Orban 622B Parametric EQ

Discussion in 'Graphic / Parametric EQ (analog)' started by Sean G, Jun 2, 2016.

  1. Sean G

    Sean G Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2015
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    No, just send those modules to me...I'll look after them and keep them nice and safe just in case you ever do need them again. ;)
     
    kmetal likes this.
  2. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Location:
    Pacific NW

    Yes. And it is my conjecture that this is the main reason that tracking rooms routinely have multiples of particular compressors. LA2A in particular. And I too have found that a round trip through my hardware LA2A and the clones do NOT add as much as a track initially tracked through the hardware and then to have the same thing added as an emulation ITB. The emulations don't quite live up to the hardware in tracking....I have the ability to track through my plugs but don't...but the emulations are just fine after you have physically prepped the track with the hardware going in.

    And I agree 100% that the least amount of conversion NO MATTER HOW HIGH END is better in every way. I stay ITB except on the occasional reamping of a track. But that doesn't require converting as you are using the busing and the I/O to basically re-record something within the session.
     
  3. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Location:
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Home Page:
    You brought up a good point Dave. I re amp once in a while, but plan to do a lot more of it.

    I send it (clean d.i track) out of the interface, into a radial re amp box, then into the daw. Doesn't this qualify as re conversion, or conversion?. (Re conversion is the main reason I refrained from re amping as a daily technique, reserving it for 'emergency') Are you describing something different, like busing to a software amp, or something like a fractal axe effects, I think you had/have the eleven rack, which my cousin got, and I was impressed with, I hooked it up via the spdif. Is this what your describing in your post?

    Just a quick opinion. Two things imho that avid did great on, got no attention, the eleven rack, and the command 8 controller. The command 8 still is the best feeling faders I've used, analog board or control surface. Sorry. Had to get that out.
     
  4. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    Kyle. I do both. There are purists who would insist that the conversion can be heard when doing this as an analog capture (or recapture if you will) And this could be true with an entire mix or perhaps with a voice. For a guitar or bass the effect is negligible.
    I have an Eleven Rack. I have a good friend with a Kemper Profiler. The Kemper has more detail in its amps but the Eleven does the feel of the guitar input better. As a player, I prefer to feel the device (amp or whatever) in a way that allows the freedom to flow with the sound I'm achieving. The Eleven has its own converter when I use it as a stand alone analog device. So, in a way it is decoupled from the converters for the ProTools. I can hook it up as a digital device through SPDIF and I have. Its just not that much better in the long run. I also find there is a bit more latency in the monitoring. I personally don't care about this. Some others are aghast at hearing this. So, the analog I/O at the original sample rate and having a monitor at zero latency with a world of large and in-charge noise going in is a very good thing. When I'm doing a "real record" I always take every guitar track with both mic'd amp and DI or just DI or (a lot of times) just Eleven. A lot of "purists" insist they can tell the difference in an amped track and a digital capture. And maybe so. What they can tell the difference is a track through the eleven with a nice program set-up and run through its own conversion clocked from the master. As an advertisement, I recommend the Apogee 192 as an excellent guitar oriented converter. (heheheh)

    The Command 8 is nice surface. The language was the problem. When Avid bought Euphonics and started using that protocol as their surface language, things got better. I use both Artist surfaces, the Control and the Mix. Although I agree that mechanically speaking the older set up with the Command 8, 003, and others around this time had better feeling faders than the artist series. But the integration with PT10/11 is what I needed. So no HUI and now its Eucon.
     
    kmetal likes this.
  5. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Location:
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Home Page:
    Thanks for the clarification/explanation Dave. Strangely I share your sentiments, both on feel of the amp/device, and latency (as long as it's not ridiculous. 256 buffer size usually the line in the sand). I like the idea of having a dedicated device vs my former guitar rig 5 pluggin, for digital guitar amp sounds.

    Lol I think latency doesn't bother me because according to every band I've ever been in, I have no rythym.

    Any complaints on the artist mix? It's compatible with samplitude as well, so it covers both daws I plan on using.
     
  6. Boswell

    Boswell Moderator Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    Home Page:
    Passive summing produces a smaller version of the algebraic sum of the inputs (but see caveat below). You need amplification of the sum bus (2-bus) to get back to line level. This is where character of the signal can come in, either deliberately when choosing which external box to use to perform the amplification, or by default if the summing box does resistive summing but has a built-in 2-channel make-up amplifier.

