarily manipulated. That' the whole reason why it is used!

In Dual mono L/R, the sound is VERY different. Sounds wider, but with a blurry center.

I'm happy to post an example if needed. I'd also love to hear a 3Ded funky drummer loop variant, one that doesn't mess up the center or change width in a measurable manner.

Quote:
why don't you consciously use decalibrated devices to increase it? it would be cheaper, after all
The problem is multi-dimensional. You can maybe roughly match one dimension, one parameter. Never all at once. Imagine a 5-6 dimensional curve, not just gain left right for a 1kHz sine or pink noise.

Resistors have these colored rings around them, caps have enormous natural tolerances + clearly documented aging, diodes, too. They affect amplitude, phase and distortion (which in turn affects the first two in a complex manner). They affect the function of the device. Caps for example define the filter coefficients, i.e. the cutoff freqs or "Q" of many filters. What tolerances to expect from the most expensive capacitors? Cutoffs, Q, saturation will practically be different between L and R. They don't have any choice. More 3D!


From my point of view, these effects easily explain the 3D anecdotes.

Last edited by FabienTDR; 18th January 2019 at 05:45 PM..
Old 18th January 2019
  #119
Again, are you really saying that real world differences between L and R in analogue gear is negligible? That they do not affect stereo in a deep and complex manner?

That's what I am suggesting as an explanation of "3D", not more, not less. I'm happy complicate the matter, given a reasonable explanation or demo. Until then, I see no reason to complicate it further.
Old 18th January 2019
  #120
Lives for gear
 
teebaum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FabienTDR View Post
It is! In M/S, stereo is centered, width gets primarily manipulated. That' the whole reason why it is used!

In Dual mono L/R, the sound is VERY different. Sounds wider, but with a blurry center.

I'm happy to post an example if needed. I'd also love to hear a 3Ded funky drummer loop variant, one that doesn't mess up the center or change width in a measurable manner.
then we're not talking about the same thing - what does 3D in my channel is no less in m/s than in l/r - rather marginally more in m/s.

i know how deviations l/r sound - that can be ok in very small doses, after that it's terrible. It's not the 3D everyone is looking for.

you have made a wonderful explanation from a technician's point of view, which unfortunately only covers about 10% of what magical 3D really is.
if we understood the remaining 90% completely, we would be able to buy them in plugin form for a long time.

i would be happy if you would be the first one
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Toketronic / Q+A with David Moufang
1
The Press Desk / Product Alerts older than 2 months
286
Ben Mc / Newbie audio engineering + production question zone
14
supercool482 / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
7
Mark1353 / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
70

Forum Jump
Forum Jump