I never know or heard about this, maybe should try this method one time. Not that it is weird, it totally make sense, something new everyday. I always have my doubt about using pure sine wave for some reason (read:feelings) even the "facts" and physics agree with that approach.

 

This was the first Dan Worrall video I've ever watched AFAIK, so I have no dog in this fight. But if the YouTube comments section is anything to go by, his audience seem to love him.

That said, you can't please all the people, all the time. Dan seems to have found his niche and is ploughing it. Nothing about the video seemed remarkable to me, but I'm probably of a similar age and background to Dan. Similar cultural touchstones, I suppose.

 

Which means in the literal sense:
Harrison 32c is NOT shit

Null = zero = 0

 

Last edited: Sep 15, 2021

Anyone can learn to test things according to benchmarks and judge, assess or gauge the usefulness on an industry test, or a manufacturers minimum specifications, or a set of what is considered 'the only way to do it'. (The recent Win 11 guaranteed minimum specs showed how stupid that is to believe everything you think you know or hear with people working it in half of that).

Many people have noticed that songs seem to have the same formula and even that a massive proportion of 'new' music seems to sound similar and sometimes, the same. This goes for engineering. Many are all starting to sound the same.
A great engineer has great ears and the best engineers are half decent musicians as well not technicians with a spectrogram badge, piece of paper or a pile of intellectual knowledge. Their mixes simply sound good. Music styles are defined often by the way it is played, written, sounds and the instrumentation. Knowing that style and knowing it is sacrilege to try and turn it into another style or do what they ignorantly think is 'getting with the times' by an engineering technique is why some engineers get called 'playing God'. A lot of the look-at-me engineers I see, I actually know outside of their genre, a huge proportion of labels and people who can truly play the shit out of their instruments would not piss on them.

Does it sound good to you? Awesome! Use it. Who gives a fuck what other people think? It's your music you are using it in, not theirs. People miss that a lot in a huge effort to be liked by others, peer pressure or not be criticised for having a choice of their own.
It is estimated that in the music industry that there are more out of work audio engineers than any other category. They forgot without the musicians , labels and people booking them to give them what they want and not what they believe is right they have no job.
NULL test? Great as a base benchmark. If it sounds like shit to you, who gives a rats ass if the analysis says it is perfect? If it sounds great to you, use it.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2021

At the risk of dragging this out further: citation needed. Preferably with some comparisons.
I haven't used the plugin yet (although I did snag it from the sister site) but was interested and watched all of the video. I've seen a bit of his stuff and while I may not agree with everything, he does make a good case for his opinions.
To me, his point seems to be: it's not a terrible plugin; just that it doesn't live up to some of the expectations (or hype) created by the developers and/or supporters, and could do with some more features to make it better. And that based on what he expects from this type of plugin (which he outlines in the intro) he's not going to buy it. Agree or disagree, that's what the video is about. That is the truth, IMHO.
Admittedly I don't fully understand the whole null EQ thing, but I assume that he's got a second track that he's applying the same EQ curve, which he's getting from the Plugin Dr or whatever, and inverting the phase on that track, and when doing that, cancelling out the output of the summed tracks, resulting in silence (please correct me if I'm wrong - just making a guess here).
Back to your quoted text: based on the video (and again, I haven't tried it yet, just going by what he's saying) what you're getting is basically a glorified compressor with not enough options. From where I'm sitting the Slate plugin he mentions (which I also haven't used, yet, has a lot more options) is about $50 more, so to me, that claim doesn't quite stack up.
But hey, if you want to buy and use this plugin and you get awesome results from it — great — no-one here is trying to stop you.
Just don't try to substitute your own feelings (and/or money spent) for "truth".

 

What? That isn't what he did. He set Reapers EQ curves to the EQ curves that 32C was applying and matched the signals for a perfect null.

 

What are you talking about? None of what he said about the EQ is opinion. I am a scientist who works in DSP. He tested it correctly. He MATCHED the signals correctly for a perfect NULL. That is NOT opinion, it IS fact. His truths?

Opinion, doesn't come into it. If it nulls, then it is cancelling out. Simple as that. It cancels out, because the signals are identical. Do you see? This is how signal processing works. Get a grip. Don't entertain foolishness.

 

I’d imagine you can null pretty much any eq plug-in, if you know the right dB boost, Q etc..

it’s still all digital code at the end of the day, not analog, even if it’s modelled on it.

The only way most wouldn’t null is if it’s adding compression or saturation behind the scenes when applying eq boosts, which some might do.

but as a straight up EQ, you can pretty much match any of them up as long as you know the curves and true db. There’s no magic.

