KVR Audio

omo · Post by **omo** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:47 am

SIDE won't work in Wavelab 5

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:34 am

Wow, wish I could get in on this but I'm at work. I'll report on performance of the latest in T2 as soon as I can.

dc12 · Post by **dc12** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am

uhhh,this thing crash my nuendo3.1 for several times.i'm little tired of reseting my computer,i'll wait for some bug-free version.

Programentalist · Post by **Programentalist** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:30 am

dbmcclain: This plugin really begs for options to turn off up/downsampling and anything else that is hogging CPU... a simple option to turn resampling off except for when rendering would be a great start. You could also eliminate it from the crash-cause list, if people still have all the same problems with resampling turned off.

Christian Budde · Post by **Christian Budde** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:05 am

Just want to share some frequency responses:

(this is the result i got from testing the settings described in the homepage)

Can someone explain what 'razor sharp' should mean? It isn't either razor sharp, nor is the gain (20dB) reached. It's a gain of poor 1dB. Even all the technoblabla on the homepage couldn't bend the physic laws. With an arbitrary blocksize (of that small size) it is simply not possible to do such razor sharp high Q. At least not with a linear phase.

has someone managed to set up exactly 1000 Hz? Even with the fine tune slider it is simply not possible for me. Anyway the 998Hz isn't exactly 998Hz, but something higher (for Quality=1)

Similar here...

I personally don't like the EQ. That's not because i don't like the sound. It's because i simply do not have control about what happens. If i change the quality, the sound gets totally different because the filter also got steeper.

I don't like the frequency+fine concept (because the fine slider isn't fine enough and i don't want to tweak 2 sliders for one parameter). I either don't like the gain/attenuation concept. Totally confusing.

At least the Q doesn't do that what it stands for (see 2nd screenshot).

Can someone please tell me, why this thing is so great? I've tested several different versions and the problems stated above were always remanent...

Kind regards,

Christian

P.S.: btw. the reported latency changes works fine here

boin · Post by **boin** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:40 am

Just tried version 1.16 PLParEQ1 and PLParEQ4 with FLS Producer 5.02d. Both eventually crash the host when changing the quality level (didn't happened to me until version 1.14 - the last I tried yesterday).

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:02 pm

Christian Budde wrote: Can someone please tell me, why this thing is so great? I've tested several different versions and the problems stated above were always remanent...

Well, I've only used the HPF and the Bell curve for a music/mastering application and why it is so great is because of it's transparency. I don't use the linear-phase mode, just the phase-warped aka normal mode. This eq seems to work very well when cutting/boosting +/- 3dB leaving the transients nearly unaffected.

I totally agree with the comments about control and behaviour (not to mention stability issues too) which make this EQ a bit weird but the basic sound quality, no matter how it was achieved or how it looks on paper, is subjectively IMHO great.

Maybe it's time to run some white noise trough the thing..

Btw. for explanation of the curves at different Q there is that .pdf file on the same page.

Cheers!
bManic

DuX · Post by **DuX** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:02 pm

Wavelab 4.01b on Win2K here. V1.16 of PLParEQ1 doesn't render anything, all I get is an empty wave. It's a bit frustrating when it sounds so nice and you can't render

, but all in all the behaviour of the plugin improved, at least there are no WL crashes anymore. Very nice sounding at Q5, especially... everything

It is very usable as a DC filter, too.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:26 pm

FL studio crashes with the latest 1.16 versions of both eq's when selecting Quality level 5. The Side option is not working either.

AMD 3200+ Barton core
1Gb Ram
RME HDSP 9632 soundcard using latest drivers, asio buffer at 512 samples

Cheers!
bManic

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:11 pm

That latency of 200ms I mentioned earlier happens when I render/bounce in wavelab (offline).

I'm a bit scared to try these plugins anymore. Too many total system freezes this far. Guess I'll just have to keep going. The sound is that good.

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:39 pm

Christian Budde wrote:...
Can someone please tell me, why this thing is so great? I've tested several different versions and the problems stated above were always remanent...

Kind regards,

Christian

P.S.: btw. the reported latency changes works fine here

Hi Christian,

I don't understand what's your point with all this, really. I think that you are very cool so I don't think it's your thing to come here and diss a competitive EQ for the sake of dissing, right?

I'm not so much into all this number stuff and frankly I'm not so much interested in such graphs but that's just my personal preference. When I first checked your Posihfopit I didn't pull out my VoxengoSPAN to measure if it really boosts 8dB when it says 8dB and I don't care. I simply ran some sound through it and therefore I LIKE it!!! Because it sounds good with a reasonable amount of CPU usage. And therefore I still like your EQs, ElectriQ even more than Posihfopit.
The thing about PLParEQ4 simply is that it uses WAY more CPU and sounds significantly better. This makes it for me a mastering EQ. I can run 3 times the PLParEQ4 (version 1.12 BTW, the others won't let me do it here in Nuendo2) with quality 4 and having 12 bands of eq turned on at 65% of CPU usage on my P4@3.3GHz with the biggest possible buffer of 16384 samples!!!

This is not your typical mixing EQ. And it doesn't try to be that.

So my bottomline is simple: It sounds great and that's it what I care for the most with it. It's still very buggy (I didn't have this much crashes in the whole year before this plugin. And that includes some beta testing crashes!

). But it sounds great. And therefore it is so great for me.

ATM I see it like a hardware EQ. I have to make screenshots to "save" my settings as saved projects with this EQ simply crash on loading.

I can't save presets as they don't show correct values on reloading.

But who cares if his Pultec EQ gives him really 1023,329 Hz with exactly 2.4dB boost? Right, nobody.

Best wishes, FRitz

Colonel Flashback · Post by **Colonel Flashback** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:46 pm

except the guy who posted "i hope Christian can shed some light on this"...
at $1500 they are hardly competitors either...

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:08 pm

Colonel Flashback wrote:except the guy who posted "i hope Christian can shed some light on this"...
at $1500 they are hardly competitors either...

What do you mean with "except"? I you were referring to my last sentence then you seem to not have understood what I meant. I meant hardware Pultec EQ. The real thing. I hope that makes it clearer.
I'm always interested in the opinion of experts. That's why I asked Christian what his point with all this is what he wrote is as I don't understand what's it all about.

And yes, I think every EQ out there is in competition to one another. OK, there are people who are more concerned of the hip factor and the looks and the "investment" than the real qualities of an EQ. But hey, that's not what I'm into anyway.

Best wishes, FRitz

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:21 pm

Christian Budde wrote:Can someone please tell me, why this thing is so great? I've tested several different versions and the problems stated above were always remanent...

Well the sound is great. No wait, it's wonderful! That's it really. The rest of the plugin is, well, you know.

Note that I've only ever been talking about q5. For example compared to posihfopit, it's several multiples more transparent. Don't get me wrong, I love posihfopit for mixing (it's among my top 3 favourites, the two others aren't free), but PLpar is superior in mastering and transparent offline fixes. Far superior.

Now if it only worked as intended.

Christian Budde · Post by **Christian Budde** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:33 pm

fritzman wrote:The thing about PLParEQ4 simply is that it uses WAY more CPU and sounds significantly better. This makes it for me a mastering EQ. I can run 3 times the PLParEQ4 (version 1.12 BTW, the others won't let me do it here in Nuendo2) with quality 4 and having 12 bands of eq turned on at 65% of CPU usage on my P4@3.3GHz with the biggest possible buffer of 16384 samples!!! This is not your typical mixing EQ. And it doesn't try to be that.

I simply hate statements like "plugin XYZ uses 3 times more CPU than plugin YZX and that indicates, that it is much better", because for me it only prooves that it is much worse.
I'm don't want to sound jealously and i maybe a little bit biased due to my own work, but if everyone tells them that there EQ is great, they maybe blind to see everything which is still worse here. I was in a similar situation.
Another thing which arouses me is, that all these papers are not very intuitive to read. What do they say at all? At least it should be something like our EQ is good, because of all these technical items build in. And it's only fair to measure them. And in some points they simply were wrong. At least i felt the need to show them.

Regards,

Christian