DigitalAudioSoft - EQ Suite

sonolive · Post by **sonolive** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:49 am

On 2006-09-25 10:32, hifiboom wrote:
sorry but I am not interested to meet any of you.

boooh
that's not fair play !
i would have liked to meet you
you seem to be a very important developper in your domain !
cheers
olive

sonolive · Post by **sonolive** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:50 am

[ This Message was edited by: sonolive on 2006-09-25 12:52 ]

sonolive · Post by **sonolive** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:50 am

[ This Message was edited by: sonolive on 2006-09-25 12:52 ]

sonolive · Post by **sonolive** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:51 am

olive

[ This Message was edited by: sonolive on 2006-09-25 12:51 ]

Lima · Post by **Lima** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:35 pm

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:45 pm

vaco loco

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:54 pm

Olive, do you think it's possible that your project (the one from the 'infamous' screenshots) suffers from the same sample inaccuracy as the one I used for a similar test with similiar results like you ?
(the respective post a few pages back may have been overlooked in all the quoting and fuzzing)

I have verified that THIS project of mine (the 'standard' one I used constantly) contains a Dynamixer that isn't sample aligned anymore once connected to a device that exceeds a certain complexity.

The identical backup copy works as it's supposed to, so it's not a messed or instable system in general.

As I've already mentioned I'm really NOT interested in a mud-throwing contest and the question above is only remotely related to the Polteq - it's the same with ISON and probably any 'sophisticated' effects plugin.

Actually I don't find it amusing to add something to a project and the mixer gets out of phase, you know that even one sample can be crucial sometimes.

cheers, Tom

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:06 pm

sonolive · Post by **sonolive** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:16 pm

On 2006-09-25 13:54, astroman wrote:
Olive, do you think it's possible that your project (the one from the 'infamous' screenshots) suffers from the same sample inaccuracy as the one I used for a similar test with similiar results like you ?
(the respective post a few pages back may have been overlooked in all the quoting and fuzzing)

I have verified that THIS project of mine (the 'standard' one I used constantly) contains a Dynamixer that isn't sample aligned anymore once connected to a device that exceeds a certain complexity.

The identical backup copy works as it's supposed to, so it's not a messed or instable system in general.

As I've already mentioned I'm really NOT interested in a mud-throwing contest and the question above is only remotely related to the Polteq - it's the same with ISON and probably any 'sophisticated' effects plugin.

Actually I don't find it amusing to add something to a project and the mixer gets out of phase, you know that even one sample can be crucial sometimes.

cheers, Tom

astro,

one sample in 44 or 48 or 96 can be more than significative in given situation !
it's a real problem for our developments,
you build a circuit, think it's good and tomorow morning all is inverted !

btw there are very objective way to program circuits ! try and try it ! hear how do it sound ! for real ! not intelectually but in a real sesorial way !

you should call it subjective but personaly i call it objective ! the sound you hear (while you are a bit experimented in sound ! ) is the reality !

CW has found a very good way of developping SHARC proc ( i personaly know other firms that have very very good results too with SHARC programming ) but i you noticed, nothing is perfect ! we all have phase issues , and as you told it in an earlier post, one day you ear something, 3 daus later you (COULD) hear something else !

that's not real only with CW !!! and is really worth with some others, once again, CW as found a very good way !

personaly, that's why i use CW products since more than ten years ! i have tried others (not all for sure) but what i hear with CW stuff is what i prefer ! that's also why i have decided to develop on CW DP (or SDK)

wa could continue this kind of discussion more far ! but i think we will always have someone to kill the discussion before it begins !!! it's a pity !
cheers
olive

Post by **hubird** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:18 pm

My fingers are itching (like we say) to do the test with 4 bands at the same time.
Suppose multi DSP sample delaying occurs, I then just have to play with the sample delay plug to find the point where the cancelation is maximal (or total)?
Is that true?

Olive, you don't answer Astroman.
The point was, could it be that you -in the heat of the moment- got trapped by the sample delay phenomenon that you know so well.
This together with the wrong eq settings mentioned again by Martin makes it completely understandable that you didn't find cancelation.
Why not testing again and telling us what happens?
I myself really got total cancelation, I was able to put up the volume to the max, in the middle of the night...
Amazing it was to see two stereo channels on the mixer jump up to zero db all the time without hearing anything from the master, except some vague white noise from my HW mixer!

