lkjb: TinyQ

Talk about all things "KVR Developer Challenge" related.
enroe
KVRian
852 posts since 19 Mar, 2008 from germany

Post Wed Sep 05, 2018 1:33 am

What a bummer!

TinyQ looks really great - and maybe it can
substitute the standard-track-EQ in many
DAWs.

But ...

... it works only in "JUCE's Personal License"
which requires Google Analytics to send data.
Now "Google Analytics" doesn't send only
anonymous data. It's just the opposite:
"Google Analytics" sends a big bunch of
data, very detailed and connected to the
IP-number. Together with all the other
trackers Google has all over the web
"Google Analytics" is one element of a
giant accumulation machinery of personal
data. Still most people are not conscious
of this fact.

So I say "what a pity in respect of this fine plugin"! :oops:
free mp3s + info: andy-enroe.de songs + weird stuff: enroe.de

User avatar
Chris-S
KVRAF
2607 posts since 10 Nov, 2013 from Germany

Re: lkjb: TinyQ

Post Wed Sep 05, 2018 1:38 am

Thanks for pointing.

User avatar
Tj Shredder
KVRAF
1573 posts since 6 Jan, 2017 from Outer Space

Re: lkjb: TinyQ

Post Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:07 am

I am pretty sure Juces personal license is violating the DSGVO in Europe...
This is a no go I was not aware of...
We should send them some lawyers...

SparkySpark
KVRian
1321 posts since 30 Aug, 2004 from Skövde, Sweden

Re: lkjb: TinyQ

Post Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:19 pm

Re Google Analytics: As far As I know it is the most used analytics tool on websites, so what is different here? I mean, Google already knows who you are... Am I missing something?

Oh - and I would like to hear more impressions on the plug too. :wink:
Making music is a nine-to-five job:
From 9 PM to 5 AM.
Go MuLab!

enroe
KVRian
852 posts since 19 Mar, 2008 from germany

Re: lkjb: TinyQ

Post Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:23 am

SparkySpark wrote:Re Google Analytics: As far As I know it is the most used analytics tool on websites, ...
Yeah, that exactly is one of the problems with Google.
SparkySpark wrote: ... so what is different here?
The difference here is that now also a tiny innocent VST
connects - without you seeing it - remotely with Google.
I suppose if you use your DAW without internet connection -
in a professional environment - TinyQ won't work then.
SparkySpark wrote: I mean, Google already knows who you are... Am I missing something?
You see, that IS the problem. Google knows already
who you are and has several psychological and sociological
profils of you ... if you don't see this as a problem then
nobody can help you. :dog:
free mp3s + info: andy-enroe.de songs + weird stuff: enroe.de

enroe
KVRian
852 posts since 19 Mar, 2008 from germany

Re: lkjb: TinyQ

Post Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:25 am

@lkjb:

In the past lkjb has created so many fantastic
VSTs - without JUCE and without Google.

So what's behind this JUCE-way now? :?:
I really don't get it? Can somebody explain it?
free mp3s + info: andy-enroe.de songs + weird stuff: enroe.de

SparkySpark
KVRian
1321 posts since 30 Aug, 2004 from Skövde, Sweden

Re: lkjb: TinyQ

Post Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:30 am

enroe wrote: You see, that IS the problem. Google knows already
who you are and has several psychological and sociological
profils of you ... if you don't see this as a problem then
nobody can help you. :dog:
Well, I do see the problem with big companies knowing about our every move (FB is way worse than Google though).

I rest my case though - if Google already has logged what I do in Chrome, Android, Google Docs etc, then what's the big deal with this VST? Isn't that a bit unfair towards the plugin, or am I missing something after all?

You see, Google already knows we downloaded this plugin anyway. :D
Making music is a nine-to-five job:
From 9 PM to 5 AM.
Go MuLab!

