|
|
Post by blackboxanalog on Nov 11, 2014 10:41:21 GMT -6
I think it's a pretty cool sounding box, but I dig saturation. My Thermionic Culture Rooster can do some similar saturation and I end up using it on my drum buss pretty often, but it has to suit the music too. I came across their preamp on eBay last week, but lost the auction at the last second. Seems like it can do some cool stuff. Had you taken the time to read the video description or the explanation at the beginning of the video, you would see exactly how the samples were matched (using normalization). This ^ is something that I have a bit of a problem with. First off, on the site, you don't see a video description, just "Listen to the HG-2". When I click the the video to listen I get :53 seconds of marketing stuff (I would say garbage, but I'll be polite) that I've already gathered from reading the website. Most people are going to skip over this in order to "Listen to the HG-2" and probably miss the normalization disclaimer before the sounds start. Even with the disclaimer, the majority of people will hear the clips and the louder RMS clip will win. There are no two ways around it. That's the whole reason behind the "loudness wars". The louder something sounds, the better most people will perceive it. You're obviously in a tough position trying to make a video to demonstrate a product like this. In order to make the clips obviously different, you're required to "overprocess" them. Because part of the point of your product is to increase RMS levels, matching the RMS partially defeats one of your intended purposes, but not matching RMS gets people up in arms too. It's a lose/lose situation. Because it's a fairly pricy product, many people will be hesitant to purchase without having sound clips and we all know how difficult it is to get demo gear into a home or small studio. Anyway, I think you've got some cool and cutting edge products and understand the difficulty in trying to convey what they are capable of. Good luck. Thanks for the kind words and you make a good point about people skipping ahead. I did also add it in the video description but I know people don't neccesarily read that before watching every video. I have to say also, you are the first person who has seemed to understand the dilemma (before I explain it). |
|
|
|
Post by blackboxanalog on Nov 11, 2014 10:43:35 GMT -6
The level of snarkiness, cynicism and blatant rudeness from people on these types of forums never ceases to amaze me. Whether it's music or gear, people put in incredible amounts of dedication and work creating something and rather than being met with appreciation or at least a civil discussion, those who have probably never attempted anything remotely as ambitions or forward thinking feel the need to be obnoxious. Even though the principals and methodology have been carefully explained, people don't bother to read before jumping to conclusions and throwing around insults and accusations. Had you taken the time to read the video description or the explanation at the beginning of the video, you would see exactly how the samples were matched (using normalization). Now before you start blindly chanting "The only fair way to compare audio is with RMS matching" , give it a good long think and consider whether it makes logical sense. For anyone actually interested in knowing more about the unit I am happy to answer any questions. Well ur right, I WAS mostly joking, but didn't think it through. The very apparent differences in volume(bypassed being much quieter) threw me, I will pull down that post and re evaluate the samples that I listened to 3/4 of the way through, if I hear differently, I will say so, if I hear the same, I will say what I said above in a more politically correct way, no offense intended. My apologies to you specifically since my reaction was in response to your post. I hope my last couple posts clear up both the reason for my reaction as well as why the processed samples sound louder. |
|
|
|
Post by blackboxanalog on Nov 11, 2014 10:50:14 GMT -6
I am a little shocked by your response. You totally glossed over my response saying I liked your product...and then reprimanded "these types of forums" for their snarkiness and cynicism. Well, I'm afraid that's the real world...YOU are selling a product to US. Hey, look, II'm a songwriter - know what it feels like when someone says your baby is ugly. But believe me, a lecture doesn't rid the world of cynicism and it's not gonna increase your sales. My initial thought when watching the video - after hearing that they were normalized - was, "Wow - those are level matched?" But you're right - they aren't level matched, they are just normalized - so the "afters" could definitely be louder. Regardless, it didn't bother me...but it's going to matter to some people. Now - like I said - I thought it sounded good. Would love to try one out. I apologize for glossing over your post and I'm glad you are liking what you are hearing. I was frustrated by other posts and focused on that which I shouldn't have. The thing I would say is that I don't think forums represent "real life" in this type of situation. People tend to be much more respectful of one another in real life than on forums even when they have differing opinions which was the reason for the frustration. Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to check it out and discuss it! |
