Replicating the BBE Sonic Maximizer - A How To

[Jason Scott]

While there are those who don't like the effect that the BBE Sonic Maximizer produces, I personally like it when it's used lightly. This post is for anyone who's interested in accurately reproducing the effect the BBE produces in the Axe FX. It's pretty simple, actually.

Regardless what the marketing literature says about it, the BBE Sonic Maximizer is nothing more than a set of adjustable EQ curves. You can prove this via EQ Matching. You'll find the EQ matched version is indistinguishable from the BBE processed track. After spending a bit of time analyzing EQ matches, performing multiple blind tests and creating EQ curves, I was able to accurately recreate the curve using a single PEQ block.

The Sonic Maximizer's controls consist of two knobs: Lo Contour, which controls the amount of low-end energy added by the unit, and Process, which controls the amount of high-end energy added by the unit. To replicate both controls we only need to use a couple of bands in the PEQ block:

For the 'Lo Contour' (bass) knob, enter the following values for each of the parameters in the first band on the first page of the PEQ block:

Freq 1: 50.00 Hz

Q1: 0.248

Gain 1: 1.50 dB

Frequency 1 Type: Peaking

For the 'Process' (treble) control, enter the following values for each of the parameters in the second band on the first page of the PEQ block:

Freq 5: 9000 Hz

Q5: 0.248

Gain 5: 1.50 dB

Frequency 5 Type: Peaking

In a nutshell, that's it. The gain parameter acts as the "knob" for each control and determines the level of the effect. A gain setting of 0.00 dB, for example, would unsurprisingly yield the equivalent of turning either knob on the device (or plugin) to zero. The gain values listed in the settings above (ie. 1.50 dB) would be the equivalent of turning either knob on the unit to "1".

Here are some other settings:

Boosting the Gain of Freq 1 (50.00 Hz) to 2.70 dB is equivalent to turning the 'Lo Contour' knob to "2".
Boosting the Gain of Freq 5 (9000 Hz) to 2.90 dB is equivalent to turning the 'Process' knob to "2".

Boosting the Gain of Freq 1 (50.00 Hz) to 4.60 dB is equivalent to turning the 'Lo Contour' knob to "3".
Boosting the Gain of Freq 5 (9000 Hz) to 4.60 dB is equivalent to turning the 'Process' knob to "3".

I never bothered trying to find the Gain equivalents for turning the knobs past "3" on the unit, however if you want or need more of the effect, just add more gain.

 

[2112]

This brings back memories I had the dual mono rack mount unit that I used to use with a JMP-1 and a G-Major. I guess this confirms that it really does hype up the lows and highs.

 

[Tom Morris]

I was playing a JMP1 with a Quadraverb, Sonicshitshiner through a peavey 50/50 power amp for a couple years. Played a show and lent my rig to another bands guitarist. standing out front my rig never sounded better so I walked over to the sound man and asked what the hell he had done to make it sound so good. He pointed to the rack with a 31 band EQ with a frown face curve. That was the end of the sonic maximizer for me.

 

[Jason Scott]

I was playing a JMP1 with a Quadraverb, Sonicshitshiner through a peavey 50/50 power amp for a couple years. Played a show and lent my rig to another bands guitarist. standing out front my rig never sounded better so I walked over to the sound man and asked what the hell he had done to make it sound so good. He pointed to the rack with a 31 band EQ with a frown face curve. That was the end of the sonic maximizer for me.

BBE Sound's marketing blurb tends to lead people to believe that the Sonic Maximizer is a cure-all, always-on solution. The description for their plugins include the line, "easy to use Dynamics, Enhancement and Audio Enhancement plug-ins necessary for every facet of digital audio production." Then there's Sweetwater's description, "There isn't a task in audio that can't benefit from the 882 Sonic Maximizer!" The truth is, it's not necessary or suited for every facet of production. Not by a long shot. It's no wonder people become disillusioned with it if that's their mindset.

The fact is the Sonic Maximizer is simply a specific type of EQ curve, and when you start seeing it as such you realize it's a tool. It's not meant to be used all the time anymore than a high shelf, low pass or notch filter are always the right tool for the job. If I needed to add more 4.5KHz I wouldn't reach for the BBE, I'd just add more 4.5KHz.

That said, the BBE sweetens the top end in a very specific way, and when used appropriately, can definitely improve clarity.

 

[merlin17]

Wasn't there talk about the BBE slightly delaying lower frequencies to make the top end more prominent (instead of boosting or cutting)?

 

[steadystate]

Don't believe anything you see or read on a forum about the BBE (such as it is just an eq) or give heed to Youtube videos made by kids pumping white noise through it (a useless input test signal). Research it for yourself if you want the facts.

