TritoneDigital.. hydratone, Voxengo and Kjaerhus, Fear it!

[bmanic]

The original clip sound good as is,and the prossesed sound a bit fatter and more present.

Better would be to do it with a non so good sounding clip just to appreciate the diffs a bit more.

That's just a little loop I did in FL studio a year or so ago.. but thanks for the praise.

I'll see if I get some truly horrible sounding clips for some EQ surgery work but this eq is not really that flexible as the sharpest Q value is still quite broad (this might get narrowed until final release though).

Cheers!
bManic

[007]

Brianbrian,
Indeed the latency is very small.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[Ronny Pries]

what about average cpu usage on a recent pc?

[brianbrian]

8-10% on my Athalon 1800. Hopefully they will optimize it some more. For now disabling bands does not free up CPU resources.

[007]

6% on my P4 2800.

[007]

It even sounds good without any knobs tweaking...

[bmanic]

"Hydratone sounds so good at 96Khz, you will probably forget all about 192Khz"

What if you work with VSTInstruments and want to export at 192Khz and master at 192Khz? Not every sample rate issue is about recording audio.

Good point but what VSTi do you see benefitting from 192khz samplerate? I know many do when rendering at 96khz but I've never tried 192khz myself so I'm just curious. I'll forward this request to the beta list and see what answer I get.

Cheers!
bManic

hell i'm still at 44.1!

can someone please explain to me, are we talking about movie/dvd audio here, or normal stereo stuff that's going to go to cd only?

if the latter, why on earth 96khz, let alone 192?

Very simple reason. It sounds better. Run your host at 96khz while rendering then use Voxengo's r8tebrain to downsample the results to 44.1khz for CD. 99% of the VSTi's benefit from this as the filters/oscs and all other internal things run at more than double the rate.

Cheers!
bManic

[skank]

I've been drooling over the potential of this plug for...well ages. Download the beta and guess what Cubase (2.035) can't/won't see it in any level of my plugin folder. Ideas sil vous plait?

[akisd28]

I've been drooling over the potential of this plug for...well ages. Download the beta and guess what Cubase (2.035) can't/won't see it in any level of my plugin folder. Ideas sil vous plait?

Update to SX 2.2?...

[skank]

sorry i am 2.2.035

[[absurd]]

I've been drooling over the potential of this plug for...well ages. Download the beta and guess what Cubase (2.035) can't/won't see it in any level of my plugin folder. Ideas sil vous plait?

I think you need to have it in your pluggo folder.

[skank]

[/quote]
I think you need to have it in your pluggo folder.[/quote]

thank you-its allways the simple things.....

[Funkybot]

Sounds quite good, this is definately a plug I'll be keeping an eye on. I'm wondering, is this a dynamic convolution approach, and what kind of latency are we talking here? Since Sonar's latency comp seems to be working now it's not really as much as an issue as it used to be, as I don't need to input monitor with EQ or anything, but just curious. The only plug-in I now own that bugs me with latency is PSP's MasterQ, which sounds great in and of itself, but can not be compensated for because of it's dynamic latency.

[multree]

[speakinginaKelloggstoImageLinevoice]SqueezeTone.... the bastards are stealing our plug-ins name[/speakinginaKelloggstoImageLinevoice]