Equavescent equalizer release

[Tapehead]

Actually, A_SN and Dave's post here and on gearslutz were some of the most useful and educational.

I did not find them to be aggressive or unreasonable at all. In fact, totally the opposite ; They both gave plenty of opportunities for the developer in question to respond to all this questionable marketing noise and dubious, blurry and pseudo scientific descriptions floating in this thread.

If anything, as I already stated, I feel grateful that they took the time to elucidate us on some of the technical aspects of this discussion. It makes us all safer from the insidious marketing abuse that is already way too prevalent in our lives .

[kylen]

Personally I enjoyed a lot of the discussion, other parts of it were also entertaining in the same way a UFC fight might be.

But here's the cool thing about digital audio and what separates it from analog - you can actually hear another mans algorithm and judge if it's any good or not! Try that just by looking at a bunch of stupid tubes and transformers...

Like I said earlier - I'm waiting for a dot release of 2 then I'll try this thing out!

[momalle3]

I don't find my ears to be that reliable in the short term. Over weeks of using something, yes, I think ears are reliable. But I've often tried something new and said to myself "wow that sounds great" only to gradually stop using it in favor of some other plugin that works really well and in that sense sounds reliably great. Equilibrium would be a good example--I use it ALL the time in various "modes" and settings. It always sounds good and it never messes up. I have a bunch of EQs that I initially said "wow" to that are now gathering digital dust.

So I don't trust my ears, or rather, I trust them only over time. Iv'e found this thread extremely useful, at least before it degenerated into bickering. The claim that Equavescent is base don some new kind of math and not that old math from 1805 is comical. I'll be glad to try it when it's stable enough to not waste my time

[kvaca]

... And he says that it's not possible to capture its response with a "match eq", which I guess means either one of those automatic matching EQs or an attempt to match (not "get close to") the curve with any EQ that isn't like theirs.

but I think you know that matching EQ is NOT the best solution to accurately match any special Eq curve - much better is to use dirac+any convolution plugin...so if OP is not directly lying then he is at least introducing misleading statements...

If that was false, someone here would have been glad to demonstrate it long ago already by simply matching a single band, but it's not possible to match it with anything else that's available.

sorry, its not true...if you had bothered to try the demo you would have very soon realized that it IS possible to match any Equavescent´s setting down to -200 db /using above mentioned method/
the reason someone didnt demostrated it long ago is simple - this plugin in its current state is almost unusable...it strongly reminds me some crappy convolution plugins but it was 10-12 years ago!!/you remember hog?/

[eidenk]

If his maths/methodology is different than what everybody else does and is not protected by patents why should he give away his blueprints for free to competiton?

except he claims it is protected by patents. hence, it should be out there in the open. or he could at least have a common courtesy of explaining what else is there to completely linear filters aside from frequency and phase response. it's not that hard to do. if i asked Dave Gamble how his compressor works, i wouldn't expect him to give me the source code, schematics or whatever, but he certainly would've told me general principles that he used, and it would be perfectly fine even if i were his competitor. now contrast it to LBarratt, who not only basically says that FFT is old and sucks, but also implies that there are certain other parameters to linear filters besides frequency and phase response while basically spitting on "traditional EQ techniques" saying that "they aren't designed for clarity" without giving any definition to what that "clarity" actually is, in technical terms. i don't know, maybe you simply don't get how strong a claim this is?

First, unless I am mistaken, he only said he intended to patent, so if he doesn't have patented there is nothing he can say about his exact methodology to achieve equalization if he doesn't want anybody that is skilled enough to freely implement it in a competing product.

A patent covers methods for achieving something not its precise implementation such as source code. If a methodology for achieving something is patented, that methodology is public knowledge through its description in the patent but nobody except the patent holder can implement it or license its implementation for as long as the patent is valid (20-25 years).

Anybody who wants to keep its trade secrets, would never tell you "how his compressor works" if the method is original and unprotected by patent, he would tell you what it does, would tell you that the method is original and yields better sounding results than well known traditional methods, yada, yada, etc... but in no way would he tell what his method exactly is.

[Burillo]

First, unless I am mistaken, he only said he intended to patent, so if he doesn't have patented there is nothing he can say about his exact methodology to achieve equalization if he doesn't want anybody that is skilled enough to freely implement it in a competing product.

read the first post.

The standard mode of Equavescent™ includes processes primarily developed for ADC, DAC and image processing. They comprise of a number of progressive patented alternatives to the traditional equaliser implementation. This mode is designed for absolute clarity.

[eidenk]

Mmmh, well, lol, where are those patents then?

If there are indeed patents there shouldn't have been all this mystery and discussion as to how he does his stuff.

[Ah Xoc Kin]

Point is, if you try to bullshit people who don't necessarily have the technical knowledge to know what degree of bullshit we're dealing with, someone who knows better is going to call you out on it, and if you persist in spouting impressive-sounding vague meaningless bullshit it might get ugly.

http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html

[kvaca]

Oh by the way, about the phase of Equavescent. It works exactly like stated on the GUI. There is a phase knob. Set it to 0% and you have fully linear. Set it to 50% and you have something in between and 100% is minimum phase. Verified in VSTplugin Analyzer. Nothing weird about it on the phase front.

nothing weird??... so how did you get minimum phase with this plugin?--when I set phase knob to 100 % it gives me inverted phase instead of minimum phase... , but according to manual there should be no pre signal=it should be of minimum phase...so-whats wrong?

Phase Shift: Adjusts the sound from a linear non-phase shifted sound to a phase
shifted sound. 100% phase shifted sound has no pre-signal...

[bmanic]

Hah! You are right. The phase is actually flipped..

Other than that the phase warp curve itself is perfectly ordinary and corresponds to the shape.

Cheers!
bManic

[LBarratt]

Current users please check your email.

[LBarratt]

otherwise contact barrattaudio if you have not received an email

[BasariStudios]

Why the lBarrat site is just blank???

[Iamaudioami]

Beta2 is online

[antithesist]

Regrouping after last year's beating, I think.