KVR Audio

xoxos · Post by **xoxos** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:14 pm

graphics and behaviour was as one would expect now. some of the params seem to be reversed eg. drive, bandpass, but that's your thing

it loads without fault

mystran · Post by **mystran** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:21 pm

xoxos wrote:graphics and behaviour was as one would expect now. some of the params seem to be reversed eg. drive, bandpass, but that's your thing it loads without fault

What do you mean by reversed?

Turning drive clockwise causes the internal signal path to run more hot, which results in more distortion (and limit resonance more). Likewise turning bandpass clockwise fades from the morph-response (=not bandpass) to bandpass response instead.

The only parameter that I would agree that is kinda backwardish is the morph as it essentially moves a notch to the reverse direction compared to how the cutoff works.. but I tried it the other way and like it better like this.

Bronto Scorpio · Post by **Bronto Scorpio** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:22 pm

mystran wrote:Ok, compiled with the old GDI-only code which is tried and true and should work with a glorified toaster. Text looks like the usual GDI text now, and knobs look a tiny bit different since they are using old (partially vector) graphics, but I can't be bothered to do a new screenshot for such minor differences (plus I'll probably switch to the new knobs anyway in a day or two as I manage to write some more GDI glue).

Works perfectly now

Thanks!

Cheers
Dennis

xoxos · Post by **xoxos** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:58 am

:p it could have been my sound source.. a dialogue recorded off fm radio. cutoff and res worked clockwise.. turning drive to the left resulted in liminal overdrive timbre. let's forget i said it until you have other users

No_Use · Post by **No_Use** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:34 am

mystran wrote: Congratulations on having the only card that I was seriously worried someone might still use, that does not support texture_env_combine (which is what the error complains about).

Haha, no problem, you're welcome.

Seriously, I have also bought a GeForce 6200 recently and having compared them side by side in my PC I found that for DAW work I couldn't spot any benefit when running the GeForce so I went back to the Matrox.
Obviously I haven't used any plugins yet that rely on (OpenGL) features the Matrox doesn't have
I kinda like that it's so low resource and still giving me a sharp picture.

Other thing with some graphics and video programs, where OpenGL 2.0 is needed, but I rarely do this, so I can live with this (still).

Concerning your plugin, hmm as for supporting the Matrox and ditching texture_env_combine (don't know what this is exactly as I'm no dev), I'm not sure if it's worth it, I mean the Matrox is old, would be a bit similar to me if someone would expect you to support Win95 or something, so I'd say it's up to you and I could perfectly understand if I couldn't run your plug.

Would be nice though if I could run it, of course.

Well, considering I wrote the very error message about 2-3 days ago I'm not terribly surprised you haven't seen it before. Very Happy

Ah this explains it of course.

edit:
Just saw that you ditched OpenGL, will check out and report back.

No_Use · Post by **No_Use** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:45 am

Haven't run any sound through it yet but GUI renders fine now with the Matrox (I guess that was to be expected).

Thanks.

mystran · Post by **mystran** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:20 pm

No_Use wrote: Seriously, I have also bought a GeForce 6200 recently and having compared them side by side in my PC I found that for DAW work I couldn't spot any benefit when running the GeForce so I went back to the Matrox.

As far as pure old-school 2D acceleration goes, your trusty old Matrox might even be faster than a lot of modern cards. The main reason I gave up mine years ago was that I didn't have an AGP slot of a new motherboard anymore.

Other thing with some graphics and video programs, where OpenGL 2.0 is needed, but I rarely do this, so I can live with this (still).

Actually GL_EXT_texture_env_combine is something like OpenGL 1.2 or 1.3 or something, but I'm not sure if it ever was a required part of the spec. The reason it's useful is that it lets you combine several textures in various ways (the fanciest thing I used is probably single-pass frame-interpolation of the knobs which is quite nasty to do without the combiners); it's essentially the predecessor of fully programmable shaders.

Anyway, had things worked on XP with first try, I'd probably written a software-only fallback eventually, but for now I'm going to use the old drawing model at least until I do the next larger architectural rework.

....

Anyway, someone please comment on the sound?

xoxos · Post by **xoxos** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:52 pm

mystran wrote: Anyway, someone please comment on the sound?

sounded alright

i very much like 'surgical' filters with narrow q. for some reason i have the impression that the general public prefer big smeary things that get louder when you apply resonance and drive. so you'd be making me happy, if i used other peoples vsts much

RunBeerRun · Post by **RunBeerRun** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:53 pm

I thought that at full blast resonance, it was too in your face, I like a smoother swept filter sound. Didn't really try it at a lower setting.

Would work well to use with my Behringer floorboard(I'm a midi guitarist). Or I could route note-ons to CC's, a series of 5 cc's would do a stepped type of sweep.

mystran · Post by **mystran** » Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:06 pm

There was a slight mistake in filter coefficient calculations. Corrected version is live; might or might not sound slightly better. Shouldn't sound hugely different, but with minor changes to internal gains the saturation might act a bit differently (personally I like it better now, so didn't feel like adjusting for the old behavior.. and it's not like this is a great distortion device anyway).

Also in the update some new drawing code (pure software so shouldn't cause any problems), so the slightly different knob-look (and highlight on mouse and all that) from OpenGL version works again.

mystran · Post by **mystran** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:22 pm

Since the response to this plugin has been overwhelmingly quiet, I'm going to assume that the general public didn't really like the somewhat subtle distortion with fairly nasty overload if you tried to go beyond the "sweet spot". So I figure, what the heck, let's try again and took it back to the drawing board.

xoxos wrote: for some reason i have the impression that the general public prefer big smeary things that get louder when you apply resonance and drive.

So 1.0 is here (since I'm fairly convinced I'm not going to do any more major changes), and unlike the previous versions, it now becomes smeary (not sure about big though) as you apply more resonance and drive. It's a whole lot more predictable too. Might even be useful as a distortion device now.

Unlike the previous versions, it will now distort whatever you feed it, as long as you feed it with high-enough amplitude (which is not very high if you set the drive to maximum). Unlike the previous versions, the morphed responses keep their shapes much better when you feed it something with very high amplitude.

The linear model is practically unchanged, so with minimum drive (and sane input level) it should behave more or less exactly like the previous version. As soon as drive is increased though, it will sound fairly different.

Apologizes to those (assuming any) who liked the original model better (feel free to keep your old versions as vintage treasure).

t3toooo · Post by **t3toooo** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:34 pm

wait a moment,TSClip is great!

going to test Sweeep.

xoxos · Post by **xoxos** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:20 pm

overdrive.. i can hear it now

when i raise overdrive, the gain drops, which is why i was hearing clipping on the left side of the range previously.

not much else to say.. "sounds nice.." i'm really indiscriminate about filters perhaps because i don't use processed audio. it's not as "surgical" as i remember it being.. you're probably better waiting for other people on opinions.

i do hate to mention it, this vst was running ~5% of my 1.6g. and it appears that you have some quiet noise in there as a demo limitation?

mystran · Post by **mystran** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:02 pm

xoxos wrote: i do hate to mention it, this vst was running ~5% of my 1.6g. and it appears that you have some quiet noise in there as a demo limitation?

Urgh, yeah well, it's admittedly a bit hungry on the CPU. I guess it's mostly the way the smoothing is done (quality over efficiency essentially). Some oversampling might also contribute. I suppose it might be possible to optimize (at least the parameter smoothing part) somewhat at some point.

The noise isn't really a demo limitation (it's -100dBfs and unchanged from the initial beta), but if it's loud enough to bother people, I suppose I could drop it down a bit. It serves a couple of useful functions though, so I don't see myself removing it completely (well, possibly with an extra switch if enough people find it annoying enough).

edit: actually I guess I could also make the self-oscillation a tiny bit stronger.. hmmh

edit2: not going to change it today, gonna see what people think

lazerkind · Post by **lazerkind** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:30 am

Somehow this slipped past my radar until now.

With that Drive knob i was not expecting subtle distortion but a bit more overdriven sound.
But after putting a gain plug before it at +119dB I got some serious nastiness

It's a keeper in my plugin drawer. Thanks!

//L

Signaldust Sweep - a simple filter (1.1 is "zero-delay")