 

That's really great that you can do that and it's impressive. Hey I am a musician and a really fucking good one who has done it for decades. I do not give a shit if it is fact, cancels out or whatever. If it sounds like shit, me and anyone who can really play do not give a shit how accurate your facts are. It sounds good or it does not. Also in my field I am not limited in qualifications either but I do not need to spout them to know when something sounds like crap no matter how an analyser spits out data.
I have a good friend even more qualified than you who built an uncoloured set of speakers. Even he said what I thought - They were perfectly flat but they sounded like shit. Equally - If it sounds good who gives a shit?

 

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2021

We can already reproduce pure analogue signals upto whatever sample rate we are working at. This means that digital signals can accurately represent analogue signals.... perfectly. You can null even an analogue EQ with a digital EQ, if you could sync every single tollerance of every component in the system when compared to a perfectly modelled one. The thing is, tollerances are "free running", in that no piece of physical electronics can be sync'd perfectly in that regard. It is just imperfection - essentially, it will always vary, even if only slightly. But make no mistake, if that is programmed into plugins accurately too, then there would be no difference in this behaviour. The sample rate isn't relevant. Nor is the argument, "analogue has more range because it is analogue" or any variant thereon. Digital signals when ran through a DAC are no longer sample data. They are true analog signals. This is massive misunderstanding that keeps on going, but is entirely false. It is scientifically verifiable.

 

Remember Dan's bx_console Amek 9099 video? Brainworx put cramping filters in a hardware emulation.

 

Ah, i see the problem with you now. You are assumptious and silly. For a start, you do not know how qualified I am. Secondly, this isn't a discussion about how something sounds, that would be debatable. This is about facts. Facts are not debatable. Forget analysers, we are talking about sound coming from a speaker. If it nulls perfectly, there will be NO SOUND coming from the speaker. This means that the signals are identical. This also means, that there is nothing in 32C that cannot be achieved elsewhere. No analogue modelling - not even an attempt at it. No colouring. Nothing. Done, fanito. Over.

 

Silly is something nobody who truly knows me would ever say.
Perhaps your insecurity in feeling the need to spout what you have done says more than enough. I could and based on your comments you would not believe. The difference is I am not that insecure to have to say what I have too. But it is obvious you like insulting people who call you out.
Someone else already said that and I never said it cannot be achieved elsewhere, but feel free to put words in people's mouths.
If it it is not about how good the plugin sounds which Worrall clearly says "I like that..." many times... I like by the way is an opinion, not fact. It's a personal like comment. Facts in an academic level of what is considered fact, have no personal opinion. They would be failed. Seeing you have spouted you are a scientist I am surprised you did not know that. No accepted theorem allows personal likes. That too, is FACT.
The only fact is people will like how it works and sounds or they will not. That is not rocket science. Developers and tech-heads may care about specs but the majority will buy it by how it sounds.
Move along.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2021

Insecurity? See now that is another silly assumption right there. You are not making yourself look any better. Unfortunately, I ran out of patience for the rest of what you had to say after that as a result. Shame really. Basically I have told you how it works. There is no debatable opinion about it. You either accept it, or you don't. You do what you have to do if you must. But I myself do not suffer fools. I am only interested in THE truth of the situation, as scientifically proven. Sorry. Enjoy .

 

I'm not the one who spouted qualifications. a secure person has no need to.
The debate on a tech level won't sell it or not except to technicians. The end-user will always buy it because they like it, not because some random scientist or youtube engineer says it does not meet a scientific specification.
I do not suffer fools either especially ones who say they are qualified to spout fact on a forum without a doctorate that is not a science forum. Major fool.

 

I didn't spout any qualifications, I quickly dropped it in to tell you my background so that you would know that what I am saying comes from a scientific background not just a random opinion on the internet. It is interesting that you focus on that so intently though. I'd say that makes you the insecure one. ;).

Anyway, if you don't want to believe it from me, do sufficient research.
SPOILER ALERT: You will have no option but to accept it. It is just how it works. There are no other ways to go with it. Lol.

You must be a teenager with this attitude. Surely? As I say, enjoy. My work is done in this thread. Peace. .

 

To respond in kind (look above at your prior post) but shorter... All I heard was blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.....
I treat people how they treat me. No I am not a teenager, but you are good with insults. I look at the big picture I am not so ignorant to only look at one aspect, you however, I have doubts. Peace

 

I haven't thrown any insults, just simply stated facts. Sorry mate. Learn from mistakes, or keep on spouting. The ball is in your court. .

 

This isn't an insult? You are truly what you point at because there are three fingers pointing back. You should read what you write.
You also said you do not suffer fools. If you think you have not then you truly are ignorant of your own actions which makes for a very large fool.