KVR Audio

mauseoleum · Post by **mauseoleum** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:12 pm

I vote for more PACEFISM !

jmh · Post by **jmh** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm

SHIT. EDIT. Pressed Submit instead of Preview

I stand corrected in that matter. In my memory iLok and the previous form of protection get mixed up - after all, for my the problems with the notorius driver were a long time ago.

Checking wouldnt have been hard, particularly considering the tone of your first post. You know, the 'snickering' bit.

Ho hum. It might have been hard, as in fetching another PACE protected product for verification, or asking someone about the problems in the past.

I saw you post something innacurate, which hadn't been corrected. So I addressed that innacuracy. For some reason you have a problem with that?

Not really. I said I stand corrected. As in, I was wrong and you corrected me. That's not the part I feel the slightest bit offended about.

Your selective quoting which doesn't even take the rest of the thread into consideration...

I addressed the innacuracy, not the 'rest of the thread'. Do you address every single part of a thread when you respond to someone? I doubt it.

Not really, I just assume taking into consideration the rest of a 4 page thread when replying to an inaccuracy somewhere in the earlier parts...

Somehow you just ignored all that I didn't at any point claim to have full understanding of things,

But you did feel the need to tell everyone else they were reacting 'stupidly' without that 'full udnerstanding'. Hmmmm.

I also tend to apologize and take corrections into account. Cause and effect -> called someone stupid, was commented about that, apologized, then get commented about it later on. Same as with your correction, made a mistake, got corrected. Will you turn this against me as well?

Furthermore I apologized twice, yet another thing that failed to get through... sigh.

You may have apologised, but did you provide the corrected facts?

Did you read the thread? I did, really, honestly. I did explain pretty much everything, including why I said what I said initially.

You finally did at 15.14 (my time) in comparison to my post dated 15.18, but at that point in time I had already started my post.

So unless you expect someone to refresh a thread continously whilst responding to someone just in case they change their mind, my post still had a purpose.

To a degree yes. But like I said... your posting dealt with an innacuracy about PACE's history, which in itself was irrelevant to the actual discussion regarding 2016 and its copyprotection. I don't expect anyone to refresh the thread all the time, I do however expect them to read the thread so situations like this can be avoided. Somehow my apologies and explanations satisfied other readers.

The fact that you dont seem to like being corrected is irrelevant to that purpose.

That's just interpretation on your part. I don't mind being corrected, I'm reacting to the tone in your post s which are of course a subject for interpretation as well

And it's somewhat relevant if it gets mentioned again.

Well, I've been waiting to get into your claws for a long time, I just hoped it was something bigger than this

I see. So this is less about being corrected and more about you wanting to prove some sort of 'fastest gun' thing?

Not really, let me explain. I simply adore the way you are capable of replying to people, using logic, common sense, knowledge of things and so on shredding the other party apart if they "deserve" it. In my case, I've sure made posts to other threads that were an easy target for this. What I meant was that I was expecting to see you notice another, more inaccurate, opinionated post and shred it apart. Sometimes that's exactly what's needed - I tend to lose focus on the subject and seeing someone approach logically helps me understand where I'm gone "wrong", could have been clearer, have been inaccurate, and so on.

There's a particular post I did a while ago where I was practically hoping that would happen, I had lost the point of what I was trying to say and my stream-of-consciousness posting could have used some logic, taking it apart and resulting in responses about particular subjects I talked about...

Nothing more to it. Honestly, I hold you and your writing style in highest regard

tpkd.sys that was it. But that one isn't used now... as explained already.

Even if it is no longer part of the currently-shipped InterLok system, that isnt any guarantee that people are using the current version of that system in their software. Go pick up a copy of OB-Tune, see if you get tpkd.sys...

True. After the correction, I could have and should have responded by posting that thank god 2016 doesn't use this tpkd.sys anymore

Any more questions?

Are we having fun yet?

Yes, all in a positive mood

Go ahead Whyterabbyt, put some effort to it

No effort required, cowboy. Dont shoot yourself in the foot trying to be too smug.

I thought I already have, didn't you just point it out?-)

Regards,
JMH

... hopefully I got this edit done in time before someone is replying to the accidental posting

mauseoleum · Post by **mauseoleum** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:31 pm

shake hands, guys, please.

multree · Post by **multree** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:36 pm

yeah I already feel sorry for starting this thread.... I just wanted to share my excitement about this piece of software.

there's no driver installed by the demo (as far as I can see) and maybe if you politely ask the folks at PrincetonDigital they may include an installer/uninstaller...

jmh · Post by **jmh** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:42 pm

Where's the icon for handshaking?-)

Ok, this might be boring for the others. So I apologize for that too. On my part this isn't done in a serious manner, as there's no namecalling etc. This is actually rather entertaining

Like I said, I have nothing but respect for Whyterabbyt, I openly admit admiring his style

But if it is boring to the rest of the bunch, then this isn't the right way to do it.

