KVR Audio

TMA · Post by **TMA** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:58 pm

Dont you think its rude to jump in and slate another developers product alexey and christian ?

so what if hes charging what he charges, whats it matter to you ?

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:13 pm

TMA, I was consciously not slating - reread my posts.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:22 pm

Aleksey Vaneev wrote:omo, I'll try this later. Hope it works

Sounds interesting Aleksey. Can't wait! And don't be affraid of CPU usage. More is better!

- bManic

Jonny Mumra · Post by **Jonny Mumra** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:23 pm

Aleksey Vaneev wrote:Jonny Mumra, do you plan to spend $1000 on this plug-in?

I dont plan to but i do feel as far as plugin eq,'s its one of the best ive heard.

Ive always thought the good plugins are expensive but some are starting to perform as good as and in some cases better than out board gear.

As you know an outstanding outboard eq is going to cost 5 times this plug. Is outboard too expensive.

My response was due to the guy who made it sound like this thing is a rip off. Maybe it is, then so are all the other plugs except yours.
From what ive heard the only outstanding plugins that dont cost the earth are yours aleksey.

I dont want to offend anyone i just think its a great sounding eq, i think it out performs the waves lin eq
which is the best ive tried to date. Also pricy.
I havnt heard/used the Gliss eq and your eq's but i shall have to soon since ive heard a lot of good comments.

Cheers

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:24 pm

daizo wrote:a $1000 bucks for this plugin? come on! Are you nuts, no one is going to pay that much for just an EQ, I could get at least five hardware ones for that much.

Except the only hardware on this planet that can compete with this plugins sound costs way over 3000$. That's over 300$/band.

- bManic

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:36 pm

Christian Budde wrote:
For free the EQ is ok, at least if it sounds really that good, but I never would spend 1000€ for such a thing. It's totally overpriced,

Christian

You guys seem to not understand the "sales and demand" thing. There is Algorithmix who have had their EQs for years. No magic, simple linear-phase stuff, all textbook except they use ridiculously big buffers and are not affraid of using CPU cycles to get rid of most bad effects. They sold, very well. Then there is Weiss, apparently also nothing magic, it just uses brute force and a lot of DSP to get a very clean sounding eq. Expensive box. It sounds wonderful. It sold, lots.

Now comes PLParEQ. It's apparently nothing special either, textbook stuff (which the developer himself has said several times, even ecouraged others to use the info on the page to create their own). At 1000$ it will probably sell quite well to mastering engineers (although I think the GUI will turn a few off).

Now, investigate the situation. Who are the only people in the world who spend lots of money without blinkin' an eye as long as the equipment sounds good? Mastering engineers. They don't really care or have an issue with CPU usage either. It's just smart marketing from Weiss and Algorithmix and both were quite early in the game (a disadvantage to PLParEQ). I'm sure you and Aleksey could easily program something similar or even superior. Why haven't you? Affraid of brute force? The CPU critique?

Btw. If you haven't tried the latest version I very much recommend it. This really sounds good this EQ, no matter how it was created.

The CPU's of today are starting to be so powerful that it should be possible to create the ultimate 1-band EQ. I'd be even more than happy with an offline EQ, that uses ridiculous amounts of processing if it just left my original music intact, that is, not destroying transients or doing anything else than simply cutting/boosting the selected frequencies by the amount I tell it to.

- bManic

pitchdrifter · Post by **pitchdrifter** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:38 pm

This one sounds way better than the waves. How this thing here works, I have no idea. It sure is very cpu intensive on my cpus currently (amd).
Will I buy it? No, I can't quite justify it for my production work. If mastering were my fulltime business, though, I would. It's more convenient than comparable hardware, and costs less.
Not that anyone asked though

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:41 pm

fritzman wrote: P.S. I'm not taking sides here, and definitely nothing against you, Christian! It's just that the facts, will say the SOUND, is REALLY that good to me. Therefore I wonder why people wind up on some papers that the normal user doesn't understand anyway. So what's the point? To me it looks simply like "Hey, it sounds extremely good. So I have to bash it in another possible way."

