KVR Audio

LawrenceF · Post by **LawrenceF** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:09 pm

I think I'll call my grandma and see if she'll loan me $200 for the upgrade.

Report: She threw a bottle of Ben-Gay at me, called me a spoiled little whiney brat, and said I can get the $200 when Jesus rolls 7 at a craps table in Vegas.

dodokvr · Post by **dodokvr** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:18 pm

Forget Studio One and buy Sonar X1. It looks similar and has a host of restrictions. They were not meant to be restrictions; they were supposed to be features. More crashes than George Michael on a late night drive.

danbroad · Post by **danbroad** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:20 pm

Studio One is just too cool a program to worry about having to hack it to bits. Just upgrade to the pro version, and enjoy some incredible effects, a lovely GUi and that super workflow. It's the only DAW I've bonded with since Mackie abandoned Tracktion, and I have a feeling it's just going to get better and better.

This one's worth supporting properly; anyone who wants Logic on the PC surely sees the attraction of this DAW software...

standalone · Post by **standalone** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:36 pm

jensa wrote:This file renaming thing is starting to get somewhat silly.

Yeah, I think it's time to pass on this topic.

jensa wrote:Two days ago I found a guy selling pirated copies of VST-plugins on a slightly lesser well known site for selling stuff. Instead of debating if it was legit or not here I did something about it and emailed the affected developers and got a positive reply and a thanks from almost all of them. That's something we all could do. Hunt some real pirates, not questioning the ethics of renaming some files. Sigh.

I believe many people here use to alert developers when they find some "incredible price" or some "Youtube's philanthropist".

autumndreams · Post by **autumndreams** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:54 pm

I'm undoubtedly going to be upgrading to Pro in the future...just for the mastering suite. If all I was getting was VST capability, I'd be sticking with Reaper alone.

As for the ethics of using the VST workaround:

I'm a little irritated by many common practices in modern day EULA's. I could go on a *very* long rant about this, but I won't. In a nutshell: "Ethically sound" and "EULA approved" don't *always* overlap in my eyes.

I see this as being no more morally damming than circuit bending, in the sense that it's tricking something that you paid for to do something that it wasn't originally designed to do.

musikmachine · Post by **musikmachine** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:30 pm

Same here. I can't right now and i want to do it as cheaply as possible so there! Don't blame me, blame the government and their austerity measures.

Anyway, i love S1. I could see the value just in the ease of use, intuitive workflow and the quality of the fx for simply recording from external sources.

Then i started watching the Groove3 S1 loop recording video where you can loop record takes over the same two bars and then audition them in place afterwards. It's the little things like that that set it apart from anything else i've used so far. Yes it's expensive at £170 and i would have bought an interface with it bundled if anything but for £13.50... i don't think i've ever gotten so much for so little.

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:52 am

Ok, I must share. Is it me or is the algorithm for audio just OFF the HOOK!

I just recorded a guitar part at 120 and accidentally dropped the audio to 85 and it doesn't sound any different

Is it just me????

On on a negative note I'm up to about 15% cpu with this little 6 track diddy I'm using for learning. Seems awfully high to me.

LawrenceF · Post by **LawrenceF** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:16 am

hibidy wrote:On on a negative note I'm up to about 15% cpu with this little 6 track diddy I'm using for learning. Seems awfully high to me.

It depends on latency, what instruments and plugs (if any) you may be using, if the real time stretching is hitting the CPU (try "use cache for stretch" in audio engine options) and some other things like maybe consolidating any audio being stretched if you plan to commit to that tempo... with "B".

I can't say I've stretched anything quite that far (from 120 to 85) but if it's real time and it still sounds good to you I suppose there would be a cpu cost for that.

Additionally, there are some patches in Presence (if you're using it) that may be more CPU hungry than you'd expect from a soundfont player, especially if lots of FX are engaged there on the instrument patch. You may have more DSP going on than appears to be the case on the surface so look at the FX panels if you're using Presence... it has verb, delay, EQ, etc built into it and programmed into some of the factory patches.

NAS · Post by **NAS** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:57 am

rodneyorpheus wrote: Yeah, we don't usually, life's too short.

We can't make any official proclamation about stuff like that without getting knee deep in lawyers, but I doubt if we're going to be sending the goons around to kidnap your grandmother or something anytime soon.

We're happy people are enjoying using our software.

Rodney

Very cool attitude from the devs there i must say
I have a few friends i got onto this deal who simply could not afford S1 normally and even though they don't really use many plugins, having the ability to do the rename for a synth or effect they use is great

NAS

NAS · Post by **NAS** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:59 am

hibidy wrote:Ok, I must share. Is it me or is the algorithm for audio just OFF the HOOK!

Yeah when i first started looking around i thought "WTF no settings for the stretch, then i used it hahahah"

NAS

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:06 am

LawrenceF wrote:
hibidy wrote:On on a negative note I'm up to about 15% cpu with this little 6 track diddy I'm using for learning. Seems awfully high to me.
It depends on latency, what instruments and plugs (if any) you may be using, if the real time stretching is hitting the CPU (try "use cache for stretch" in audio engine options) and some other things like maybe consolidating any audio being stretched if you plan to commit to that tempo... with "B".

I can't say I've stretched anything quite that far (from 120 to 85) but if it's real time and it still sounds good to you I suppose there would be a cpu cost for that.

Additionally, there are some patches in Presence (if you're using it) that may be more CPU hungry than you'd expect from a soundfont player, especially if lots of FX are engaged there on the instrument patch. You may have more DSP going on than appears to be the case on the surface so look at the FX panels if you're using Presence... it has verb, delay, EQ, etc built into it and programmed into some of the factory patches.

You may have nailed it, but I don't think the TS is part of it (because it's that high at the standard tempo)

efluon · Post by **efluon** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:19 am

hibidy wrote: On on a negative note I'm up to about 15% cpu with this little 6 track diddy I'm using for learning. Seems awfully high to me.

it won't be the timestretching (caching is enabled as a default and anyway, it will rather hit disk performance than cpu performance). it's more to the nature of the cpu meter, which is showing the percentage of available time used for audio-processing. this is the worst result of all cores. so to evaluate that it would be interesting to see how much more you can do until it gets to say 50% or 60%.

shanecgriffo · Post by **shanecgriffo** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:04 am

dodokvr wrote:Or better still -if you're really not bothered about it then get your grandmother to remove the restriction in the first place.

Win win for everyone then.

that probably makes it just too good a deal!
it's ok- a little bit of fun with a not totally illegal workaround
keeps it interesting

dodokvr · Post by **dodokvr** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:28 pm

Edit: Solved my punch recording problem.

LawrenceF · Post by **LawrenceF** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:51 pm

efluon wrote:it won't be the timestretching (caching is enabled as a default and anyway, it will rather hit disk performance than cpu performance).

It does appear to be enabled by default (thanks) but I do believe it does hit the cpu if it's disabled, much like Cubase's realtime stretching (I think). There would be no point in caching, writing the times stretched version to disk to a new file, to be read from there instead, if it didn't have some potential benefit like not having to perform the stretching algo in real time.

It reads from disk in both cases obviously but in the latter case it's been "bounced", consolidated, to the cache file. That's my take on it anyway...

When Use Cache for Timestretched Audio Files is de-selected, Studio One will timestretch the file in real time, during playback, as the file is being read from the computer hard drive.

There is an initial disk hit when you first stretch though, you can see it, while the files are being cached, when that option is on.

Studio One Namm Deal