why waves plugins cost that dam much ? i dont get it

[Amberience]

but now, a much more hateful word "fag" is used consistantly (certainly not just this thread)

what's up with that?

What's wrong with it ? It means cigarette does'nt it ?
And as i have a nicotin addiction i did'nt particulary mind it.

Ok...........

nevermind

Actually in the UK fag does mean cigarette.

[kritikon]

Just less opportunity

True. I suppose Skodas aren't exactly fanny-magnets. Although they seem to be aiming for a higher market than in the past. So you'd get a better class of slapper in the new Skodas.

[spacefox]

You could argue that a Ferrari is still just an internal combustion engine, that a Krell is just a power amplifier, or that an iPod is still just an MP3 player.

You just put iPod in the same category with Krell amps and a Ferrari.
Damn, those Apple marketing guys are good.

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

Skoda takes you from point A to point B
Ferrari MOVES beautiful girls from point B to your home, point A. You don't need to drive for getting this

The strange thing is...there's probably more room for shagging in a Skoda than there is in a Ferrari.

here the mistake...
you don't need too much space, you need girls.

[james0tucson]

And for the car metaphore: a Ferrari and a Skoda will deliver exactly the same result: they take you from Point A to point B.

Sorry, I disagree very much.
Skoda takes you from point A to point B
Ferrari MOVES beautiful girls from point B to your home, point A. You don't need to drive for getting this

Ferrari takes you to *their* place, the one with the pool and the sauna.
Skoda takes you, alone, to your grubby flat.

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

in this metaphor
girls = clients

[maxhodges1]

And for the car metaphore: a Ferrari and a Skoda will deliver exactly the same result: they take you from Point A to point B. And that's kinda what I was implying about other noise reduction tools. You might get the same result, but have a harder ride getting there.

Well seems you missed the point of my analogy...

No noise reduction system is perfect; all noise reduction systems take away some degree of signal with noise. The mark of a better tool is how well it allows you to remove the unwanted noise with the maximal preservation of signal (music, voice, transients, depth and dimension, etc).

Now there are many types of noise (continuous, intermittent, colored (tonal), crackly, clicky, poppy, etc) and each kind requires it's own own technical approach to reduction. One key to good-sounding noise reduction is to accept small improvement as victory, rather than destroy too much signal in an attempt to remove all the noise entirely. Most people don't focus on the noise anyway, especially as a louder signals masks it pretty well.

Noise reduction techniques include simple filtering (say 1 to 4 db dip around 3-5 kHZ, or a high-pass at 200 Hz.)

Narrow-band expansion adds threshold settings, attack and release times, ratios and look ahead delays for multiple bands.

Complex filtering permits the insertion of many high-resolution narrow-band filters to address hum and buzz (harmonics of hum)--think of comb patterns.

DSP algorithms require repeated precision calculations to perform filtering, equalization, compression, and expansion, and the end number might not resemble the right product at all, unless adequate precision is maintained. So how well are your free plug-ins able to handle expanding word lengths and perform double and triple precision calculations, which slows them down and complicates the whole process? Do their designers truly appreciate how truncating and rounding affect sound quality and quantization distortion? In some cases defective equipment and quirky algorithms can add color that people find appealing, so the tools you prefer might depend on your aesthetic decisions. But I wanted to try and raise awareness that there could be more differences under the hood than you might expect.

but it's still a multiband expander, erm, "reconceptualized"