Login

API550A Blind Test (VBQ new V.S. Waves)

Officially Licensed 3rd Party Developer Libraries
Free 3rd Party Programs

Do you prefere A or B?

A
6
40%
B
9
60%
 
Total votes : 15

API550A Blind Test (VBQ new V.S. Waves)

Postby vicnestE » Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:59 pm

With the update of VBQ, I ran some tests with Waves 550A again.

Here's the blind test:
96KHz version: (Choose the one you like and vote please)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9609516/A*I%20550A%20Waves%20VS%20VBQn%2096KHz.rar
Original drumkit mixdown and leveled up to almost same loudness for reference.

44KHz version:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9609516/A*I%20550A%20Waves%20VS%20VBQn%2044KHz.rar
(The original waves are now in 44KHz version, VBQ programs are real-time sample rate converted by nebula pro3
and the same EQs are applied.)
A44KHz.wav = A.wav and B44KHz.wav = B.wav


For Waves 550A, I turned on the Analog switch.
For VBQ, I used the 5Kernel program for LF, and 1Kernel programs for MF and HFS.
This time I applied more mid-range boost to enhance the A*I sound.
Low/high frequency boost to test its extreme.
It's generally a rock drum that A*I is renowned for.
The 2 files are in the same loudness
However, compared to the old ABTest, the difference is more prominent.
You are welcome to vote for the sound you prefer and leave some comments.
And hope some developers could join us too.
I shall announce the result a few days later.
Thank you for participation :)



For refernce: All tracks are 24bit
EQ applied:
Kick: LFS 50Hz +2dB, MF 5KHz +2dB, HFS 10KHz +4dB
Snare: LFP 200Hz +4dB, MF 800Hz -2dB, HFS 5KHz +2dB
Hi-Hat: LFS 300Hz -12dB, MF 3KHz +2dB, HFS 10KHz +2dB
Overhead: LFS 200Hz -9dB, MF 800Hz +4dB, HFS 10KHz +4dB
Room: no EQ
Drum Bus EQ: LFP 200Hz +2dB, MF 800Hz +2dB, HFS 15KHz +2dB
User avatar
vicnestE
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:11 am

Re: API550A Blind Test (VBQ new V.S. Waves)

Postby vicnestE » Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:37 pm

According to AlexB: (quoted and noted from the e-mails)
Take in mid that every preset (every EQ band) has his proper harmonic contents , so they are differents into low, mid and high. Normally I use the 5k for the band that I boost, expecially for mid and high, the 3k for the second importance band, normally the low, and 1k for cut.


Hope this helps. And pardon me for slowing his work.. orz...

I guess with 5k+3k the VBQ one will perform better.
But I can't afford so much instance of nebula, unless a better DAW which "FREEZE" Busses to save computation power.

And I am a little bit wonder why people don't like interpolated gains. Sometimes 2dB is too much for some sources. If "numeric input" feature is in Nebula3, would the interpolated gain so painful?
User avatar
vicnestE
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:11 am

Re: API550A Blind Test (VBQ new V.S. Waves)

Postby Nooorway » Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:44 pm

There seems to be a little more "meat" and kick in the B sample. But there is a little more open room for the snare rolls in A and not so much smearing or contamination between sounds as in B. I would pick one or the other depending on what context the drums should be used in.
Nooorway
User Level II
User Level II
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:20 am

Re: API550A Blind Test (VBQ new V.S. Waves)

Postby TranscendingMusic » Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:48 pm

vicnestE wrote:And I am a little bit wonder why people don't like interpolated gains. Sometimes 2dB is too much for some sources. If "numeric input" feature is in Nebula3, would the interpolated gain so painful?


