Surreal Machines Impact

[monophonK]

I meant a changelog for 1.01, 1.02 and 1.03 but i think a "patch to fix for Big Sur" and one "for a bug in the demo with reloading" is already the answer.

[midi_transmission]

Volume per band because when you use saturation per band (Impact has that option), the volume differences become huge. So why put in the option to saturate per band yet leave out volume ?

Also because the individual bands change in volume when you alter their attack or sustain, basic knowledge really. Weird that i even have to explain this.

Not sure what your problem is Even if i crank the agressive saturation mode to maximum on the low band, i can still bring down the volume in the lows with the EQ. So can the EQ be used as per band volume control? For me it works well!

The developer could for sure implement volume per band, but conceptually it would overlap with the EQ. The EQ acts as a volume control. Lets say you had per band volume control and would turn up (or down) the volume on the middle band, how would that look like? It would look like a peak EQ, because you need slopes as a crossing between the bands!

I think there is a reason why the dev puts the sliders for the transient bands and the graphical EQ into the same window.

And thanks for the lesson about basic knowledge! I really couldnt hear that during my tests

I dont wanna argue or something, but saying that it's not worth the money is a bit rude. If it's not working on your material, it doesnt mean that this is the case for everyone. And i also cant see myself using it like a hammer on every drum group. It's a tool that will get it's use (dependend on the source material).

Was just reading the discussion have not tried it. But there is a flaw in your argumentation with the post EQ. I guess it's Impact is multi band, so you have a filter to separate the bands. Changing the volume after the bands were mixed again to one signal with another filter seems strange to me, every filter affects phase. Changing the volume for the band individually seems indeed smarter to me, isn't it?

[audiot]

Volume per band because when you use saturation per band (Impact has that option), the volume differences become huge. So why put in the option to saturate per band yet leave out volume ?

Also because the individual bands change in volume when you alter their attack or sustain, basic knowledge really. Weird that i even have to explain this.

Not sure what your problem is Even if i crank the agressive saturation mode to maximum on the low band, i can still bring down the volume in the lows with the EQ. So can the EQ be used as per band volume control? For me it works well!

The developer could for sure implement volume per band, but conceptually it would overlap with the EQ. The EQ acts as a volume control. Lets say you had per band volume control and would turn up (or down) the volume on the middle band, how would that look like? It would look like a peak EQ, because you need slopes as a crossing between the bands!

I think there is a reason why the dev puts the sliders for the transient bands and the graphical EQ into the same window.

And thanks for the lesson about basic knowledge! I really couldnt hear that during my tests

I dont wanna argue or something, but saying that it's not worth the money is a bit rude. If it's not working on your material, it doesnt mean that this is the case for everyone. And i also cant see myself using it like a hammer on every drum group. It's a tool that will get it's use (dependend on the source material).

Was just reading the discussion have not tried it. But there is a flaw in your argumentation with the post EQ. I guess it's Impact is multi band, so you have a filter to separate the bands. Changing the volume after the bands were mixed again to one signal with another filter seems strange to me, every filter affects phase. Changing the volume for the band individually seems indeed smarter to me, isn't it?

I dont know what algothitms they use, but the EQ could also be a linear phase EQ? I'm no expert in signal processing ... i just turn knobs until it sounds good I can use the EQ to change the volume in certain parts of the spectrum - either it sounds good or it doesnt

[midi_transmission]

It depends on the material, it can have advantages, but as a default I would never want a linear phase filter when processing bass frequencies (pre ringing), usually it's worse for this task.

There is no filtering without a side effect (phase vs pre ringing trade-off). So why not controlling the volume per band? I don't see how compensating with an EQ after the band split is less complicated, for me it sound more complicated and technically unnecessary, isn't it?

[audiot]

It depends on the material, it can have advantages, but as a default I would never want a linear phase filter when processing bass frequencies (pre ringing), usually it's worse for this task.

There is no filtering without a side effect (phase vs pre ringing trade-off). So why not controlling the volume per band? I don't see how compensating with an EQ after the band split is less complicated, for me it sound more complicated and technically unnecessary, isn't it?

You're right! Due to Cubase's latency monitor, Impact doesnt add any latency. So it cant be a linear phase eq. This is the first time i read something about pre-ringing. I learned something new today, so thanks for mentioning it I'm only using linear phase for narrow cuts and mastering (the typical best practice scenarios). Some things you do just right without knowing it, as it seems.

As i said: i'm no expert in signal processing and dont care for that much for technical details. That's something for the mastering engineers at gearsluts I make music. And I still think that volume per chanel and eq would conceptually overlap. The EQ is more flexible - so if i had to decide, i would go for the EQ. Some migth see it different, but to me it's completly okay.

[plexuss]

I dont know what algothitms they use, but the EQ could also be a linear phase EQ? I'm no expert in signal processing ... i just turn knobs until it sounds good I can use the EQ to change the volume in certain parts of the spectrum - either it sounds good or it doesnt

I just ran Impact through Plugin Doctor and the EQ is not linear phase. In fact there are a lot of phase changes even with Impact is set to default, I guess you could say, and even with 1 transient band selected and the EQ off. Odd. Take a look in plugin doctor to see what I mean.

