Waves SSL E-Channel for just $29!

[1wob2many]

Seriously... Waves Central actually works fine for most folks?
No problems, no time spent babysitting the thing to get it working
correctly?

All hunk dory?

I would be tempted to classify that as a mysterious unexplainable phenomenon.

What's even more mysterious to me is the comments following this from people who don't have a problem with Waves Central.

Seriously, you folks don't mind that you have no control over what it installs and where? Or that files are scattered willy-nilly across your hard disk? Or if you want to update one plug-in, you have to update all of them? Or that if you want to uninstall one plug-in, you have to uninstall the lot and re-install the ones you want to keep? (Yes, you did read that correctly - http://www.waves.com/support/uninstall-waves-products).

None of this bothers you? Really?

Waves Central is a malignant tumour in software form. It is the essence of evil distilled into 0s and 1s. A fresh demon is spawned from Satan's arse every time it is run.

Er...I think I might have got a little bit carried away there, but you get the idea.

[Compyfox]

Nobody is claiming that a 100% null is the only relevant or valid criteria upon which to base a comparison. The argument is whether or not a plugin can be cancelled beyond the point of a perceptible difference.

Well, you kind of, sort of... did?

Do me a favour. Record some pink noise, normalize the track to 0dB, copy the track, play the two tracks, and adjust your master volume to a tolerable listening level. Now, reverse the polarity on one and adjust one fader to -0.01dB. The resulting signal should be around -70dB or so. Without readjusting your master fader, tell me with a straight face that the difference is worth $100. How about $50? How about $20? How about $1? How about a penny, in all seriousness?

Invalid argument with Pink Noise IMO, YMMV of course.


The main question should still be "is the workflow(!!!) worth it to you at this price"?
Sound is always subjective - and the Null Test in this case absolute useless.

Seriously, you folks don't mind that you have no control over what it installs and where? Or that files are scattered willy-nilly across your hard disk? Or if you want to update one plug-in, you have to update all of them?

Funny that you mention that, because I could clearly see (on my end) where things are installed and actually what. I can also decide if things are updated automatically or manually. And hey... offline installer!

Uninstalling/reinstalling of individual plugins is a different topic though. And yes, that is a bit annoying. However...

Waves Central is a malignant tumour in software form. It is the essence of evil distilled into 0s and 1s. A fresh demon is spawned from Satan's arse every time it is run.

If you think that Waves Central cuts into your usage rights... you will have a sh*tload of fun with NI ACCESS... Which only let's you update/install your stuff if you're online, downloads once, installs directly after the download (with a in the background running drive mount tool that you have no control of!), without control WHERE to install after you setup NI ACCESS once, then deletes the installer immediately.

Downloaded/installed a 4GB file? Something got messed up? Download again!


But hey... only Waves Central is the demon spawned form Satan's rear end...

[poshook]

Waves central is pretty fine to me. What about IKM solution to download 800MB for a single plugin, install all of them including Custom shop without any single option and then delete one by one from VST, VST3 and Components folder plus download license manager to activate.... oh my god.

[poshook]

I turn the sheet. Waves are now at 9.9.1 version and the big sale is still alive. So I am sure the 10th version is coming and expect something really huge. Hope they are cooking something to kick ass to volterra kernels

[1wob2many]

But hey... only Waves Central is the demon spawned form Satan's rear end...

I never said that, did I now? I mentioned only Waves Central because it was in response to a post about Waves Central. And there was a certain tongue-in-cheek-ness to my post.

[pixel85]

The most funny thing is all these tests mentioned in this topic are worth absolutely nothing You can make zillion tests like this and it's still nothing in comparison of use of plugin in real world e.g. mix of the track.
Today I took a track I put e channel on tracks, few quick tweaks here and there... Done. It sounds good and even that I have newest EQ/comp plugins that emulate this and that hardware... I did mix quicker with E channel and it sound as good as would be with use of different plugins.
After all what is important is workflow and final result. The fact that plugin X does or doesn't null at -0.00087dB... who cares? It's plugin to be used in music not in experiments in laboratory

[BRBWaffles]

Nobody is claiming that a 100% null is the only relevant or valid criteria upon which to base a comparison. The argument is whether or not a plugin can be cancelled beyond the point of a perceptible difference.

