The Liquid Channel has divided opinion like no other piece of gear in recent years and you can read much of it online in forums. Interesting as it is to attempt an evaluation of the device, the issues the discussion has raised are perhaps at least as interesting.
Therefore, here are a few thoughts on the Liquid Channel itself, and the general reviewing process, myths and debates relating to how the Liquid Channel has been regarded and our own fears about acquiring the "wrong" gear.
1. When we read user generated products reviews, such as those used by Amazon, we should often disregard both the 5 star and 1 star reviews, unless either constitute the majority of opinion. How many times have we read a 1 star review to find the reviewer was disgruntled by receiving a product damaged during shipping? Not really a review at all.
2. We should also disregard opinion if it is not clear that the reviewer has actually reviewed the product. Wouldn't it be great to have some method to validate if that was the case? Have you ever wondered how many reviewers with a vested interest have anonymously dammed a "competitors" product in forums?
3. Evaluating a product is no simple thing. Simply setting up an equitable A-B comparison is challenging. Try comparing and evaluating mic-pre's for example. Can you think of a robust process? For example, how can we accommodate the fact that a given mic's sound and performance will alter depending on the impedance of the pre? The effect may be subtle but it cannot be discounted. Also, how are we to record a performance to 2 mic pre's simultaneously? It may require 2 identical mic's positioned in the same physical space. Not easy. Much easier to compare a line level device, such as the Liquid Channels compressor replicas with a line level signal.
4. The Liquid Channel has sophisticated switching circuitry to reproduce what a mic "sees" when it is connected to a range of classic mic-pre devices. If you've ever built a mic pre, pop the lid on the Liquid Channel and take a look at the input stage. It's impressive and comprises a significant proportion of the weight and circuitry of the device. Once the signal has passed through this circuitry it is subject to the convolution process (so called "replicas") which reproduces the non-linear frequency response and distortion characteristics of the mic-pre device from which the impulse responses were taken.
5. Convolution is not emulation. It is not physical modelling or virtual algorithms. What it is is an exact "genetic" fingerprint of the sampled device. Sophisticated maths, requiring lots of processing power, imprints the sonic fingerprint of the impulse response on the signal it is processing. Providing the impulse response is accurate, convolution is capable of reproducing an exact replica of the frequency response and distortion characteristics of the sampled device.
To evaluate the success of this process, the very device from which the impulse response was taken must be compared to the replica. Despite component tolerances improving drastically in the last 20 years (cheap resistors with tolerances of 1% are now commonplace), 2 analogue devices from the same production batch may not sound exactly alike, especially for analogue gear manufactured more than 30 years ago.
6. You can "disable" the replicas and use the Liquid Channel as a high quality transparent mic pre and A to D convertor.
7. All this processing takes time and therefore the Liquid Channel introduces some latency (approximately 3ms) into the signal chain (as do all digital processes). The latency is within the range that occurs naturally in nature as we move around a sound source. For example it takes 2ms for the sound of a drummers snare drum to reach their ears. More here .. http://www.projectstudiohandbook.com/videos/playlists/sound-wave-theory/speed-of-sound/speed-of-sound-video.html
8. We may ask the question, why seek the opinion of others before buying a piece of gear at all? Their are clearly some good reasons (eg does it have manufacturing or ergonomic problems), but a bad reason is because we are frightened of being ridiculed by making a "bad" choice. If our concern is how the gear that we own reflects on how we are perceived by others, then we may want to reflect on exactly what we want to get out of being involved in recording.
It's worth repeating that the "objective" evaluation of a piece of gear is entirely irrelevant to its possible creative applications. History is littered with examples of great sonic innovation coming from humble equipment.
9. For the record, the contributors to this post do not work for Focusrite or have any vested interests whatsoever. They own a Liquid Channel, some 1073's, two Grace Design pre-amps, a Dave Hill Europa, a Triton Audio D20, an ISA430 mk2, some Yamaha pre's (01V 96), RevA and RevD 1176's, some DBX160s, a Focusrite Red 3, and a Gem Audio Labs Preceptor, and happily use all of them to achieve sounds and sonic effects that please them.
Thanks for reading.
FairFax
No comments:
Post a Comment