Zo


Check my last video ...... and check the relative frequencies relationship

Enjoyed the video Zo ! Thanks for taking the time!

Jind


As was shown to be the case in the epic thread in which some are convinced they hear differences between DAWs (note, I'm not trying to rehash this topic, just using as a lesson learned type scenario), it was shown that if one states an opinion about "hearing" a difference or no difference between to sources and states with some confidence their view on it, they should probably post audio examples of what they are listening to otherwise it's only personal opinion based upon one persons perception.  It's always a good idea when doing this to allow others to judge for themselves.  I don't have a hardware LA2A, nor do I have the UAD version, but I do have both the IK Multimedia White 2A and the PC2A to compare which can be compared as others already have, but those stating that the UAD versions is indistinguishable from the hardware versions should post some examples and let others judge for themselves.

Some have posted some hardware comparisons and regardless which I found to be preferable, I could hear differences.  Do I think all  had similar characteristics?  Sure thing, but they were distinguishable.

My lessons learned in the epic thread, or as I like to call it "the Motown thread" were that an audio example helps others to decide for themselves when speaking of comparisons.

As always, individual mileage may vary.

May i ask witch one you prefer ( witch is not witch one is the best ;)) ? IK or PC2A?

Hi Everyone, 

FWIW, I did the engineering and modeling work on the PC2A.  This thread is a great discussion, and this particular hardware unit is very deserving of the attention and debate.  Here's just some quick thoughts after reading your comments.

* We modeled the PC2A from newly purchased hardware that had an ample "break-in" time.  We also confirmed the subjective results in an independent studio on other identical models (while knowing that even individual units can have "personality").

* All of the plugins I tested for comparison (UAD, Waves, White, etc) were very similar to our hardware.  I'm a fan of all of them in one respect or another.  

* All of the plugins tested, were also unique in many ways - none matched the hardware exactly.  I can see why so many users like to have many emulations in their arsenal.

* Some modeled the important R37 adjustment, some didn't.

* What all of these processors have in common, is that they don't treat all program frequencies the same while compressing.  That's not to say that there is any multi-band processing going on - there isn't.  There's just one internal, automatic "volume knob" doing the gain-reduction.  What that gain-reduction responds to - does get interesting.  For instance, if the audio input is wide-band material, like a full-mix, or distorted guitar licks, you get one compression curve.  If it's bass, you get another curve.  If it's vocals, where you can have a mix of mid-range tones, separated by occasional bursts of high-frequency sibilance, you'll get different compression curves for each enunciation.

* The attack and release times are all program-dependent.  This is due to the nature of the internal, electro-luminescent panel and the photocell it's paired with (i.e. the T4).  In general, the more active the audio input (and gain reduction), the faster the attack times becomes - and - the slower the release times become.  The photocell is "remembering" what it has seen recently, and its reaction changes.  Also, the release times aren't straightforward in shape - they are kind of crazy, multi-stage shapes, which adds to the character of the original hardware.  FWIW, some of the plug-ins tested appeared to have used fixed release-times with a simple exponential shape.

* One thing about the above, is that in the original hardware, the photocell can become sluggish after long periods of silence at the input.  If this is followed by the sudden appearance of a transient, the output can "pop", because the photocell is slow to wake up.  This is consistently repeatable with the hardware unit.  I found that none of the other plug-ins modeled this behavior - the hardware consistently added more of a crisp edge to transients, due to the slower attack.  For that reason, we added the photocell 'Classic' and 'Fast Reset' modes (in a right-click context menu).  'Classic' has an attack that can become sluggish after no activity, like the hardware.  'Fast Reset' responds much more like other plug-in versions of the processor. 

* The R37 adjustment changes the sensitivity of the low-mid bands - that is, it relaxes much of the compression on the low-mid, leaving the highs to be compressed.  Since the high-frequencies remain compressed, the position on the screw control is marked 'HF', versus 'Flat'.  Again, none of this is actually EQ'ing the overall sound.  This just alters the sensitivity of the gain-control to different frequencies, when they are the dominating the input.  Bottom line - on vocals, turning the R37 knob counter-clockwise to "HF", will create a nice de-Ess effect that keeps naked sibilance under aggressive compression.

* The PC2A imparts both even and odd harmonics that is very similar to our hardware.  The T4 and the tubes in the original hardware are responsible for this character.

*We've payed careful attention to every detail on this one, and tried to add the options that users would want to tailor it to their needs - all while staying as true to the original as possible.

Phew!  I hope all of that helps!  Cheers to all.

~Bob

Very interesting stuff Bob. 

You must be very proud of well it is standing up to all the scrutiny also. Out of interest, how long did it take you from start to finish?

Middleman

Starise


 No two of the hardware units sounded exactly alike,so I would be extremely surprised if someone came here and said, " Yeah man, these things are EXACT clones of one another and of the original". lol.....

Which is why, when someone claims the scope of the plugin and the scope of the hardware are the same, I question their commentary.  

I invite anyone to my studio to see it for themselves. Let me know if you are in the downtown Chicago area.  

Middleman


http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=facepalm&id=38E81E9C3EEB17AE6D4350015A547CBEE6B220FF&FORM=IQFRBA

Is that supposed to be an insult?  It didn't work. 
  
 

There's no doubt [to me],that the hardware file sounds better,and if I'd never heard it I would have never known.

To me,it maybe shows they still have a[little?] way to go at getting that special something out of plugins.

Don't get me wrong,I love what the PC2A does,and only wish it had been introduced earlier,and really the difference is kinda small,though,at the same time,the HW obviously imparts something,special,that just brings the tonality of the strings,and note playing,that is just BETTER,and I'm sure some here, have the skill to combine the PC2A with something else[another plug? or tweak]that in combination,could impart,the extra,that I hear from the HW file.[?]

