KVR Audio

quintosardo · Post by **quintosardo** » Fri May 25, 2012 12:49 pm

The hearable difference is in the sound. One may be more suitable for some kind of sources, the other one on other sources.
Mainly while the first one is based on frequency dependent stereo rotation the second one is based on phase relationships.

@osiris: wow, I hope you'll like the other algos too

kbaccki · Post by **kbaccki** » Fri May 25, 2012 12:57 pm

quintosardo wrote:Adding two new modes:

- another frequency dependent algorithm
- a bass-specific widening algorithm (based on panning)

Is this related to a certain patent, and if so is that a problem in the future? Out of curiosity I googled "frequency dependent stereo rotation" and up came a patent.

In any event... regarding other algorithms, would it be possible to add/implement a low/mid/high type of control? One thing that I tend to do is keep the bassiest bass as close to mono as possible, high-lows/low-mids of my bass sounds slightly spread to add a little L/R interest, then increasingly spread from there to fill out the space... Know what I mean? Giving the user access to the frequency-dependent coefficients at more than one level simultaneously would be very powerful, IMO. Not sure if that's possible...

jam92189 · Post by **jam92189** » Fri May 25, 2012 12:58 pm

quintosardo wrote:The hearable difference is in the sound. One may be more suitable for some kind of sources, the other one on other sources.
Mainly while the first one is based on frequency dependent stereo rotation the second one is based on phase relationships.

@osiris: wow, I hope you'll like the other algos too

sounds like this plugin has gotten a nice little clientele aleardy

quintosardo · Post by **quintosardo** » Fri May 25, 2012 1:34 pm

kbaccki wrote:
quintosardo wrote:Adding two new modes:

- another frequency dependent algorithm
- a bass-specific widening algorithm (based on panning)
Is this related to a certain patent, and if so is that a problem in the future? Out of curiosity I googled "frequency dependent stereo rotation" and up came a patent.

In any event... regarding other algorithms, would it be possible to add/implement a low/mid/high type of control? One thing that I tend to do is keep the bassiest bass as close to mono as possible, high-lows/low-mids of my bass sounds slightly spread to add a little L/R interest, then increasingly spread from there to fill out the space... Know what I mean? Giving the user access to the frequency-dependent coefficients at more than one level simultaneously would be very powerful, IMO. Not sure if that's possible...

Of course not. Patents are about ways of doing things, algorithms, but frequency dependent stereo rotation is a basic while wide concept. I write like this to differentiate it from phase based solutions.

Two complementary eqs on two copies of a track are frequency dependent stereo rotation, but it cannot be patented

About more bands: now it can be done by placing two instances in series. More bands in the interface could be an option, probably we could do some polling before closing it to the final release.

jam92189 · Post by **jam92189** » Fri May 25, 2012 1:46 pm

quintosardo wrote:
kbaccki wrote:
quintosardo wrote:Adding two new modes:

- another frequency dependent algorithm
- a bass-specific widening algorithm (based on panning)
Is this related to a certain patent, and if so is that a problem in the future? Out of curiosity I googled "frequency dependent stereo rotation" and up came a patent.

In any event... regarding other algorithms, would it be possible to add/implement a low/mid/high type of control? One thing that I tend to do is keep the bassiest bass as close to mono as possible, high-lows/low-mids of my bass sounds slightly spread to add a little L/R interest, then increasingly spread from there to fill out the space... Know what I mean? Giving the user access to the frequency-dependent coefficients at more than one level simultaneously would be very powerful, IMO. Not sure if that's possible...
Of course not. Patents are about ways of doing things, algorithms, but frequency dependent stereo rotation is a basic while wide concept. I write like this to differentiate it from phase based solutions.

Two complementary eqs on two copies of a track are frequency dependent stereo rotation, but it cannot be patented

About more bands: now it can be done by placing two instances in series. More bands in the interface could be an option, probably we could do some polling before closing it to the final release.

I think adding a second way to spread it would be cool seems like something that would be very well used and liked.

kbaccki · Post by **kbaccki** » Fri May 25, 2012 6:02 pm

Just thinking here... will two plugs in series do what you really want, or cause some wierdness in the implicit "crossover" range? In other words... would you get better results with an actual crossover between the two plug instances, and if so, could you, you know, implement a version of your plug with that crossover onboard and all the dials and controls on one panel?

