KVR Audio

LBarratt · Post by **LBarratt** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:09 am

aciddose wrote:
LBarratt wrote:Please don't take the sample that seriously.
ok, i won't then.

I talk too much for someone who does not communicate well. I was giving you a taste of some of the qualities of my summing mixer. The harmonic content was not the main focus of this sample. The harmonic pitch is adjustable. I happened to choose an octave below for this sample.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:34 am

well you're talking about your functions being more accurate (and therefore, better, which is subjective) regarding specifically emulation of electronic circuits.

if you want to make subjective claims that is fine, but the way you've been attacking other implementations in your posts requires objective fact to back it up.

what you really need to do is create an objective demonstration. it can be very simple, for example the result of passing a signal through a very simple buffer amplifier of some sort.

i quite like a sziklai pair with fet input, input bias (no internal bias) and a single resistor as a current source on output.

to objectively demonstrate that your methods produce better results in such a situation you'll need to offer at least an example of the effects of the actual circuit, an attempt at a naive model and it's limitations, and the result of your method and how it has improved upon the naive model.

only then can you substantiate your claim that you have improved upon the naive model as you mention in your posts.

what you say about "other implementations are naive models" or "digital clipping with a filter" is just completely ridiculous however.

you don't need to explain "how", only "what". write it like a patent where you've blacked out the technical descriptions and implementation details.

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:23 am

Is this where we feed the troll?

LBarratt wrote:
aciddose wrote:
LBarratt wrote:Please don't take the sample that seriously.
ok, i won't then.
I talk too much for someone who does not communicate well.

Your R output is exactly the same as your L output, only inverted. This is such a huge no-no in music production that we are left to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about. Also, if this is a summing amp, then what are you summing? You only provided one mono input file.

The "summing amp L" wav file is just the original file, resampled to 44.1 kHz from the original 96 kHz, and delayed by a short number of samples. There is NO dynamics processing used here!

It's not that you are a poor communicator, you just have poor ideas. (Or you're some kind of sick troll.)

That said, I'll do it for half your budget. ($50,000.00 USD) Can offer the same copyprotection/purchase system used in my products and website. Will need half up front to start. Let me know.

aq@admiralquality.com

- Mike

LBarratt · Post by **LBarratt** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:41 am

I am a tdm user and that was my first attempt to get files from a demo of reaper. Sorry will check the phase of the left and right which were just duplicated channels with duplicated plug ins. Should have been in phase. They both include random modulation of some form so they should not be identical. Will check it also.
Thanks

LBarratt · Post by **LBarratt** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:45 am

This was not a dynamics processor. It was meant to be a mono signal ran down two different channels to show the variation and thus width in tone.

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:57 am

LBarratt wrote:I am a tdm user and that was my first attempt to get files from a demo of reaper. Sorry will check the phase of the left and right which were just duplicated channels with duplicated plug ins. Should have been in phase. They both include random modulation of some form so they should not be identical. Will check it also.
Thanks

I played the L + R together and inverted one channel. They cancel completely. No sound.

There may be some minor EQ compared to the original, due to the different sample rates between the source and the output it was tricky to line them up exactly (and I didn't try very hard), but I had the signal almost gone. And what remained just sounded consistently quiet, nothing I'd call "dynamics".

But then I can't comprehend from anything you've submitted yet exactly what it is you're claiming to do. But if you have process code that does something, sure, we can plunk it into our existing frameworks.

So figure out your budget, then request that developers quote on it. There are many who frequent this board, including myself, who are more than capable of doing what you say you need. If you can have $100k tomorrow, that's great. You can make one hell of a plug-in for $100k! So like I said, IF there's NO process code to write, I'll do it for $50k. Copy-protection system, website integration (design and code only, you need to pay for your own host), and integration with PayPal and/or Share-it. Need half to start, then we can work out a rough schedule of milestones for the remainder.

But I still have no idea what "it" is.

LBarratt · Post by **LBarratt** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:19 pm

Hi
I did mess up trying to get samples from reaper. All meant to be same sample rate and left and right are different. I will do another bounce with a lot more care this time. I will include dynamics processing in the fix. This sample was setting dependent modulated signal dependent tone changes and modulated analog harmonics . Got wedding anniversary so will be in couple ofsetting days. Sorry about that.
Lach

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:22 pm

LBarratt wrote:Hi
I did mess up trying to get samples from reaper. All meant to be same sample rate and left and right are different. I will do another bounce with a lot more care this time. I will include dynamics processing in the fix. This sample was setting dependent modulated signal dependent tone changes and modulated analog harmonics . Got wedding anniversary so will be in couple ofsetting days. Sorry about that.
Lach

Don't worry about selling it to us. Just get that $100k (that you said you could get by yesterday) and let's go!

