KVR Audio

Sickle · Post by **Sickle** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 2:21 am

nuffink wrote:
ttoz wrote:
nuffink wrote:And, as I said before, i have no f**king clue.
Duh.
Shame you can't buy wit eh, tosser. How's the career going?

I've been wondering where you've been these last days..

uvacom · Post by **uvacom** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 3:06 am

jackson wrote:
Since1980 wrote:
Without wrote:
Jeremy_NSL wrote:Looks really cool. Awaiting the cost in US $.
If it does sell for £499, it will probably be in the $900 neighborhood.
D@mn , why such a huge price difference...

I still think it's worth to check out.
It's not a price difference, it's a currency conversion.

Right now, 499 GBP = 869.87 USD

Remember though, that the 499UKP figure is including VAT, which I believe is about 17.5%. Excluding VAT, the price is about 425UKP, which corresponds to about 740USD. But we americans tend to get the hookup when it comes to pricing anyway, so it's not unreasonable to predict that the cost could be as low as 699USD.

And that's all assuming the 499UKP figure is the MAP and not the MSRP. The article suggests that it is the street price/MAP. But hypothetically, if 499 were the MSRP you could see prices 15-33% lower.

Uncle E · Post by **Uncle E** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:00 am

Focusrite told me MAP'll be in the $799 range.

Alan · Post by **Alan** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:31 am

AndrewSimon wrote:Convulsion? + Fire Wire? =
Latency? for real time monitoring?

I'm wondering about that myself. On paper the offer looks great,but I'm wondering about performance once reality sinks in. Even the PoCo FW unit gives a lot of users fits with FW problems,either because of FW chipsets,latencey or bandwidth problems,add convolution into the mix and we could be talking a lot of problems here. My guess is only use this thing at mixdown at high latencey with the right FW chipset and you should be ok,which still makes it attractive. Live input at low latency's is probably out of the question. Native with URS quality is still more attractive to me at the moment.

birrbits · Post by **birrbits** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:36 am

bmanic wrote:Well, as a Sintefex FX 8000 owner I'm devastated! I really do wonder how they can pull off 32 channels as this box does only 6 and has way over 30 SHARC DSP processors (not the budget ones either) inside it and gets quite hot. My guess is that they have shortened each impulses sample length to something like 256 or 512. The sintefex uses 2048 samples long impulses. However, this unit is exactly what I thought would pop up sooner or later and will force the original unit prices to drop like crazy. Anybody found more links about this thing?

Cheers!
bManic

Out of curiousity I tried to take a guess at what SHARCs the Sintefex might have used vs whats available today..

(what can I say, I'm a DSP geek)

Going off of FX8000 Literature all I see is "10 - 37 SHARC 60MHz floating point DSPs",
but then off of the FX2000 (which i guess was the lil brother that came out a few years later in stereo only)
"FX2000 contains 10 SHARC DSP chips providing 800Mflops per channel"

aha so 2 channels = 1600MFLOPS (assume peak)* divide by ten and you get 160MFLOP SHARCs, and the guess that they are 60Mhz also and maybe something like the ADSP-21065L "Low-cost SHARC, 60 MHz, 180 MFLOPS, 3.3v, floating point"

Compare that with whats available today....
http://www.analog.com/processors/proces ... marks.html

the top chip seems to be able to take on ten of the older variety (and thats just the SHARC Family)

*using marketing logic for entire calculation

Uncle E · Post by **Uncle E** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:48 am

The hardware Liquid Channel doesn't have noticeable latency so it's not impossible to think this won't be an issue. However, it seems more likely Focusrite would've upped the latency to get that high plug-in count (the Liquid Channel only has one compressor & one EQ going on at any given time, after all).

diverdee · Post by **diverdee** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 11:21 am

No other info anywhere on this yet (including the companies website)?
Early April fools anyone?

NoBrain2k · Post by **NoBrain2k** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:08 pm

Uncle E wrote:The hardware Liquid Channel doesn't have noticeable latency so it's not impossible to think this won't be an issue. However, it seems more likely Focusrite would've upped the latency to get that high plug-in count (the Liquid Channel only has one compressor & one EQ going on at any given time, after all).

The worst case latency is quoted at 4ms for the liquid channel which is nothing really. If you bare in mind that the Liquid Channel emulates a preamp, Compressor and Eq while this new thing will offer only the latter 2 it starts to make a bit more sense in my opinion. I presume they will implement some sort of method of lowering it further.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 1:17 pm

birrbits wrote: Out of curiousity I tried to take a guess at what SHARCs the Sintefex might have used vs whats available today..

(what can I say, I'm a DSP geek)

Going off of FX8000 Literature all I see is "10 - 37 SHARC 60MHz floating point DSPs",
but then off of the FX2000 (which i guess was the lil brother that came out a few years later in stereo only)
"FX2000 contains 10 SHARC DSP chips providing 800Mflops per channel"

aha so 2 channels = 1600MFLOPS (assume peak)* divide by ten and you get 160MFLOP SHARCs, and the guess that they are 60Mhz also and maybe something like the ADSP-21065L "Low-cost SHARC, 60 MHz, 180 MFLOPS, 3.3v, floating point"

Compare that with whats available today....
http://www.analog.com/processors/proces ... marks.html

the top chip seems to be able to take on ten of the older variety (and thats just the SHARC Family)

*using marketing logic for entire calculation

Yes, interesting. That seems to be about right. So, now the real question lies within cost. So, to calculate 32 channels it would need about 1 DSP chip per channel. That is 32 of those modern SHARC DSP chips, no? I think this would end up being extremely costly and not feasible at all under 1000$. This is just a guess though. AFAIK some of the latest Weiss boxes have a shitload of SHARC dsp's in them and cost like crazy (probably you pay at least half of the price for the name though!).

Cheers!
bManic

Since1980 · Post by **Since1980** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 3:00 pm

I don't much about what these DSP chips can and cannot do. But I do know what a Quad Opteron(2 dual) 270 setup can do, and how much it costs. I've seen results that started to make these DSP based setup(Protools HD, UAD, Powercore) look overpriced and underpowered. So if anything this is a step in the right direction for pricing of these products. Now just imagine if this does well, TC and UAD are going to have to rethink there price range. I know Uad is supposed to announced something also at Frankfurtmesse/Musikmesse, but they need to take notice at the price and the amount of processing that this box is getting...

lavoll · Post by **lavoll** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 3:34 pm

wow. GAS!

Tony Ostinato · Post by **Tony Ostinato** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:23 pm

"I've seen results that started to make these DSP based setup(Protools HD, UAD, Powercore) look overpriced and underpowered."

see, i see people say this, for 6 years now, and yet theres still no native fairchild plug or la-2a or 1176 etc etc that doesnt sound like ass.

when i got my uad-1 in '01 people said it would be obsolete in a year.

but they didnt say which year. apparently that year hasnt gotten here yet. and now all the comapnies are being "me too!!"

this looks like a nice unit tho, much better than the pathetic waves apa with a minimum latency of 1024 samples (ugh).

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:53 pm

[DELETED]

Since1980 · Post by **Since1980** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:23 pm

Tony Ostinato wrote: see, i see people say this, for 6 years now, and yet theres still no native fairchild plug or la-2a or 1176 etc etc that doesnt sound like ass.

Tony, there is no doubt that there aren't any native compressors that can compete with the Uad-1 emulations, even though sonalksis equally good for what it does. Plus I've heard that the Marquis Compressor and the new URS and Waves plugs are great. Plus the new EMI plugins(Wow) are being ported to VST as we speak. Plus TritoneDigital is working on Squeezetone(don't know when they would be finish) So the gap is closing, fast. Now I had the Uad-1, it's a great product no doubt, but they still need a more powerful card, IMO.

But that's why I say that it is important to hear how accurate these plugins are. Cause if these plugs suck, than it's not worth it...

stag · Post by **stag** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:08 pm

I have UAD but i'm using it less and less, i like only the Pultec that's magic to me, but for raunchyness and lo-fi i thank waves for L3.

the compressor things namely Fairchild i couldn't careless, i apply any given compressor as an insert instead to have some kind of wet\dry function instead et voila fake fairchild vst.

I only stick with the UAD hardware hoping that their next solution is external if not
something like the Focusrite is really good news to me.

Add some DSP horsepower! Watch out, TC & UAD, look at this!