General thoughts about SFP/Pulsar quality

Lemke · Post by **Lemke** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 7:07 am

Hello!
I want to raise some discussions about the subject and also ask a number of questions to developers about possible improvements to the system.

First I've noticed some slight and not so slight changes to PulsarII system sound from version to version. The most visible improvements in overall sound was after upgrade to 3.1a. The HIGHS began to sound less harsh and 'digital'. I use external clock source throug ADAT (RME ADI-8DS) and I wonder if it could be the improvement in clock handling or something other?

3.1ñ somehow changed the sound too but I cannot formulate exactly how. But it definitely did not start to sound worse.

I wanted to ask a question to informed developers: does something change in basic SFP atoms from release to release or the foundation remains the same?

The second thought is about mixing. I have mixed

feelings about pulsar mixers.
In the past I've often worked with older Disgidesign Session8, and now I find the mix going out of it to be superior quality to SFP, though S8 is only 16-bit (do not know about it's internal summing bus).

I've been told by creamware here and there, that internal resolution in 32-bit FP throughout. But I still have doubts that that fact is utilized in full potential in current version of software. Do creamware devices use double precision accumulators and if so, do the dither their output to 32-bit at all stages? And at last are there any plans to create a mixer (CW or third party) with 40-bit or bigger summing bus, which is a standard in professional digital consoles and now can be found even in semi-pro gear (such as RME Hammerfall for instance)?

It seems that with some minor changes CFP system can sound better, but would it be realized.

E

[ This Message was edited by: Lemke on 2003-04-04 07:08 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 10:54 pm

If you have several devices connected digitally the clock quality has a severe influence. I remember once having trouble with a not properly syncing external audio CD. It seemed to work (no glitches or crackles), but all sounded somewhat blurred and metalic.
On a smaller degree of clock deviation the effect wouldn't be as prominent, but just a decrease in sound quality.

It's not the bit deepth itself that makes the sound, not even in summing as has been pointed out in an earlier thread.
The bit deepth matters only when an increased quality of processing is applied, those (in)famous algorithms.
An inferior processing method doesn't yield better results just because it's done on more bits.
Those figures are often marketing tools, like transfer rates of disk interfaces. Advertised xy MBytes/sec doesn't mean the whole unit operates at that speed, but the controller interface might (under certain exotic conditions) but definetely can't go beyond that number.

my 2 cents, Tom

kimgr · Post by **kimgr** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 3:23 am

I've been told by creamware here and there, that internal resolution in 32-bit FP throughout.

As far as I know, STM mixers use 32bit FIXED...

But I still have doubts that that fact is utilized in full potential in current version of software. Do creamware devices use double precision accumulators and if so, do the dither their output to 32-bit at all stages?

The Sharc processor uses 80bit accumulators when working with 32bit.
The STM mixers do not use dither internally.

And at last are there any plans to create a mixer (CW or third party) with 40-bit or bigger summing bus

I've been looking into that, creating a 64bit mixer, but it requires a whole new set of algorithms/atoms.
(Since there's no support for anything higher than 32bit fixed on the Sharc itself.)
Simply adding a 64bit summing bus to one of the current mixers wouldn't give you much in the way of soundquality, just more headroom of which the STM mixers have plenty; 186dB range with 24dB of headroom on all busses.

Kim.

Lemke · Post by **Lemke** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 6:00 am

I've been looking into that, creating a 64bit mixer, but it requires a whole new set of algorithms/atoms.
(Since there's no support for anything higher than 32bit fixed on the Sharc itself.)
Simply adding a 64bit summing bus to one of the current mixers wouldn't give you much in the way of soundquality, just more headroom of which the STM mixers have plenty; 186dB range with 24dB of headroom on all busses.

Kim.

I will be one of the first byers. It seems that the quality of mixers is one of Pulsar's bottlenecks.

The second is reverb. After getting myself MVPro and listening all the third party demos I finally lost hope to get suitable plugin reverb for pulsar with quality superior to Lexicon MPX1, Sony V77 (I have both). If there was SFP reverb comparable in quality to TDM Lexiverb (even at close price).. If not, I'm forced to get a higher end Lex.

And third. I bought Pulsar II (2items) intending to use them only as the sort of mixing engine. But was very pleased with CW synths. My favorite is Blue. It's a bit thin (comparing to Roland JX-XX, which it reminds me of) but very versatile and pleasant sounding. But.. those clicks on short env attacks and releases! Some say: soften your attacks. This changes character of sound and at most times is unacceptable. If I could have fast and glitchless envelopes on Blue and othes CW synths, I throw away or sell a couple of old heavy instrumens such as JX-3P and Waldorf MWII (which is emulated on Modular II in very nice manner).

Thanks again

Eugene

[ This Message was edited by: Lemke on 2003-04-07 07:01 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Lemke on 2003-04-07 07:03 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Lemke on 2003-04-07 07:04 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 7:11 am

be shure to use the Hummel modified version of the Blue, which has a much smoother filter.
If you like those Roland sounds, ask John Bowen for a Solaris demo

if you haven't done yet.
Well, it's actually a bit more included, but I guess it fits your direction

cheers, Tom

visilia · Post by **visilia** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:07 am

Hi Eugene,

Can you describe what you don't like about the sound of the Pulsar mixers?

