KVR Audio

Smurf43 · Post by **Smurf43** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:02 am

I have used the 1.1 AAMS version and just love it. And I can not wait for the 2.0 release to plunk down my money. BUT I really hope it is a LOT faster, because when I tried to analyze a 4:13 song on a P3 700 with 640mb memory it took.....wait for it........over 4 hours!

And Har-Bal is a nice program, but like someone else said on here, I am burnt after the mixes and just need something to get in the ball park. AAMS lets me do that................

fishybob · Post by **fishybob** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:07 am

4 Hours! That's bloody rediculous!

It takes me no more than 10 seconds to analyse a full track.

Mention it on the Harbal websites forum and see what they say (Awesome customer service BTW!).

Also, don't worry about the money. Owners of 1 get the update for free! Ya gotta love em!!!

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:07 pm

It really shouldn't take 4 hours. I've used it on a 1Ghz, 512 RAM and noticed no real difference between that and a fast machine.

randygo · Post by **randygo** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:08 pm

Smurf43 wrote:I have used the 1.1 AAMS version and just love it. And I can not wait for the 2.0 release to plunk down my money. BUT I really hope it is a LOT faster, because when I tried to analyze a 4:13 song on a P3 700 with 640mb memory it took.....wait for it........over 4 hours!

And Har-Bal is a nice program, but like someone else said on here, I am burnt after the mixes and just need something to get in the ball park. AAMS lets me do that................

I don't understand. You say you are too burnt out after mixing to spend 60 seconds using Harbal to get your track in the ball park, yet you are willing to wait over 4 hours to have AAMS analyze your track? What am I missing?

After a grueling mixing session, I find nothing easier than pulling the mixed track into Harbal and making a few quick tweaks to a reference curve.

Randy

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:00 pm

And AAMS simply doesn't take 4 hours over here, maybe 5 minutes. I don't know what's wrong that Smurf got such a long analysis time.

The new version is promising speedier processing, but I think the dev feels that the slow, chunk-by-chunk process is necessary for accurate analysis.

mandolarian · Post by **mandolarian** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:52 pm

Don't underestimate the complexity of smurf43's track. The vast depths of emotional EQ required explains the hours of angst ridden DSP.

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:49 am

mandolarian wrote:Don't underestimate the complexity of smurf43's track. The vast depths of emotional EQ required explains the hours of angst ridden DSP.

Yea, Emo tracks take longer.

Smurf43 · Post by **Smurf43** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:23 am

Wow, I didn't mean to freak everyone out! All I meant was it took forever. I still like it better than Har-Bal, and as for the length of time to do a track, I don't have a clue. It takes forever on a loop also, so it just don't like my system I guess. (Win2000, all extras off, Audio machine only)

Besides getting an ear break until the next day, it has nothing to do with taking 60 sec's to do it. The Har-Bal demo was ok, but it is not as in depth as AAMS. Having full function for a limited time lets you really TRY it out. The limited HB demo just didn't give me a real view of what it is capable of. And as for the 30day money back offer, I have been burnt too many times and have waited far too long for "refunds" and "rebates". But when they both come out with there next big upgrades I'll try them both out again............

DenisvanderVelde · Post by **DenisvanderVelde** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:15 am

The only thing you should not do WHILE AAMS IS ANALYZING is using your computer for other things, opening other programs will slow down the processing or crash, , if you take a nice cup of coffee , the analyzing should take 5-10 minutes for a normal track length. AAMS V1.5 will be much more stable and dont have this problem and it is 3x faster then the 1.1 version...

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:20 am

OK, so the "4 hours" was an exaggeration. That makes more sense.

DenisvanderVelde · Post by **DenisvanderVelde** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:08 pm

Forum talk it was...

ixaxaar · Post by **ixaxaar** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:05 pm

Hi Denis...I just tried AAMS..great program. I need your help about one part of program. I didn't find answers in AAMS program help and faq.
It's about multiband settings.
I understand your explanation about average compression and where to find it displayed in Ozone and all about release and attack settings...now..I lowered TRESHOLD in Ozone until average compression is as suggested by AAMS ..but what about each BAND GAIN?
Do I leave BAND GAIN like it is - on ZERO or do I need to raise BAND GAIN in each band by the same amount that is suggested in AAMS like it's normally done in compressors to compensate for gain loss (make up gain)? And one more thing..Do You use Ozone multiband in RMS or Peak mode?

Thanks...

DenisvanderVelde · Post by **DenisvanderVelde** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:46 am

Hello Ixaxaar ,
I would not compensate with gain, your just trying to get the right compression setting for each band. If you do that right, you can only normalize the file aftherwards. So do use gain, but however i never do this.. Gaining, It will undo some of the things you just are afther, like balancing all compressor bands... The Average Compression AAMS suggests show you what band needs most compression and what not, you might just crew it up by applying different gaining....
Denis

ixaxaar · Post by **ixaxaar** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:41 pm

Thanks Denis.. So it is kind of dynamic eq..this multiband part of mastering.. What about RMS detection in Ozone multiband..RMS or peak?

DenisvanderVelde · Post by **DenisvanderVelde** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:56 pm

That is mainly a matter of taste and wont affect the outcome, as long as you get the right kind of average compression....

Har Bal Version 2