Well, you kind of, sort of... did?

Do me a favour. Record some pink noise, normalize the track to 0dB, copy the track, play the two tracks, and adjust your master volume to a tolerable listening level. Now, reverse the polarity on one and adjust one fader to -0.01dB. The resulting signal should be around -70dB or so. Without readjusting your master fader, tell me with a straight face that the difference is worth $100. How about $50? How about $20? How about $1? How about a penny, in all seriousness?

Invalid argument with Pink Noise IMO, YMMV of course.


The main question should still be "is the workflow(!!!) worth it to you at this price"?
Sound is always subjective - and the Null Test in this case absolute useless.

OK. Pick ANY sound and follow the same procedure, and you'll get the same results, because y'know, that's how physics tends to work.

I also did not say that the only metric by which we judge a tool is how closely it approximates a tool of lesser price. That's not what I said, though it's part of what I meant. If you're the sort of person who can only work with the E-Channel (as childish or unlikely as that is), then fine, spend the extra money. But, all you're paying for is fuzzy feelings, because the comparison data doesn't support the idea that you bought much more than that. In fact, my original argument in favour of the CS-3301 was that it accomplished the same sonic goals, plus more. A lot more. Is there more to consider when purchasing a tool other than how it stacks up against other tools in functional performance? Sure, there's personal preference. But, we make music for a living. Our primary metric will be a direct comparison in sound above most other considerations. When we're in the pro audio section of our local music store choosing monitors, does how pretty and easy to operate they are factor into whether or not we buy them? Not enough to sway us, in my estimation. I say this because there's an entire community of thousands of competent audio professionals using Reaper who have been getting along just fine for a decade without a GUI of any sort on their plugins. You want wicked tools that are deeply unsatisfying to play with? Look at Reaper. Those users aren't worse off for it, either. So, I don't personally buy the idea that the E-Channel's workflow potential is worth measuring in the consideration in any significant manner, as a rule. Some idiosyncratic eccentric dude might look at the E-Channel next to the CS-3301 and come to the ridiculous conclusion that the E-Channel is the better buy because he feels he might be able to twist the knobs faster. Sure, whatever. But, I'm not making that exceptional case the rule. We care about sound, and you're grasping at straws to disagree.

As for your statement about sound being subjective. I'm starting to think you actually don't know what null-testing is, or what its purpose is. It's an objective measurement of the sonic differential between two audio signals. -80dB is well below the threshold of what is discernible at a reasonable listening volume at 0dB, and that is demonstrably true, as stated above by an experienced VST developer.

[Compyfox]

I also did not say that the only metric by which we judge a tool is how closely it approximates a tool of lesser price. That's not what I said, though it's part of what I meant. ...

I'm cutting this short:
If I go by this particular paragraph alone, I can pretty much use any tool on the market, host bundled even (read: the most basic stuff there is), and get the very same stuff done and just as fast.

In fact, this is what I tend to do as of late. But it's a difference to connect various devices to my needs (with a modular subhost), or pick up one plugin that does all that for me already and speed up my workflow.

We had this discussion with Softube's Tape as well.

As for your statement about sound being subjective. I'm starting to think you actually don't know what null-testing is, or what its purpose is.

You're right - I usually don't know what I'm talking about. [/rubs chin]

It's an objective measurement of the sonic differential between two audio signals.

With a huge tolerance that is still noticeable on both the meter, and to trained ears. At least if we listen to this individual channel.

-80dB is well below the threshold of what is discernible at a reasonable listening volume at 0dB,

If we are that "picky" and pay attention to detail - at what relation? What SPL level? What was the original loudness? What speakers? What listening environment?

Inside the box, pure measurement... -80dBFS is still too high for "a null" (full phase inversion). For some this is suitable enough, but it is still not "a null".


Are you sure you know what "a null test" is?