I use them all the time and like the sound very much. They sound very open, have a nice balanced high-end and a dynamic low-end. I'll have to add that this is in comparison with the Cubase SX mixer.

Obviously, liking the sound of a mixer is quite subjective, but I just would like to hear your take on this.

cheers,
vincent

[ This Message was edited by: visilia on 2003-04-07 10:08 ]

BlackSun · Post by **BlackSun** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 11:17 am

My thoughts about creamware-mixers:
Clean without coloration.
Togehter with Vinco and Vintage EQ from ST its all I need for professional mixing.
The MV Pro is accptable. O.k. you have to work on the presets..
I´m running 2 A 16 Ultra with 5 gold-mikes from SPL and I´m not thinking about to changing this setup anyway!
Only waiting 4 OSX-version of SFP...

to be on the edge with latest mac.
If you are not glad with mixers-sound, what kind of pre-amps are u using??

visilia · Post by **visilia** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:35 pm

On 2003-04-07 12:17, BlackSun wrote:
...Togehter with Vinco and Vintage EQ from ST its all I need for professional mixing...

Nice to hear others are using this combo too. I really love these two. Especially the Vintage EQ. It's maybe not the best digital EQ for surgical EQ-ing, but to my ears they're definitely the most musical sounding. I would really love to see these as the build-in compressor/EQ in the STM2448

Lemke · Post by **Lemke** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 6:49 am

On 2003-04-07 12:17, BlackSun wrote:
My thoughts about creamware-mixers:
Clean without coloration.
Togehter with Vinco and Vintage EQ from ST its all I need for professional mixing.
The MV Pro is accptable. O.k. you have to work on the presets..
I´m running 2 A 16 Ultra with 5 gold-mikes from SPL and I´m not thinking about to changing this setup anyway!
Only waiting 4 OSX-version of SFP... to be on the edge with latest mac.
If you are not glad with mixers-sound, what kind of pre-amps are u using??

I'm using LOMO19a18(tube), LOMO19a19(tube),Rode NTK, AKG C451, Oktava ML15(made in 1959), Shure 57,58 etc. microphones --> TLA5050, Joemeek VC1, and custom made class A solid state preamp --> RME ADI-8DS -->Pulsar.
The problem is not in tracked material - it's OK.
The overall sound of mix is my concern.
4 years ago I sat down, plugged EMU6400 and Novation bass station into Digi Session 8 breakout box, then connected Lexicon MPX-1 to its SPDIF I/O, tracked 2 guitar and 2 vocal (with Shure SM7) tracks to S8, and than mixed the whole shit. Everything sounded amazing.
But today with STS3000, Pulsar synths, some fine offboard reverberation, nice converters and control and minimum external sounds, I always feel something ... unpleasant in my mixes. At the same time each individual channel sounds good. That's why I blame mixers. Maybe I myself changed too but not completely, I hope.

E

[ This Message was edited by: Lemke on 2003-04-18 07:53 ]

Ricardo · Post by **Ricardo** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 9:37 am

I too have been thinking 'nice mix but not quite bringing a smile to my face'. I don't think it is the mixer, as long as you don't run it too hard. Having said that, the Aux returns could be a point of contention. Reverb is definitely a problem.( if only I had a Lexicon). Compression seems to be my greatest pain, Finaliza is nice but....I don't know!! I think you've gotta just play around until it feels right. I personally have no problem with the mixers.
Lately I've just been letting everything breath and then just using TW vintage EQ and mastering comp at the end.

[ This Message was edited by: Ricardo on 2003-04-18 10:41 ]

valis · Post by **valis** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:12 am

Check your signal path:

http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... forum=16&7

helldriver · Post by **helldriver** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 1:32 pm

" Waldorf MWII (which is emulated on Modular II in very nice manner)."

which patch do you mean. i´m interrested in.

thanks

SevenString · Post by **SevenString** » Thu May 08, 2003 7:20 pm

yeah, ricardo, i know what you mean

for my last project, i was using CubaseSX (I only got into the pulsar recently), and i discovered that the problem with all those cool effects is that i tended to use them.

i ended up having to re-start my mixes from scratch, using minimal sweetening, and cutting back on the eqs and compression.

suddenly, everything just opened up, and i had a mix with some life to it.

i'll be using a powerpulsar for my next project, and i'll have to consciously watch myself to keep from using all the cool toys, whether i need them or not.

Post by **garyb** » Fri May 09, 2003 12:19 am

yeah, dynamics controls are an issue.part of your unhappines is that you're hearing things better so your standards are higher.you can hear that pro quality is in there,but there's something not quite right..or at least that's my experience...as i work with the multiband comp...then one day(the other one)there it is.

i'm relatively experienced in the studio,but there's still an awful lot to learn.really,i just got happy,really happy with my results recently.(very recently)

there's no problem with the gear,although it can always work better.top rankin' work is possible NOW.if the music's not sounding GREAT,keep working on it(the music).it will.