|
|
|
Post by blackboxanalog on Nov 11, 2014 10:52:23 GMT -6
Hi Eric, I didn't mean to offend you in any way I just wanted to point out that there is a noticeable volume difference between processed and unprocessed samples on your page and that kinda made it difficult for me to form any meaningful opinion on your product (I think the concept sounds interesting and it looks good!). If it's not too much of a hassle would you mind sharing with us how you normalised your samples and though process that lead you to believe that your method is better than the typical RMS matching? actually you didn't but thanks! I hope my explanation above makes sense but please feel free to ask me to explain any points further. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Nov 11, 2014 10:53:20 GMT -6
I'd suggest changing that vid to a matching the levels by ear and stating so, real mix guys always bypass and match/adjust levels by ear, it is important to make sure u r not being fooled by the louder is better phenom, otherwise this won't be the last controversy, u could always provide a second and third peak/rms match after the ear match comparison shows a real world look. Jmo
|
|
|
|
Post by KJ on Nov 11, 2014 10:58:28 GMT -6
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. Gotcha. Thank you for taking your time to explain everything Eric. If part of your product's function is to increase the RMS level (or perceived level) of the programme material then I guess your approach makes sense. I thought your product was more like a subtle harmonics generator that can be used as a tone shaping tool or an EQ but I guess it can also function as a psuedo compressor or a distortion box to reduce the dynamic range. |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Nov 11, 2014 11:02:19 GMT -6
I have to say also, you are the first person who has seemed to understand the dilemma (before I explain it). I think that saturation for audio processes is a difficult thing to demonstrate because we're all looking for very subtle instances of saturation rather than something easier to demonstrate than a guitar pedal or something. Saturation the type of thing when mixing into it, everything sounds great and when you take it away, you miss it, as you said, similar to 2-buss compression. |
|
|
|
Post by blackboxanalog on Nov 11, 2014 11:10:29 GMT -6
I'd suggest changing that vid to a matching the levels by ear and stating so, real mix guys always bypass and match/adjust levels by ear, it is important to make sure u r not being fooled by the louder is better phenom, otherwise this won't be the last controversy, u could always provide a second and third peak/rms match after the ear match comparison shows a real world look. Jmo Well with all due respect, I'm a "real mix guy"  and when adjusting processing on the mix bus, I am focused almost entirely on matching the peaks for the reasons I mentioned above. Focusing on the RMS is working in the theoretical realm rather than in actual context. Also if the goal is to make something louder (add RMS), then it's not being "fooled" by it but actually achieving the desired outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by blackboxanalog on Nov 11, 2014 11:15:02 GMT -6
well it's all if the above. It can be extremely transparent with the exception of subtle enhancement from the tubes and transformers but many pieces of gear can do that and it's often underwhelming to hear those type of samples. The HG-2 can do so much more beyond that which is what we wanted to show in the samples. |
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Nov 11, 2014 11:20:27 GMT -6
I'd suggest changing that vid to a matching the levels by ear and stating so, real mix guys always bypass and match/adjust levels by ear, it is important to make sure u r not being fooled by the louder is better phenom, otherwise this won't be the last controversy, u could always provide a second and third peak/rms match after the ear match comparison shows a real world look. Jmo I was going to suggest 'matching by ear' as well - so yeah, the transients will be higher on the unprocessed material, and the difference will be more subtle, but I've got to believe that anyone who's qualified/willing to shell out these kind of bucks has probably got the ability to hear what product offers and imagine where and how they will use it. Sure, the levels you chose will be subjective, but that's the worst criticism anyone can throw at you, and they're just looking for a reason not to buy - I.e, they didn't really want to buy in the first place, and we all love as much justification as we can get, right? Personally, I don't think I'd be willing to part with my money (if I was in the market for such a device) unless my ears told me the comparison was fairly leveled. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 11, 2014 11:23:52 GMT -6