    The caveat: a passive summing box sums the currents generated by applying the channel input voltages to resistors. However, all resistors change their resistance by a small amount as a function of applied voltage, that is, they are non-linear. The amount of change is dependent on a number of things including the type of resistor (metal film, wirewound, carbon etc), the nominal resistance value and the packaging (through-hole or surface-mount). It's the designer's job to minimize the distortion caused by non-linearity in the summing resistances by careful circuit design and component choice, and then insist that the production department sticks to what the designer has specified.

    I have told the story before of a contract design I did for a well-known company where, to minimize distortion, I had specified three through-hole resistors in series in the feedback path from the output op-amps. The hand-built prototypes sounded really nice, which was more than could be said for the pre-production versions from the factory. Amongst other things, I found they had substituted a single surface-mount resistor of the correct value for the three through-hole parts in the prototypes. Their excuse for that particular horror was that they thought I had not been able to buy parts of the right value, and that I had strung three together to get the right resistance.

    The upshot of all this is that different makes of passive summing boxes can actually sound different.
     
  7. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Location:
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Home Page:
    Perfect explanation boz, well said.

    Is it a safe take away, that passive summing boxes, although they vary in tone, they vary less than their active counterparts? Assuming similar levels of build/design quality between the products?

    Also, does the line of thinking you outlined, also apply to other devices that can be passive or active, like a DI box, or re-amping box?
     
  8. ulysses

    ulysses The guy who makes the stuff that does the thing. Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    Roll Music Systems, Minneapolis
    Home Page:
    Yes. Any differences between resistors would exist in any circuit that uses resistors, including active summing boxes. And then you have the variations in all the other components on top of that. But it's my professional opinion that you would need to work hard to develop a circuit that can produce measurable and audible differences at its output attributable solely to the resistor package.
     
    audiokid and kmetal like this.
  9. Boswell

    Boswell Moderator Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    Home Page:
    Yes, it does, but is usually masked by non-linearities in other parts of the circuit. It's only when you get to a unit that is billed as "passive" that you have the chance to make comparisons without active components getting in the way. Don't get me wrong, some of these components with small non-linearities (e.g. transformers) can make a great contribution to the sound. It's up to the experience and imagination of the design engineer to make sure the good effects come through the design and then the production process with minimal negative impact from the bad effects.

    You can hear things you cannot easily measure. In the gross instance that I related, I could measure the differences using a distortion analyser. That's unusual, and it confirms that they were severe. Effects of this sort are difficult to quantify with any certainty, but they can easily be heard. It's one of the reasons why you can't develop great-sounding audio gear simply by sitting at a bench in a lab, no matter how well-equipped.
     
    audiokid and kmetal like this.
  10. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Location:
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Home Page:
    Would simply swapping the resistors, back the the same the through hole type you originally specd, bring the mass produced unit, back up to the performance/quality level of the prototype. Was this somehow prohibited by the design of the mass unit, like not not enough room (or something else)? Was it a case where other components, beside the 3 resistors, were also changed in the mass production unit?

    I ask this, out of curiosity in electronics. But also, I'm wondering particualry, in the budget/mid catagory where I'm shopping for an interface, if I should have the unit inspected by a knowledgeable technician, to possibly replaced certain parts like chips, or resistors, or(?) right away, before I even used it?

    Does this apply/not apply in general even towards the upper end of mass produced gear?
     
  11. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Location:
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Home Page:
    Thanks for the response Ulysses, it's always awsome to have opinions from people who are active in the field of design. It's somewhat of a budding interest of mine personally, but we all can benefit from educated thoughts and opinions on these types of things.
     
    audiokid likes this.
  12. Boswell

    Boswell Moderator Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    Home Page:
    For that product, I was a consultant design engineer. My contractual responsibilities ended at the approval of the pre-production prototypes, but in that instance I declined to approve them. For the record, the feedback resistors were only one of several deviations from the first prototypes.

    As far as I know, they made no changes to their implementation, and the manufactured product was identical to the pre-production prototypes. I was not surprised when it did not sell well, and I put it down to another case of the power of production economics.

    My advice would be not to replace parts in production units. The exception would be to have a known, verified upgrade done by someone like Jim Williams or one of the companies that specialise in that type of work and have a published record with the particular product.
     
    kmetal likes this.

Share This Page