KVR Audio

dbmcclain · Post by **dbmcclain** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:01 pm

Version 1.55 may have fixed the graph jitters, but it tended to leave mouse droppings near the edges of the graph, and it got sticky near the top and bottom...

Version 1.56, now available, fixes those problems, leaves the graph jitters behind us, and also fixes the slow drag of the knob, which did not seem to work as we intended.

dbmcclain · Post by **dbmcclain** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:04 pm

Ahem, have you measured the phase response of PLParEQ? It is absolutely linear, to within our ability to measure transfer functions. Our highest resolution instrument is a 65536 point FFT doing a cross correlation between input pink noise and the filter output. Absolutely flat as a pancake... In fact, one can show that these ARE FIR filters!

dbmcclain · Post by **dbmcclain** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:08 pm

As for AMD Opteron vs Intel Pentium... knowing what I do about Intel, I would expect that they laid some traps for the AMD processors... Not a nice bunch at times...

That's why I downloaded the AMD libs the other day. I want that great performance on my Receptor too! Right now it is trailing badly...

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:09 pm

dbmcclain wrote:
I just sent a copy with a note to George Massenburg. Let's see what a real pro has to say about it?...

- DM

Well, don't expect too much positive feedback from mr Massenburg. He has a competing plugin out on TDM and he is know to be quite agrssive towards competitors, especially when it's about digital equalizing.

- bManic

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:09 pm

double post

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:17 pm

dbmcclain, no problems with that, really. If they are truly linear, then be it so.

I'm just thinking you could do the same with IIR filters: that could guarantee a lower CPU use at the expense of 'not so' linear phase response. Thanks for telling you are using FIR filters - this describes why CPU use is so high.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:25 pm

OMU wrote:Waves LinEq is priced around 300 E... And Waves are well known for not being cheap.

And you can't say the mastering engineers didn't buy it.

I don't know a single serious (being they have enough $$$ to buy the highend analogue stuff) mastering enginer that uses the waves linear phase EQ. The only digital EQs they rave about are the Weiss EQ, TC 6000 massenburg EQ and the Algorithmix.

- bManic

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:27 pm

Aleksey Vaneev wrote: So, everyone forgot about Hydratone for a moment? I remember there was as much discussion as on this one. But at $1000 price tag that won't go too far, I'm afraid.

Hydratone was always intended for mixing and no, I at least have not forgot about it. It's excellent. A very useful tool in my EQ plugin folder.

Cheers!
bManic

Vendaval · Post by **Vendaval** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:29 pm

Hi!

PLParEQ3 runs perfectly in Cubase SX 2.01. The GUI is functional and comfortable... But it is certain that much people hear better with the eyes than with the ears...

I prefer to use PLParEQ4: same functionality + 1 band.

A lot of thanks, David... You´re my hero!!

... Now I must save much money to be able to buy the one of 10 bands...

Greetings,

cptgone · Post by **cptgone** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:11 pm

Thanks for the freebie, and for doing this in VST format. Way cool!

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:47 pm

Just tried the 10-band demo version. I used all 10 bands at quality level 5 and got a CPU reading of 40%. Not bad!

Cheers!
bManic

martian · Post by **martian** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:34 pm

thanks david this is excellent!!

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:41 pm

bmanic wrote:Just tried the 10-band demo version. I used all 10 bands at quality level 5 and got a CPU reading of 40%. Not bad!

Cheers!
bManic

What kinda machine do you have there? I got 55% on my P4 @ 3.5GHz.

martian · Post by **martian** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:40 pm

fritzman wrote:
bmanic wrote:Just tried the 10-band demo version. I used all 10 bands at quality level 5 and got a CPU reading of 40%. Not bad!

Cheers!
bManic
What kinda machine do you have there? I got 55% on my P4 @ 3.5GHz.

haha thats nothing.

quality 5, all 10 bands active with PL on, i get 16%.

edit: jus realised as soon as you move the gain away from 0 the cpu load goes up. so quality 5, all 10 bands with gain and PL on, equals 75% cpu

omo · Post by **omo** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:45 pm

Alexey, please, do it!

10-Band PLParEQ is Here!