KVR Audio

zck · Post by **zck** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:27 pm

Using different quality modes with multis produces no sound (ex: 2 runing q3, 1 runing q5). Can someone verify this ?

Thank you for the eq !

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:30 pm

Wouldn't it just make sense from a companies point of view if the plugin wasn't operating properly when multiple instances are used?
I mean, if it was working properly, people had full multiband mastering EQs (I doubt it'd make any sense in a mixing scenario, at that CPU hit).

Btw, tried it a bit, it's indeed sounding excellent, as it seems.

zck · Post by **zck** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:32 pm

Sascha Franck wrote:Wouldn't it just make sense from a companies point of view if the plugin wasn't operating properly when multiple instances are used?
I mean, if it was working properly, people had full multiband mastering EQs (I doubt it'd make any sense in a mixing scenario, at that CPU hit).

The author stated in the other thread that the plugin comes without any limitations. Rendering and runing multis is allowed. Very nice of him do that.

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:35 pm

Yes, of course... but then, they're selling multibands as well. So to fix bugs regarding stability of multiple freebie instances probably isn't in their interest.

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:38 pm

I think it is very much to their interest that the freebie works without ONE TINY bug. This is the demo version AFAICS. Who would buy this plugin for 1500 dollars when the demo doesn't work properly in every possible way?

Best wishes, FRitz

zck · Post by **zck** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:41 pm

Sascha Franck wrote:Yes, of course... but then, they're selling multibands as well. So to fix bugs regarding stability of multiple freebie instances probably isn't in their interest.

If the target market of this EQ are professionals (mastering engineers predominately) than I don't think that providing a freeby is going to have any effect. Simply because anyone who tweaks eqs for a living can't be bothered with running multiple instances. Tweaking parametric eq spread over several plugins can be tedious. You also don't get any soft of visual overview with the free version.

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:31 pm

zck wrote:
Sascha Franck wrote:Yes, of course... but then, they're selling multibands as well. So to fix bugs regarding stability of multiple freebie instances probably isn't in their interest.
If the target market of this EQ are professionals (mastering engineers predominately) than I don't think that providing a freeby is going to have any effect. Simply because anyone who tweaks eqs for a living can't be bothered with running multiple instances. Tweaking parametric eq spread over several plugins can be tedious. You also don't get any soft of visual overview with the free version.

I totally agree. Look, this is pro mastering quality software and they are talking about 10 bands in their pro model when we have a hard time running 4. Can you say "parallel processing"? Some of use a couple PC's and FX Teleport or are running a dual core, but the closest we come to a computer bank is when we go get cash from an ATM machine.

This 10 band, assuming they can do a worthwhile GUI and get the bugs out, will be picked up by pro studios who have Lexi's, M6000's, room sized automated desks, everything. They are ready to use banks of PC's to do audio processing, and that is what will most likely be necessary to use 10 bands at highest PL quality.

The little free 1 band in multiple instances isn't really going factor in as a big hit on that market, from what my intuition tells me. Can't be certain since the human race has a notorious capacity for cheapness

, but that's my gut feeling.

snooky · Post by **snooky** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:26 am

I'm still not convinced..I want to see proof!

greendoor · Post by **greendoor** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:07 am

Is there some sort of maximum IQ limit for KVR's (in the single digits) that I wasn't told about?

What part of "freebie" don't some people understand. This isn't a "demo". It's a freebie that gives potential customers a taste of what the commercial version could be capable of.

I've seen some absolute turds of plugins being praised here. And then when something of very high quality is offered - for free - it gets trolled by morons.

snooky · Post by **snooky** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:10 am

my EQ is very high!

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:08 am

Actually, I have to edit some of what I said in my last post since David McClain emailed me again. It sounds like there is some kind of summing going on in the 10 band that brings the CPU hit for multiple bands at high quality way down, (I get muddle headed when programming technicalities are explained to me

, but maybe he'll come on and say more) so I guess that's part of what makes it more attractive as a piece of payware vs. stacking up the free version.

I'm going to go home after work and see if I can make any more headway on whether I'm imagining the problem with bell cuts. I'll have to scope it to be sure. David is sceptical since their test runs on my host (Tracktion 2) were all reliable, so please, if anyone else has the same experience, post it here.

Dave

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:17 am

Frippertronix wrote:there is some kind of summing going on in the 10 band that brings the CPU hit for multiple bands at high quality way down

It's the fact that you only have to oversample and then downsample once for as many filters as you like.

With multiple instances of the singleband you will add extra up and downsampling with each instance. Needless to say it doesn't come cheap on the CPU.

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:20 am

Kingston wrote:
Frippertronix wrote:there is some kind of summing going on in the 10 band that brings the CPU hit for multiple bands at high quality way down
It's the fact that you only have to oversample and then downsample once for as many filters as you like.

With multiple instances of the singleband you will add extra up and downsampling with each instance. Needless to say it doesn't come cheap on the CPU.

But if you run at 96 all the time (as I do), wouldn't that make no difference? If it wouldn't, then we are still talking about a considerable CPU load at high resolution, since it is quite high on my machine (I can only run 3 instances max with no other effects in real time at PL 5, with the machine at 96 KHz and the audio out being 24 bit).

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:22 am

Frippertronix wrote:But if you run at 96 all the time (as I do), wouldn't that make no difference? If it wouldn't, then we are still talking about a considerable CPU load at high resolution, since it is quite high on my machine (I can only run 3 instances max with no other effects in real time at PL 5, with the machine at 96 KHz and the audio out being 24 bit).

I think it oversamples even on 96khz from looking at the way it munches the CPU and the way it sounds. Which is what all properly coded plugs should do. And yes, it does make a difference. GlissEQ and PSP masterQ do this as well, probably posihfopit (and elecriQ obviously) as well.

PLPar obviously has the best (and heaviest) oversampling method. It's probably nearly identical to the voxengo r8brain offline sample converter.

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:26 am

Kingston wrote:
Frippertronix wrote:But if you run at 96 all the time (as I do), wouldn't that make no difference? If it wouldn't, then we are still talking about a considerable CPU load at high resolution, since it is quite high on my machine (I can only run 3 instances max with no other effects in real time at PL 5, with the machine at 96 KHz and the audio out being 24 bit).
I think it oversamples even on 96khz from looking at the way it munches the CPU and the way it sounds. Which is what all properly coded plugs should do. And yes, it does make a difference. GlissEQ and PSP masterQ do this as well, probably posihfopit (and elecriQ obviously) as well.

Okay, so I guess you would see an improvement at 96, too. That's encouraging.

PLParEQ1?