There is no filtering without a side effect (phase vs pre ringing trade-off). So why not controlling the volume per band? I don't see how compensating with an EQ after the band split is less complicated, for me it sound more complicated and technically unnecessary, isn't it?

You've conviced me that per-band level would be useful. I didn't think about the phase issues of using the EQ. Good point. So, now, I agree that per-band gain would be a useful feature.

[audiot]

I dont know what algothitms they use, but the EQ could also be a linear phase EQ? I'm no expert in signal processing ... i just turn knobs until it sounds good I can use the EQ to change the volume in certain parts of the spectrum - either it sounds good or it doesnt

I just ran Impact through Plugin Doctor and the EQ is not linear phase. In fact there are a lot of phase changes even with Impact is set to default, I guess you could say, and even with 1 transient band selected and the EQ off. Odd. Take a look in plugin doctor to see what I mean.

There is no filtering without a side effect (phase vs pre ringing trade-off). So why not controlling the volume per band? I don't see how compensating with an EQ after the band split is less complicated, for me it sound more complicated and technically unnecessary, isn't it?

You've conviced me that per-band level would be useful. I didn't think about the phase issues of using the EQ. Good point. So, now, I agree that per-band gain would be a useful feature.

Phasing isnt necessarily bad and often adds some dimension to the sound. Same for clipping, which can be used in creative ways.

I think that a developer sometimes has to do compromises. If you turn down the volume of a band, and then turn up the lower band of the eq, it would have no effect. That's an overlap and a bit weird (not to you maybe, but conceptually). And compromises are also not necessarily bad. A few months ago, i saw a video about a minmal techno producer who restricts himself to just 8 audio tracks. Very interesting interview ... i wish i could remember his name

[midi_transmission]

I dont know what algothitms they use, but the EQ could also be a linear phase EQ? I'm no expert in signal processing ... i just turn knobs until it sounds good I can use the EQ to change the volume in certain parts of the spectrum - either it sounds good or it doesnt

I just ran Impact through Plugin Doctor and the EQ is not linear phase. In fact there are a lot of phase changes even with Impact is set to default, I guess you could say, and even with 1 transient band selected and the EQ off. Odd. Take a look in plugin doctor to see what I mean.

There is no filtering without a side effect (phase vs pre ringing trade-off). So why not controlling the volume per band? I don't see how compensating with an EQ after the band split is less complicated, for me it sound more complicated and technically unnecessary, isn't it?

You've conviced me that per-band level would be useful. I didn't think about the phase issues of using the EQ. Good point. So, now, I agree that per-band gain would be a useful feature.

Happy that I could add something. Glad that we discuss without any negative feelings. I also don't have any intention to harm.

I think the phase issues are created by the multi band, which is absolutely normal. Without filters no multi band.

audiot, phase shift are not always bad, often you can't hear them and sometimes the smear can add something and left/right phase shifts can sound more 3d. But usually I would try to avoid phase shift as much as possible when I want to keep tight transients. A shaper can make them softer or sharper. So at least for the sharper case I think it's better to be as tight as possible. It can't be 100% with multi band of course and linear phase would create pre ringing, there is no perfect solution. But having multi band to process bands individually often outweighs this problem of course.

[audiot]

Happy that I could add something. Glad that we discuss without any negative feelings. I also don't have any intention to harm.

Me neither There's enough negativity around on kvr. Some banter is okay, but some people take some things a bit to serious. Typical debating culture: you defend your point, even if you're not convinced of it (at least it feels like that, sometimes). I'll never understand that

On topic: I havent missed volume per band, using the eq, but you can of course ask the dev to implement that feature. But if it will delay the updates for the dub machines i will curse you BTW: I had contact to the devs a few days ago and they said, that they are working on a new framework and that there will be updates for the dub machines

[plexuss]

I dont get into these online conflicts. I'd rather have an interesting discourse were we can all learn from each other.

Anyway yes your point about phase shifts not being a bad thing is right. "Analogue phase" for example, as you mentioned. It's curious though that Impact shows strange phase issues when a single band setting is used. Here it is from PD.

Screen Shot 2020-11-29 at 7.01.57 PM.png

Screen Shot 2020-11-29 at 7.02.04 PM.png

[midi_transmission]

You could try to disable the clip at the output. Does it make a difference?

[plexuss]

You could try to disable the clip at the output. Does it make a difference?

YES! Good call! This is with the settings in my previous post but with the output set to "thru"...

Screen Shot 2020-11-29 at 7.23.48 PM.png

[ricowave202]

Would love to see an improved preset browser on Modnetic. Great Plugin.

[kmonkey]

Would love to see an improved preset browser on Modnetic. Great Plugin.

Completely +1

[ah@surrealmachines]

Would love to see an improved preset browser on Modnetic. Great Plugin.

We are listening.... What are the most significant things that don't work for you about the current preset menu (or put another way - what would be top of your list for improvement)?