psy-Q

[Fluxpod]

it's my understanding that the vitalizer circuit is related to the BBE process. if so, it DEFINITELY uses a dsp. the crossovers and compression circuit may or may not be dsp based, but that's not the only thing happening, afaik...

if i'm wrong, that's ok too. it doesn't change the arguement.

I have a bbe unit and had a vitalizer.I opened em both,a few op amps but no dsp.Both units are "ok" but very very dangerous to overusing....for me atleast.

[garyb]

the bbe has a dsp for sure. it looks like an op amp. it's a programmable chip that says "bbe version xxx" on it.

[Fluxpod]

The eeprom? I dont think that classifies as dsp.Its just an array of different circuits i think,i could be totally wrong offcourse.

[garyb]

The eeprom? I dont think that classifies as dsp.Its just an array of different circuits i think,i could be totally wrong offcourse.

eeprom stands for "Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory". it is memory data for a processor. the microprocessor and memory can be on the same chip...

[jdieks]

The eeprom? I dont think that classifies as dsp.Its just an array of different circuits i think,i could be totally wrong offcourse.

eeprom stands for "Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory". it is memory data for a processor. the microprocessor and memory can be on the same chip...

i might just misunderstand you, but a curtis filter or a SID chip are "chips" too, that doesn't make them a dsp. they're just tiny analog componends in a chip. isn't the vitalizer something like that? at least the tube and master models?

[siriusbliss]

...and higher speed digital IS analog. Similar physics and characteristics.
Maybe we're actually hearing analog as it was meant to be heard

Greg

[garyb]

The eeprom? I dont think that classifies as dsp.Its just an array of different circuits i think,i could be totally wrong offcourse.

eeprom stands for "Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory". it is memory data for a processor. the microprocessor and memory can be on the same chip...

i might just misunderstand you, but a curtis filter or a SID chip are "chips" too, that doesn't make them a dsp. they're just tiny analog componends in a chip. isn't the vitalizer something like that? at least the tube and master models?

i'm not sure what the details of the signal path are within such a circuit. often, the line between what is truly digital and analog are blurred . in a mix using a good digital reverb like Jimmy's Bricasti and mixed on an SSL, would you call the CD pressed an example of analog quality because the rhythm section was recorded on tape(probably.. )? the bbe unit provides delay(digital) and compression. this is what one of the bbe designers told me(BarcusBerry HQ is very near here and we sold a whole lot of their product for a little bit). i'm sure there are "analog" processes occuring as well. you're probably right that it's not a dsp per se, but if it's a digital delay(that's how the phase compensation that is the halmark of the process occurs), then...

good sound is good sound digital or analog, tubes or not. tubes do NOT sound better than transistors, but they CAN. analog does NOT sound better than digital, but it sure CAN.

sorry to rant, still, it's what chatrooms are for....and i obviously can't help it.

[jdieks]

you're right about the chatroom... so here i go

i'm not AGAINST digital at all... the thing is that THIS generation of digital componends don't have the quirks that "good" analog stuff has

it misses the errors... and the adromeda does have a lot of such "errors" wich make the sound. if you fm 2 oscs that sounds a lot different from a DX. a dx is clean en "mathematical precise" while an adromeda, despite that the oscs are dcos, sweeps around in pitch in unpredictable ways. and thus in sound when using FM.

as soon as digital does that i'll throw all my synths out i don't care how it's done, as long as it's done

[Shroomz~>]

jdieks, I think you'll find that the 1st 'process' knob in the 'Sound' section you talk about earlier in this thread is actually an 'amount' or 'dry/wet' parameter. The 'process' knob in the second section (High EQ) serves the same purpose. Both of those pots basically bring some sort of custom filter/EQ circuit into play by a variable amount, but it's the magic in those circuits, be it complex or simple which makes the REAL difference as you sweep accross to them from '0' or 'dry'. At least that's my opinion & you seem to share it regarding the magic at least. So what's the magic? - Well that's for those that know to know & for us to find out.

edit - Just wanted to add that I'm using PSY Q more & more myself as a mixing tool because I think it's outstanding! Very, very nice plugin indeed.

[jdieks]

thanks for the explanation. i wondered what the knob did...

i seem to like the plug more and more on instrument tracks too, to give them some shine...

[Shroomz~>]

thanks for the explanation. i wondered what the knob did...

I'm sure you knew what was going on all along. We all have instincts...

