How modeling is done

[rd2rk]

Great article from WAVES:

 

https://www.waves.com/how-waves-modeling-captures-analog-magic?utm_source=wnletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=analog-gear-unlock-btn&utm_campaign=weekend-content-analog-modeling-distortion-dec-14

 

I'd love to see similarly in-depth articles from L6, Fractal and all the rest.

 

Not holding my breath!

[mrkphpps]

I suspect they don't want to share industry secrets -   They'll tell us it's just magic...

[rd2rk]

1 minute ago, mrkphpps said:

I suspect they don't want to share industry secrets -   They'll tell us it's just magic...

 

Actually, it's been partially addressed by DI and others over on TGP., where I made the same post in a thread of the same name. I know it's wishful thinking, but it would be to the benefit of all modeling companies (IMO) if they provided the kind of in depth info as WAVES provided. Not that people will believe it.....

[DunedinDragon]

1 hour ago, rd2rk said:

Great article from WAVES:

 

https://www.waves.com/how-waves-modeling-captures-analog-magic?utm_source=wnletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=analog-gear-unlock-btn&utm_campaign=weekend-content-analog-modeling-distortion-dec-14

 

I'd love to see similarly in-depth articles from L6, Fractal and all the rest.

 

Not holding my breath!

 

I think you'd probably find the fundamentals of modeling to be pretty redundant.  This article tends to focus more on finding the right configuration and setup of a piece of gear in order to actually do the modeling.  The actual process of modeling is described somewhat abstractly in about one paragraph.  To me this article is more about blowing their own horn about how meticulously they approach getting the gear configured and really less about the meat and potatoes process of actually building the mathematical models of the circuits which doesn't really change much between different modeling companies and the things they model.

[rd2rk]

17 minutes ago, DunedinDragon said:

 

I think you'd probably find the fundamentals of modeling to be pretty redundant.  This article tends to focus more on finding the right configuration and setup of a piece of gear in order to actually do the modeling.  The actual process of modeling is described somewhat abstractly in about one paragraph.  To me this article is more about blowing their own horn about how meticulously they approach getting the gear configured and really less about the meat and potatoes process of actually building the mathematical models of the circuits which doesn't really change much between different modeling companies and the things they model.

 

I'm not asking for the scientific details. That's proprietary info and would, indeed, be boring and over my head. 

The thread over on TGP reflects the attitude of many that modeling companies don't actually have a process beyond "Sounds good to me!".

The WAVES article just gives some insight as to the extent of their efforts to get it right.

The idea that they're just blowing their own horn is a really negative way to look at it. Of course they are. They're trying to sell a product that they're proud of!

You don't brag about your band?

 

BTW - the only WAVES product I own is GTR3. I think it sux and they haven't updated it in years beyond a NEW PRS based product that they'll probably never update!

[DunedinDragon]

4 hours ago, rd2rk said:

 

I'm not asking for the scientific details. That's proprietary info and would, indeed, be boring and over my head. 

The thread over on TGP reflects the attitude of many that modeling companies don't actually have a process beyond "Sounds good to me!".

The WAVES article just gives some insight as to the extent of their efforts to get it right.

The idea that they're just blowing their own horn is a really negative way to look at it. Of course they are. They're trying to sell a product that they're proud of!

You don't brag about your band?

 

BTW - the only WAVES product I own is GTR3. I think it sux and they haven't updated it in years beyond a NEW PRS based product that they'll probably never update!

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't fault anyone for marketing the benefits of their products.  But in my opinion what would best lay at rest that the modeling process is nothing more than "sounds good to me" is a clear explanation of the technical processes used to model things.  I don't think it needs to be over people's heads at all.  Modeling in all it's forms whether it's musical gear or modeling the performance of an aircraft or a car in CAD is just a mathematical expression of how things in the real world interact within their environment based on their design.  The only implication of such an understanding by the masses would possibly be that we would no longer have to endure 3 billion different video comparisons between two different modelers.  I don't see that as a negative at all.

[phil_m]

Ben Adrian talks a little about it here:

 

 

[rd2rk]

6 hours ago, DunedinDragon said:

The only implication of such an understanding by the masses would possibly be that we would no longer have to endure 3 billion different video comparisons between two different modelers.

 

Of course we will! It's YouTube! :-)

[rd2rk]

5 hours ago, phil_m said:

Ben Adrian talks a little about it here:

 

 

 

EXCELLENT! Hope you posted this over on that TGP thread. It's exactly what (I think) that thread was looking for - not too geeky and very informative!