RE: patents... I only ask because the plugin realizes an algorithm, and my only question was: does your realized algorithm happen to be a patented one? If so, then well, it's realizing a patented algorithm.

It could be that your description of your algorithm involving "frequency dependent stereo rotation" (a general engineering term, like you say) just so happens to overlap in verbiage with that particular patent, but otherwise the respective algorithms have nothing to do with each other. Which I think is what you're saying. I'm only commenting on the fact that I happened to come across that spatialization patent when trying to learn more about your algo description... Perhaps the end results are comparable or even the same, but the respective algorithms themselves are not 100% overlapping. Just curious, that's all. Don't want to see you have to pull this fine plug from your site because of some ridonkulous US-specific technicality.

jam92189 · Post by **jam92189** » Fri May 25, 2012 6:08 pm

kbaccki wrote:Just thinking here... will two plugs in series do what you really want, or cause some wierdness in the implicit "crossover" range? In other words... would you get better results with an actual crossover between the two plug instances, and if so, could you, you know, implement a version of your plug with that crossover onboard and all the dials and controls on one panel?

RE: patents... I only ask because the plugin realizes an algorithm, and my only question was: does your realized algorithm happen to be a patented one? If so, then well, it's realizing a patented algorithm. It could be that your description of your algorithm involving "frequency dependent stereo rotation" (a general engineering term, like you say) just so happens to overlap in verbiage with that particular patent, but otherwise the respective algorithms have nothing to do with each other. Which I think is what you're saying. I'm only commenting on the fact that I happened to come across that spatialization patent when trying to learn more about your algo description... Perhaps the end results are comparable or even the same, but the respective algorithms themselves are not 100% overlapping. Just curious, that's all. Don't want to see you have to pull this fine plug from your site because of some ridonkulous US-specific technicality.

damn that US first they try to ban my xbox now they mess with plugins

kbaccki · Post by **kbaccki** » Fri May 25, 2012 6:29 pm

jam92189 wrote:damn that US first they try to ban my xbox now they mess with plugins

On the plus side I have Monday off. So we have that going for us.

jam92189 · Post by **jam92189** » Fri May 25, 2012 10:17 pm

kbaccki wrote:
jam92189 wrote:damn that US first they try to ban my xbox now they mess with plugins
On the plus side I have Monday off. So we have that going for us.

yes there are those days we just don't have to do anything

Americas not that bad just has some weird laws at times.

quintosardo · Post by **quintosardo** » Fri May 25, 2012 10:23 pm

There are some crazy patents anyway, like K-st...
Do we really want to patent out of phase delays???

jam92189 · Post by **jam92189** » Fri May 25, 2012 10:53 pm

quintosardo wrote:There are some crazy patents anyway, like K-st...
Do we really want to patent out of phase delays???

ha yea seems like its just being done to do it

kbaccki · Post by **kbaccki** » Sat May 26, 2012 3:06 am

Back in the day I used to browse the Usenet newgroups... alt.2600.*, alt.folklore.computers, and all that good stuff... And I kid you not, I saw a thread once about an actual US Patent application basically describing the process of "3D rendering and animation". Wonder if that was ever approved...

(actually, I shouldn't laugh, it may very well have been approved...)

jam92189 · Post by **jam92189** » Sat May 26, 2012 3:08 am

kbaccki wrote:Back in the day I used to browse the Usenet newgroups... alt.2600.*, alt.folklore.computers, and all that good stuff... And I kid you not, I saw a thread once about an actual US Patent application basically describing the process of "3D rendering and animation". Wonder if that was ever approved...

(actually, I shouldn't laugh, it may very well have been approved...)

Ha

kbaccki · Post by **kbaccki** » Sat May 26, 2012 3:19 am

Here we go... don't know if this is exactly the same thing, but representative... http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicat ... cale=en_EP

Basically generically describes every NLE system in extistence w/ the ability to automate parameters.

quintosardo · Post by **quintosardo** » Sat May 26, 2012 7:42 am

Are + - x : patented?

SKnote "ThreeD" - Mono to stereo and stereo enhancement - Available NOW