SparkySpark
KVRian
1321 posts since 30 Aug, 2004 from Skövde, Sweden

Re: lkjb: TinyQ

Post Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:32 am

A bigger problem in my mind is if it won't work without an Internet connection.
Making music is a nine-to-five job:
From 9 PM to 5 AM.
Go MuLab!

lkjb
KVRist
110 posts since 13 Oct, 2012

Re: lkjb: TinyQ

Post Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:38 am

Thank you all for sharing your concerns.

I'll try to explain my reasoning behind the usage of JUCE's personal license:
My previous plugins were all done in JUCE (the first version of ReFine was done using the plain VST3 SDK but later moved to JUCE) using the GPL license. As all plugins are for free I dont have much motivation to spent money for a JUCE license which I hope is understandable.

For TinyQ I used some more advanced filter designs (mainly the peak and shelf width stays the same near Nyquist) which I prefere not to share in source since it involved a bit of R&D. I also started rather late so using a different plugin framework wasn't really an option. The other alternative would have been to use for example JUCE's filters. But than the filter curves wouldn't be as nice as they are now, resulting in my choice for JUCE's personal license.

Regarding the google-analytics usage: I stated this in the product description as well as a text file within the plugin zips (readme_privacy.txt). As far as I know I don't have any access to the collected data. This is used by ROLI, probably to monitor whether the Personal License (PL) might be violated (for example if I sell something for $1000 and it runs on hundreds of different machines the $50000 limit for the PL is probably exceeded).
About the collected data: Besides data about the product it only contains the OS you use as well as an anonymised machine ID. The machine ID is a hash of some internal machine ID generated by specific JUCE code (e.g. it is probably generated differently for websites etc.). Due to this I'm quite certain that it is not possible to link your usage of JUCE PL products to your web movements. What is possible is that ROLI might know what other PL software you (that is: your machine ID) use. It is highly unlikely that ROLI can connect you (person) to the machine ID.

The plugin will work without internet connection. In this case it simply fails to send the data to google-analytics.

User avatar
harryupbabble
KVRian
1240 posts since 20 Mar, 2012 from Babbleon

Re: lkjb: TinyQ

Post Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:53 am

SparkySpark wrote:A bigger problem in my mind is if it won't work without an Internet connection.
After the first day of Windows 7 factory install and updates, I never connect my Windows 7 computer anymore to the internet, and TinyQ is working fine on it.
ah böwakawa poussé poussé

User avatar
Russell Grand
KVRAF
1537 posts since 22 May, 2017

Re: lkjb: TinyQ

Post Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:30 pm

I use lkjb's Luftikus on almost every track I produce, so I was really looking forward to TinyQ.

It sounds good and looks nice and crisp in small GUI mode, but it's a little too tiny. Changing to the large GUI makes the graphics become extremely blurry. Anyone else notice this? Hope to see it fixed in an update.

Nice plug though, lkjb!

hannesmenzel
KVRer
14 posts since 27 Dec, 2017

Re: lkjb: TinyQ

Post Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:26 pm

Very good plugin indeed, the google analytics thing is a shame, but i'd rather blame roli for this deal. My VPN is providing some help, the machine ID is afaik generated from computers preferences.

I'd like to contribute some (very little) suggestions:

1. Could you reverse the knob direction of the hpf order? It turns counter clockwise when dragged up, which

2. Since the eq is already very low cpu intensive, i'd prefer the filters defaulting to engaged. I made an eq plugin, which processing turns off when 0.0 dB of gain is applied or the default state of the pass filter is left. This would be suitable for a very quick go to equalizer.

3. The best feature of the DAWs internal eq on which Tinyq is based on was the 4 different filter curves. Do you consider to add some? (Non-) proportional Q etc.?

4. Reaper crashed when dragging the points of the frequency response curve.

5. Maybe a little to tiny. In Reaper, when floating, the main entries of the top panel aren't visible.

EDIT for another suggestion:
6. I would wish the controls would have a more senseful "middle position" (shape?). For example all the frequency knobs are around 600 Hz at 12 o'clock, no matter if its low/high frequency/pass filter, especially the low pass has a suboptimal resolution at regularly used high frequencies.