Thanks for posting here, blackboxanalog...the whole point of this board was to do something different than Gearslutz where opinions are sometimes (ok, most of the time) bought and moderators are manufacturers and gear salesmen. I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot and hopefully, this can help you guys answer some questions and promote what looks to be a really cool product. I have been running my mixes back into my Burl B2 - I would think your product would do some similar things - but better and with more ability to tweak. We're all looking for something to give us the punch and heft of a console without buying a console...and it looks like this is a good place to start! |
|
|
|
Post by blackboxanalog on Nov 11, 2014 11:28:14 GMT -6
That's the thing though. These are "fairly" leveled in the sense that they are a real representation of what the unit does in context. Matching by perceived level would actually be "unfairly" leveling them. It's really creating an artificial and impossible scenario in an effort to chase a theoretical or emotional idea of fairness, at the expense of understanding the benefit in actual context.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackboxanalog on Nov 11, 2014 11:39:06 GMT -6
Thanks for posting here, blackboxanalog...the whole point of this board was to do something different than Gearslutz where opinions are sometimes (ok, most of the time) bought and moderators are manufacturers and gear salesmen. I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot and hopefully, this can help you guys answer some questions and promote what looks to be a really cool product. I have been running my mixes back into my Burl B2 - I would think your product would do some similar things - but better and with more ability to tweak. We're all looking for something to give us the punch and heft of a console without buying a console...and it looks like this is a good place to start! Thanks for the welcome! It really does seem like most of us are looking for that on our mixes and for whatever reason, few manufacturers have really addressed it directly. That's how this thing was born. |
|
|
|
Post by blackboxanalog on Nov 11, 2014 11:49:18 GMT -6
I was going to suggest 'matching by ear' as well - so yeah, the transients will be higher on the unprocessed material, and the difference will be more subtle, but I've got to believe that anyone who's qualified/willing to shell out these kind of bucks has probably got the ability to hear what product offers and imagine where and how they will use it. Sure, the levels you chose will be subjective, but that's the worst criticism anyone can throw at you, and they're just looking for a reason not to buy - I.e, they didn't really want to buy in the first place, and we all love as much justification as we can get, right? Personally, I don't think I'd be willing to part with my money (if I was in the market for such a device) unless my ears told me the comparison was fairly leveled. Thats totally ok if they don't buy it. To be honest, I'm not interested in convincing people that they need it. Not even a little bit! I simply want to let people know it exists and make it available to those people who have been searching for and waiting for this very thing. The reaction I have been getting from people (including some of the worlds top mixers) is "Finally! I have been looking for this for years!" and there are a lot of us who feel that way. One well known mixer who was demoing one told me that he would probably shed a tear when I took it back. Anyone who needs to be convinced is not our target and quite honestly, since they are not mass produced, meeting the demand from people who have been searching for something that does what it does should be keeping us more than busy. That's not to say that we don't care about anyone who isn't convincrd, simply that we don't mind if they aren't. We have no doubt that once there are enough of them out in the wild that people start hearing feedback and try them for themselves that we won't need to try and convince anyone of anything. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Nov 11, 2014 11:56:15 GMT -6
I'd suggest changing that vid to a matching the levels by ear and stating so, real mix guys always bypass and match/adjust levels by ear, it is important to make sure u r not being fooled by the louder is better phenom, otherwise this won't be the last controversy, u could always provide a second and third peak/rms match after the ear match comparison shows a real world look. Jmo Well with all due respect, I'm a "real mix guy" and when adjusting processing on the mix bus, I am focused almost entirely on matching the peaks for the reasons I mentioned above. Focusing on the RMS is working in the theoretical realm rather than in actual context. Also if the goal is to make something louder (add RMS), then it's not being "fooled" by it but actually achieving the desired outcome. ehh...ok, this rubs me wrong... I wasn't insinuating that you weren't a "real mixer", anyone who's interested in Pro audio enough to sign up on this forum knows that mixing 101 stresses the use of bypass buttons and level matching by ear to keep your mix in check. I also did say.. " i suggest matching by ear", and although the fact that i've built almost every piece of gear in my entire studio should qualify my ability to read a level meter lol, I do indeed rely almost exclusively on the use of my EARS to level match any changes i may consider in the act of mixing(I covet true bypass exactly like every pro mixer i've ever seen). But by all means use your EYES and focus on your "meters" while continuing to defending the righteousness of your clearly BAD decision, in turn perpetuating the controversy around your new product, that does indeed appear to be biased with its audio examples, you're shooting the messenger here bud. I think i'll bow out here, good luck. Nice looking graphics at the beginning of that vid BTW. |