It is basically described by BBE as a dynamic high-frequency boost (the amount of boost is based on the midrange content at any given moment), and a group delay on each of the low and mid bands. White papers and schematics are available online.

Static EQ matching cannot possibly demonstrate its behavior, since the boost changes from instant to instant depending on the input signal's amplitude response. EQ matching cannot measure the time-varying nature of the boost, or the effects of the group delays.

Better yet, get one of the many plugins that can outperform the BBE in every aspect of dynamic eq.

 

[Jason Scott]

Don't believe anything you see or read on a forum about the BBE (such as it is just an eq) or give heed to Youtube videos made by kids pumping white noise through it (a useless input test signal). Research it for yourself if you want the facts.

It is basically described by BBE as a dynamic high-frequency boost (the amount of boost is based on the midrange content at any given moment), and a group delay on each of the low and mid bands. White papers and schematics are available online.

Static EQ matching cannot possibly demonstrate its behavior, since the boost changes from instant to instant depending on the input signal's amplitude response. EQ matching cannot measure the time-varying nature of the boost, or the effects of the group delays.

Better yet, get one of the many plugins that can outperform the BBE in every aspect of dynamic eq.

Have you actually tried EQ matching the BBE? The results sound absolutely identical throughout. I have no doubt whatsoever that anyone who were to take a blind test would fail miserably if they tried to accurately identify the correct sample at random 10 out of 10 times.

You're welcome to try your hand at the blind test I created here. The first clip is the original, unprocessed guitar. You simply need to accurately guess which sample out of the 5 is the BBE Sonic Maximizer. The knobs on the real Sonic Maximizer were set to "3".

Note: I decided not to use Soundcloud for this test because there's no way to hide the outline of the WAV file in the player.

 

[symphx]

only original and sample 2 play

 

[Jason Scott]

only original and sample 2 play

There was a problem with the first batch of samples which resulted in me having to re-upload them. Try reloading the page or playing them directly on Soundcloud.

 

[symphx]

1,2,3 get progressively deeper bassier, I have no idea what is going on with what, they are all better than original; 1 may be too fuzzy.

 

[jlynnb1]

see, I thought 1 was best and they got progressively worse. fizzy and flabby in the low end.

 

[steadystate]

Have you actually tried EQ matching the BBE? The results sound absolutely identical throughout. I have no doubt whatsoever that anyone who were to take a blind test would fail miserably if they tried to accurately identify the correct sample at random 10 out of 10 times.

You're welcome to try your hand at the blind test I created here. The first clip is the original, unprocessed guitar. You simply need to accurately guess which sample out of the 5 is the BBE Sonic Maximizer. The knobs on the real Sonic Maximizer were set to "3".

Note: I decided not to use Soundcloud for this test because there's no way to hide the outline of the WAV file in the player.

I've had a BBE for many years, and have used it on more program material and speakers than I can list. It's effect is highly dependent on the speakers and the program material used. With some (usually cheap) systems and the right program material, the improvement is major and cannot be replicated with eq. Period. On other systems and material, it degrades the quality of the audio significantly. On some systems and material, it doesn't do much at all, or sounds similar to fixed eq. If the signal's midrange is fairly constant, or is predominantly midrange (the guitar is a midrange instrument), then the dynamic character of the eq will not be very prevalent. This is not the case with more challenging program material. It's processing is program-dependent and cannot be replicated with a fixed eq in many real-world circumstances.

A limited test case does not prove a general rule, which is one reason why the videos showing the output on a frequency-domain scope using white noise as an input source is laughable. I don't use the BBE anymore. I think its time has passed, as far more sophisticated and effective tools are now available.

 

[Jason Scott]

This is not the case with more challenging program material. It's processing is program-dependent and cannot be replicated with a fixed eq in many real-world circumstances.

Well, can you cite a specific example of the type of material you're referring to? Here's a blind test I created using some royalty free orchestral music. It has plenty of high and low frequency content. Can you correctly identify the real BBE processed sample out of the 5?

 

[steadystate]

I can cite any number of classic rock recordings on my old pair of Electro-Voice S-40 speakers driven with a cheap power amp.

If a fixed eq can effectively replace the BBE for you in your application, then I'm happy for you. I can only speak to my own experience with it. My experience taught me that a fixed eq cannot replicate the non-linear behavior of the BBE in many circumstances, especially with systems/sources that require high Process levels. Hearing a thousand clips can't alter my conclusions based on my personal experience with the unit.

If other members find benefit in your original post, I'm happy for them as well. But I don't agree that it is an accurate emulation of a BBE. The high frequency processing is non-linear and the group delays alone can be audible in ways that no eq can emulate given the right circumstances.