UltraJv · Post by **UltraJv** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:27 pm

AdmiralQuality wrote:
LBarratt wrote:Hi
I did mess up trying to get samples from reaper. All meant to be same sample rate and left and right are different. I will do another bounce with a lot more care this time. I will include dynamics processing in the fix. This sample was setting dependent modulated signal dependent tone changes and modulated analog harmonics . Got wedding anniversary so will be in couple ofsetting days. Sorry about that.
Lach
Don't worry about selling it to us. Just get that $100k (that you said you could get by yesterday) and let's go!

Like most offers of money for doing something on KVR - wont happen. The money is being dealt with by a Nigerian Prince and will be with you soon

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:53 pm

UltraJv wrote:
AdmiralQuality wrote:
LBarratt wrote:Hi
I did mess up trying to get samples from reaper. All meant to be same sample rate and left and right are different. I will do another bounce with a lot more care this time. I will include dynamics processing in the fix. This sample was setting dependent modulated signal dependent tone changes and modulated analog harmonics . Got wedding anniversary so will be in couple ofsetting days. Sorry about that.
Lach
Don't worry about selling it to us. Just get that $100k (that you said you could get by yesterday) and let's go!
Like most offers of money for doing something on KVR - wont happen. The money is being dealt with by a Nigerian Prince and will be with you soon

That's the only reason I quoted in public. LBarratt should prove me wrong by hiring me (or any other developer) to do it. But waving money around in your first post, then proceeding to engage in a sales job on the rest of the thread doesn't make any sense (and is, frankly, insulting to those of us who do this for a living). If you have the money (or can get it "tomorrow") then you don't NEED to sell us on your great idea. You have the process code, you have the money. What's the hold-up?

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:15 am

AdmiralQuality wrote:What's the hold-up?

the code monkeys on "rent-a-coder" are quoting him the job for $1000.

first rule of soliciting bids: you don't talk about your budget.
second rule of soliciting bids: you don't talk about your budget.

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:24 am

aciddose wrote:
AdmiralQuality wrote:What's the hold-up?
the code monkeys on "rent-a-coder" are quoting him the job for $1000.

first rule of soliciting bids: you don't talk about your budget.
second rule of soliciting bids: you don't talk about your budget.

That's why I was nice enough to quote for HALF his budget! He can keep the other half, I won't tell his angel investor with the 24 hour turn-around wallet.

And keep in mind, the code monkeys on rent-a-coder don't have any existing audio plug-ins integrated with online payment and copy-protection systems to show. (Or if they do, they're one of us.)

It just continues to pain me that nobody reads the "README - For non-programmers with great ideas" sticky thread on this board. Sigh...

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=194452

"Ideas: 12 for $0.10, today only!"

VitaminD · Post by **VitaminD** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:45 am

I get the feeling some here are trying to gain as much knowledge about what you know and your ideas in order to either (A) use this knowledge for their own good or (B) simply tear your idea to shreds.

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:51 am

VitaminD wrote:I get the feeling some here are trying to gain as much knowledge about what you know and your ideas in order to either (A) use this knowledge for their own good or (B) simply tear your idea to shreds.

Right. Because every nobody who comes in here with an idea that they can't even describe or demonstrate actually HAS an idea.

And yes, absolutely. If it WAS a good idea, that somehow, nobody had thought up yet, then we'd all steal it ASAP. This has been going on in musical instrument development since before prostitution was invented. (If the piano was invented today, Apple would patent both the keyboard and the phenomenon of vibration.)

Regardless, if it does anything, or even nothing, I can wrap in in a VST with a GUI (How many knobs to control nothing? I assume not many.) and a web integrated copy-protection system. So we don't actually care about the idea. We care about the $100k he can have tomorrow.

But if he has access to $100k to develop this, why is he soliciting OUR consultation for FREE? You've got the exploited and the exploiter inverted there VitaminD.

VitaminD · Post by **VitaminD** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:55 am

AdmiralQuality wrote:
VitaminD wrote:I get the feeling some here are trying to gain as much knowledge about what you know and your ideas in order to either (A) use this knowledge for their own good or (B) simply tear your idea to shreds.

Right. Because every nobody who comes in here with an idea that they can't even describe or demonstrate actually HAS an idea.

Regardless, if it does anything, or even nothing, I can wrap in in a VST with a GUI (How many knobs to control nothing? I assume not many.) and a web integrated copy-protection system. So we don't actually care about the idea. We care about the $100k he can have tomorrow.

But if he has access to $100k to develop this, why is he soliciting OUR consultation for FREE? You've got the exploited and the exploiter inverted there VitaminD.

I didn't name any names.. if you wish to fill those shoes.. so be it.

Where to go from here?