Exactly what I had to tell certain folks after showing the EQ. The first thing they did was read the technical papers/description on the site and stating "it's really nothing special at all". Well, dang, I still don't care if it's technically special or not. It sounds fabulous, period.

I'm sure there has always been folks bashing the Weiss and Algorithmix eq's too but the simple fact is: "They did it. Users loved it. Users bought it. The companies made some good money". Simple, eh? Everybody happy (except the re-sale value of Weiss eq might drop drastically at some point, just like anything digital).

Cheers!
bManic

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:04 pm

fritzman wrote: P.S. I'm not taking sides here, and definitely nothing against you, Christian! It's just that the facts, will say the SOUND, is REALLY that good to me. Therefore I wonder why people wind up on some papers that the normal user doesn't understand anyway. So what's the point? To me it looks simply like "Hey, it sounds extremely good. So I have to bash it in another possible way."

Hey Fritz,

Does it ever occur to you that people may want something other than your subjective view?
I mean, with all due respect, I don't know you. I know from reading your posts that you have an unshakable belief in your own judgement. Which is fine, except most people that I've met who are quite that dogmatic have turned out to be utterly, hilariously clueless.
I'm sure that isn't the case with you, but given the choice between your completely unknown ears and some solid, objective figures. I'll take the numbers.

Best wishes

nuff

p.s. don't take this personally. The same applies to all the other self appointed golden eared brigade.

Christian Budde · Post by **Christian Budde** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:06 pm

fritzman wrote:It's just that the facts, will say the SOUND, is REALLY that good to me

'cause "taste" is relative and I don't like esotheric stuff.

I quit watching this place right now.

Signing off, enjoying the taste of Rio

Christian

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:12 pm

nuffink wrote: p.s. don't take this personally. The same applies to all the other self appointed golden eared brigade.

Self appointed? There you go sticking words in others mouths again. The only one pointing and appointing things left and right is you mister. I remeber quite well all your finger pointing towards mr David McClain.

Nuffink, as long as you label other people, let me label you a bit here:

You are, narrow minded, quick to throw the first stone, pretty much dead on believing you are always right (applies to a lot of people here, which makes this forum interesting, my self included,

), only believes in numbers (? poor you then).

- bManic

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:15 pm

bmanic wrote:
nuffink wrote: p.s. don't take this personally. The same applies to all the other self appointed golden eared brigade.
Self appointed? There you go sticking words in others mouths again. The only one pointing and appointing things left and right is you mister. I remeber quite well all your finger pointing towards mr David McClain.

Nuffink, as long as you label other people, let me label you a bit here:

You are, narrow minded, quick to throw the first stone, pretty much dead on believing you are always right (applies to a lot of people here, which makes this forum interesting, my self included, ), only believes in numbers (? poor you then).

- bManic

bManic,

Sorry you feel that way.

original flipper · Post by **original flipper** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:16 pm

HI

I think these kind of thread's should consist of:

1)Am opening statement.

2)An opinon in response to a counter opinion to your original statement.

3)A closing statement that should round up your original opinion and any movement you may have to make in response to the opinions of others.

At this point you should only be allowed to read the postings - but not respond, unless you do so by pm's!

Life is too short and surely one has better things to do than keep REPEATING the same shpeel for 20 postings?

As I said - anything to do with so called 'Mastering' invariably causes people to get themselves overly excitable

.

Flipper.

autloc · Post by **autloc** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:19 pm

bmanic wrote:I'd be even more than happy with an offline EQ, that uses ridiculous amounts of processing if it just left my original music intact, that is, not destroying transients or doing anything else than simply cutting/boosting the selected frequencies by the amount I tell it to.

Thank you should be happy, because all you have to do is use any old EQ (no need to be linear phase), "reverse" the resulting wav file, and then apply the filter again. It's not conveniently real-time like PLParEQ, but the sound quality should be even better.

gd_vm · Post by **gd_vm** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:23 pm

Nuff, did you try the eq?

10-Band PLParEQ is Here!