You could perhaps simulate a BBE by using the Crossover block in combination with an EQ or Filter block whose highs are modulated by the midrange. Not sure how you'd recreate the group delays. Perhaps with a stationary Phaser block.

 

[Jason Scott]

I can cite any number of classic rock recordings on my old pair of Electro-Voice S-40 speakers driven with a cheap power amp.

Okay, please do. I'll be glad to create a blind test using any recording you care to cite and give you the opportunity to correctly identify the BBE processed sample while listening through your old pair of Electro-Voice S-40's with cheap power amp.

The high frequency processing is non-linear and the group delays alone can be audible in ways that no eq can emulate given the right circumstances.

Blind testing is the gold standard for empirical verification, and if said differences are truly audible then they should be identifiable in a blind test. If a claim can't be verified empirically, why would anyone accept it as fact?

If the claim is that the high frequency processing is non-linear and that the group delays alone can be audible in ways that no EQ can emulate, then can you cite any recording you feel would absolutely demonstrate the aforementioned audible differences? It should be a fairly simple affair to name at least one recording whereby the BBE's processing is audibly inimitable with EQ.

 

[steadystate]

Your statement that the BBE is nothing more than an eq is inaccurate. It does modulate the highs and it does impose group delay. Do you claim otherwise? Standard EQs also exhibit group delay, but not in the manner in which the BBE does. This is not an opinion. Venturing beyond that point is opinion and a waste of your time and mine. Whether or not you can hear a difference is of no concern to me. Whether or not I can hear a difference should be of no concern to you. I agree that audible differences are all that really matter. While the operation of the BBE can be clearly demonstrated with the appropriate test equipment, the sound is what matters. If you like the BBE and/or EQ, in any combination, more power to you.

This is what I don't understand. Rather than acknowledging that the BBE processes the signal in a manner different than a fixed eq (because it does) and acknowledging that a user may or may not hear a difference, you seem to instead be intent on establishing that no one can hear a difference (because you don't) and using this to validate your description and emulation of the BBE. Can you not concede that modulating the gain of the highs up and down might not sound the same to some listeners as having a fixed amount of gain? I guess not, since you seem to require proof that I can or can't hear a difference. Let's say I cave and say I can't hear any difference. What then? Will you then need this testimony from each and every BBE user before you are satisfied? The opinion of one user can't hold more weight than another. Right? If you think it is no different than a fixed eq, fine. My participation here was to encourage people to research for themselves and not take anyone's word at face value, including mine. The misinformation online about this device is legendary, as is the useless debate. A BBE can be purchased cheaply on eBay for evaluation and resold for the same price.

If anyone wants to buy a BBE, I still have one I don't use anymore. It offers little to no benefit with my current system. The dynamic eq plugins I have are far superior. And I didn't mean to shit on your thread. I appreciate that you were trying to offer advice you thought would be helpful. I just wanted to add that there is a little more to it.

 

[Jason Scott]

Your statement that the BBE is nothing more than an eq is inaccurate. It does modulate the highs and it does impose group delay. Do you claim otherwise? Standard EQs also exhibit group delay, but not in the manner in which the BBE does. This is not an opinion. Venturing beyond that point is opinion and a waste of your time and mine.

We can agree to disagree on whether the BBE is actually an EQ, however my main contention is that there's no discernible sonic difference between the effect that the BBE produces and an EQ matched version of it, contrary to your earlier claim:

"The high frequency processing is non-linear and the group delays alone can be audible in ways that no eq can emulate given the right circumstances."

If there's no discernible sonic difference, then what difference does it make? This thread is about replicating the effect that the BBE produces, and EQ does that perfectly. The proof is in the pudding. Anyone who claims otherwise only needs to pass the blind test to validate it.

 

[lqdsnddist]

I can pound in a nail with lots of different tools and can end up with the end result of a nail pounded in flush. No discernible difference in the net result to an observer, but surely the process of how I drove that nail still matters, especially if it’s a question of if I have to drive 100 more nails and how easy, or not easy, a given tool made the job.

By the same token, I don’t think we can say because two things end up sounding the same they are the same.

 

[Jason Scott]

No discernible difference in the net result to an observer, but surely the process of how I drove that nail still matters

Sure, if you're directly involved with the hammering process, how it gets done will probably be relevant. If you're not involved, you're more likely to focus on results. When's the last time you thought about the process involved with making the light bulbs in your house glow after flipping a light switch?

By the same token, I don’t think we can say because two things end up sounding the same they are the same.

Of course not, otherwise amp modelers would be tube amps.

 

[illodin]

The dynamic eq plugins I have are far superior.

Off topic I know, but could you recommend one or two that are really good? For hard/heavy rock if that matters.