I was just wondering why you chose to leave them out of SCAMP and Poly-Ana (I know you could combine filters 1 & 2 as lowpass & hipass, but it kinda limits what you can do). Not that it's a necessity or anything... just curious.Actually it doesn't limit what you can do, it greatly expands on what you can do as each half of your band-pass (or band-reject) can be modulated individually of the other. So they can converge, diverge, have different resonances, slopes....!!!Prajch wrote:Nice job on the optimizations... Glad to hear my computer will be able to run it after all; I was getting worried there.
By the way, is there a reason you seem to not like using bandpass filters very much?
I was imagining two peaks floating around the spectrum (maybe one at 400hz and one at 3000hz), but I guess you can still do a lot with those filters. So I guess it's more of a matter of choice than technical problems?AdmiralQuality wrote: Actually it doesn't limit what you can do, it greatly expands on what you can do as each half of your band-pass (or band-reject) can be modulated individually of the other. So they can converge, diverge, have different resonances, slopes....!!!
Like you said about limits Prajch. Or like Steven Wright says: "You can't have everything. Where would you put it?" 
Can't say yet. Very committed to keeping prices extremely competitive though. So typically, after it's done-done, we'll look at the competition, try to identify other products that are similarly capable (that's going to be hard for this girl!) and then aim for about half of their average price. (Cuz most software costs TOO MUCH!)Totolitoto wrote:Sorry if it's been asked before. What will the price of this little beauty be? Any idea?
Does it sound deep in low range? (You'll tell me yes, but I had to ask ) Are u betatesting?camsr wrote:Nah man, it doesn't sound deep.
It sounds shallow, like a kiddie pool, or a spoon with water collecting in it.
BING!
To be honest, you kinda lost me when you started talking about filter poles (all I know is more = steeper).AdmiralQuality wrote:Remember they are resonant filters so it's not too hard to get peaks, but yes, you'd still have lows or highs leaking through beyond the 2 peaks. Still I think you could get something of the effect you're thinking of Prajch.
I could maybe add a BP (and BR?) mode to each filter as well as the existing LPF/HPF modes, but they'd only be 2 pole anyway, and then I need to add a control for their seperation (bandwidth) too -- or maybe the resonance control becomes that? See? It just doesn't all quite translate. Most multimode filters hard-wire some compromises in that I just don't want to make... meaning yet more knobbage. *shudder*
And I don't want to do anything that adds more filter poles. There's already 8 per voice. I think that's plenty and they're the most expensive part of the algo, processor-wise.
So rather than go with the compromises of making multimode filters, I figured just have 2 simpler LPF/HPF resonant filters, and you're free to combine them in series or parallel, invert either one, and when parallel, they each can go to their own independent stereo pan location... so they can blend and diverge in the stereo field. It's going to be pretty heavy, I think.
Still I will think about that a bit more. Or I could see it being added somewhere down the road. It's not difficult, it was more just that I had to stop *somewhere*.
I didn't even realize that you had to design the width of the filter... I thought it was just resonance that controlled the wideness. But I guess it's more complicated. Either way, it'll still be nice with those SCAMP filters, and the res peaks might be good enough (though like you said, it's a possible future update, especially for SCAMP whose interface isn't so crowded). Submit: News, Plugins, Hosts & Apps | Advertise @ KVR | Developer Account | About KVR / Contact Us | Privacy Statement
© KVR Audio, Inc. 2000-2026