Interpolation works nicely for gain, and in the case of fine tuning or wanting to increase in smaller increments, interpolation is great.
mixing | mastering
Win 10 x64 | Sonar Platinum x64 | 3930K(OC)
User avatar
TranscendingMusic
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:01 am
Location: USA

Re: API550A Blind Test (VBQ new V.S. Waves)

Postby vicnestE » Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:20 pm

TranscendingMusic wrote:
vicnestE wrote:And I am a little bit wonder why people don't like interpolated gains. Sometimes 2dB is too much for some sources. If "numeric input" feature is in Nebula3, would the interpolated gain so painful?


Interpolation works nicely for gain, and in the case of fine tuning or wanting to increase in smaller increments, interpolation is great.

But it's very hard to shift-drag to the wanted number without numeric input. Especially for gain in 0.01dB or continous frequency. I do love the interpolation idea which extends hardware capability. Sadly, no official response about numeric input implementation.
User avatar
vicnestE
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:11 am

Re: API550A Blind Test (VBQ new V.S. Waves)

Postby TranscendingMusic » Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:45 pm

vicnestE wrote:
TranscendingMusic wrote:
vicnestE wrote:And I am a little bit wonder why people don't like interpolated gains. Sometimes 2dB is too much for some sources. If "numeric input" feature is in Nebula3, would the interpolated gain so painful?


Interpolation works nicely for gain, and in the case of fine tuning or wanting to increase in smaller increments, interpolation is great.

But it's very hard to shift-drag to the wanted number without numeric input. Especially for gain in 0.01dB or continous frequency. I do love the interpolation idea which extends hardware capability. Sadly, no official response about numeric input implementation.


Oh yes, numeric input is a different matter and who wouldn't agree, it's a lot nicer to use.
mixing | mastering
Win 10 x64 | Sonar Platinum x64 | 3930K(OC)
User avatar
TranscendingMusic
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:01 am
Location: USA

Re: API550A Blind Test (VBQ new V.S. Waves)

Postby vicnestE » Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:07 am

A little hint: listen for the following things to compare
Hihat
Kick low end
Snare punch
3D sound field

So which one sounds better for you?! 8-)
User avatar
vicnestE
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:11 am

Re: API550A Blind Test (VBQ new V.S. Waves)

Postby Mercado_Negro » Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:51 am

A - VBeQ
B - Waves

You would have gotten better results if you'd have used the 5 Kernels version for the HFs too but just in the Drums group. This would have given you a more 'saturated' sound in the high end which imo would've fitted better.

Thanks for the fun! :)
i7 3770k :: Asus P8H77-V LE :: 16Gb DDR3 @1600MHz :: Geforce GT 520 :: OCZ-Vertex 128Gb :: WD Black Series 1Tb and Green Series 1Tb :: F*******e Liquid56 :: REAPER 64bit and StudioOne 64bit (both latest versions) :: Win 10 64bit
User avatar
Mercado_Negro
Beta Tester
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:30 am

Re: API550A Blind Test (VBQ new V.S. Waves)

Postby vicnestE » Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:39 am

Mercado_Negro wrote:A - VBeQ
B - Waves

You would have gotten better results if you'd have used the 5 Kernels version for the HFs too but just in the Drums group. This would have given you a more 'saturated' sound in the high end which imo would've fitted better.

Thanks for the fun! :)


Ya I did as you said and the result is nice.
But I will upload the file after I announce the answer.

Another test will be up soon with real instruments (drum + bass only)
Last edited by vicnestE on Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vicnestE
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:11 am

Re: API550A Blind Test (VBQ new V.S. Waves)

Postby enriquesilveti » Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:30 am

My PM is in you inbox.
Enrique Silveti.
Acustica Audio customer and technical support.

MBP 11.5 (i7-4870 | 16 GB | 512 SDD)
SP4 (i5-6300 | 8 GB | 256 SDD)
RME UFX | PS Lyra2 | SD USBPre2
VM U15 | VM W10 | VM OSX 10.12
N4/NAT4 | SPX3 | RX5 | LN2C | Smaart8 | R5 | PT12 | PX10
User avatar
enriquesilveti
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2662
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:00 pm
Location: Lodi | Madrid | Buenos Aires

Next

Return to 3rd party libraries

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests