Tonex aliasing

Orvillain said:
Reduction of noise is directly equivalent to the term "better sounding".
Click to expand...

Only on a scientific level. Once it comes to human perception, things can be quite different.
And fwiw, before we start arguing endlessly, personally, I'm usually in the "less noise = better" camp. But I do still accept there's exceptions once it comes to perception.
 
BagDragger said:
I don't think so. Firstly you've got to define what you mean by noise. Some aliasing sounds like a ring mod effect, sometimes it creates an effect that to listen to is similar to the noise that is added to synth oscillators - that's if you can even hear it of course. It also depends on what you feed into the device producing the aliasing. The aliasing on amp model a will be different from the aliasing on amp model b, it's not a one shot deal. I don't think you can say "all aliasing is bad", and certainly to me, even when I know I'm playing through something that I've tested and proved has audible aliasing for a sine sweep, whatever effects are being created are not unpleasant - remember that tube distortion wasn't "desirable" once upon a time, what they really wanted when they first started building amps was pure undistorted amplification. Tube distortion was an artifact that became a desirable function of the amplifier tone for a culture demanding something more edgy and rebellious back in the day.

As I said if you are one of those people who thinks that better is exactly the same as a baseline analog amp, then for you zero aliasing is the ideal. I would say it's the ideal for me too, because you can always add noise afterwards if you have a pure signal, but I think it's an almost impossible dream in 2025, so I'll go with what I subjectively like the sound of, aliasing and all.

Proof of subjectivity is in the playing and listening.
Click to expand...
Zero aliasing is the ideal even in the digital realm. It isn't really achievable, but it is the ideal. Anyone writing DSP to create any kind of system necessarily wants to reduce the amount of aliasing as much as possible.

All aliasing is bad. By definition. It is a product of sampling a signal in such a way that frequencies above the Nyquist limit fold back into the audible range in unintended ways. It introduces harmonic content that is not present in the original signal - which is why I qualify it as 'noise' - and unlike intentional distortion or synthesis techniques that create harmonically related overtones, aliasing produces inharmonic artifacts that can sound unnatural or harsh.

That said, whether aliasing is musically undesirable is a different question. While it is, by definition, an error in the sampling process, the subjective impact depends on context. Some forms of aliasing can resemble effects like ring modulation or bitcrushing, which are used creatively in music production. And just as early tube distortion was once considered undesirable before becoming an iconic part of amplifier tone, aliasing might sometimes produce textures that a musician finds appealing.

But from a DSP design perspective, minimizing aliasing is always the goal. A well-designed digital system strives for transparency and fidelity, allowing musicians to introduce whatever noise, distortion, or nonlinearity they choose—rather than imposing unintended artifacts as a byproduct of inadequate processing.
 
Personally, I find the sound of aliasing harsh and ugly and I don't want it anywhere my guitar tones. 🤮
 
Orvillain said:
Zero aliasing is the ideal even in the digital realm. It isn't really achievable, but it is the ideal. Anyone writing DSP to create any kind of system necessarily wants to reduce the amount of aliasing as much as possible.

All aliasing is bad. By definition. It is a product of sampling a signal in such a way that frequencies above the Nyquist limit fold back into the audible range in unintended ways. It introduces harmonic content that is not present in the original signal - which is why I qualify it as 'noise' - and unlike intentional distortion or synthesis techniques that create harmonically related overtones, aliasing produces inharmonic artifacts that can sound unnatural or harsh.

That said, whether aliasing is musically undesirable is a different question. While it is, by definition, an error in the sampling process, the subjective impact depends on context. Some forms of aliasing can resemble effects like ring modulation or bitcrushing, which are used creatively in music production. And just as early tube distortion was once considered undesirable before becoming an iconic part of amplifier tone, aliasing might sometimes produce textures that a musician finds appealing.

But from a DSP design perspective, minimizing aliasing is always the goal. A well-designed digital system strives for transparency and fidelity, allowing musicians to introduce whatever noise, distortion, or nonlinearity they choose—rather than imposing unintended artifacts as a byproduct of inadequate processing.
Click to expand...
Agree 100% with all of that.

Shit did I just completely agree with someone on a forum? Damnit, I take it back.
 
BenIfin said:
Hey Paisano !

Am curious about something.