[astroman]

...and higher speed digital IS analog. Similar physics and characteristics.
Maybe we're actually hearing analog as it was meant to be heard ...

you have a point there... recently I was totally amazed by the response and precision of a class-d bass amplifier
the (smaller) 'class-a/b' version had a much less defined, almost 'smeared' tone
I really didn't expect such a difference - and these PWM thingies can squeeze a full kWatt from just 7 pounds

cheers, Tom

[jdieks]

thanks for the explanation. i wondered what the knob did...

I'm sure you knew what was going on all along. We all have instincts...

well.. of cource i've noticed that the effect became more apparent when you'd turn the process knob up. but i always thought it was like a drive. you get more overdrive when you drive it more... not a wet/dry.

[Neutron]

There is digital, and then there is digital.
DSP chips calculate part (or all) of each process on a given clock and the output of that process always comes at an predictable time, the same amount of clocks from when it was input.
General purpose CPU chips calculate each step when ever they feel like it. even with the exact same algorithm, i believe that CPU calculation jitter will always make the DSP sound better. and DSP has the potential, with the right programming and sample rate, to sound as good as analog. its just hard work.

its also why i think vdat sounds better than the exact same audio which went through a CPU. but was played back from exactly the same wave file , through exactly the same card and converters.

[jdieks]

There is digital, and then there is digital.
DSP chips calculate part (or all) of each process on a given clock and the output of that process always comes at an predictable time, the same amount of clocks from when it was input.
General purpose CPU chips calculate each step when ever they feel like it. even with the exact same algorithm, i believe that CPU calculation jitter will always make the DSP sound better. and DSP has the potential, with the right programming and sample rate, to sound as good as analog. its just hard work.

its also why i think vdat sounds better than the exact same audio which went through a CPU. but was played back from exactly the same wave file , through exactly the same card and converters.

i've noticed that when i mix a synth directly on the scope mixer it sounds better then when i record exactly that same input into cubase and play it back to exactly the same input channel in the mixer again from a separate asio output with nothing else on it.

so it could also well be what you're hearing is that the mixer in cubase (and i guess in every program) alters the audio you put through it in some kind of way... but i find it really strange that cubase can't just record and play back a signal that's already in the digital domain exactly the same as it was.

normally i have to cut some mid and boost some high (by 1 or 2 dbs) to get it to sound about the same.

[hifiboom]

i always thought cubase alters the sound in a strange way.

its fun that other encounter similar things.... I thought it was an illusion. But you never know with software, as there is no software without bugs.

[darkrezin]

...and higher speed digital IS analog. Similar physics and characteristics.
Maybe we're actually hearing analog as it was meant to be heard ...

you have a point there... recently I was totally amazed by the response and precision of a class-d bass amplifier
the (smaller) 'class-a/b' version had a much less defined, almost 'smeared' tone
I really didn't expect such a difference - and these PWM thingies can squeeze a full kWatt from just 7 pounds

cheers, Tom

I'm also fascinated by digital amp technology. I've heard great things about Flying Mole monoblocs for PMC monitors - tiny, light, low-power, virtually zero-heat amps with enough class to drive the best monitor speakers out there.

I believe PWM encoding technology was also used in Laserdiscs to store analog video digitally.. maybe this area of digital will be the next big thing? I wish I had the tech knowhow to understand it.

[Cochise]

...its also why i think vdat sounds better than the exact same audio which went through a CPU. but was played back from exactly the same wave file , through exactly the same card and converters.

... but i find it really strange that cubase can't just record and play back a signal that's already in the digital domain exactly the same as it was...

i always thought cubase alters the sound in a strange way.

its fun that other encounter similar things.... I thought it was an illusion. But you never know with software, as there is no software without bugs.

I'm also experiencing that, whatever the sample frequency.
Could it be related to any resolution conversion by Asio?
Might make it sense to use Asio 16 bit driver for a 16 bit audio project, or Asio 24 for 24 bit audio?

[astroman]

I don't think so
it's probably the floating point representation of the signal and not it's bit resolution
floating point can represent individual values with an amazing precision, but it is not continuous
Afaik Scope's internal data representation is 32 bit integer throughout.
One can use floating point routines, though, but obviously that's carefully choosen according to the circumstances of the calculation. It's seems not to be used as a 'convenience tool' for the lazy programmer to just avoid range checks.
That's my personal guess about the audible difference, which is a bit too prominent to be denied, but hard to explain...

cheers, Tom

[paulrmartin]

I may be jumping in late here but I always thought PsyQ looks like the Aphex Aural Exciter.
I had one of those

PsyQ sounds a LOT better!!!