Replicating the BBE Sonic Maximizer - A How To

illodin said:
Off topic I know, but could you recommend one or two that are really good? For hard/heavy rock if that matters.
Click to expand...
Not off topic, since the BBE is a rudimentary dynamic eq. If you want to try one without risk, TDR Nova is free and works pretty well.

https://bedroomproducersblog.com/2015/11/18/tdr-nova-dynamic-equalizer/

Waves makes one that is cheap and works well:

https://www.waves.com/plugins/f6-floating-band-dynamic-eq#real-time-analyzer-added-to-f6-dynamic-eq

There are seemingly dozens of them out there, some of them very sophisticated and expensive. Some users will love them, some not. And some will think that they are no different than a static eq and can be perfectly replicated using one. FWIW, my girlfriend can't hear the difference between the Sonnox Oxford Dynamic EQ and a standard parametric. But she believes that I hear a difference. And I do, just as I do with the BBE. Dynamic EQ isn't snake oil. It's a powerful and useful tool. The BBE is a very early, simple, and crude example, but an example nonetheless.

I can't hear differences between AD/DA converters (and other gear) that are obvious to others. But I wouldn't presume to tell them they are kidding themselves. My brother once bought an audio interface that he thought sounded horrible due to an artifact. I thought it sounded fine, until he told me exactly what to listen for. After enough time of guided critical listening, I heard the problem, and it eventually became clear as day, to the point that I couldn't ignore it if I tried.
 
Last edited:
steadystate said:
I can't hear differences between AD/DA converters (and other gear) that are obvious to others. But I wouldn't presume to tell them they are kidding themselves. My brother once bought an audio interface that he thought sounded horrible due to an artifact. I thought it sounded fine, until he told me exactly what to listen for. After enough time of guided critical listening, I heard the problem, and it eventually became clear as day, to the point that I couldn't ignore it if I tried.
Click to expand...

Anyone can claim anything. That's precisely why blind tests are useful; they reduce or eliminate bias. Some people claim to hear dither, jitter, digital aliasing and truncation distortion, for example, yet how many have actually demonstrated the ability?

Forget other people for a minute, though. With regard to the BBE, you yourself said, "With some (usually cheap) systems and the right program material, the improvement is major and cannot be replicated with eq. Period." If you truly stand by that statement, why haven't you taken the blind test I posted? Of course, just because you can't hear a difference doesn't mean nobody else can, but then you could apply that logic to almost anything. just because no one who's ever been tested can hear the difference between 96KHz and 192KHz sampling rates in blind tests doesn't mean no one can, but statistically speaking, it's unlikely.

I can't prove that no one can hear a difference between a sample processed with the BBE and an EQ match, but I'd wager that the outcome of a blind test involving a representative sample would ultimately prove that those who potentially could would be statistically insignificant.
 
Last edited:
Jason Scott said:
Why would anyone doubt such a claim?
Click to expand...
I should have said "perceive" instead of "hear". In my example above, I was hearing an artifact in an audio interface, but didn't realize it until I knew exactly what to listen for. My initial claim that I didn't hear it was based on a false perception, but I was still being honest about it.
 
steadystate said:
I should have said "perceive" instead of "hear". In my example above, I was hearing an artifact in an audio interface, but didn't realize it until I knew exactly what to listen for. My initial claim that I didn't hear it was based on a false perception, but I was still being honest about it.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that you were familiar with the audible characteristics that distinguish the BBE from EQ. If so, I should think identifying those characteristics out of a sample lineup would be a straight forward affair.
 
Last edited:
I have just leaned something interesting. I have an old BBE unit, one of the original versions. It is the one I have been using for many years and am accustomed to. The manual clearly describes the dynamic high-frequency boost/cut based on the midrange content, and it is clearly audible when the process control is cranked. The manual goes into detail about how mids mask the highs, and so the highs are modulated in amplitude dynamically when the midrange energy changes. You can hear it, and see it on a scope.

I have just read the user manuals for the latest units, and no mention is made whatsoever of dynamic high frequency boost. BBE only says that the process control varies the amount of phase-corrected highs. The section on masking and dynamic boost has been eliminated. It is entirely possible that the dynamic high boost has been eliminated, making the level of the highs static, as in a standard eq. I wouldn't doubt it, as the dynamically changing level of the highs might have been objectionable to some users. Or perhaps it was to cut costs or due to a component that became unavailable. The group delay would then be the only real benefit, and this would only be apparent on poorly designed speakers. As I said before, my old pair of EV's sounded much better even with Process at zero, while my JBL's sounded worse (thinner and phased). So, we may both be right. Given a good system, the newer BBE may provide no benefit that a standard eq cannot provide, while the old one acted as a crude dynamic eq.

From the old manual:

"The mid group is used as a point of reference to make dynamic amplitude corrections in both the positive and negative directions to the high frequency group, which has been passed through a high quality VCA. Two RMS average loudness detectors continuously monitor both the mid-range and high frequencies to compare the relative harmonic content levels of the two bands and apply the appropriate amount of control voltage to the VCA, thereby determining the amount of high frequency harmonic content present at the final output of the BBE processor."

