KVR Audio

Programentalist · Post by **Programentalist** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:33 am

...I was hoping (well, dreaming more like) that it'd have zero latency, oh well

Apparently just a small bugfix concerning writeprotected impulsefiles (could be a problem if you copy files from a CD without thinking about the Readonly tags which sometimes, err, tag along...

greendoor · Post by **greendoor** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:45 am

Cool -i've struck that problem. I believe the creator of SIR is behind the new WizooVerb, so we are bloody lucky that he hasn't been forced by commercial pressure to remove SIR completely.

Torben · Post by **Torben** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 6:23 am

Programentalist wrote:...I was hoping (well, dreaming more like) that it'd have zero latency, oh well

I don't think you will see that unless he is going to violate a patent or two, and I don't think he will. Nothing is mentioned about zero latency any longer; remember he always said he was working on it but I do not see it any more.

Torben

Z3R0T0N1N · Post by **Z3R0T0N1N** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 6:43 am

please, please don't try and tell me that someone has managed to patend zero latency spectral impulse reverb? I mean, there has to be more than one way to skin a cat? has someone patented the very idea of such a thing?
(us patent law being what it is, i wouldn't doubt it somehow, come to think of it.

)

Torben · Post by **Torben** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:14 am

spoonboiler wrote:please, please don't try and tell me that someone has managed to patend zero latency spectral impulse reverb? I mean, there has to be more than one way to skin a cat? has someone patented the very idea of such a thing?
(us patent law being what it is, i wouldn't doubt it somehow, come to think of it. )

I do not want to bore you with the details but you can not make zero latency spectral based convolution; you need a block to analyse its frequency spectrum (you can't analyse the spectrum of one sample). So what you do is a combination of different sized blocks (M$ Patent) and time based convolution (Lake Industries patent).

Torben

porpoise · Post by **porpoise** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:11 am

HI

So how come there are so many zero-latency reverbs out?

Porpoise.

Torben · Post by **Torben** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:17 am

porpoise wrote:HI

So how come there are so many zero-latency reverbs out?

Porpoise.

Are there? I think Altiverb are paying royalty to Lake, and others might do the same. I doubt Christian are going to pay royalty for every free SIR people are downloading

And there might be those who simply ignores the patent.

Torben

MrM · Post by **MrM** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:45 am

Read http://www.knufinke.de/sir/newsletter_200504_en.html

He still is working on SIR.

Armadillo · Post by **Armadillo** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:12 am

MrM wrote:Read http://www.knufinke.de/sir/newsletter_200504_en.html

He still is working on SIR.

where does it say that?
It just says he's working on the Wizooverb.

fxe · Post by **fxe** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:16 am

spoonboiler wrote:please, please don't try and tell me that someone has managed to patend zero latency spectral impulse reverb? I mean, there has to be more than one way to skin a cat? has someone patented the very idea of such a thing?
(us patent law being what it is, i wouldn't doubt it somehow, come to think of it. )

Lake hasn't patend zero latency convolution reverb itself, just the only realistic way to achieve it. Which basically means starting off in the time domain and switching over to frequency.

Z3R0T0N1N · Post by **Z3R0T0N1N** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:18 am

wait... so there is only one single way to code something that analyzes blocks, and only one way to code something that does time based convolution?
or did they (ms and lake industries) patend the whole idea of doing it, regardless of the method?

MrM · Post by **MrM** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:20 am

Armadillo wrote:
MrM wrote:Read http://www.knufinke.de/sir/newsletter_200504_en.html

He still is working on SIR.
where does it say that?
It just says he's working on the Wizooverb.

The sentence 'This activity is 100% independent to the software SIR.' implies that he still works on SIR. After all, the latest update was done after the Wizooverb activities.

ericj23 · Post by **ericj23** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:20 am

the voxengo one has zero latency - doesn't it ?

fxe · Post by **fxe** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:26 am

spoonboiler wrote: or did they (ms and lake industries) patend the whole idea of doing it, regardless of the method?

I was reading up on it while back and its a bit fuzzy but if i remember correctly their patent is on switching from time to frequency.

Tom

Z3R0T0N1N · Post by **Z3R0T0N1N** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:42 am

I think it would be very excellent if there could be set up a group ov people consisting of dreamers ( like myself ) code wizards, and engineers of the electronic and computer sort, who's mission it would be to think up, document, and make quick examples of as many great forward thinking designs and ideas as possible and to publish them under gpl or whatever other totally free and open source guidlines would be appropriate. Just methods, basically. dedicate a bit of time each week to collaborative method making. Once it is out in the open, it can't be patented. So, basically the idea would be to get as much stuff out in the open and unpatentable as we possibly could, just try to keep one step ahead of the terribly unfair and undemocratic process that is forcing software patents on the EU. It is hopeless to think of actually stopping it, but at least one might be able to foil the some of the machinations of the massive corporate powers that pay off the eu council presidency.

hehhe... tha is the second rant I have got on in less than a couple of hours...

ya think I should switch to decaf?

New version of SIR out! But...