|
|
|
Post by blackboxanalog on Nov 11, 2014 12:11:08 GMT -6
Well with all due respect, I'm a "real mix guy" and when adjusting processing on the mix bus, I am focused almost entirely on matching the peaks for the reasons I mentioned above. Focusing on the RMS is working in the theoretical realm rather than in actual context. Also if the goal is to make something louder (add RMS), then it's not being "fooled" by it but actually achieving the desired outcome. ehh...ok, this rubs me wrong... I wasn't insinuating that you weren't a "real mixer", anyone who's interested in Pro audio enough to sign up on this forum knows that mixing 101 stresses the use of bypass buttons and level matching by ear to keep your mix in check. I also did say.. " i suggest matching by ear", and although the fact that i've built almost every piece of gear in my entire studio should qualify my ability to read a level meter lol, I do indeed rely almost exclusively on the use of my EARS to level match any changes i may consider in the act of mixing(I covet true bypass exactly like every pro mixer i've ever seen). But by all means use your EYES and focus on your "meters" while continuing to defending the righteousness of your clearly BAD decision, in turn perpetuating the controversy around your new product, that does indeed appear to be biased with its audio examples, you're shooting ng the messenger here bud. Things were going so well... Let's not get back into rude territory. I'm not sure if you read my explanation of why we can't use RMS matching when dealing with two bus processing of this type but if you did, maybe read it again with an open mind and you will see why it makes sense. If we are working with a hard headroom limit (as we are on the mix bus) and my peaks are already set where I want them, I MUST focus on keeping my peaks where they are while I adjust to add energy. I cannot simply "use my ears" to match, ignoring context considering that it could very easily send me into the red or drive the next piece of gear too hard. Not only that but if my goal is to add energy, adding it by reducing dynamics and then turning the overall volume down to match the perceived level is an exercise in futility. Those are the restrictions of the mix bus and calling that a "BAD" decision is ridiculous. In terms of the product, there is ZERO controversy. What there is, is a certain percentage of people who treat RMS matching as a religion, preaching it and condemning those who are not using it in a specific scenario yet never stopping to consider whether or not it makes sense. It actually has nothing to do with the product itself. "Biased with audio examples"? You mean because we are showing the gear in the ACTUAL CONTEXT, doing the ACTUAL things that it will be used for? You mean because we are not creating artificial scenarios that don't reflect the restrictions and context of the real world and how it will be used? |
|
|
|
Post by blackboxanalog on Nov 11, 2014 12:13:47 GMT -6
Let me give a specific example...
In the samples, there is an "adding body" sample where we have a mix that was thin and lacking body and weight. The goal was to add the weight and body so I targeted only the low mids and sub and increased the RMS via the parallel saturation circuit in only those frequencies. This left the peaks the same but brought in the weight I was after.
Now peak matching shows exactly how it works as designed and for what it was meant to do. It's an honest, real world comparison but according to the “Everything must be RMS matched to be fair” mentality, that isn't a “fair” way to compare them.
So what happens if we RMS match the before and after? We get a "fair" comparison right?
Because I increased the energy (RMS) of the low end, the overall RMS of the track was brought up, this means we would have to bring the entire track down to compensate until the low end sounded about the same in the before and after but now the processed sample (that sounded exactly how we wanted in the real world context) would sound, neutered and as if the top end and mids were severely rolled off and missing. It would sound terrible! More importantly it wouldn't show anything even remotely useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdmitch2 on Nov 11, 2014 12:14:46 GMT -6
I listened through the 'enhancing an anemic mix' part, and the huge level difference makes it pretty difficult to tell how the box is actually affecting the audio. Why not post some short wav files so people can import into their DAW and compare in whatever way is most meaningful to them?
Btw, it seems like a cool box, and I would be in the market for something like this, but I would need more to go on than the demo video.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 11, 2014 12:16:59 GMT -6
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 was a New York ad studio and later an SSL thing.
