KVR Audio

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:12 pm

check this out. listen to the demos.

it's realtime as well and you can run it on your ATI 9600 or NV 6 series video cards.

http://www.pjwstk.edu.pl/~s1525/

Now somebody make a VST plugin of that.

Ixox · Post by **Ixox** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:51 pm

It is not a convolution reverb which is, i think, most people are waiting for....

Convolution reverb is the only good sounding reverb you can code if you're not an acoustic/DSP guru...

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:57 pm

Ixox wrote:It is not a convolution reverb which is, i think, most people are waiting for....

Convolution reverb is the only good sounding reverb you can code if you're not an acoustic/DSP guru...

Who says most people are waiting for convolution on GPU, or that you need to do that first? not even bionicfx... Did the marketing already get to you too? Don't you realise GPUs are capable of bit more than just convolution.... christ..

And the latter phrase of yours... let's hope everybody, like me, will just ignore it. That way you might still keep some of your credibility.

Panda · Post by **Panda** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:12 pm

I wouldn't mind a convolution plug on GPU...

And just out of interest, what are some good sounding reverbs that are not based on convolution and not developed by an expert in DSP?

Ixox · Post by **Ixox** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:15 pm

Kingston wrote:
Ixox wrote:It is not a convolution reverb which is, i think, most people are waiting for....

Convolution reverb is the only good sounding reverb you can code if you're not an acoustic/DSP guru...
Who says most people are waiting for convolution on GPU, or that you need to do that first? not even bionicfx... Did the marketing already get to you too? Don't you realise GPUs are capable of bit more than just convolution.... christ..

And the latter phrase of yours... let's hope everybody, like me, will just ignore it. That way you might still keep some of your credibility.

Did i sound that hard ??

In fact i know exactly what a GPU is capable of ( I wrote that http://xhosxe.free.fr/glaxium ... 3D is one of my hobby... )
BionicFX WAS doing a convolution reverb...

Can you explain me what is wrong in my last phrase ??
Convolution is math... The sound quality of the reverb depend on the quality of the impulse response you have.
Coding a good sounding reverb (other than convolution) requires some knowledge in acoustic and some research in sound quality... convolution reverb does not require that...

Is that wrong ?

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:23 pm

Coding a good sounding reverb (other than convolution) requires some knowledge in acoustic and some research in sound quality... convolution reverb does not require that...

Exactly, now did you listen to the demo, or? Sounds pretty damn good for a developer concept. Imagine what that would be capable of in DAW environment.

quote from the developer "My interests include 3D computer graphics, sound". Having read his research I know he's an expert on the subject.

now let's all thank bionicFX for this fixation of too many people for GPU convolution. Just because they market such a thing doesn't mean it's the only possibility, or even the best audio process to develop on GPU.

_starcraft_ · Post by **_starcraft_** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:30 pm

gpu i guess is good news in general.less cpu usage isn't it?
if some of the cpu hungry synths would be recoded for gpu we would have to worry les about cpu usage.

Panda · Post by **Panda** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:05 pm

Kingston wrote:Just because they market such a thing doesn't mean it's the only possibility, or even the best audio process to develop on GPU.

but that still don't mean convolution on gpu wouldn't be nice... Of course it's not the only possibility or even a must, but it would be cool. That amongst many other effects.
It's also that i'm currently looking for a good reverb plug i must say, not that i'm against anything else being developed for GPU.

that said, i think we're still well off the point when they'll release the first GPU plug- still a lot of marketing to be done innit.

valley · Post by **valley** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:54 pm

Ixox wrote: Can you explain me what is wrong in my last phrase ??
Convolution is math... The sound quality of the reverb depend on the quality of the impulse response you have.
Coding a good sounding reverb (other than convolution) requires some knowledge in acoustic and some research in sound quality... convolution reverb does not require that...

Is that wrong ?

Nope.

I dunno what kingston is being pissy about.

Convolution is reasonably easy to understand and program. Reverb reflections and the psycho-accoustics used to produce full sounding reverbs with as low a processing foot-print as possible, is not.

I'm hoping he just mis-understood you, and will realise that, then he "might still keep some of [his] credibility."

Warmonger · Post by **Warmonger** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:08 pm

People want GPU convolution because it takes up so much CPU. Traditional reverbs generally aren't as expensive, so it's not as important to offload processing for them.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:18 pm

Traditional reverbs generally aren't as expensive, so it's not as important to offload processing for them.

They aren't generally computationally expensive because on the native side you always have to cut down on the density to be able to run them in the first place, and more importantly to make them usable in a DAW environment. Todays CPU isn't fast enough for really good "traditional reverbs".

I mean, try writing a similar algorithm to, say, L960 or system6000 on native CPUs and see why GPU could help there. Convolution can't compete with either of those (on reverbation).

System 6000 (maybe L960 too) is mostly finetuned raytraced room acoustics modelling, just like the development concept project on the link.

Just imagine the possibilities if that project was finetuned...

Kraku · Post by **Kraku** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:49 pm

I never really got excited about GPU sound DSP, but now that I actually think of it, I start to see some interesting possibilities arising since DX9's PS 3.0 and VS 3.0 are just around the corner for everybody to have. If I remember correctly, the Pixel Shader 3.0 makes it possible to render 32bit floating points to the destination buffer, which is more than enough for really good audio stuff. The other exciting thing is the great flow control and swissling you'll get

I think that unless it's completely up to the host software, we'll be seeing somekind of GPU accelerated DSP in the near future (in the VST world).

Aktion · Post by **Aktion** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:38 am

Finally, this is great thingy. I created some kind artificial IR generator based on game level geometry about 5 years ago - but now its seems in real time

Excellent research.

stefancrs · Post by **stefancrs** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:45 am

HLSL 3.0 will make a huge difference. All of the sudden we have access to dsp's approx 5x as powerful as our cpu's, and they are using a _standard_ that isn't bound to any single company (like powercore, uad-1 etc). So anyone can buy any new graphics card and use any plugin utilising 3.0 shaders. I've always been against using "dsp cards" because they are always proprietary. But these dsp's will even be included on lots of mobo's etc. Awesome. (2.0 shaders did not quite fit the bill)

Programentalist · Post by **Programentalist** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:54 pm

Using the GPU for audio seems a brilliant idea! A really fast GPU is far cheaper than any DSP solution... let's hope this catches on big time!

Room acoustics processing on GPU, seems we're already there!