PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Who uses this?
And where is it meant to be placed?
On individual instruments, or can it be placed anywhere, including post master to improove the dynamics of a track?

http://www.soundperformancelab.de/Trans ... icksE.html

ah.. interesting reading.. also good sound samples on this page..

I will definately use this device more..
It came with my Pulsar1 when I bought it used, and I never really bothered to use it..heh

@Atomic: Yeah, I know, I am excellent at answering my own questions..heh

This is surely one of my secret tricks, to make drums sounds like they would jump out of the speakers. I highly recommend it.

nothing without it anymore

Love mine, couldn't do without

It is one of the most valuable tools for regulating presence between instruments. And I love how much oomph just a little bit of tweaking can add or take a way. Gives you plenty of room to add some ear-bleeding attack and blow your speakers!!

BTW, why haven't these guys done anything else? It really is one of the more beloved FX in the Creamware platform! I'm certain they'd get good sales if they furthered their participation.

Sam

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dehuszar on 2003-07-11 20:26 ]</font>

Hello!

I am considering buying the SPL Transient Dsigner plug-in but I have a question:
does reducing the attack yields the same result to adding more sustain to the original and dropping the processed's overall volume down a bit?
If it is more or less the same, then the SPL Attacker is all we need...

_________________
"The one who asks, makes a fool of himself once.
The one who doesnt ask, remains always a fool."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: rodos1979 on 2003-07-11 20:56 ]</font>

The Attacker does not let you reduce attack, only increase it. You need TD to decrease attack, as well as raise/lower sustain.

aMo

I like, when you answer your own questions this way and bring usefull information to the rest of us

Heard samples and they sound great.
Has anyone compared the software to the hardware module?Is it close?
Thx

I've only compared my sfp version against the sound-samples on spl's web, and at least I can say that it is right on the money!

This device is amazing!
Sometimes I've had to do lots of work with compressors, gate's and what not, just to get the drumsounds of my Novation Drumstation to sound right a the proper level, the output of the drumstation is really low, and the sounds are pretty flat and weak...
But this device makes my Drumstation sound like it was worth the money! hehe

Hi,
I have both the 4 channel hardware and the software versions. The hardware version is much better - far more transparent, the software version changes the nature of the sound and adds artefacts but I think it can be more extreme. The software one isn't bad however.
Its fantastic across drums to pull them together and give them more presence without having to turn the volume up or compress them.
I think it was originally designed to help change the perceived placement of vocalists from the microphone.

I´m using the td for stereo-expanding and efx.
(different settings for left and right)

I a review in German Keyboards the difference between soft and hard version was called very minimal.
Just with extreme positions you could here a difference, in favor of the hardware one.

I also had the hardware, but sold it becourse the deference was very subtile, according to my ears, and what I use it for.

I'ld rather have a nice workflow inside SPF, than concern about VERY little differs in sound.

Brings out the very interesting and very subjective discussion about: What is a huge difference, and what is a very small difference.

Clearly the rest of the gear can have a great impact on, how easy a difference is to notice. Also psycological aspects are present (what do we want to believe sounds the best - and how much do we want it). Luck can even be a factor: Did you happen to communicate better with one interface than with the other, and thereby make better settings?

Don't take this as an offense - I belive both of you even though it sound unlogical.

Well, for me it's all about having a creative workflow. I often jump from project to project, and I don't wanna turn 264 knobs everytime (or as little as possible, still have hardware EQ's and Tapedelays fx, but most of the time I track with those).

Like I sad in my last post, I couldn't hear much deference in sound between the hardware and software, then again, I may not use it in extreme positions. Or said in another way, I very much like what I hear when I hear the software, so I dont miss the hardware.

Its a shame though that you can't have more than 6 channels running at once. Dont know why.

_________________
<FONT FACE=verdana SIZE=2>Yours truely

Noah Laux
----------
http://www.thalamusic.dk
</FONT>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Thalamus on 2003-07-13 09:43 ]</font>

The 6 channel thing must be a limitation SPL have given CW...
CW made the SPL stuff under license, maybe the license said that a single user could not have more than 6 channels, or they would have to pay more..

Makes sence in a way, I'm sure that SPL would make more money if people started using it, and needed more channels, only thing to do, is get the hardware as well..

I miss a preset list on the CW version

I don't have TD but Attacker, do you really need a preset list to remember its settings? Look at STW Mastering Compressors, with 4 user controls there isn't much to be saved in a preset...