Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Tell the difference: reddi vs no reddi
- Thread starter galore
- Start date
I predict he'll put up the answers an hour ago.
I don't own a Reddi yet, but I have played through one and loved the sound live. I'm in the middle of upgrading my subs, then I'm buying a Reddi so the that I can get that B-15 sound at every venue.
And although I only played through a Reddi a few times, I felt confident that it was #2.
And although I only played through a Reddi a few times, I felt confident that it was #2.
MDBass
Supporting Member
- Nov 7, 2012
- 8,590
- 14,890
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Dingwall-Fender-Bergantino-Dunlop-Tech 21-Darkglass-Nordstrand
This exactly.
Are you all listening on tiny laptop speakers?
Put on some headphones, there's a very noticed difference.
That .7 dB makes a lot of difference. I downloaded the WAV files and amplified track 1 by .7 dB. That made is sound closer to track 2 through good headphones (Sony MDR V6s)--I'd estimate it accounted for about half of the difference I was hearing. I still hear a difference and prefer track 2 but it's less of a difference when you match the gains.
If they were both normalized, then the difference, as Charlie noted, is not peak, but would be RMS. That indicates that the REDDI is doing a bit of compression in its signal path, and boosting one by 0.7db isn't necessarily a fair comparison. The original comparison with the peaks at the same place, but the averages being different is more accurate to a true A/B comparison, and highlights exactly why people are preferring, or at the very least being able to identify the difference between the two.
I heard a difference though my sony headphones but not night and day.
Of course, I knew which was which just by looking at the waveforms in the soundcloud links. The reddi file looks a bit compressed, and I suspect that's where the difference is.
Of course, I knew which was which just by looking at the waveforms in the soundcloud links. The reddi file looks a bit compressed, and I suspect that's where the difference is.
okcrum
in your chest
Have you read the thread? Of course .7 dB is nothing when you're dealing with cannon fire but this thread is about subtle differences in two tracks, one of which (the Reddi track) was .7 dB louder on average than the other. Louder tracks ALWAYS "win" in these types of comparisons, so the .7 dB needed to be addressed and when I did that, it made a "lot of difference" in what I heard. Maybe I have good hearing?
Have you read the thread? Of course .7 dB is nothing when you're dealing with cannon fire but this thread is about subtle differences in two tracks, one of which (the Reddi track) was .7 dB louder on average than the other. Louder tracks ALWAYS "win" in these types of comparisons, so the .7 dB needed to be addressed and when I did that, it made a "lot of difference" in what I heard. Maybe I have good hearing?
+1
We 'hear' more bass and treble as volume increases - the Fletcher- Munsun Curve
Also - "The "just noticeable difference," or JND for amplitude — that is, the minimal perceptible change in amplitude — varies by the starting amplitude and frequency, but in general it ranges between 0.2 and 0.4 dB."
Last edited:
Thanks, ddnidd1. An easy way to demonstrate the point is to take two identical tracks, amplify one by .7 dB, and put them in a poll to "pick the one that sounds better to you." If the gain difference is too obvious, like 3 dB, people would say "hey, you're tricking us, one track is simply louder" but a small difference, like .7 dB, might just get people to pick the louder track and not know why they did. Explanations for the preference would likely include all the ambiguous terms we use to describe tone.
I still think that's a flawed methodology relative to this REDDI situatiob, but I see your point and do agree with it. My hangup is that a 0.7db increase of the peaks versus the average are two very different things.
okcrum
in your chest
Have you read the thread? Of course .7 dB is nothing when you're dealing with cannon fire but this thread is about subtle differences in two tracks, one of which (the Reddi track) was .7 dB louder on average than the other. Louder tracks ALWAYS "win" in these types of comparisons, so the .7 dB needed to be addressed and when I did that, it made a "lot of difference" in what I heard. Maybe I have good hearing?
I didn't say I didn't hear it. I said it wasn't much. 17% isn't much of a gain difference. Sorry I bruised your audio ego.
Most of the difference to me had nothing to do with the levels. The difference is still clear to my ears when I match the average levels too.
Last edited:
okcrum
in your chest
Well, you could stick a compressor in the reference side and match the 0.7 dB from the REDDI. You could tweak it to compress on the same subbands (if any) that the REDDI uses, and it would sound identical. I'm not sure what that would prove, though.
A DI that colors the sound *a lot* is broken. But a little is nice. The REDDI is adding some bass, compression, and scrubbing off a bit of shine leaving an earthier top end. I get a similar effect adding a bit of bass and rolling off the tone control on my sadowsky before it hits a nice compressor. Sounds great and if its perfect for your taste then you are done in one easy step. If not keep shopping, there are plenty of other options ... but if you want huge differences then look at preamps instead of DIs.
Funny, but the REDDI to my ears is the least compressed DI I have ever used. And as someone who has owned one and used it extensively for 2 1/2 years, I can safely say that the dude could have mixed the REDDI track quieter than the Duet track and the results would have been the same.
