Sonible frei:raum

[MeldaProduction]

jens: I just checked and it doesn't seem to be related to harmonic/inharmonic at all. It seems that both 2nd and 3rd modules are spectral transient shapers. It works fine, but the whole plugin seems like a real mixture of unrelated things - it is intended for mastering yet I must say I don't like what it does on a mix at all. I tried it on an acoustic guitar as they adviced and it works fine, though the CPU hit is huge and there are easier ways to get the same thing. I initially thought finally something to remove reverb (I don't like unveil either), but nope...I still think it's kind of impossible .

Anyway I think the whole terminology this plugin uses is misleading at least - proximity does more like "attenuate/amplify sustain" and entropy doesn't do anything with harmonics, I have quite no idea why they are advertising it that way.

Edit: It looks like it works quite well only if the audio signal is "simple enough", like just acoustic guitar, but for mixes, hmm...

[realmarco]

443.78 US Dollar for a Digital EQ...really ?

[nineofkings]

443.78 US Dollar for a Digital EQ...really ?

That's a non-sequitur.

[Lotuzia]

jens: I just checked and it doesn't seem to be related to harmonic/inharmonic at all. It seems that both 2nd and 3rd modules are spectral transient shapers. It works fine, but the whole plugin seems like a real mixture of unrelated things - it is intended for mastering yet I must say I don't like what it does on a mix at all. I tried it on an acoustic guitar as they adviced and it works fine, though the CPU hit is huge and there are easier ways to get the same thing. I initially thought finally something to remove reverb (I don't like unveil either), but nope...I still think it's kind of impossible .

Anyway I think the whole terminology this plugin uses is misleading at least - proximity does more like "attenuate/amplify sustain" and entropy doesn't do anything with harmonics, I have quite no idea why they are advertising it that way.

Edit: It looks like it works quite well only if the audio signal is "simple enough", like just acoustic guitar, but for mixes, hmm...

While the 3rd algo can be perceived as a kind of transcient designer, the second one can actually be used a a dereverberator, and presence adaptator. And it works quite well for this task ( Just try it ...) One of the best I've ever heard. The active/corrective analysis too on the first engine is also smart ( even if it doesn't work in real time, which is perfectly understandable ) The three engines running simultaneously could save sound engineers a lot of time and work better than any other alternatives in a certain number of situations. And it can also certainly be usefull for pure sound design tasks if you push the engines in some drastic/creative directions. It miss an A/B button though, and a dry/wet. All in all I see it as an innovative tool with a lot of involved R&D which imho justifies its price. A bit too expensive for me atm, but I put it on my list.

Besides that it seems it's seen as a competitor by some developpers. And it shows. But actually it's not : There's nothing similar on the market, afaics at least. People seeing it as another *digital EQ* totally miss the point imho.

[MeldaProduction]

The thing is, "the point" is indeed rather odd to me... It is advertised as mastering processor, yet it doesn't really seem to be very useful for that. And the whole combination looks like "trying to get something from the concept whatever it takes despite they don't seem related to me". The reverb removal can sometimes be used, but I haven't got good results with it to be honest...maybe I'm just too demanding...

[Robert Randolph]

443.78 US Dollar for a Digital EQ...really ?

That's a non-sequitur.

The capabilities of a product are directly related to ones ability to use the product. If the product is unattainable due to a prohibitive cost, then the product is useless or unusable.

The value of the product is also proportionally related to the cost.

It is definitely not non-sequitor.

[ontol]

[Spitfire31]

Putting a man on the moon wasn't exactly cheap…

The Apollo program cost $20 billion in 1970s dollars. That's about $100 billion in today’s money.

/Joachim

[ontol]

[Robert Randolph]

You're not even making sense at this point.

The price of the product is a valid thing to mention in a discussion of the product, and the person you were quoting wasn't even making an argument.

[gaf_thit]

Now $59 over at Audio Plugin Deals...

[tl]

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 3&t=493805

Does anybody here use it? Opinions?

Cheers,
tl.

[soulone82]

443.78 US Dollar for a Digital EQ...really ?

Now $59 over at Audio Plugin Deals...

What a piss take.

[Everglide]

Draw Four...

http://www.wholegrain-ds.com/products/trio/

Take a look at their prices sale prices;
Trio DynPEQ v1.3 $299.95
Quartet DynPEQ v1.3 $499.95

[gaf_thit]

443.78 US Dollar for a Digital EQ...really ?

Now $59 over at Audio Plugin Deals...

What a piss take.

I guess their product didn't catch on as much as they expected, at least not enough to instigate a revolution...

I don't get these later years' sales. Komplete libraries, now 85% off etc. It often deflates saleprices forever, I think. Gifts like Eventide's UltraChannel rrp €209, resale value maybe ~€50(if you are lucky as a seller). Not complaining about the gift, mind.