Back to 2016 for a while. It's just amazing, not perhaps a do-it-all reverb for all situations but it's just beautiful. Try some fat tarnce riffs with it, sounds so much nicer than any other native reverb so far. Equally amazing on vocals... right now I'm just playing some selected vocal bits through it, listening to things on a pair of Genelec 8030A:s... and I'm practically shivering

Regards,

JMH

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:47 pm

Game called on account of wussy audience, then?

jmh · Post by **jmh** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:52 pm

Weak minds

Just tried 2016 with some claps - I tend to think that for me claps are like snare drums for some producers, a trademark thing of some sort - and oh my god... initially I didn't like what it did but after some tweaking, panties soiled.

I SO hope the other algorithms get released to us mere mortals without TDM.

Regards,

JMH

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:17 pm

multree wrote:yeah I already feel sorry for starting this thread.... I just wanted to share my excitement about this piece of software.

You were right to feel excited - it sounds lovely and I felt the same way (and it made me want to play some piano) but then when Mausoleum mentioned PACE I got worried - I've been trying to avoid that on my system and didn't want it installed in a sneaky way.

But now that's been cleared up pretty much lets get back to discussing how nice it sounds and how expensive it is (and how they are likely to be releasing other algo's at $200 apiece as well dontcha think

)

AS for the arguement's over PACE - it seems clear that as I said we are all to a lesser or greater extent on a learning curve - to me this should suggest to companies that if they want to avoid scaring off their potential customers thay should at least be more transparent about their copy protection methods (there was not even a read me with the file). As it stands it sounds like the price and copy protection methods (legitimacy of fears notwithstanding) is likely to drive some people into the welcoming arms of the warez merchants (I can't believe it's cracked after 1 day though??). Some would have anyway I suppose but it does illustrate that such methods neither help the developer (as clearly they are inneffective if it really is cracked and it's not just a rumour) or the consumer.

Teksonik · Post by **Teksonik** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:30 pm

I sent an E-mail to Princeton Digital about this thread and got this response:
"Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to set the record straight. It
doesn't use iLok so it shouldn't be installing any kernel drivers. It's
simple challenge/response authentication (not even automated). The
website will be updated to display this information.

I'll also start thinking about a copy protection method that doesn't
annoy so many people.

Suggestions are welcome.

Jim Sienicki
Princeton Digital"

Maybe he'll sign up here and join the argument....err I mean discussion.

multree · Post by **multree** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:50 pm

I'm glad the discussion is back on topic.... I fall deeper and deeper in love with this plug-in everytime I use it... and did you notice the small amount of CPU usage for such a georgeous sound....

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:08 pm

It's great but I could never afford this or justify paying that price for one plugin. If I got this, and say the latest two Sonaksis plugins (with even crazier prices) I'd be paying as much as I would for a new PC. I never understood the justification for "pro" pricing - to me it just seems like companies saying forget ordinary people who just want to make music, all we want is the big money people in the industry making big bucks can afford. It's like with SX and Nuendo (or Samplitude and Sequoia) - they both share a core sound engine and many features in common and even leapfrog each other in features and yet pricewise the difference is huge. No way would I accept that it took a significantly greater amount of time, energy, manpower etc to create Nuendo compared to SX when they are so closely linked. The price is just made up on the basis of the market it's aimed at rather than on the basis of what is affordable to the majority of users. Why should ordinary users have to put up with cut down versions all the time. Voxengo have the right idea there.

jmh · Post by **jmh** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:18 pm

Teksonik Great

At least we, the community, had some resonance from the manufacturer, that's always welcome

Multree All I can say is that I'm at least as excited about this as you... the more I listen to things playing through this, the more I get in love with this

And yes, seeing so little CPU power used makes me seriously wonder about other reverb plugins and their algorithms. Sure, there's more to tweak but somehow they lack "character" and "liveliness",and this one oozes both

Regards,

JMH

trancenrg69 · Post by **trancenrg69** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:24 pm

This is the first native reverb that doesn't sound like digital crap. It's got serious analog warmth, great stereo depth, none of that digital harshness, and is very light on cpu. A big winner 9/10

AD80 · Post by **AD80** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:24 pm

I like the sound of this verb a lot! Excellent CPU usage awell.

But if it does something bad to my system I'm gonna go to Princeton and beat the shit out of somebody.

rouge · Post by **rouge** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:48 pm

MickGael wrote:Well, the choice is made easier for me by the fact that it won't wort (for me at least) in Cubase SX.

Works fine in Chaniner, but not in SX.

Go figure.

In plug-in info set to "Old Host Behaviour" and it will
work fine.

Princeton Digital - REVERB