"Process Control: The process control regulates the amount of amplitude compensation as indicated by the LED stack. Advancing the knob clockwise increases the amount of the BBE process. Once set, the BBE process is fully automatic and responds to the program material instantly and quietly."


From the new manual:

No mention of a VCA controlling the highs. And,

"The Process control is for adjusting the level of phase corrected high frequencies in the program material."

The newer version seems to mean no VCA, no RMS detectors, etc. Simpler and cheaper.
 
Last edited:
About 5 years ago I was using the BBE in my rig. The best thing about it was, that because each venue and stage is different, I could adjust my on stage sound in an instant. My cab was always miced so it was EQd in a few seconds for me. Now , there is no need. The Fractal is magic by itself.
 
JT2 said:
About 5 years ago I was using the BBE in my rig. The best thing about it was, that because each venue and stage is different, I could adjust my on stage sound in an instant. My cab was always miced so it was EQd in a few seconds for me. Now , there is no need. The Fractal is magic by itself.
Click to expand...

The Axe is awesome, but it doesn't have a dedicated effect that produces a result that's similar to the BBE in a recording situation, which is why I was really glad I found a way to reproduce it.
 
I've only used the 802. I just found a couple of links where someone actually analyzed both units at different amplitude levels (an absolute must), and made time domain measurements (also a must):

http://melp242.blogspot.com/2018/01/bbe-802-sonic-maximizer-measurements.html

http://melp242.blogspot.com/2018/01/bbe-282i-sonic-maximizer-measurements.html

The takeaway is that the 802 has a greater high frequency modulation range (cuts as well as boosts, operating as a high frequency compressor at some Process and input levels), does not impose group delay in bypass (where the 882 does), and has significantly higher distortion.

With the 802 Process knob at max, 10k Hz is modulated, depending on the signal level, by up to 10 db with respect to 100 Hz.
 
Last edited:
I have a passing interest in testing the older unit to determine the degree to which the processing can be replicated, but that aside, I don't have any complaints about the newer unit. One advantage of using an EQ to simulate the effect is the ability to do both, boost and cut.
 
Last edited:
merlin17 said:
Wasn't there talk about the BBE slightly delaying lower frequencies to make the top end more prominent (instead of boosting or cutting)?
Click to expand...

Yes that was my understanding and recollection too. When I had my studio we used to have one. But from memory there was some time domain manipulation of the bottom end - it wasn't (just) eq manipulation.

I'd be very surprised if the effect could be reliably replicated by eq analysis and manipulation.
 
vkinetic said:
Yes that was my understanding and recollection too. When I had my studio we used to have one. But from memory there was some time domain manipulation of the bottom end - it wasn't (just) eq manipulation.

I'd be very surprised if the effect could be reliably replicated by eq analysis and manipulation.
Click to expand...

I posted a couple of blind tests earlier in the thread. Feel free to try and identify the BBE sample from the EQ matched clips.
 
Please don't take this personally, but I don't believe that your test can possibly give any meaningful result. Even if someone couldn't tell the difference (it's worth noting that the two people who listened thought they heard a difference), this result could not be extended to a universal conclusion.

The effect of the BBE is largely dependent on the playback system, the input level, and the source material. A properly recorded example in an appropriate format would exhibit different behavior depending on the speakers used. Barcus Berry states that their design is based on an average of the speakers they measured. I believe them. The BBE's effect ranges from impressive, to hardly noticeable, to destructive, depending on what speakers I've used with it. This is primarily due to the group delay, with the Process and Contour knobs set basically flat. This is without even considering the fact that the highs can be modulated up to 10 db with respect to the lows/mids when the Process is at maximum (at least with the 802). 10 db is a shitload of sidechain modulation, and clearly audible.

Second, these files are highly compressed and stream at 160 kbs. Whatever time domain processing was performed by the BBE is going to be utterly destroyed by the encoding/decoding algorithms. Even a "high quality" mp3 exhibits massive phase distortion, to the point of audibly smearing transients. The only hope of hearing what the BBE is doing is to play high quality files into the unit and hear them live. A good linear format with zero or linear phase would minimize this problem when recording a signal after processing, but even a high-quality lossless format still could not prove anything meaningful in terms of a global generalization.

One must get a unit and try it for himself, through a variety of playback systems, with various source material, and with various settings. I agree that a blind test is best (even a double blind). But it must be under the proper conditions. I've heard first hand what the BBE can do, and no eq can "perfectly" replicate it, especially a static eq. They don't create a continuously increasing group delay with respect to frequency, and they don't modulate a frequency band with a sidechain from another.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'll take you at your word that your test examples sound identical. But that has little to nothing to do with everything I've learned from direct experience using the unit over the years. I'll have to bow out at this point. It will save us both some time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom