What you guys think of this?

I only made it 4 mins in.

I am sure someone has put their heart and soul, and money into developing it.

But, I really disliked the examples. I didn't hear one, that didn't totally destroy the mix.

Perhaps I am missing the point. But it really mucks with the mix..regardless of whether you like it ( i don't) or not.

I must miss the point, why would someone want something that is that extreme on the 2 bus.?

cheers

Wiz

Of course each to their own... but have a listen on your monitors around 3:30 the trumpet song...

I am gonna go have a listen on my iPhone and see how it sounds there...

cheers

Wiz

The whole point is that it is able to do everything from virtually transparent to heavy lifting and even full on saturation. You seem to be coming from the perspective that you don't want much of anything on your mix bus which would explain why you see it as "mucking" when most see it as "enhancing". That is of course a perfectly valid way to approach a mix, this just may not be for you and your taste.  Some of the examples are somewhat subtle and some are extreme but the idea is to show various applications and range.



Well I don't think it's that you "miss" it, but it's obviously not what you are after. Some people don't want anything on their mix bus. That said, a LOT of people (myself included) from bedroom producers to top level mixers are looking for that very thing. More specifically, they are looking for something that they can really get a lot of tone, saturation, harmonics, RMS and for lack of a better term "analog vibe" out of. Most gear that claims to do these things is so subtle that it takes null tests or ABX tests to even know if it's doing anything. Of course the HG-2 can be totally transparent with the exception of subtle, pleasing coloration from the transformers and tubes but it can do so much more and that doesn't make for very interesting samples.

Again, there is no piece of gear that is right for everyone (and no samples that will please everyone either!) and that is totally fine. If you do have a chance to demo one though, give it a go and you might be surprised.  It's been making the rounds with some of the world's top mixers and the reactions have been pretty incredible all around.

Hey there

welcome to Realgear.

I did try to be "sensitive" in my appraisal.

I always try to do that, which is why I made mention of the time and effort and heart and soul that goes into products.

Here is my point.

It gets strapped across the 2 buss... you either put it on an existing mix or mix into it.

What i hear in your example is an existing mix that gets changed so dramatically by the insertion of the product that it made me view it in a less than positive way.

Its true, I don't put much if anything on my two buss.

But what I hear happening in those examples, negatively impacts things like depth perception, perceived stereo image placement etc.

Now , a different example might have a different outcome for me, and of course if I had it in my hands, I would adjust and see...

How ever, I tend to (with regards to other peoples feelings) call it as I see it.

Those demos, do not want me want to open my wallet. Period.

Thats all I have to go on, those demos and your interaction here on the forum.

cheers

Wiz

Thanks! There is nothing wrong with something not appealing to your taste. As I said, it doesn't have to be dramatic but the ability to add dramatic amounts of RMS, harmonics, saturation and tonal shaping is actually the exact reason that so far, those who have used it have fallen in love with it and felt that finally something had addressed what they have been looking for. It sounds like the type of device is simply not your thing. No worries!




It's funny because those are the exact areas where most people (myself included) find that it greatly enhances mixes. It's a perfect example of how different all of our perceptions, goals and aesthetics can be.  If that wasn't the case, we would all use the same tools and make music that sounded the same.  Good thing we don't! 

Thanks for taking the time to listen and discuss it!

Thanks so much! 

It's certainly hard to tell from a couple clips of random performances, at least for me. A product like this is almost certainly needs to be tested in one's studio before buying. I actually found it more difficult to discern the differences between the IN and OUT versions than say picking out things in the mix that I would do differently!

Just goes to show that there are so many opinions out there, and that we all have completely different points of view.

I get it, I'm a electrical designer too, and putting so much effort into a design brings an amount of pride. It also brings frustration and emotional responses when folks don't see it as the panacea as you do, after putting in so much sweat equity.

After 15 years of design work in various fields, it's still hard to detach myself from my work, but being thick skinned is a necessity, especially in a field where we package up emotional content into audio containers to make people happy. We are, and work with artists and that means everything is up to interpretation, including the gear that is used.

That means that you're going to get a lot of judgement, good and bad, right and wrong. You can defend and explain as much as you feel the need to, but it's just going to keep coming. That's the nature of the internet these days, and the nature of people.

As for me, the only somewhat critical comment I have is that blue LEDs are too much for me. My eyes are very sensitive to blue, and they just seem blindingly bright in everything they are used in to me. As a designer, I understand you want something that catches the eye, stands out from the other rack gear and makes people go "oh man, what is this??", but as a user, the first thing I'd do is figure out a way to dim them down or change the color!

Just a man and his opinion, nothing more.

Yes this is what happened in my little nugget.

I have to admit that in most cases, I found the examples, at least on a subjective/psychoacoustic basis, not to be level-matched. But compression is part of the product, right? I mean, the only way to really assess the 'sound' of the piece would be to A/B it against the same material with a similar amount and style of compression.  A tall order that would of course invite criticism because it starts to become a compressor shoot-out.

That said, I really like the look of the unit and think the idea behind its workings is innovative and potentially very useful.  After all, it's all about the sound; if it delivers something unique and musical, who knows how desirable it could become.  It definitely looks like something a home-studio type like me can't afford, which begs the question, what's the MSRP - or even the street price?

It must be my age showing but I don't recall any "processing" being done on the 2 mix back before DAW's took over. Outside of strapping a stereo compressor at times, it was the mix that you worked on until it sounded right.

It wasn't a situation when you spent sometimes a full day on a mix to only decide that once perfected, that would would throw additional processing on it to make it "righter".

I suspect that it's the DAW sound that requires that last step.

Let me start by apologizing for my over emotional reaction to some of the initial comments. While promoting this release, I have spent a lot more time than usual on forums and the number of people (on many forums) who have (from my perspective)been unnecessarily rude and even offensive finally got to me. It's not a matter of someone not liking the samples or even disagreeing with the methods, it's the implication that there is a lack of integrity which again, I have seen multiple times over the last week.

In terms of the samples, the clips were recorded through the HG-2 at 96kHz and back into Pro Tools. The files (both processed and original) were then peak normalized to the same value. The result is that both files have the same maximum peak values.

There is a common belief that RMS matching is the only "fair" way to compare samples but there are a couple reasons why I think this is misguided not only in this but in many cases.

The obvious reason that RMS matching wouldn't make sense here is because the unit is specifically designed to allow you to add RMS. It's a feature so compensating to negate that feature doesn't make sense.

On principal, I also feel that RMS matching is in many ways illogical in tests like these because it requires creating an artificial scenario that doesn"t represent the context in which the unit will be used.

We have finite headroom on a mix bus so we are careful to make sure our peaks do not go over. If our peaks are already where we want and need them but want more "volume", we can't simply turn it up. This is where RMS comes in.

Now let's say we increase the RMS of a mix or element with the goal of increasing the perceived level. We wouldn't then turn it down so it sounds equal to the unprocessed sample. It would entirely defeat the purpose of what we set out to do yet that is what many people are demanding we do with the samples.

Furthermore, if you reduce the dynamics of a mix and then RMS match it with the original, it will virtually always favor the more dynamic version as the peaks and transients are allowed to smash through what would in the real world be the headroom limit. In other words, it's creating an artificial scenario that not only compared them in ways they won't be used but is actually designed to make the processed version sound worse.

So do the processed versions sound "better" and "louder"? Well the "better" is a matter of opinion but overwhelming opinion has been that they do and rather than that being a "trick" or reason that the samples are not "fair" it's actually the point.