But after all, a great plugin, good sounding and incredibly low on cpu (0.1% with 6 filters including cascading pass filters is great indeed)

lkjb
KVRist
110 posts since 13 Oct, 2012

Re: lkjb: TinyQ

Post Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:09 am

Thanks for the suggestions.
1. I considered the order rather than the UI so for me dragging up to get a higher order is more natural. Maybe I'll change this if more people share your point.
2. I'll look into it.
3. The different Q settings only result in different behaviours when changing gain. At the moment I'd prefer to keep it simple.
4. Can you provide a crash log (macOS) or a crash dump (Win)?
5. I don't use presets in Reaper and therefore didn't notice the missing field. As the Reaper window can be enlarged I don't have any immediate plans to change the plugin's size. After all, it's called TinyQ. :)
6. The freq knobs are logarithmic which results in frequency changes related to the perception of hearing frequencies. Despite their names (and the switchable shelves) all bands are identical which I would like to keep.
hannesmenzel wrote:Very good plugin indeed, the google analytics thing is a shame, but i'd rather blame roli for this deal.
The decision to use the JUCE Personal License was mine. Otherwise I probably wouldn't have finished the plugin in time. ROLI is more or less free to decide which license models they offer and it's generally a nice thing that JUCE is now available without having to pay a fee for its usage or share the source code.

hannesmenzel
KVRer
14 posts since 27 Dec, 2017

Re: lkjb: TinyQ

Post Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:56 am

Those were only suggestions based on my own preferences, everything a matter of choice/decisions.
lkjb wrote:Thanks for the suggestions.
1. I considered the order rather than the UI so for me dragging up to get a higher order is more natural. Maybe I'll change this if more people share your point.
I totally agree, it just confuses me since most knobs turn clockwise then
lkjb wrote: 2. I'll look into it.
3. The different Q settings only result in different behaviours when changing gain. At the moment I'd prefer to keep it simple.
Understandable, I personally like the setting with the steeper cuttung bandwidth.
lkjb wrote: 4. Can you provide a crash log (macOS) or a crash dump (Win)?
PM'd
lkjb wrote: 5. I don't use presets in Reaper and therefore didn't notice the missing field. As the Reaper window can be enlarged I don't have any immediate plans to change the plugin's size. After all, it's called TinyQ. :)
Which is also the cool thing about your plugin. Just thought that other DAWs might have top panels as well.
lkjb wrote: 6. The freq knobs are logarithmic which results in frequency changes related to the perception of hearing frequencies. Despite their names (and the switchable shelves) all bands are identical which I would like to keep.
What I really appreciate is that you didn't limit the frequency range of each filter. It's just that I personally use for example LPFs mostly with higher corner frequencies, but thats were the lowest resolution is here. I can easily step between 20 and 21 Hz, but at the top end you have to deal with 500 Hz steps.
lkjb wrote:
hannesmenzel wrote:Very good plugin indeed, the google analytics thing is a shame, but i'd rather blame roli for this deal.
The decision to use the JUCE Personal License was mine. Otherwise I probably wouldn't have finished the plugin in time. ROLI is more or less free to decide which license models they offer and it's generally a nice thing that JUCE is now available without having to pay a fee for its usage or share the source code.

User avatar
Russell Grand
KVRAF
1537 posts since 22 May, 2017

Re: lkjb: TinyQ

Post Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:31 pm

Perhaps my post was missed, or perhaps I was ignored. :hihi:

Either way, I'd like to repost this:
Russell Grand wrote: Changing to the large GUI makes the graphics become extremely blurry. Anyone else notice this? Hope to see it fixed in an update.
Is this normal for the large version to be blurry? If not, have you any ideas for what could be causing this on my machine?

Anyway, it's no big deal. I can always just use the too-tiny version, after all it is called TinyQ. My old eyes definitely won't thank me though. It's just a shame as I would get a lot more use out of the large version of TinyQ if it was clear and sharp, but at the end of the day, I can deal with it or just continue using my favorite freeware EQ Luftikus. :D

Return to “KVR Developer Challenge 2018”