I've built a very tiny tube amplifier, only 3/4 watts per channel. It does sound 3 dimensional
![:)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Even on cheap speakers...
Maybe I should put Scope thru it
![:lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
-Tom
I agree Bob Lentini's comment is'nt solid evidence (but also he's not the only developer who believes this), I'm not sure solid evidence can be found regarding Fixed point sounding better than Floating point it is just a belief of some. But Bob Lentini did about all he can do and that is he told people to make music solely in SAWstudio then solely in any other DAW and then compare. He's debated this subject many times on his forum to the point he's tired of talking about it and don't anymore and i believe cause it's one of those arguements you can't win but others forever want to debate you on and talk about. Neither side is going to convert the other so it's a waste of time debating it usually. Bob Lentini isn't the only Native developer who has stated this tho, I just did'nt want to write too long of a post last time. Another very popular and highly respected Native developer also stated he believes Fixed point sounds better than Floating point. Dave Gamble from DMG Audio also states this. You know Dave, the one who made Equilibrium EQ wich seems to be a very popular and well loved EQ as well as other plugins? Dave has credibility as he's coded for both dsp and Native enviroments (he use to work for SSL, Focusrite, then for Native companies Sonalksis and now his own plugin company DMG Audio). When Dave worked for Sonalksis he wrote a article about "DSP's VS Native" and two things he stated he believed gives dsp's a sonic advantage regarding better sound quality; 1) Fixed point math. 2) More experienced and talented developers.hubird wrote:So we are getting to something![]()
Although there's agreement about (the) emulated plugs as 'more than close enough' to the originals, yet there are personal experiences from members on Planetz, ánd public reports, of a certain 2-dimensional character of emulations compared to the hardware.
This phenomenon then can be caused by differences in bit treatment (the math: floating or not), or it's a native thing (UAD
is DSP but ends in VST, Scope escapes), or it's just that 'an emulation can't be perfect'.
If I was just as critical as, say, (well respected) Sounddesigner, I could say, a developer leaving his boss for whatever reasons, who starts building his own DAW, isn't the most independent source to find evidence about at least the math point. But you expressed your distance to the subject![]()
Talking about Bob Lentini of course, and I admit he's a relaxed and convincing speaker![]()
I think if you're over 30 years old you should hear a difference between real gear VS uad/Native and many do they just have'nt made all the correlations. I'm sure you hear a difference to hubird. People are always saying radio music today don't sound as good as music from the past. What happened beginning in the early 2000's? More and more engineers started working primarily ITB wich is primarily Native plugins, UAD, and Native DAW's.hubird wrote: Say, at some point, those cons will be, or are already, proven to be true.
And say, you were able to make two identical studio setups for an already recorded multitrack song.
One with the classic hardware compressors, limiters, EQ, reverbs and mixer, and one with the comparable UAD emulations.
-> Would you stand a blind listening test?![]()
A/B comparing as much and as long as you want, we are talking about the details after all.
The golden ear thing, as they say.
Can't deny I was quite surprised by the realistic sounding EMT 140 Plate on the cymbal sample.
When I played it a bit loud, in solo mode, with the lows a cymbal produces, I really had the feeling I was standing close to that 'plate'.
The 'buzzing' was amazing.
Velocity differences (implied by my self in the audio part) smoothed out lovely.
And I wás sober at the time![]()
Would like to do that test as a participant by myself![]()
![]()
It can only be better.
Don't have a golden ear tho, only a tooth
if you mean the DAS Vintage Bundle, no. Like I said, haven't tried the DAS Pulteq, just C350, Legend and MAsterIT. Also I'm mixing natively - not in Scope, which is why I'm checking out the TubeTech strip instead. It was actually Eric who advised me to go for the others over the polteq emus, due to the sys algos in the later gen DAS eq's such as the C350 etc -which makes them part native (?).jksuperstar wrote:Dante, have you tried the legacy EQ collection? I still can't say if they are accurate emulations, but they are great DSP tools to have a variety of EQs, and that makes a huge difference when building a mixer for a project with a variety of inputs. The SL9000/and the STM stock eq are nice for clean high end, but the API and Pultec eqs are really nice for live instruments like guitar and bass.
Test yourself and find out! (A good listening environment or good pair of cans will be required).hubird wrote: The golden ear thing, as they say.