KVR Audio

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:24 pm

omo wrote:
bmanic wrote: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.
Sorry, quality 6 available only in pro version.

Damn, I must be running an old demo of the 10-band.. Gotta get me that 6. Maybe one day it will go to 11?

- bManic

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:37 am

Looks like David has tried to address the GUI click-through on v. 1.92 (thanks for that!).

I will give 'er a try tonight. Luckily, on version 1.89 it didn't do it to me, but I didn't spend much time with it.

DuX · Post by **DuX** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:57 am

As of this 1.91 version my Athlon XP works with both versions... except that non-P4 version consumes a little bit more CPU [around 3% more], so Athlon 64 should definitely work, too. Old Athlons feature just mmx instructions, while Athlon XP features MMX+SSE1 instructions, Athlon XP Barthons feature MMX+SSE1+SSE2 instructions and Athlons 64 feature MMX+SSE1+SSE2+SSE3 instructions, plus 64bit operation... as I remember

.

Maybe this will help David, too? Do you know this? The only part I'm not sure of is which AMD processors feature MMX+SSE1+SSE2, but if you optimise your code for MMX+SSE1, all Athlons XP-up should work, that-I'm 1000% sure and that's probably more than 90% of Athlon CPUs around...

Cheers!

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:11 am

dbmcclain - here's a really minor little thing with the gui "Q" readings - don't know if it's been mentioned yet...I'm using v1.92 of PLParEQ3NP4.dll

For a peaking filter type 1 I set the "Q" to 9.99 and there is %d3 resolution (sort of), now I increment it .01 so it should read 10.0 but all I see is 0.00 (I think you're trying to write 10.00 but the field is too small). If I increment "Q" another .01 then I see 10.1 displayed.

Thanks for the mighty fine EQ. The feature set is getting pretty rich now - I like the seperate L/R, M/S, and innovative +L/-R it's just too cool!

You know - if you wanted to go for volume sales and the price matched my station in life a bit more I'm betting we could all be happy and support your fine EQ at the same time.

ermi · Post by **ermi** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:38 am

I never used a P4 and never will.
So I would also like to know what version is more suited for AMD processors? Aka which consumes less CPU, as I guess the quality is the same on both.
Afaik the difference between CPU consumption between those 2 versions is not that big, tho.

Are the AMDs also very different in this regard?
I use mostly a laptop with an Athlon XP-M 2400+. But a lot of us (are going to) have Athlon 64s.

Again, thanks and all the best!

politcat · Post by **politcat** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:53 pm

anyone who has been using the 10 band version with a P4 without a glitch...how much ram do you have and what's the cpu usage?

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:32 pm

politcat wrote:anyone who has been using the 10 band version with a P4 without a glitch...how much ram do you have and what's the cpu usage?

Yes,

P4 @3.5GHz, 1GB RAM, 35%CPU usage. Audio buffer HAS to be high, 4096 samples works cool here.
RAM isn't important here as PLParEQ uses meager 9MB.

Best wishes, FRitz

DuX · Post by **DuX** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:02 pm

hmmm AMD XP2000+ [1.6GHz], ASUS nForce motherboard, Windows 2000, using P4 version of PLParEQ v1.92 - 27% CPU consumption, using "normal" PLParEQ version - 30% CPU consumption. The difference is not that big and I posted this just to show how superior AMD processors are with their amazing floating point unit. On one side AthlonXP2000+ at 1.6GHz - 27% and on the other P4 at 3.5GHz - 35%

. Now, when I buy Athlon64 dual core and I'm assembling it slowly...

I want to know the reason why should anyone buy a P4? I haven't been doing that since 1997 and Pentium 233.

