KVR Audio

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:34 pm

A pleasure.

Though a warning. Those that want to stack VCC Brit N with VMR FG-N, need to pull up the LC so that it's at bar minimum slightly out of the "off" zone (that's about 30Hz).

Else you get an EQ boost of about 5-7 dB (lowshelf) around 35-40Hz.

Took me a bit to create this plot (store function in VSTPluginAnalyzer didn't want to work - the tool is getting a bit old it seems), but you can clearly see what happens if you stack VCC (Brit N) and VMR (FG-N) with each other.

The lightest line is without any low cut in VMR (HPF)
The second lightest line is with HPF @30Hz LC
The dark line is with HPF @50Hz.

penguinfromdeep · Post by **penguinfromdeep** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 3:21 pm

Did somebody analyse aliasing? I am just demoing now and they sound really good actually, I'm not sure how they can do this with so low cpu (I think also there's no oversampling going on)

Kaboom75 · Post by **Kaboom75** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 3:29 pm

penguinfromdeep wrote:Did somebody analyse aliasing? I am just demoing now and they sound really good actually, I'm not sure how they can do this with so low cpu (I think also there's no oversampling going on)

Fabrice says on the forums to get the optimisation they wanted they used somthing in modern CPUs that older AMD Phenoms don't have. That's why older Phenoms aren't compatible with VMR.

I don't know if they added any oversampling but I do know they are adding some kind of automatic oversampling to VCC 2, will be better on CPU. All this feels like a CPU upgrade to me as if I built a new computer.

Turello · Post by **Turello** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 3:34 pm

I predict that the iLock is doomed to fail...

Mercado_Negro · Post by **Mercado_Negro** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:57 pm

penguinfromdeep wrote:Did somebody analyse aliasing? I am just demoing now and they sound really good actually, I'm not sure how they can do this with so low cpu (I think also there's no oversampling going on)

Kaboom75 wrote:
penguinfromdeep wrote:Did somebody analyse aliasing? I am just demoing now and they sound really good actually, I'm not sure how they can do this with so low cpu (I think also there's no oversampling going on)
Fabrice says on the forums to get the optimisation they wanted they used somthing in modern CPUs that older AMD Phenoms don't have. That's why older Phenoms aren't compatible with VMR.

I don't know if they added any oversampling but I do know they are adding some kind of automatic oversampling to VCC 2, will be better on CPU. All this feels like a CPU upgrade to me as if I built a new computer.

No, there's no oversampling in AirEQ.

lacandon · Post by **lacandon** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:41 pm

Kaboom75 wrote:
penguinfromdeep wrote:Did somebody analyse aliasing? I am just demoing now and they sound really good actually, I'm not sure how they can do this with so low cpu (I think also there's no oversampling going on)
Fabrice says on the forums to get the optimisation they wanted they used somthing in modern CPUs that older AMD Phenoms don't have. That's why older Phenoms aren't compatible with VMR.

I don't know if they added any oversampling but I do know they are adding some kind of automatic oversampling to VCC 2, will be better on CPU. All this feels like a CPU upgrade to me as if I built a new computer.

So its possible then products to sounds very nice without killing the cpu VMR sounds 10 times better then VCC 1 and use less cpu ...
Tone 2 Electra its other one witch comes to mind light cpu great quality !

Timman · Post by **Timman** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 12:18 am

Oversampling should be pretty much a standard now. At least for stuff like that.

Funkybot's Evil Twin · Thu Nov 20, 2014 2:35 am

Timman wrote:Oversampling should be pretty much a standard now. At least for stuff like that.

Why? If someone found a way to make a no latency EQ without aliasing, crimping, or phase artifacts, then what would adding oversampling do? What problem would it solve?

billcarroll · Post by **billcarroll** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 2:44 am

After mixing tonight with Slate VMR, all I can say is h0ly shi7!

The workflow is really spectacular. Getting to a great sound without your eyes is pretty damn cool. I'm a complete convert.

ZenPunkHippy · Post by **ZenPunkHippy** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 2:47 am

billcarroll wrote:After mixing tonight with Slate VMR, all I can say is h0ly shi7!

The workflow is really spectacular. Getting to a great sound without your eyes is pretty damn cool. I'm a complete convert.

I was a little skeptical of the claims, but it's very easy to use and the results are stellar. Easy to get a very thick, "fat" sounding kick drum (for example) with little effort.

Lovely work!

Peace,
Andy.

camsr · Post by **camsr** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 3:06 am

Compyfox wrote:A pleasure.

Though a warning. Those that want to stack VCC Brit N with VMR FG-N, need to pull up the LC so that it's at bar minimum slightly out of the "off" zone (that's about 30Hz).

Else you get an EQ boost of about 5-7 dB (lowshelf) around 35-40Hz.

Took me a bit to create this plot (store function in VSTPluginAnalyzer didn't want to work - the tool is getting a bit old it seems), but you can clearly see what happens if you stack VCC (Brit N) and VMR (FG-N) with each other.

The lightest line is without any low cut in VMR (HPF)
The second lightest line is with HPF @30Hz LC
The dark line is with HPF @50Hz.

If all you need is a frequency response graph, it's easier to use SPAN and a white noise generator, like mda TestTone.

AudioGuy720 · Post by **AudioGuy720** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 5:12 am

Compyfox wrote:A pleasure.

Though a warning. Those that want to stack VCC Brit N with VMR FG-N, need to pull up the LC so that it's at bar minimum slightly out of the "off" zone (that's about 30Hz).

Else you get an EQ boost of about 5-7 dB (lowshelf) around 35-40Hz.

Took me a bit to create this plot (store function in VSTPluginAnalyzer didn't want to work - the tool is getting a bit old it seems), but you can clearly see what happens if you stack VCC (Brit N) and VMR (FG-N) with each other.

Are you putting VCC before or after VMR? Does that even make a difference, in regard to the high pass filter?

AudioGuy720 · Post by **AudioGuy720** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 5:18 am

lacandon wrote:So its possible then products to sounds very nice without killing the cpu VMR sounds 10 times better then VCC 1 and use less cpu ...
Tone 2 Electra its other one witch comes to mind light cpu great quality !

How are you comparing a subtle saturation plugin to a plugin with equalizers and compressors?

And yes the new VCC, version 2.0, will use the new VMR framework along with its optimizations that VCC did not have. Let's hope it comes out next month like Steven Slate estimates.

penguinfromdeep · Post by **penguinfromdeep** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 10:14 am

Kaboom75 wrote: Fabrice says on the forums to get the optimisation they wanted they used somthing in modern CPUs that older AMD Phenoms don't have. That's why older Phenoms aren't compatible with VMR.

I don't know if they added any oversampling but I do know they are adding some kind of automatic oversampling to VCC 2, will be better on CPU. All this feels like a CPU upgrade to me as if I built a new computer.

I thought the optimisations were only for the gui part? That's why people with Phenoms get blank gui. I might be wrong though. Anyway, there's some voodoo going on I can't believe no oversampling and sound is so juicy, I might have to change my signature to reflect this new development!

valerian_777 · Post by **valerian_777** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 10:33 am

Funkybot's Evil Twin wrote:
Timman wrote:Oversampling should be pretty much a standard now. At least for stuff like that.
Why? If someone found a way to make a no latency EQ without aliasing, crimping, or phase artifacts, then what would adding oversampling do? What problem would it solve?

Yep, oversampling is like make-up. I prefer a natural beauty.

Slate says Monday for VMR