New T-RackS Master EQ 432 NOW AVAILABLE (full GUI pic inside)

[Agreed]

This unit does exactly what it's supposed to do. Precision and a sameness to tracks processed with it (I keep going back to "an airiness" though I hate unclear words like that, it is in the treble though) that leaves a very subtle sonic footprint... An album's worth of songs carefully adjusted with this plugin should all have that light finishing touch, which presumably coming on the heels of a good, coherently tracked and mixed all-jobs-done-well team effort pre mastering, will sound Together. So, mission accomplished, I think. Pass the word to the coders, Peter? They did their jobs really well on this, it's artistically accomplished

By the way, for anyone that was curious, Dave gave me permission to reproduce his email back; it is off-topic (except that we do talk about things that are modeled by IKMM, among others) though so weigh that before you ask!

[blueman]

Comparing software plugins to their hardware equivalents is not the right way to think about these things -- even while they may sound just as good, or better. Hardware cannot be replicated like code. It is a vastly different process. Hardware has up-front costs for every item built, costs to manufacture, storage, boxing, etc. that software completely bypasses. R&D must be done for hardware and software alike, but high-end audio hardware requires raw materials, building skills, mechanical engineering, and craftsmanship that is far less ubiquitous than software development (think physical trade skillsets).

I've worked in technology for 17 years. I've sat next to many creative and gifted coders. Coding is just not the same as actually building something from the ground up, with high quality tools and materials. Sure, coding is a skill worthy of great respect but it's nothing at all like the real creation of these units. These are simulations, not clones. I'm disappointed and annoyed that we still make cost comparisons to hardware that are meaningless. It's a marketing technique; nothing more. It is reality vs. virtual reality. The two do not belong in the same discussion. In many ways, software is already superior to hardware; but that hardly warrants similar cost and value assessment. Don't be fooled! We need to think of this as it is: software code (i.e. instructions and information).

[hibidy]

I followed part of that, then you just lost me

[meloco_go]

Demoing it. Sounds sweet, but seems to have 64 samples latency @96k which it doesn't report.

[hibidy]

Er, as is the usual IK logic, the credits are far lower than the "price" which is redunculous. I'll demo it to see if the 99 buck credit is worth it.

[hibidy]

Oh FFS, I knew I was going to like this!

[4damind]

The new Master EQ 432 (it's inspired by the Sontec EQ?) is very nice. Very smooth shelves. Different shape options and the M/S feature is very useful for mastering stuff.
It seems the demo time is now 14 days which is very nice.

Somebody knows the location of the documentation (windows)?

[Peter - IK Multimedia]

Comparing software plugins to their hardware equivalents is not the right way to think about these things -- even while they may sound just as good, or better. Hardware cannot be replicated like code. It is a vastly different process. Hardware has up-front costs for every item built, costs to manufacture, storage, boxing, etc. that software completely bypasses. R&D must be done for hardware and software alike, but high-end audio hardware requires raw materials, building skills, mechanical engineering, and craftsmanship that is far less ubiquitous than software development (think physical trade skillsets).

I've worked in technology for 17 years. I've sat next to many creative and gifted coders. Coding is just not the same as actually building something from the ground up, with high quality tools and materials. Sure, coding is a skill worthy of great respect but it's nothing at all like the real creation of these units. These are simulations, not clones. I'm disappointed and annoyed that we still make cost comparisons to hardware that are meaningless. It's a marketing technique; nothing more. It is reality vs. virtual reality. The two do not belong in the same discussion. In many ways, software is already superior to hardware; but that hardly warrants similar cost and value assessment. Don't be fooled! We need to think of this as it is: software code (i.e. instructions and information).

Good thing our folks are talented at (and active in - many still service hardware and I've posted pictures of the guitar gear built by them by hand, not to mention the Opto Compressor being based on a hand-built unit made by our CTO) doing both! So in our case, both are in the same discussion and deserve to be. I'm not discounting, nor am I disagreeing with, your points - I'm just pointing out that there can be the best of both worlds which I believe bolsters the advantages of software versions.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

It's nice to see that some under the hood changes happened with the saturation. I never liked what the Fairchild did to the initial transient on pianos. It was a very crunchy distortion (sounded like internal clipping). I haven't done direct A/B comparisons with 4.5 and prior versions, but this seems to have been scaled way back in the new update, which is good. I'm hearing a much smoother sound as a result. Hopefully, it's not all in my mind, but I honestly don't have the time right now to do the comparison with the prior version.

I still ended up preferring Slate's FG-Mu to the IK Fairchild in my tests today, but the IK version is now back in the contention for when I need a piano comp (a major area where Mu-style comps really shine over others IMO). I demoed the new UAD Fairchild Collection a while back, and loved the 660, but didn't like the 670 at all (odd, right?). That's when I ended up buying Slate's VBC, since the FG-Mu sounds amazing on piano and guitars, plus you get 2 other compressors.

In short: the saturation update is appreciated here.

[Peter - IK Multimedia]

Er, as is the usual IK logic, the credits are far lower than the "price" which is redunculous. I'll demo it to see if the 99 buck credit is worth it.

Buying the 120 Gear Credit pack is buying credits in bulk so it still represents a discount for purchasing these credits in bulk as usual. Buying the 120 pack at that price in either USD or euro will be a 33% or 1/3 discount on either, and in this case leaves you with no credits "left over" so it seems like a pretty good option to save some money.

[hibidy]

Er, as is the usual IK logic, the credits are far lower than the "price" which is redunculous. I'll demo it to see if the 99 buck credit is worth it.

Buying the 120 Gear Credit pack is buying credits in bulk so it still represents a discount for purchasing these credits in bulk as usual. Buying the 120 pack at that price in either USD or euro will be a 33% or 1/3 discount on either, and in this case leaves you with no credits "left over" so it seems like a pretty good option to save some money.

Yes, but why would anyone pay 149- for it? It seems so odd Peter.

[Peter - IK Multimedia]

hibidy - the prices are 1:1 with the euro:credit pricing, and buying credits gives a bulk discount as explained above a few times above. So, this one happens to match a credit pack perfectly with its intro price, so that's what I'd go for personally, to save the money on two levels.

[hibidy]

The other thing is that since I downloaded the new version is now ALL the custom shop stuff shows up even if I haven't purchased it.

[hibidy]

hibidy - the prices are 1:1 with the euro:credit pricing, and buying credits gives a bulk discount as explained above a few times above. So, this one happens to match a credit pack perfectly with its intro price, so that's what I'd go for personally, to save the money on two levels.

But the dollar price is 149.99. But it's 120 credits (or 99.99 when you buy credits) Why would anyone pay 149.99 for it?

[Peter - IK Multimedia]

120 credits is also part of the introductory pricing, so again I'd go with whatever gets you the best deal in your currency while you can. I hope that explains it enough, it seems like we're beating a dead horse here as the 1:1 pricing based on the euro pricing, the bulk discount you get for credits, etc have been explained. We could remove the option to get a better price for it if you'd like?