How Would You Rate This Analog Filter Emulation

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Instruments Discussion

Your Rating:

Excellent
1
13%
Good
3
38%
Mediocre
2
25%
Bad
0
No votes
Failure
2
25%
 
Total votes: 8

RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

People love filters, so heres an opportunity to rate one. :)

For now you only need to know this:

- The filter was modelled after a well-known analog filter.

- The output of the synth went straight to WAV. (I.e. no limiter, no additional processing.)

- Its the filter only, i.e. no 'regular' oscillators.

Rest later to avoid bias and prejudice.


Archive contains:

- 1 very long sweep, (1 minute 5 seconds), linear decay.

- 1 set of Zaps, (44 seconds), varying exponential decay.


Feel free to add your comments too, im looking forward to hearing your opinions. :)

Download

Post

Nothing spectacular imo. juicy but kinda digital.
rabbit in a hole

Post

Not going to download from dodgy share sites. Just put it on youtube, despite the whining about artifacts, the sound of a good filter comes through just fine.

Post

ghettosynth wrote:Not going to download from dodgy share sites. Just put it on youtube, despite the whining about artifacts, the sound of a good filter comes through just fine.
The share site is not dodgy. fast and uncomplicated.
rabbit in a hole

Post

I'd appreciate a Soundcloud or Youtube link too though.

Post

Autobot wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:Not going to download from dodgy share sites. Just put it on youtube, despite the whining about artifacts, the sound of a good filter comes through just fine.
The share site is not dodgy. fast and uncomplicated.
In your opinion. In my opinion, those that give you a page full of links are dodgy. I don't have time to figure out whether a click is going to take me to your download or a porn site.

Google Drive is not dodgy, but I'm still not going to download a soundfile. If you want people to listen to it, put it on a streaming service.

Post

Autobot wrote:Nothing spectacular imo. juicy but kinda digital.
Short and to the point.

Thanks. :)
ghettosynth wrote:Not going to download from dodgy share sites.
Dont be so paranoid, the site is OK. In fact the very reason i keep using it is because you can download without cookies and scripts enabled so just scroll down, click Access to download, scroll down again and theres your download button.

Post

ENV1 wrote:
Autobot wrote:Nothing spectacular imo. juicy but kinda digital.
Short and to the point.

Thanks. :)
ghettosynth wrote:Not going to download from dodgy share sites.
Dont be so paranoid, the site is OK. In fact the very reason i keep using it is because you can download without cookies and scripts enabled so just scroll down, click Access to download, scroll down again and theres your download button.
It's not about paranoia, it's about how much care relative to how much effort and how much thinking that I have to do. I don't know which sites are dodgy and which sites aren't, and I don't care. It looks dodgy, done, as far as I'm concerned it is. You don't get a second chance.

For any site, after I download, I have to right click and play with X. Just put the damn thing on a streaming website.

I'm not telling just you, I'm basically posting for everyone who does this stuff. In a nutshell, your amateur tests aren't worth four or five clicks, you get one, make good use of it.

Post

Have it your way.

And as for 'amateur tests', look whos talking. Im not the one who thinks that cranking the res and whipping the cutoff back and forth tells me all there is to know about a filter.

Post

ghettosynth wrote:
ENV1 wrote:
Autobot wrote:Nothing spectacular imo. juicy but kinda digital.
Short and to the point.

Thanks. :)
ghettosynth wrote:Not going to download from dodgy share sites.
Dont be so paranoid, the site is OK. In fact the very reason i keep using it is because you can download without cookies and scripts enabled so just scroll down, click Access to download, scroll down again and theres your download button.
It's not about paranoia, it's about how much care relative to how much effort and how much thinking that I have to do. I don't know which sites are dodgy and which sites aren't, and I don't care. It looks dodgy, done, as far as I'm concerned it is. You don't get a second chance.

For any site, after I download, I have to right click and play with X. Just put the damn thing on a streaming website.

I'm not telling just you, I'm basically posting for everyone who does this stuff. In a nutshell, your amateur tests aren't worth four or five clicks, you get one, make good use of it.
Even 20 clicks would have been less effort than your retarded tirade. If you cant figure out how to use the internet, just be quiet about it since nobody else gives a f**k.

Post

ENV1 wrote: And as for 'amateur tests', look whos talking. Im not the one who thinks that cranking the res and whipping the cutoff back and forth tells me all there is to know about a filter.
Who thinks that? I think that it's a great test for identifying shit filters, it's never failed. I never said that it's the only thing that matters.

Moreover, grow up, your test is amateur by definition, but, in the context of my response I meant ALL of these style of tests by EVERYONE, not just you, you're not that interesting. You're asking people to waste time listening to something that has no context. Given the response, I'm guessing that it's total shit and not worth the effort to download

I don't think that I've ever been so narcissistic as to ask people here to listen to my amateur filter constructions and then get pissed off when they expect it to be convenient to do so.

If you knew something about filters, you really wouldn't need to ask people in this way, you'd just know if it was good or not. You would be able to evaluate this yourself and by the time you were ready to ask others you would be getting mostly positive feedback.
Last edited by ghettosynth on Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post

.jon wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:
ENV1 wrote:
Autobot wrote:Nothing spectacular imo. juicy but kinda digital.
Short and to the point.

Thanks. :)
ghettosynth wrote:Not going to download from dodgy share sites.
Dont be so paranoid, the site is OK. In fact the very reason i keep using it is because you can download without cookies and scripts enabled so just scroll down, click Access to download, scroll down again and theres your download button.
It's not about paranoia, it's about how much care relative to how much effort and how much thinking that I have to do. I don't know which sites are dodgy and which sites aren't, and I don't care. It looks dodgy, done, as far as I'm concerned it is. You don't get a second chance.

For any site, after I download, I have to right click and play with X. Just put the damn thing on a streaming website.

I'm not telling just you, I'm basically posting for everyone who does this stuff. In a nutshell, your amateur tests aren't worth four or five clicks, you get one, make good use of it.
Even 20 clicks would have been less effort than your retarded tirade. If you cant figure out how to use the internet, just be quiet about it since nobody else gives a f**k.

Your analysis is ignorant. You are making the assumption that people value all activities equally in terms of time spent, that's not true for anyone. We like doing some things more than others.

Moreover, since someone else agreed, you are, in fact, wrong. So, how do you feel about not being smart enough to outsmart a "retard?"

Catch up with the 21st century and put your audio on a streaming site. It's not like this is a subtle test or anything that requires 24/96 .wavs. I'm sure that a 128K MP3 will reveal enough detail for a judgement.

Post

"The educated person is one who knows how to find out what he does not know" - George Simmel
“It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.” - John Wooden

Post

:hihi:

Post

box.com is a good site, one can preview wav's online or download them, as one pleases.

I don't see the need for such an angry vibe here, today's Valentin's day, so wait till tomorrow 8)

Post Reply

Return to “Instruments”