In your excellent TTS thread, I ran a Tonex -v- NAM Standard aliasing Test => here <=

The 2 x Graphs clearly show (a) that the Tonex has a Low Pass Filter kicking in at 16kHz and up and (b) that NAM Standard is somewhat better in terms of overall aliasing.

My question is:-

=> is it possible to tell from these graphs (?) or some other test (?) at what - dB level the aliasing in Tonex and NAM is registering ?

I know Cliff has said in the past that he aims / try's to aim for the average aliasing levels to be at -60db or lower ... as he states that -60db is very close to actual silence for humans

All the best.
Ben
Click to expand...
You can roughly tell the level of aliasing in my spectrogram generator, set the min threshold to the desired value (e.g. -60 dB) and see how mucj aliasing is still visible.
You can also do it with Cliff's method, a 9-11 kHz sine sweep and an RTA.

Anyway, keep in mind that aliasing level is dependent on input level and gain, so a clean tone requires much less oversampling/anti-aliasing than a high gain tone.
 
I know the following is not Tonex - its NAM - but it is comparatively instructive nonetheless in terms of aliasing

4 Graphs and 1 Audio Recording of the NAM Software and an ultra distorted saturated guitar Capture with DLC's Aliasing Test

NAM Aliasing @ -120db

1742208003636.jpeg


NAM Aliasing @ -90db

1742208022317.jpeg


NAM Aliasing @ -60db

1742208034611.jpeg


NAM Aliasing @ -40db
1742208054832.jpeg


I think its pretty fair to say that NAM is not "doing" much aliasing above the -40db below 0db level

Audio Demo of 0db -vs- -40db -vs- -144db

[ I chose -144db below 0db as I seem remember reading somewhere once that -144db was considered to be absolute silence ]

To audio-demonstrate this in a real world example, the NAM recorded guitar riff below is broken up into 5 Parts.

Each of the 5 Parts has 3 sections:-

1 => the guitar riff playing back @ 0db
2 => then the guitar riff playing back @ -40db from 0db
3 => then the guitar riff playing back @ -144db from 0db

Download Alias -40db vs -144db Test by Ben Ifin | Listen MP3 & WAV for FREE on audio.com

Download and stream Alias -40db vs -144db Test by Ben Ifin for free on audio.com. High-quality audio available for both streaming and download. Listen now.
audio.com audio.com

My personal take-conclusion. I.m.h.o, getting aliasing as low as possible is very important and that is demonstrated clearly in this NAM example.

B.t.w - the same graphs with Tonex are not as "clean". (a) there is "visually" clearly more aliasing at all db levels -and at the same time- (b) IK/Tonex have built-in a pre-applied quite severe Low Pass Filter from 16kHz and up in what I can only assume is their attempt to "mask" what would otherwise be even more obvious visual and audible aliasing
 
Last edited:
To demonstrate the Tonex pre-applied severe Low Pass Filter from 16kHz and up, see the 4 graphs below - this is the Tonex software in a DAW as a Plugin.

Put simply ... and to paraphrase ... "a helluva lot of baby has been thrown out with the bath water"

Tonex @ -120db

1742212234419.jpeg


Tonex @ -90db

1742212727430.jpeg



Tonex @ -60db

1742212249589.jpeg


Tonex @ -40db

1742212268134.jpeg
 
EOengineer said:
Can’t have aliasing if you don’t have any frequencies.

Think About It GIF by Identity
Click to expand...

Yep - I think this is precisely why IK embedded such a severe Low Pass Filter at 16kHz and above into the Tonex Capture process.

Actually - just noticed - upon closer inspection there is also a quite severe Low Pass Filter kicking in from ~7kHz on up and then it totally falls of the cliff from 16kHz on up.

Gotta love IK ! :)
 
Last edited:
Possibly psychosomatic but I hear the same top end rolloff in Amplitube. I always have and it has always bothered me. It’s just the slightest bit dull and bloated, all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Tone X 1.5 Update
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
7K
MirrorProfiles
MirrorProfiles
P
Switching presets on Tonex from Helix
Replies
0
Views
524
pipelineaudio
P
D
Tone Craft Studio - New ToneX Captures
Replies
6
Views
1K
Cellomangler
Cellomangler
P
ENGL Fireball 25: Comparison of Power amp, attenuation and captures
Replies
10
Views
312
riffy
riffy
L
Headrush Firmware
Replies
4
Views
2K
likitlikeyoulikeit
L
Back
Top