KVR Audio

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:15 pm

Well, Melodyne 4 is good for me at any rate.

paulbreeze · Post by **paulbreeze** » Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:22 pm

Melodyne essential, assistant, editor or studio ? I guest essential, like the previous v2...

Igor Amos · Post by **Igor Amos** » Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:32 pm

paulbreeze wrote:Melodyne essential, assistant, editor or studio ? I guest essential, like the previous v2...

Melodyne essential 4.0.2... Is the update related to Studio One 3.2 update? I went to Celemony a few weeks ago and there was no such update for me then... weird. Wasn't even notified about it. But thanks to whoever made this happen!

mholloway · Post by **mholloway** » Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:34 pm

Seems like the focus / target audience with all this stuff is (perhaps unsurprisingly) the old-school hardware studio crowd.

Which is to say...more electronic music focused guys like me probably have little or no interest whatsoever in "studio console crosstalk emulation," whatever the living hell that actually means.

And that's fine, I'm not trying to be mean -- it just is what it is. Obviously there is a continued audience for all this 'analog emulation' business, and if it works for people, it works for them.

For my tastes, it's both uninteresting and unnecessary, but that's just an opinion / set of needs+interests, I get that.

All that said, I do think it's interesting how little explanation there is of any of this stuff, even in the videos (posted here) that I just watched. Basically I see a new plugin with three knobs and a dude seeming very convinced those knobs are working magic because they "emulate console drive and crosstalk".... yeah, ok, great. I didn't hear anything happening to those drums that couldn't be done with a good compressor on a drum bus.

When the "revolution" is just more analog emulation blather, yeah, I'm disappointed, thus my earlier angry posts, which I admit were childish.

I've seen multiple attempted explanations at this idea of WHY it's "good" to have your bus processing happening "at the source level" (the guy says it like four times in the video) or being able to "reach back to each channel from the bus" -- uh huh. I get, literally speaking, how this is -technically- different than applying a 'standard' plugin on a bus channel, or copied across a lot of individual channels -- but I still, so far, see no reasonable explanation for WHY this is "better", other than the usual Analog Mojo hoo haw. But I'm sure Presonus will be releasing plenty of 100-dollar range plugins that utilize this Revolutionary tech and many of you will insist it makes your mix x percent better, etc.

Sorry, I'm just exhausted of all this. We have enough plugins.

Resonant- Serpent · Post by **Resonant- Serpent** » Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:36 pm

kmonkey wrote:
whyterabbyt wrote:
poonna wrote:Well, to be fair, the Mix Engine FX does something no other plugin standards can, doesn't it? It's a mix engine replacement that affects all channels in the group, which allows for interaction among channels.
That kind of thing was entirely possible with VST2;
So why (for example) Steven Slate did not utilize this in VCC? As far as i know there was big and long debate and why his plugs aren't "talking" one to each other? There's grouping and so on but not processing in that deep level Presonus is talking about.

Slate was in the broadcast and said that VCC will be directly implemented in S1, and the only host that will have this functionality.

mholloway · Post by **mholloway** » Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:36 pm

the press release stating "analog console topology and componentry" is definitely a big winner, though

Funkybot's Evil Twin · Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:38 pm

aMUSEd wrote:Why would anyone want channels 'talking to each other?' I'm not even sure what that means, or how it would be useful.

It can provide some extra width. For instance, if you have two hard panned guitars next to each other, with a bass down the middle, hearing a bit of guitar in the bass track, and a bit of bass in the guitar tracks, with a bit of each guitar in the other track creates a [slightly] wider soundstage and can add some glue. Similar to how multiple channels combined on a stereo reverb sounds very different than different reverbs on each of the channels. It's great that a DAW company finally built this into their mixer.

