Hi Stevie,
now I tried 3x PLParEQ1 with two different comps on top and it works correctly. I suggest you make some in depth tests to nail down the prob.
Best wishes, FRitz
PLParEQ and Algorithmix EQs
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1442 posts since 30 May, 2005
In the end will be the word.
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1442 posts since 30 May, 2005
Bump.
Hey guys, check this out. Please see my first post in this thread.
Best wishes, FRitz
Hey guys, check this out. Please see my first post in this thread.
Best wishes, FRitz
In the end will be the word.
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
Check out some of my music at www.fritzmetal.de
-
- KVRAF
- 6478 posts since 16 Dec, 2002
Knowing how all of the mentioned plugins sound, I have to agree.
Algorithmix do have a really nice UI in all of their plugins though.
Algorithmix do have a really nice UI in all of their plugins though.
-
- KVRist
- 236 posts since 5 Oct, 2005 from Tucson, AZ, USA
We are in the final stages of testing and trimming our new GUI for the 10-band unit. Any day now...
But what we find is that each enabled filter adds about 1.5% CPU load on our 3 GHz P III machine. The base overhead seems to be around 15%. So with all 10 bands running you should be able to perform at under 30-35% utilization.
We only have to communicate with the VST host once, do the upsampling once, and then run all 10 filters before downsampling again. As you can see there is a lot of overhead when stacking multiple instances.
Check out our website for a gander at the latest interface. It is fully functional at this time, but there are still a few tweaks needed.... e.g., the web page says the meters are K-14 meters as shown, but they are actually K-20 meters... typical GUI glitches...
Thanks for all the good words!
- DM
But what we find is that each enabled filter adds about 1.5% CPU load on our 3 GHz P III machine. The base overhead seems to be around 15%. So with all 10 bands running you should be able to perform at under 30-35% utilization.
We only have to communicate with the VST host once, do the upsampling once, and then run all 10 filters before downsampling again. As you can see there is a lot of overhead when stacking multiple instances.
Check out our website for a gander at the latest interface. It is fully functional at this time, but there are still a few tweaks needed.... e.g., the web page says the meters are K-14 meters as shown, but they are actually K-20 meters... typical GUI glitches...
Thanks for all the good words!
- DM
-
- KVRist
- 421 posts since 12 Jun, 2004
Does someone have problems with these two plugs under running Cubase SX 3.11 and Win XP?
-
- KVRAF
- 2009 posts since 9 Apr, 2003 from Cornwall, UK
Maybe Mackie would buy the code for the 4 band version and use it as the native 4-band Parametric EQ for Tracktion 2?
Just a thought..
Just a thought..
-
- KVRian
- 591 posts since 5 Feb, 2004 from southwest england
Mr. Tingle wrote:Maybe Mackie would buy the code for the 4 band version and use it as the native 4-band Parametric EQ for Tracktion 2?
Just a thought..
You would need an extremely fast computer for that to be viable - i.e. - 20+ghz.
These EQs sound gorgeous but they're very very cpu hungry.
Kind regards
Dave Rich
-
- KVRist
- 45 posts since 31 Dec, 2003 from Belgium
Bug in the latest version ? 1.48 ?
Frequency Graphics line is stuck or back to flat when you select the 'side' model.
Or is this by design ?
This worked in 1.46
No big deal......
Stevie
Frequency Graphics line is stuck or back to flat when you select the 'side' model.
Or is this by design ?
This worked in 1.46
No big deal......
Stevie
-
- KVRist
- 421 posts since 12 Jun, 2004
ST54, you use Cubase, last version? Haven't tried 1.48 of refined-plugs. Last one i tried was 1.45
-
- KVRist
- 421 posts since 12 Jun, 2004
Nuendo? Nobody seems here to have Cubase SX .. 
-
- KVRian
- 1394 posts since 28 Mar, 2002 from Austria
FYI: I have also problems in CubaseSX3.11 with many clicks in audio. I hope they fix it. It's a good EQ.JonnySun 2.0 wrote:Nuendo? Nobody seems here to have Cubase SX ..
No problems in Wavelab so far.
i7 870, 8GB RAM, ATI Radeon Sapphire, RME Multiface,
Win7 Home/64bit, Studio One 3 Professional/64bit, Wavelab8/64bit
Win7 Home/64bit, Studio One 3 Professional/64bit, Wavelab8/64bit
-
- KVRAF
- 6478 posts since 16 Dec, 2002
I have since making this jumped conclusion found the 'quality' slider. And well, I'd say algorithmix is pretty much on par with PLpar (PLpar Q5 and 'high' in algorithmix), but it is a slightly different sound. Where PLpar pretty much has no sound, Algorithmix Red grabs a little bit of the initial transient and shapes the sound.Kingston wrote:Knowing how all of the mentioned plugins sound, I have to agree.
Algorithmix do have a really nice UI in all of their plugins though.
Well, until you turn on the 'Xtra high' mode. I couldn't run it realtime on a +3800 so it's nearly unusable. 140% CPU for an EQ...damn! It sounds slightly better than PLpar Q5, but the difference is very subtle. And since I don't own a mastering studio I think I'll pass this one up.
note that Algorithmix Orange sounds quite run-of-the-mill colored and it's less comparable to PLpar in the first place (I didn't think much of it in fact).