I think too that's also what is fantastic about plugins,is,if you have the skill,hopefully anything is now possible,and the ease of routing,adding,and the immediacy that they impart for so much less money[plus space!]is amazing.

Unfortunately unless their a UAD card or resellable bundle or whatever,they aren't really an investment[except for your sound,which is most important really],but thats all part of the saving,I guess?

Anyway,I really appreciate middleman posted, as its certainly helping my crash course in self recording,and something I may, have not known for ever,was now learned,Bob.

I too appreciate your comments and insight Bob. Thanks for that. The "sluggish after long periuods of silence" is what was getting me. That pop type sound. And you're right, the other two units I tried didn't have that. Switching to the other mode cleared that up for me actually.

Middleman: Just so you know...in case you missed it, I did agree that your hardware unit definitely had a quality I liked better. Thanks for the reply and the explanation.

You mention in your last post to Bob that the hardware is a little more clear and deeply rounded. Do you think that may be because Bob modeled off of a new one and yours is a few years old? I'm wondering how much the old technology vs. the new stuff they use in these things today makes a difference. Like...I would assume that an older unit (especially with a few years of use) would set in and be a bit warmer due to the older stuff back then and how warmth was a bit more the "in thing" where as today, we've seemed to allow frequencies that would be considered a no no back then to be allowed to shine. Or, the parts used today vs. years ago make these units a little brighter possibly? I wonder how much of that comes into play also.

What would have really been cool....two units and two plugins. One with the classic old sound modeled with the slow photocell from a unit with a few years of use under its belt and another modeled from a brand new unit where the photoocell is faster to engage. I'm just wondering though....how much of a difference in sound would that make and would it compare to the guys like Middleman that may have older units with some time in the field? I would think that would play a pretty big role in some of this stuff, right?

At any rate, it's a fine piece for the price as well as delivering the goods. :)

-Danny

gtgarner


I have 2 UAD Quad cards:

    One I own and another I just received from UAD.

     
Wow, if UA just gives you kards, no wonder you'll want to say pretty things about them...

 I can actually hear a difference between cards.
 

You realise that this is the type of statement that sets off all kinds of voodoobogus alarms around here? Even if you do feel there's a differense between the kards, you're better off keeping it to yourself. 

Sven    

Danny Danzi


Middleman: Just so you know...in case you missed it, I did agree that your hardware unit definitely had a quality I liked better. Thanks for the reply and the explanation.
 

Yep, saw that.

You mention in your last post to Bob that the hardware is a little more clear and deeply rounded. Do you think that may be because Bob modeled off of a new one and yours is a few years old?

My unit is not that old. It's an early re-issue. I thought it might just be that "Je ne sais quoi" effect of transformers that cannot be duplicated by a plug in. Possibly a case of  random analog response to the variable input of sound which is hard to model. I would like to hear Bob's thoughts on why so many LA2A plugins don't capture the real thing completely although, I gotta say, this one is really nice.

Zo


Ok R37 on vocals for Danny !!

http://youtu.be/9dIKpdYDuYs

Zo, I finally got around to checking these out. Thanks a lot for doing them all. Your explanation was quite clear as well as your examples. In the last drum example you posted, I heard everything the way you did. In the one before that as well as the vocals, I SAW what was going on in your meters as well as the wave form preview...but for some reason, I couldn't hear it.
 
The weird thing...and maybe you can try this yourself.....try listening to your video without looking at the screen. When I did it that way, on the vocal video, I couldn't tell a difference no matter how hard I tried. The same with the first drum video. On the second drum video (this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GT097vDKkc&feature=youtu.be ) I had no problems seeing and hearing what you were doing whether I looked at the screen or not. So this one to me, best represents what this thing is doing.
 
Also, I might have been able to hear this stuff better if I heard it like you did. God knows what the YouTube compression may have done to the actual audio as well, ya know? Anyway, thanks so much for going through the trouble to do those for us. I really enjoyed them...and your accent rocks! :) I'm going to do the same stuff as you did over here so I can hear things without the possible video compression/quality loss. I bet I'll hear it better that way. Thanks so much again brother! :)
 
-Danny

Danny, I think your spot on about the UTOOB file/sound compression.

EDIT middlemans files were soundcloud,razorwit-dowloadable .wav[MUCH EASIER TO HEAR teeny differences],also being acoustic guitar[on its own]as singular A/B/C-able files,makes hearing the sublties,way more apparent. 

Bob S.
P.S. Why do I bother?,DIY bother,Do you bother.........Why?

Absolutely right John.

Rather than selling it as a vst to users of the competition's DAW's, entice them to jump ship.

As a user of another DAW I don't feel any desire to jump ship at all.  All the modules in Pro Channel are not unique and are simply available from many other sources. (the pricing in Sonar is good value though) And as normal VST's there is more options in terms of routing etc. And not to mention they pop up inside other DAW's. Sure Pro Channel itself might be a bit different but all the same effects can be achieved in many other ways.

You might be using another DAW that performs better in certain areas (very hard for Sonar users to believe!) and if that is the case, for me the tendancy is to stay with it. This might not apply to all and some might be tempted to jump ship or go back. It is too easy to start believing that Pro Channel and its modules are totally unique and not available from any other software developer.

I do believe the quality of the Pro Channel plugins is high and very competitive compared to some of the others and I think it will be the pricing that sets them apart more so than the actual sound of them. I wish them well in their endeavors. I think all this development is great for Sonar users but it may not necessarily attract a whole lot of people from other DAW's that is all I am saying.

The better and better the music is, the less important all of these things are anyway.

Thanks a ton Bob!  It's great you jumped in.