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2006-09-25 14:32 ]

sonolive · Post by **sonolive** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:21 pm

This problem will not occure, when using my presets which garantee 100% compatible settings of devices in the test. You'll find them here:

understand astro ?
how can you go more far with this kind of reaction ?
no way ! HE KNOWS AND WE ARE BAD !
cheers
olive

Post by **hubird** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:30 pm

why man, it's the purest way to follow a scientific path.
He offers his own presets to give you the possibility to reproduce the test!!
What else do you want??
Are you guys really not capable to communicate about content or what?

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2006-09-25 14:33 ]

sonolive · Post by **sonolive** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:36 pm

On 2006-09-25 14:18, hubird wrote:
two stereo channels on the mixer jump up to zero db

what do you call zero dB ???
0µ dB fs ? - inf ? 0 db on a mixer fader ???
you might be more and more precise !
if not we couldn't understand anything !

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:42 pm

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:50 pm

Olive,

you are a friendly person, I`m sure. And I am mainly bad-tempered because of Erics unacceptable way to discuss with people.

So tell Eric, the french programmer god and Einstein in person, that here in Germany we have the right for our own opinion and to spread this as how ever we want.

to come back to topic
just a simple question:

I m sure you would agree, that if an 3rd party developers plug-in utilisizes exactly the same atoms that are used in the standard CW EQs, it wouldn`t be worth to pay an extra 99€? ( And I am NOT saying that this is the case with your EQ, just a hypothetical question.)

Thats all our fear about DAS. And thats why Cyrano did these tests with the Polteq.

I for example praised the RMX reverb, and told Eric that there is some internal distortion going on.
Thats nothing bad at all.
While others said this reverb would be reassembled Masterverb, I defended DAS for its sound.
But only some small critical view on the internals made Eric to completly attack me and put loads of shit.
So thats also the cause why I deleted the RMX test from my homepage.

And by the way: me and astroman have no connection at all, only that we both are addicted Scope users and are able to handle a friendly and topic-realted discussion.

And of course he is a nice guy.
cheers astro

[ This Message was edited by: hifiboom on 2006-09-25 14:55 ]

sonolive · Post by **sonolive** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:51 pm

On 2006-09-25 14:42, MCCYRANO wrote:
I'll try to rebuild a setting (as preset) of your choice and there is a chance for us both to win the game.

it's not a game martin !
you feel it like this ! i don't
more i don't want to talk (or experiment anything) with you !
you have lot of time to loose ! i don't

i told you before , try and build good plugs !!! don't try any thing else !

i have a good gui for your eq stt oe satt or satturated ! someone told me you needed help !
cheers
olive

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:59 pm

O.K. Sonolive
If this is your last word I will respect it. We don't have to play games. You are a professional in Device-developing, I am in another buisness so it's up to you to decide to make it a game or not.
You may later agree. If not we can leave it with what we found so far.

Maybe it's better that way. I have the feeling of an intensive wish for peace. We have gone very far. We can leave it that way and say: Poltec is great, creamware is great!

Martin

Post by **hubird** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:01 pm

weak, Sonolive, very weak...
It's just half an hour to re-do the test when prepared by Martin.
Here's your chance to prove you're right.
After all the mess you gave us you now can't draw back from the scene.
`It might look like you fear the test, so why taking that risk after all your posts??

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:05 pm

Hey hubird!
I don't think that it would be so easy!!!!
I'd love not to have to do that work, although it would be great eartraining... Don't convince him to agree ;o)

Martin

sonolive · Post by **sonolive** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:11 pm

On 2006-09-25 15:05, MCCYRANO wrote:
Hey hubird!
I don't think that it would be so easy!!!!
I'd love not to have to do that work, although it would be great eartraining... Don't convince him to agree ;o)

Martin

right now i am working on async systems
lots of possibilities that way !
that's why i won't try your tests
"it's another world " much more objective ! and also much more hard !

i should need some beta testers !!!
any one ?
cheers
olive