Sonalksis TBK

[Muff Wiggler]

i just don't think he wants to stoop to your level in a protracted effort to keep the mud flying around this thread Fritz. wtf is wrong with people?

[fritzman]

i just don't think he wants to stoop to your level in a protracted effort to keep the mud flying around this thread Fritz. wtf is wrong with people?

Cool Muff,

maybe. Thing is that I'm a little tired of all this self appointed "audiophile and golden ear control" style and then saying "Oh, you ugly people attacked me". Man, how sad that is.

Sorry for the off topic. While I think that the filter sounds OK it's combinations of sound quality, usablility, and price makes it a strange product for me which I gladly pass.


Best wishes, FRitz

[nuffink]

maybe. Thing is that I'm a little tired of all this self appointed "audiophile and golden ear control" style and then saying "Oh, you ugly people attacked me". Man, how sad that is.

Whilst I'd love to respond to this...

[eduardo_b]

As far as I can see it, the first derogatory comment, not randomly thrown, came from your direction. It was also completely off-topic to begin with. I could also add that the comment about a "1000 dollar tone control" and people liking it somehow missed the mark, as so far the EQ in question has been warmly welcomed not just by the "self appointed golden eared brigade" but a lot of other people as well.

How can it be off topic to discuss pricing of effects when the thread itself is centered on value for money of an effect? Thus, all effects are eligible for critiquing on this topic.

As for being warmly welcomed, if there are people willing to spend $1000 for an effect that they are convinced is worth every damn dollar, that's their problem. They hear what they want to hear. This phenomenon has been around since hi fidelity music systems have existed, with those who are believers in overpriced components and peripherals being convinced of a value that only exists in their minds.

The problem with believers is that they are intolerant of those who dismiss them as being deluded by the "more expensive is always better" myth. The irony here is that no one listening to music created with plug-ins is going to have a clue as to what effects were used. It doesn't matter.

Simply put, the rule of diminishing returns is in play. Therefore, a $1000 tone control will not sound 10 times better than one selling for $100 or a thousand times better than one that's free.

Whatever. It's not my money.

[pitchdrifter]

i just don't think he wants to stoop to your level in a protracted effort to keep the mud flying around this thread Fritz. wtf is wrong with people?

From below?

[shamann]

The irony here is that no one listening to music created with plug-ins is going to have a clue as to what effects were used. It doesn't matter.

I agree with you mostly, but many listeners will know if it sounds like crap. That said, only an idiot would think that something that costs ten times more than anything else would instantly be that much better. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. I still think the $20 investment for the v2 of the 3-band PLParEQ was great value.

But what are folk fighting about here. From what I can tell, both sides are on the same side regarding this Sonalksis filter, or did I miss something?

For that matter, can anyone who's had a positive reaction to the filter give us some guidnace on why, preferably without resorting to intangibles such as "silky, "smooth," or "definitely analog sounding"? I was a bit put off by the clipping and less than accurate cutoff slope. And what's the deal with the subharmonic, can a waveshaper do that, is there a subsynth on there, or is it the product of aliasing?

[Sickle]

maybe. Thing is that I'm a little tired of all this self appointed "audiophile and golden ear control" style and then saying "Oh, you ugly people attacked me". Man, how sad that is.

Whilst I'd love to respond to this...

You've become waaayyyy to mature since releasing Chordspace..

Borrrrr-ring..

[Muff Wiggler]

i just don't think he wants to stoop to your level in a protracted effort to keep the mud flying around this thread Fritz. wtf is wrong with people?

From below?

you lost me there

[eduardo_b]

The irony here is that no one listening to music created with plug-ins is going to have a clue as to what effects were used. It doesn't matter.

I agree with you mostly, but many listeners will know if it sounds like crap.

Well, yes, of course...crap definitely was not included in my proposition. My point was that the beyond-subtle nuances that some hear in reverbs or other effects do not show up in the music -- at least to anyone who is enjoying the music rather than dissecting the minutiae of the sounds instead.

But what are folk fighting about here. From what I can tell, both sides are on the same side regarding this Sonalksis filter, or did I miss something?

One issue is clearly that a $200 filter had better be damn good -- truly exceptional -- for this much money. It isn't, and it points to the illusion that more expensive plug-ins are better. They sometimes are, but often they are not.

[shamann]

One issue is clearly that a $200 filter had better be damn good -- truly exceptional -- for this much money. It isn't, and it points to the illusion that more expensive plug-ins are better. They sometimes are, but often they are not.

Yes.

But didn't the golden-ears come out against it, too? I guess then that the initial suggestion was that $200 wasn't expensive enough to trigger the golden drool.

[jmh]

Eduardo I don't even know how to respond to that... so, let's put it this way: do you honestly think that everybody who gives a positive reaction to something expensive is automatically wrong and only "hearing what they want to hear"?

I know we've been through this before, but this kind of attitude is still something I can't comprehend. Why is it that people who prefer something that's more expensive, is somehow automatically wrong, misguided and clueless?

Take this as it's meant - I'm not talking about a single particular piece of equipment. I'm talking about this attitude that anything expensive is a ripoff, and anyone preferring something pricier than the competition simply doesn't know anything about ... well, anything.

While I still agree to a degree with you when it comes to pricing (just like the last time we discussed this particular subject), I still don't really get it. Where is it stated that a product costing ten times more sounds ten times better?

It sounds like yet another typical generalisation - just because it sometimes applies, hey, let's just state it applies every time because ... because of what?

And please, once again, do not mix the "the average joe won't be able to hear the difference" 'logic' with what you're trying to get across - they still are separate issues, despite the safe feeling one gets from using the latter as a reason to state anything one wants regarding the former

[This part is directed generally then... just so everybody knows]

That whole "golden eared" thing kind of lost its point again... but it served its purpose, you know. Anything for attention

JMH

[Sickle]

This thread's worse than my Artist Title one..

Any Dio fans here?

[Muff Wiggler]

no.

[shamann]

This thread's worse than my Artist Title one..

Any Dio fans here?

Holy Diver
You've been down too long in the midnight sea
Oh what's becoming of me

[eduardo_b]

Eduardo I don't even know how to respond to that... so, let's put it this way: do you honestly think that everybody who gives a positive reaction to something expensive is automatically wrong and only "hearing what they want to hear"?

It's entirely possible for some to be more discerning in what their hear than many, if not most, others. But the golden ear syndrome is largely one of esoteric differences that as often as not simply do not have any audible significance when creating or reproducing music. And the more expensive the item in question is, relative to the market, the more it becomes an issue of value for money. No, more expensive doesn't always mean not better, but it also doesn't mean different or better. And it has been proven endlessly in A/B tests that the insistence by golden eared enthusiasts of substantial differences is not borne out by those equally qualified but more open minded.

The average person, as you refer to, does not need an appreciation of these subtleties because they are not going to improve or alter the enjoyment and appreciation of the music. Which is to say, spending a $1000 for an effect, or even $200, for a difference in perceived quality that is minimal to simply subjective, does not justify the price paid. That is, there's no correlation between price and quality here.

[This part is directed generally then... just so everybody knows]

That whole "golden eared" thing kind of lost its point again... but it served its purpose, you know. Anything for attention

The whole golden ear thing has been a distorted assumption that a select few are able to judge what others simply miss. It's presumptuous to take as true the assertion that there is always a discernible difference, that it matters and that to not care is to not appreciate quality sound. More like golden crap.