Vintage73 · Post by **Vintage73** » Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:42 pm

Hey, all...It's free.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:48 pm

kmonkey wrote:
whyterabbyt wrote:
poonna wrote:Well, to be fair, the Mix Engine FX does something no other plugin standards can, doesn't it? It's a mix engine replacement that affects all channels in the group, which allows for interaction among channels.
That kind of thing was entirely possible with VST2;
So why (for example) Steven Slate did not utilize this in VCC? As far as i know there was big and long debate and why his plugs aren't "talking" one to each other? There's grouping and so on but not processing in that deep level Presonus is talking about.

Are you trying to pretend it cant be done, or just fallaciously asserting that the only possible reason a company would have for not doing a thing is because it cant be done.

And why Waves didn't do it in their NLS console plugin if it is so easy?

Good way to add fallacy on fallacy. I didnt say anything relating to how 'easy' anything was, I said a thing was clearly possible because it already exists.

If you're seriously concerned as to why those two companies havent implemented a specific thing, though. , I suggest you ask them, not me, but my knowledge or not of why they havent done so doesnt actually change the fact that inter-instance streaming of data between plugins exists.

My off-the-cuff suspicion is that they're not necessarily going to implement something if its not possible/allowed in all plugin formats, including AAX.

And I was right in saying there is a console strip which has this as capability; SKNote Strip. Feel free to check the feature list or the manual.

LawrenceF · Post by **LawrenceF** » Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:56 pm

That thing we just saw isn't streaming audio between plugin instances. It's applying the processes to those channels in the DAW engine, the summing engine of the DAW (if I understand it all). It's behaving like an analog summing mixer, on one daw channel.

Not that it applies here directly but (no idea actually, but I can't think of anything else that might be a reasonable analogy) that's why Harrison says they can't make VST plugins out of "the MixBus sound" (the sound of the summing engine), because the sound in large part comes from the DAW engine summing, not from single insert plugins or plugin DSP. Otherwise (and I asked them directly because I wanted to buy them if they made them) they'd also sell "the MixBus sound" as VST plugin channel strips.

So it's kind of a different thing. It sounds good to me (the freebie) but I have idea if it sounds better than Slate or others standalone VST emu's, I don't own any of those things. From what I gather early on, people who have compared them say they sound "different".

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:03 pm

LawrenceF wrote:That thing we just saw isn't streaming audio between plugin instances. It's applying the processes to those channels in the DAW engine, the summing engine of the DAW (if I understand it all). It's behaving like an analog summing mixer, on one daw channel.

Reread. I never said it was streaming audio between instances. I very specifically said that streaming audio between instances would let you achieve the same thing as Poonna claimed this was doing : "it affects all channels in the group, which allows for interaction among channels".

LawrenceF · Post by **LawrenceF** » Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:06 pm

I wasn't disputing what you said. I was only adding what I think it does overall, which may also involve the actual daw summing engine.

Not sure why we would argue if part of that can be done in VST2 ... or why that would matter. It is what it is. I suppose eventually a plugin developer with the SDK for it can speak to that in more detail, how much of what's happening or what's possible there is possible with VST or not. At this point... it's kinda irrelevant because (afaik) nobody here has the SDK for it yet.

Keep in mind that the first plugin, The Console Shaper, is not really implying it's using the total functionality of what may be possible with other MixFX. It's just the first thing for it. We'll have to wait and see where it goes otherwise.

But sorry. My post was not meant to argue with anything anyone said.

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:14 pm

paulbreeze wrote:Melodyne essential, assistant, editor or studio ? I guest essential, like the previous v2...

In my case it's studio. Just upgraded the whole thing.

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:16 pm

Blue Phase Music wrote:Hey, all...It's free.

You're new here, right?

LawrenceF · Post by **LawrenceF** » Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:20 pm

trimph1 wrote:
Blue Phase Music wrote:Hey, all...It's free.
You're new here, right?

To summarize my general thoughts ...

I assume they wouldn't have went to all of the trouble of doing all of that if they could have done the exact same thing with a VST plugin. I don't personally know enough about the internals of VST or that thing to speak to that in any intelligent technical detail, but as a layman, it would seem a little illogical to break into your working mix engine to do something you can already do with a VST plugin... so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

NEW Studio One v3 updates incoming.