Just technical sense ?
Well I find the ASB sounding different and more expensive, if they are absolutely sure it's the closest emulation around they should hit the nail.
The fact that they say you can port the original presets " charts " and get the same sounds is a strong point.
Now waiting for the other ASB sound demos.
A. as a virtual instrument on a scope board
B. as a virtual instrument on the ASB
and both sounds are mentioned to sound just like the
C. original, how can you find out about the difference ?
There is no better or worse, if both sound like C.
MP3 files are just for short impressions - people seem to forget where MP3 comes from. MP3 provides an 8 times compression and the english word "compression" is very
inaccurate here, as in fact it's not about just a compression but complete reduction algorithm that works in MP3 - about
85% of the original material will definitely be thrown away and never return - just the psychoacoustic model gives the impression, that it's all there - which is not the fact.
You will only find out by metering any filter etc. But you will definitely not be able to find out by listening to MP3 files.
I don't " buy " at all the mp3 argument, furthermore the demos seemed highly coded : few high frequencies loss ...
My bet is that the sound demos are around 80 % + of the real thing hearing, which will sound better and ... not twisted.
Since it's analog, let's say the Scope and ASB versions are not modelled from the same hardware unit !
I'am rather immune to the hardware " feel " but I'am interested in that ASB special sound.
On 2005-07-27 16:37, darkrezin wrote:
They should provide WAV files (shorter if necessary)..
I agree WAVE files would have been better. But I don't think their idea of placing Mp3 was so you can try to compare them. They were more for demo sound. I guess someone can always ask CWA for a .wav file for comparing it with their PCI version of the minimax.
But still Mp3 is not appropriate for comparison.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: antar on 2005-08-01 10:32 ]</font>
If I may comment here...<p>
The differences in the code should only be this - that all of the sub-modules that were running on the host CPU have to be replaced with modules that do the same routines, but on the host SHARC dsp now, in the ASB hardware (similar to how they made the changes for Noah).<p>
If anything, maybe it's running "better" in ASB because the host routines are also running synchronously in a DSP chip, instead of at the relatively 'slower' rate of host processing.