Before the late '80s "real men" doing major label recording avoided compressors and rode faders both off the floor and in the mix. We also patched around as much of the console as we could and people in the shop removed transformers and upgraded parts. The whole "vintage" fad is an endless face palm for those of us who were actually there.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackboxanalog on Nov 11, 2014 12:27:12 GMT -6
I listened through the 'enhancing an anemic mix' part, and the huge level difference makes it pretty difficult to tell how the box is actually affecting the audio. Why not post some short wav files so people can import into their DAW and compare in whatever way is most meaningful to them? Btw, it seems like a cool box, and I would be in the market for something like this, but I would need more to go on than the demo video. Well that is actually the point of that clip. It's to demonstrate how much RMS can be increased while maintaining the peaks. There are a couple reasons we are not releasing wav files... 1: We have put a lot of effort into creating these samples and presenting them with visual feedback and in a way that we feel highlights the unit in a real world scenario while getting the most information across. 2: Getting permission from an artist to use somewhat raw or in some cases unflattering versions of their tracks in a streaming demo is one thing; Asking them to allow us to make them available for everyone to download, manipulate and share is another. In terms of demoing the unit, we have units on their way to VKLA as well as VK Nashville where anyone can demo them. I definitely hope people will do just that! I do have to ask though, why is it that most companies don't do samples at all yet people buy the gear? We put a lot of effort into creating samples and a video and it seems that it has created more of a hassle in a sense than if we simply hadn't made any at all. It's almost as if people complain more about samples not being in the genre they work in, not being done how they would do them, not being in the format they want etc than not having them at all. That isn't a criticism but simply something that I have been perplexed by. |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 11, 2014 12:28:52 GMT -6
Here's my feedback: Because of the loudness that the unit produced when not in bypass, I thought of it as a limiter in an L1/L2 way. My general view of saturation is that it brings a subtle roundness to the original sound, not an overall loudness. The same hold true with distortion, which from my understanding effects the original shape of the sound,not the volume.If this is wrong, I'd be interested in understanding what I have missed.
Thanks for the demo. I think if you're selling saturation and distortion, you'd be better off having the A and B clips at the same volume and let the listener focus on the saturation and distortion changes. The loudness change-which is formidable- distracts from that imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdmitch2 on Nov 11, 2014 12:38:04 GMT -6
I listened through the 'enhancing an anemic mix' part, and the huge level difference makes it pretty difficult to tell how the box is actually affecting the audio. Why not post some short wav files so people can import into their DAW and compare in whatever way is most meaningful to them? Btw, it seems like a cool box, and I would be in the market for something like this, but I would need more to go on than the demo video. I do have to ask though, why is it that most companies don't do samples at all yet people buy the gear? We put a lot of effort into creating samples and a video and it seems that it has created more of a hassle in a sense than if we simply hadn't made any at all. It's almost as if people complain more about samples not being in the genre they work in, not being done how they would do them, not being in the format they want etc than not having them at all. That isn't a criticism but simply something that I have been perplexed by. I think new companies are rightfully going to be the subject of greater scrutiny and must bear the burden of proving the value of their products. If this box came from manley or great river, no would would need samples. I know it's not your intention, but drastic volume differences in product demos reeks of 'audio chicanery'.... you might want to add some clarifying statements within the video if you don't want to immediately turn people off of the product. |
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Nov 11, 2014 12:52:07 GMT -6
I'm gonna sneak in here with a small comment...samples or clips posted for samples are fine and kind of fun to listen to, but it's been my experience that most things won't sound like other peoples samples for so many different reasons. And that's fine. If I'm looking into to buying something that I haven't tried, I find it much more reliable to trust the opinions of other trusted pioneers who have used said gear in practice. Even then I'll get my hands on something that others have raved about and end up scratching my head as to why they were raving. And the opposite is true of coarse. In the end, I have to get my hands on it and use it for my own music to see if it makes a difference or not. So then any manufactures may feel free at any time to send me gear to try  |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Nov 11, 2014 12:52:56 GMT -6
Come on man, Rude? really? i'm giving you an honest opinion, and EVERY PERSON ON THIS THREAD HAS STATED THEIR DIS TASTE FOR AUDO SAMPLES THAT ARE NOT EQUAL IN PERCEIVED LEVEL, I DON'T THINK ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN BREAKING OUT THEIR AUDIO PRECISION ANALYZER TO WORK OUT THE DETAILS OF A COMPANY'S UNIT/SAMPLES, if that makes me sound rude to you, then I guess i'm rude...
|
|
|
|
Post by mdmitch2 on Nov 11, 2014 12:56:20 GMT -6
In the end, I have to get my hands on it and use it for my own music to see if it makes a difference or not. So then any manufactures may feel free at any time to send me gear to try Agreed -- please send one to cowboycoalminer so he can evaluate and report back |
|
and when adjusting processing on the mix bus, I am focused almost entirely on matching the peaks for the reasons I mentioned above. Focusing on the RMS is working in the theoretical realm rather than in actual context. Also if the goal is to make something louder (add RMS), then it's not being "fooled" by it but actually achieving the desired outcome. 
