KVR Audio

laputa_sync · Post by **laputa_sync** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:31 pm

verstaerker wrote:mmh until now i used 0.76 - wich sounds really nice - the new version 0.93 - sounds different and somehow more digital, i expected the new filter to sound more saturated - but it's clean and disappointing - the resonance doesn't seem to do anything

you complain about everyting!!!!

verstaerker · Post by **verstaerker** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:38 pm

just because i have some time today to test some plugins

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:42 pm

verstaerker wrote:mmh until now i used 0.76 - wich sounds really nice - the new version 0.93 - sounds different and somehow more digital, i expected the new filter to sound more saturated - but it's clean and disappointing - the resonance doesn't seem to do anything

I couldn't tell a practical difference between the sound of the new one and v0.77. While 0.77 was just a tad more flexible (more extreme parameter ranges), it uses 14% CPU, vs 2.5% of the latest (and halved in mono mode). the old one went straight to the bin.

but yeah, the filter is rather useless.

verstaerker · Post by **verstaerker** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:52 pm

i found the parameter range of 0.93 more extreme - the difference was very obvious to hear and see (i testrecorded some sinus-like bassdrums - with the 0.76
the results were some almost square with some variations and harmonics in the 0.93 i got almost perfect squares with less harmonics)

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:31 pm

did the .76 feature the voltage control as well? in .77 that caused the more extreme parameter ranges.

Nick Crow if you're listening, what was done with the new version to make it so CPU friendly? works rather charmingly here, and I already stuck to the mix I'm working on. thank you.

verstaerker · Post by **verstaerker** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:34 pm

Kingston wrote:did the .76 feature the voltage control as well? in .77 that caused the more extreme parameter ranges.

yes

NickCrow · Post by **NickCrow** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:14 pm

Kingston wrote: Nick Crow if you're listening, what was done with the new version to make it so CPU friendly?

New algorithm and optimisation.

laputa_sync · Post by **laputa_sync** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:18 pm

NickCrow wrote:
Kingston wrote: Nick Crow if you're listening, what was done with the new version to make it so CPU friendly?
New algorithm and optimisation.

well done!!!

Watto · Post by **Watto** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:24 pm

So is the latest version the best...? I'm confused, but would like to try this sucker

SuperFly76 · Post by **SuperFly76** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:29 pm

Another thumbs up from me! Great job Nick!

SuperFly76 · Post by **SuperFly76** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:30 pm

Watto wrote:So is the latest version the best...? I'm confused, but would like to try this sucker

IMHO, Yes.

Watto · Post by **Watto** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:35 pm

Cheers, mate - downloaded

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:59 pm

laputa_sync wrote:
NickCrow wrote:
Kingston wrote: Nick Crow if you're listening, what was done with the new version to make it so CPU friendly?
New algorithm and optimisation.
well done!!!

indeed.

Funkybot's Evil Twin · Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:57 am

Kingston wrote:what's especially weird that I first stuck it to the masterbus, where it's almost a rule no plugin tube shapers will work (and not even my own preamp sometimes!), but the tube driver handles it just fine, and it doesn't immediately scream "I'm digital and aliasing is my thing".

goes without saying it'll work on solo sources even better.

OMG, Kingston likes it! Alert the media!

Seriously though, version .76 has been getting a lot of use out of me on the drum bus, so at reduced CPU usage I can't wait to put .93 to work.

Spiggy · Post by **Spiggy** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:13 pm

Cheers for this Nick - just had a chance to try it out and it does sound great

New version freeware TubeDriver VST plug-in by Nick Crow.