KVR Audio

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:50 am

How can can anybody read this thread and not laugh?

Mainly at you.

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:51 am

bmanic wrote:
robenestobenz wrote: If it was transparent, I doubt it would have had such an immediately large positive response. My issue was more that it sounded flat to me, and kind of unclear. But beyond an obvious qualitative level (like obvious anomalies) all this stuff is subjective anyway.
This kind of surgical and very 'sterile' EQ does sound a bit flat. I agree. It simply boosts or cuts frequencies without adding anything really. There's nothing 'fancy' about the sound at all it's just that there are no artefacts in it and this is why it is such high quality. People who have demoed the Weiss EQ1, TC 6000 massenburg EQ and Algorithmix EQ know what I mean. They all have this same "flaw", which is why they probably do not work in a mixing context that well but excell in a mastering situation for surgical tasks (a mastering enginer will of course always also need some 'flavour' EQs like the massive passive, pulteq, tubetech etc).

Cheers!
bManic

Seriously, we should all shut up about this or they're probably going to raise the price of the full version even higher.

This kind of EQ gives your insturments the real test, because it leaves it up to them to determine if something like a 1 KHz boost of 3 db is going to enhance and strengthen the impact of the track or just be blah. If the track is well recorded and has a beautiful instrument or synth sound on it, an excellent transparent EQ can make it even stronger if you hit the right points.

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:55 am

zck wrote:
nuffink wrote:
laughing at somebody's distress ? that's grouchy and nasty. you seem to have problems with evaluating eqs. get that hearing aid fast.

i have 5 bands working. All are bypassed when bouncing or rendering but that obstacle can be overcome of course.

That's bad, since if they are saying we can't render with this free EQ then it's as good as cracking it to work around the render bypass. I hope that's a bug. Otherwise this is really a demo and not a freebie (and they should clarify that point), unless one instance works in all cases.

Even so, though, 1 band is better than nothing, so I seriously hope we are totally free to use that.

zck · Post by **zck** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:56 am

nuffink wrote:How can can anybody read this thread and not laugh?

Mainly at you.

i don't know who's laught at who. you proved to be a great source of my amusement. that's all that matters. keep it up.

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:58 am

zck wrote:i don't know who's laught at who.

Trust me. You're in a minority of 1.

zck · Post by **zck** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:05 am

nuffink wrote:
zck wrote:i don't know who's laught at who.
Trust me. You're in a minority of 1.

read past 4 pages to see who's the minority. there was a couple of idiots posting photos your style but they gave up long time ago.

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:06 am

zck wrote:
nuffink wrote:
zck wrote:i don't know who's laught at who.
Trust me. You're in a minority of 1.
read past 4 pages to see who's the minority. there was a couple of idiots posting photos your style but they gave up long time ago.

That'd be you and the other blokes failing to get this thing to work.

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:07 am

Broken eq sir?
Don't mind if I do squire.

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:10 am

Don't fancy a broken reverb do you? I could probably knock you one up in SE.

zck · Post by **zck** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:11 am

nuffink wrote:Broken eq sir?
Don't mind if I do squire.

The eq is buggy and probably has rendering limitation. Of couse you wouldn't know being busy sending deceptive email to the questionable company. Now, excuse me while i fart at your logic, arguments and all your posts really.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:11 am

nuffink, just go away and troll in some other forum, ok?

zck · Post by **zck** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:20 am

Frippertronix wrote:
zck wrote:
nuffink wrote:
laughing at somebody's distress ? that's grouchy and nasty. you seem to have problems with evaluating eqs. get that hearing aid fast.

i have 5 bands working. All are bypassed when bouncing or rendering but that obstacle can be overcome of course.
That's bad, since if they are saying we can't render with this free EQ then it's as good as cracking it to work around the render bypass. I hope that's a bug. Otherwise this is really a demo and not a freebie (and they should clarify that point), unless one instance works in all cases.

I think unless they state the limitations clearly you can do whatever you want. I'm not even sure if this is limitation, a bug or a host issue since there are problems in other areas.

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:23 am

Boy, I really wish this thread wasn't being hijacked by playground politics because this is an important subject, in my opinion. This free plug represents a piece of technology that is being established way, way, out of our price range so the extent to which it works for us is significant.

I've emailed David McClain from Refined Audiometrics and asked him to spell out once and for all if this is a demo, a one instance free plug, or a free plug with no intended limitations. I'll post what he tells me here.

Dave

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:34 am

If you check the docs on their site, you'll notice that there have been several bug fixes already. New version isn't crashing now with multiple instances.

[edit]at least not crashing always. If you fiddle about with the phase and quality with both, one instance seems to crash after a little while.

zck · Post by **zck** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:20 am

robenestobenz wrote: If it was transparent, I doubt it would have had such an immediately large positive response. My issue was more that it sounded flat to me, and kind of unclear. But beyond an obvious qualitative level (like obvious anomalies) all this stuff is subjective anyway.

from what i've heard.. Coloring eq such as sonalksis enhances the sound a bit. It sound good if the dry signal is problem free. If your mix has some unpleasant resonance you won't be able to cut it out with tool such sonalksis because sharp rise or dip will add additional resonance from the eq. PLP has very minimal resonance and each band is much more 'focused' and clean. The result is solid and often 'dead' sound. This however, ensures any additional sound processing used to beef up the sound will be clean. Multiband compression/expansion, some transient boosting , a bit of coloring eq and you get the liveliness back with no unwanted crap. Also, cleanly eqed track or instrument withstands more abuse

PLParEQ1?