KVR Audio

snooky · Post by **snooky** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:00 pm

yeah, in mastering it's fantastic!

still, I'm wondering what those coloured unevenly chaped dots to the left are

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:00 am

dburgan wrote:I have to say that I am shocked by the quality of the filters in this plugin. The UI is a bit dodgy but who cares - the transparency of these filters is simply jaw dropping.

I've been doing a lot of mastering lately and so have been keenly evaluating different EQs. Up til now, my opinion was that the best non-surgical mastering EQ available was Voxengo's HarmoniEQ, and the best surgical was Voxengo's GlissEQ. Up til now.

I didn't think any plugin was going to be able to pry me away from Voxengo, but this one did it. The sound quality isn't just marginally better - it is VERY noticeably better and absolutely utterly transparent. And somehow it gives the track that lovely 'gloss' that you hear in professionally-done masters.

I don't know how you folks did this, but my hat is off.

This post drives home the fact that we have a lot more to thank David McClain and Refined Audiometrics than we have to bitch and moan about. There have been bugs and many of them have been fixed in record time, but now that the CPU usage is down to "mere mortal" levels, this three band has got to be one of the most useful freebies ever offered on KVR.

There has been some give and take since we have helped them work through a lot of problems getting the products to work in a variety of settings, but we shouldn't forget that we are all getting an extremely useful tool in the bargain.

mammath · Post by **mammath** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:04 am

My sentiments exactly!

dburgan · Post by **dburgan** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:18 am

Frippertronix wrote:There have been bugs and many of them have been fixed in record time, but now that the CPU usage is down to "mere mortal" levels, this three band has got to be one of the most useful freebies ever offered on KVR.

Have the optimizations done to reduce CPU usage impacted the sound in any way? I personally could care less if Quality 5 brings my 3GHz P5 to a screeching halt, since my mastering is done in non-realtime. When mastering, I *want* the computer to take all the time it needs to achieve maximum quality. To me, CPU utilization is only an issue for a track EQ, not for a mastering EQ like this one.

So anyway, did the optimizations take any 'short cuts' that could change the sound of the filters??

If so, I would literally beg the developer to include a 'classic mode' that uses the old inefficient-but-incredible-sounding filters for us mastering geeks.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:29 am

I have not noticed any degradation of the sound quality at all during the development. In fact, it has probably improved since the first 1.0 release.

Want an EQ to cause your computer to a screetching halt? Try the algorithmix eq at Xtra quality..

(email them for a demo).

Cheers!
bManic

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:36 am

Haven't compared, but it still sounds fantastic to me.

BTW, I tried it again yesterday and only experienced one occasion of "GUI click through" on T2. Not sure if it's a complex interaction of some sort. I'll have to keep testing.

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:40 am

dburgan wrote:
Frippertronix wrote:There have been bugs and many of them have been fixed in record time, but now that the CPU usage is down to "mere mortal" levels, this three band has got to be one of the most useful freebies ever offered on KVR.
Have the optimizations done to reduce CPU usage impacted the sound in any way? I personally could care less if Quality 5 brings my 3GHz P5 to a screeching halt, since my mastering is done in non-realtime. When mastering, I *want* the computer to take all the time it needs to achieve maximum quality. To me, CPU utilization is only an issue for a track EQ, not for a mastering EQ like this one.

So anyway, did the optimizations take any 'short cuts' that could change the sound of the filters??

If so, I would literally beg the developer to include a 'classic mode' that uses the old inefficient-but-incredible-sounding filters for us mastering geeks.

The sound didn't suffer, this plugin sounds great. Only the CPU usage went down.

Best wishes, FRitz

P.S. Algorithmix: Prepare for some interesting bugs. No problem with bugs though but the demo version is from 2004. That's what the about box says actually, so ...

But they do sound great also.

politcat · Post by **politcat** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:19 pm

about david mcclain...you won't find better support from anyone out there. his updates and response time are uncommonly fast. we're getting this with a free version so how much more so with the paid.

well, i can't say enuf about this plugin and its dev. now go check out the 3 band version 1.88, read the change log and see how accomodating he really is.

dbmcclain · Post by **dbmcclain** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 2:42 am

Hi Everyone,

None of the performance improvements did anything deliterious to the sound. If anything it has improved because more of the computations are held inside the Floating Point Unit (FPU) for 80-bit precision, instead of storing intermediate results to memory and chopping back to 64 bits along the way.

All of the improvements, for those whose machines permit, are the result of better DSP coding practices and the use of extended instruction sets on the P4 and similar machines.

I notice that the AMD chips, like those in the Receptor, are still lagging behind in throughput speed. So that will be the next hurdle to try to overcome. Then also the Mac VST and AU versions.

Cheers,

- DM

gd_vm · Post by **gd_vm** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:11 am

Thanks AGAIN!!!! Wow....

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:53 am

dbmcclain wrote:Hi Everyone,

None of the performance improvements did anything deliterious to the sound. If anything it has improved because more of the computations are held inside the Floating Point Unit (FPU) for 80-bit precision, instead of storing intermediate results to memory and chopping back to 64 bits along the way.

All of the improvements, for those whose machines permit, are the result of better DSP coding practices and the use of extended instruction sets on the P4 and similar machines.

I notice that the AMD chips, like those in the Receptor, are still lagging behind in throughput speed. So that will be the next hurdle to try to overcome. Then also the Mac VST and AU versions.

Cheers,

- DM

Wow this all sounds amazing. David, if you could throw the latest version on T2 and see if you encounter the GUI click-through problem (assuming it hasn't been addressed), I'd certainly be grateful.

Thanks again!
Dave

Mr. Tingle · Post by **Mr. Tingle** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 9:04 am

Frippertronix wrote:Wow this all sounds amazing. David, if you could throw the latest version on T2 and see if you encounter the GUI click-through problem (assuming it hasn't been addressed), I'd certainly be grateful.

Me too.

100below · Post by **100below** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:23 pm

David,
Can you give an indication of how dramatic the speedup in 64-bit native mode in Sonar 5 is?

snooky · Post by **snooky** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:26 pm

I'm still wondering what those coloured unevenly chaped dots to the left are good for.

JamminFool · Post by **JamminFool** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:43 pm

just want to add my thanks for this incredible tool!

10-Band PLParEQ is Here!