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:39 pm

DuX wrote:hmmm AMD XP2000+ [1.6GHz], ASUS nForce motherboard, Windows 2000, using P4 version of PLParEQ v1.92 - 27% CPU consumption, using "normal" PLParEQ version - 30% CPU consumption. The difference is not that big and I posted this just to show how superior AMD processors are with their amazing floating point unit. On one side AthlonXP2000+ at 1.6GHz - 27% and on the other P4 at 3.5GHz - 35% . Now, when I buy Athlon64 dual core and I'm assembling it slowly...

I want to know the reason why should anyone buy a P4? I haven't been doing that since 1997 and Pentium 233.

Cool,

not that I want to convince you to buy a P4 but I think that you're talking about the 3 band version and not the 10 band? Do you have filters in all slots and did you change the gain in the EQ filters (the peak and shelf ones) to something non-zero (if not, the eq band is not active!)?
With the PLPaEQ3 the CPU consumption here is below 20%.
And politcat was asking for numbers for the 10 band version and I gave him mine.

Best wishes, FRitz

P.S. I didn't buy the P4 for audio reasons but for 3D reasons back then. It works OK though for audio, too.

I have the same proc as you have in my older computer and now I have roughly 50 to 80% more CPU power for audio use.

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:26 pm

fritzman wrote: With the PLPaEQ3 the CPU consumption here is below 20%.

I'm getting 15% (all 3 slots filled & non zero gain) using a P4 2.6GHz w/SATA disk and 4400 ram - I think going to faster ram may have helped, seems like things are faster now anyway. The audio is at 96KHz/24bit in Sonar5. v1.92 of PLParEQ3NP4.dll

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:37 pm

That's interesting Kylen,

you're using Sonar 5? With the 64bit engine running? I'm not sure what's possible with a P4 and the 64bit engine. David said that there's a speedup with the 64 bit engine. So that would be interesting to have some real life numbers.

Where exactly are you measuring the CPU usage? In the windows task-manager? Now I read the CPU usage from there. With PLParEQ3 (this is the P4 enhanced version, not the one with NP4 at the end!!!) quality 5, 3x peak 1 with gain non zero, 4096 samples buffer, and this time nothing running in the background

I get seldom peaks at 11%. Mostly it's between 5 and 8%.
My RAM is running at 266MHz, because I overclocked my P4 3GHz to 3.5GHz. Yes, faster RAM is good, dunno if it does something here.

All the best, FRitz

P.S. Bottom line is that David brought the CPU usage down to a very reasonable amount. Really cool.

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:15 am

fritzman wrote:That's interesting Kylen,

you're using Sonar 5? With the 64bit engine running?

Yes - that's it I'm using 64 bit audio engine.

fritzman wrote: Where exactly are you measuring the CPU usage? In the windows task-manager? Now I read the CPU usage from there.

Oops - I'm reading from the Sonar5 cpu meter. I'll have to start looking at the Windows Task Manager...

DuX · Post by **DuX** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 1:29 am

Sorry, yep, numbers were for the 3 band version, with all the gains and bands engaged, of course. It looked suspiciously close in the first place, where was my head?

But still, for the AthlonXP 2000 and 1.6GHz it's pretty good, ay?

And of course, I still wouldn't buy P4 because I've seen the real numbers and I don't even think about it... I bet dual core Athlon could run at least 10 or more 10 band PLParEQ's

Cheers!

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:50 am

DuX wrote:Sorry, yep, numbers were for the 3 band version, with all the gains and bands engaged, of course. It looked suspiciously close in the first place, where was my head?

But still, for the AthlonXP 2000 and 1.6GHz it's pretty good, ay?

And of course, I still wouldn't buy P4 because I've seen the real numbers and I don't even think about it... I bet dual core Athlon could run at least 10 or more 10 band PLParEQ's

Cheers!

Yes Dave,

that's what I think. The numbers are pretty good for your processor.
I'm thinking about getting a dual core AMD, too. I read lotsa good things about it. Very fast.

Best wishes, FRitz

snooky · Post by **snooky** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:49 am

the amd64 does not have sse3 instructions.

10-Band PLParEQ is Here!