KVR Audio

kevvvvv · Post by **kevvvvv** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 5:57 pm

I'd be interested in hearing how you've found Convo Boy.

Does it compare favourably with Waves IR, or is that another league altogether?

Does it compare with Voxengo's convolution verb?

Please share your experience

thanx = kev

kevvvvv · Post by **kevvvvv** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:58 pm

-SPYRO- · Post by **-SPYRO-** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:24 pm

I'd like to know too, I never tried other conv revs (other that SIR)

I personally find it outstanding, not only to make reverbs.

intel · Post by **intel** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:37 pm

I finally got mine working recently, but haven't had much chance to delve into it. it doesn't work too well in Cool Edit Pro 2 (which is where I spend most of my time), but I got it working in Buzz (which I still use on occasion). so far I have no complaints.

jbraner · Post by **jbraner** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:40 pm

The only other convo I've tried is SIR - but I think Convo Boy is cool. It can do more things with the impulse than SIR can, so it's different.

And for $12.95, you can't go wrong

I just leave it on high latency, because SONAR takes care of the PDC, and the CPU usage is pretty low this way.

I would just point out that I had trouble getting it to work with the SONAR 4 VST adapter. I tried directixer and that works fine, so I just bought it, and will use it for any other "troublesome plugins" that the VST adapter can't deal with...

kevvvvv · Post by **kevvvvv** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:41 pm

The part I don't know, but would like to know, is:

Here's Waves with an expensive convo verb programme.

Would a budget convo verb sound as good if it had good quality wav files?

Is the any difference if the wav files are the same?

intel · Post by **intel** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:56 pm

are you talking about IR-1?

if so I wouldn't waste my money. there's a 6 second limit on impulse response lengths, which could seriously hamper your usage. I've never tried it myself, but I've never heard of any additional features that it has that would counter the fact that 85% of the impulse responses I have simply would not work in it.

*edited to remove supposition - "would" becomes "could"

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:56 pm

My understanding is that convolution algorithms WILL be different from one dev to the next, so in theory, there will be a difference in sound.

However, they will all do basically the same thing, and for all I know, the Elevayta algo is better than the Waves one.

It seems to me that the interface and feature set should theoretically be what sets one plugin apart from the other--

Or in other words, I think the Waves stuff is a ripoff.

Greg

Noox · Post by **Noox** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:04 pm

It is amazing. Period.

thockin · Post by **thockin** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:26 pm

No. Convolution is math. They sound the same, or else one of them is buggy.

sinkmusic · Post by **sinkmusic** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:18 am

well, i was rather attracted by the "zero latency" option, because i liked SIR a lot.
But i also liked SIR for the other features (mainly the browser, when you're not certain of which impulse to choose, it is pretty useful, and makes you win time !), and SIR is freeware with many many more options...
I would like a lot Convoboy it was a freeware convulution plugin with zero latency and a browser.
By now, i don't use it anymore, and i think it is a pity...

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:34 am

thockin wrote:No. Convolution is math. They sound the same, or else one of them is buggy.

erm,

it's just that convolution algoritms that are used in any native plugins are all FFT based. There's quite a number of implementations of that and they do sound different. Developers try to find a sweet spot between accuracy and speed with them.

True convolution is much too heavy process for even the fastest of todays CPUs with the long reverb impulses.

thockin · Post by **thockin** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:42 am

Between accuracy and speed? Do you have a CPU that does an "approximate multiply" or something?

You either do the math, or you don't. Yeah, they are FFT based, but no, they don't sound different. I did this test before, and found that modulo the wet/dry levels, all the major convolvers sounded the same (almost totally nullified when cross-mixed).

-SPYRO- · Post by **-SPYRO-** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:42 am

what is different from this convolution and true convolution? thanks.

lex_strooder · Post by **lex_strooder** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:18 am

thockin wrote:You either do the math, or you don't. Yeah, they are FFT based, but no, they don't sound different. I did this test before, and found that modulo the wet/dry levels, all the major convolvers sounded the same (almost totally nullified when cross-mixed).

This is the same argumet as the one about host summing... how can adding audio sound different.... they all sound different, its all IMPLEMENTED math (read programming) and that is not equivalent to the theory on a piece of paper.

From what I red in different forums, the Voxengo sound clearer and cleaner then SIR, have no idea about Waves but the library looks respectfull.

In respect to the thread-topic Im sorry I cant really tell yet, I need more time to use it, and then report back the inner nature of the sound I hear

.

/ Lex

Convo Boy feedback?