See dictionary: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/null
See Point 3: Mathematics > empty / of measure zero

You didn't measure "0" or -inf

... and that is demonstrably true, as stated above by an experienced VST developer.

I'm sorry for being stupid here, but... which developer are we talking about?

And there was a certain tongue-in-cheek-ness to my post.

So was my response.

The most funny thing is all these tests mentioned in this topic are worth absolutely nothing You can make zillion tests like this and it's still nothing in comparison of use of plugin in real world e.g. mix of the track.

Come on! This is KVR, the community wants to step up it's place to be close to GS these days. With science backing that up and stuff. [/sarcasm]

Funny that it's a little bit off though.



Hey poshook, found some spare time to re-measure yet? No trolling, just curious.

[BRBWaffles]

I also did not say that the only metric by which we judge a tool is how closely it approximates a tool of lesser price. That's not what I said, though it's part of what I meant. ...

I'm cutting this short:
If I go by this particular paragraph alone, I can pretty much use any tool on the market, host bundled even (read: the most basic stuff there is), and get the very same stuff done and just as fast.

In fact, this is what I tend to do as of late. But it's a difference to connect various devices to my needs (with a modular subhost), or pick up one plugin that does all that for me already and speed up my workflow.

We had this discussion with Softube's Tape as well.

As for your statement about sound being subjective. I'm starting to think you actually don't know what null-testing is, or what its purpose is.

You're right - I usually don't know what I'm talking about. [/rubs chin]

It's an objective measurement of the sonic differential between two audio signals.

With a huge tolerance that is still noticeable on both the meter, and to trained ears. At least if we listen to this individual channel.

-80dB is well below the threshold of what is discernible at a reasonable listening volume at 0dB,

If we are that "picky" and pay attention to detail - at what relation? What SPL level? What was the original loudness? What speakers? What listening environment?

Inside the box, pure measurement... -80dBFS is still too high for "a null" (full phase inversion). For some this is suitable enough, but it is still not "a null".


Are you sure you know what "a null test" is?

See dictionary: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/null
See Point 3: Mathematics > empty / of measure zero

You didn't measure "0" or -inf

... and that is demonstrably true, as stated above by an experienced VST developer.

I'm sorry for being stupid here, but... which developer are we talking about?

And there was a certain tongue-in-cheek-ness to my post.

So was my response.

The most funny thing is all these tests mentioned in this topic are worth absolutely nothing You can make zillion tests like this and it's still nothing in comparison of use of plugin in real world e.g. mix of the track.

Come on! This is KVR, the community wants to step up it's place to be close to GS these days. With science backing that up and stuff. [/sarcasm]

Funny that it's a little bit off though.



Hey poshook, found some spare time to re-measure yet? No trolling, just curious.

ikjb was the developer I was talking about. He has VSTs on KVR as far as I know.

It seems like you're conflating "null test" (the name of a diagnostic procedure), with "null" (the state of being zero). A null test is used to see how close to inf (zero) you can get two signals. Yes, -80dB is not "null". I never said that it was, and I never said that was the most important consideration. I said I used a null test and managed to make the differences between two plugins measurably negligible. To be specific, I managed -80dB peak, and much lower RMS, something close to -100dB. I used pink noise, a snare sample, and a vocal, managing to get similar results with all of them. This was close to a year ago when I still had access to the E-Channel plugin. At a reasonable listening volume (~60dB), -80dB was not audible unless I cranked the monitors. I know I don't have poor hearing. I worked at a CNC workshop and had my hearing tested regularly, and scored well above average (not to boast).

It's just such a bizarre conversation to have, because I know for a fact that I'm not in error, but you're finding it so difficult to accept information as it comes to you.

[Compyfox]

Right - I know jack squat... I'm wasting my time with this.

I think the answer in this case is "I agree to disagree".

[BRBWaffles]

Right - I know jack squat... I'm wasting my time with this.

I think the answer in this case is "I agree to disagree".

