Alright Peter, make it so. Get the folks at work to post some A/B samples with the hardware. I'm all for companies doing that.Peter - IK Multimedia wrote:Silly FET, why let something like that stop you??Funkybot's Evil Twin wrote:...but then again, if you'd never do a 10db high shelf boost on the hardware, then I guess doing so in a test would be utterly pointless in any real world sense.
New T-RackS Master EQ 432 NOW AVAILABLE (full GUI pic inside)
-
Funkybot's Evil Twin Funkybot's Evil Twin https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=116627
- KVRAF
- 11519 posts since 16 Aug, 2006
-
Funkybot's Evil Twin Funkybot's Evil Twin https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=116627
- KVRAF
- 11519 posts since 16 Aug, 2006
I'm interested in that. If you did a blind test, do you think you'd be able point out the hardware a significant percent of the time (like 75%)?scalawag wrote:hmmmm. Not just the low end. I clearly ear a different and more pleasant tonality on the hardware...
EDIT
I tried listening to the uncompressed .wav files to see if the difference was more audible in the video, but can't play either file for some reason.
Here's the Gearslutz thread, where it shows that the software isn't boosting the high end as much as the hardware did in the above mentioned A/B test. Later in the thread, Lion posts a more closely matched example using the hardware, saying that the two got extremely close.
Last edited by Funkybot's Evil Twin on Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Peter - IK Multimedia Peter - IK Multimedia https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=217907
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 7864 posts since 20 Oct, 2009
We'd rather others did it, and this one was very cool but I'd really be interested in seeing it done as a blind test. I think the results would be a little bit less skewed toward the hardware. Not totally, perhaps, but still I think it would be enlightening.
We do welcome people who have the real gear to do these tests so if anybody is interested and has the real gear, let me know and we'll definitely be interested in the results. Or you can show me privately first and we'll decide whether we feature the test or send out a few "friends" to visit. I kid, we're confident we've done some fine work and want to see more of these comparisons.
We do welcome people who have the real gear to do these tests so if anybody is interested and has the real gear, let me know and we'll definitely be interested in the results. Or you can show me privately first and we'll decide whether we feature the test or send out a few "friends" to visit. I kid, we're confident we've done some fine work and want to see more of these comparisons.
-
Funkybot's Evil Twin Funkybot's Evil Twin https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=116627
- KVRAF
- 11519 posts since 16 Aug, 2006
You could always do what Slate does. Post two examples without indicating which is the hardware, let people guess which is the hardware for a few days (be sure to capture the poll results), and then post the answers. Or just do what Andy from Cytomic does and run the same audio through both in a video, including very extreme settings, and let people decide how close the two are (though yes, they will skew to the hardware that way).Peter - IK Multimedia wrote:We'd rather others did it, and this one was very cool but I'd really be interested in seeing it done as a blind test. I think the results would be a little bit less skewed toward the hardware. Not totally, perhaps, but still I think it would be enlightening.
-
- KVRAF
- 42529 posts since 21 Dec, 2005
My attitude is if it's that close, then it's good enough. FFS, the kinda coin it would take to get ONE of those is insane. For the 70some bucks I paid for mine, I can use as many instances as my computer can handle
-
- KVRAF
- 5201 posts since 6 May, 2002
http://lacinato.com/cm/software/othersoft/abxFunkybot's Evil Twin wrote:You could always do what Slate does. Post two examples without indicating which is the hardware, let people guess which is the hardware for a few days (be sure to capture the poll results), and then post the answers. Or just do what Andy from Cytomic does and run the same audio through both in a video, including very extreme settings, and let people decide how close the two are (though yes, they will skew to the hardware that way).Peter - IK Multimedia wrote:We'd rather others did it, and this one was very cool but I'd really be interested in seeing it done as a blind test. I think the results would be a little bit less skewed toward the hardware. Not totally, perhaps, but still I think it would be enlightening.
Intel Core2 Quad CPU + 4 GIG RAM
-
Peter - IK Multimedia Peter - IK Multimedia https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=217907
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 7864 posts since 20 Oct, 2009
I know you'd like to see us do it, but this is why I'd much rather see a blind test (though this was a great video, it was received well internally, and we are still confident we did some of our best work on this plugin if not more so after seeing it).Funkybot's Evil Twin wrote:If my eyes had been closed the whole time, or if someone mixed up the files for me, I'm not sure I'd have been able to consistently point out the hardware from the software.
-
- KVRAF
- 9133 posts since 6 Oct, 2004
If you have made the equivalent of a Mercedes with a Toyota muffler,
sold at the Toyota price, I'd guess it's gonna be a keeper
sold at the Toyota price, I'd guess it's gonna be a keeper
-
- KVRer
- 5 posts since 16 Mar, 2014
+1 , on the suggestion for ; adding solo and mute buttons for the separate EQ bands