Well, assuming you're being sarcastic. Don't let that post count or whatever professional experience you might have go to your head, 'cause you haven't said a single intelligible sentence on this topic since you chimed in. I won't agree to disagree, because I'm not wrong. So, screw it, I guess.

[Compyfox]

You're joshing me, right?
"...you haven't said a single intelligible sentence on this topic since you chimed in..."?


Seriously... I pointed out a gigantic flipping mistake with the THD+N measurements (vague, on purpose to see who will really get it - because: a lot of misinformation being spread around lately!), so obviously I know jack f*cking sh*t about what I'm doing or talking about? (as somebody who does this for over 1,5 decades). Funny enough, that only one(!) beside me saw the mistake (Ichad.c) - something you've ignored as well with your... vast knowledge about this topic from which I only know jack about.

Who are you even behind your... "alias" and 22 posts since May 2017, only talking about Dead Duck Audio (also mentioning something about "your clients"?), Audio Damage and now Waves? Do I have to bow down to your superior knowledge or what?!


You don't like this plugin. I get it. I guess we all get it at this point.

And you back up your findings with your "null test" - which you presented as "defacto and only reason as to why others shouldn't use this thing either", not to mention that "TBProAudio CS-3301's concept is so much more superior" (sock puppet?!). You've been riding on this (to me!) BS null test for several posts at this point, and now insist I talked nonsense since my initial response to this thread?!

I must be in the forking Twilight Zone again...
*man, a triple facepalm doesn't even cut it!*




But hey... even at 29USD - that's "still overpriced" for what you get...
Modern day KVR in a nutshell I guess.

[Everglide]

Enjoy the sunshine KVRians... perhaps get laid and this will seem like small potatoes

[incubus]

We go through this EVERY SINGLE TIME. Sorry for shouting, but it's frustrating on both ends.

A) Yeah, it works fine here

BUT

B) It doesn't always work for everyone.

Maybe some empathy instead of the snarky-ass crap?

I mean, FFS, it's frustrating when you get something and it doesn't work.

[BRBWaffles]

You're joshing me, right?
"...you haven't said a single intelligible sentence on this topic since you chimed in..."?


Seriously... I pointed out a gigantic flipping mistake with the THD+N measurements (vague, on purpose to see who will really get it - because: a lot of misinformation being spread around lately!), so obviously I know jack f*cking sh*t about what I'm doing or talking about? (as somebody who does this for over 1,5 decades). Funny enough, that only one(!) beside me saw the mistake (Ichad.c) - something you've ignored as well with your... vast knowledge about this topic from which I only know jack about.

Who are you even behind your... "alias" and 22 posts since May 2017, only talking about Dead Duck Audio (also mentioning something about "your clients"?), Audio Damage and now Waves? Do I have to bow down to your superior knowledge or what?!


You don't like this plugin. I get it. I guess we all get it at this point.

And you back up your findings with your "null test" - which you presented as "defacto and only reason as to why others shouldn't use this thing either", not to mention that "TBProAudio CS-3301's concept is so much more superior" (sock puppet?!). You've been riding on this (to me!) BS null test for several posts at this point, and now insist I talked nonsense since my initial response to this thread?!

I must be in the forking Twilight Zone again...
*man, a triple facepalm doesn't even cut it!*




But hey... even at 29USD - that's "still overpriced" for what you get...
Modern day KVR in a nutshell I guess.

Haha. When I said "this topic", I didn't mean the entire thread. I meant our conversation about the null testing and comparisons.

I haven't said a damn thing about my personal feelings toward E-Channel itself, actually. I haven't said that I like it. I haven't said that I dislike it. I only told you what my testing uncovered about the plugin in relation to another plugin that I do actually like (not that my preferences are relevant to the validity of my claims in the least). Then I made a few statements about how my findings should probably affect consumer decision-making for the individuals in this thread.

Now you're ranting about my post history and making grandiose inferences about my credentials on zero information. You don't know me at all, frankly. But, keep it coming, man. I'm getting a kick out of your attitude. You just can't seem to get your foot out of your mouth, and it's hilarious.

But, I can see you're quite angry with being thrashed this hard, so maybe I should stop.