Posts: 3,156
Threads: 104
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
134
@dspasic: I'm sorry for the late response!
We've been doing a review of many current and past products to see which ones need to change, if any.
Some of our EQs (like the LegacyQ) are explicitly copies of our digital console eq (directly modeled from the prior analog eq) and have a legacy that stands on their own. Therefore it would make no sense to de-cramp them.
Many of our later products (like the Mastering EQ and various multiband processors) already use 'symmetric' shapes which are inherently de-cramped, or have other design goals that make decramping a non-issue or even a liability.
The 32C EQ is a special case that is somewhere in-between. It is a faithful adaptation of the original eq's behavior, and modeled directly from the components in the circuit. But because it is compared against other 'analog modeled' plugin EQs, I think it might be easier to match the behavior of those plugins, as crazy as that might sound, than to explain why it measures differently than them. We are very lucky because our products have an inherent value in their operation and legacy. Other brands don't have that inherent value so they try to pin the value on what they do have, which is de-cramped operation. But it's trivial to add the de-cramping to our code and then we can 'have our cake, and eat it too'.
Best,
-Ben
Posts: 277
Threads: 27
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
9
(11-20-2022, 11:33 AM)Ben@Harrison Wrote: @dspasic: I'm sorry for the late response!
...But it's trivial to add the de-cramping to our code and then we can 'have our cake, and eat it too'...
Hi Ben, I don't know how much of a performance hit this might incur, but if it is something that could add up, especially on older systems and lots of tracks, it would be great to be able to turn off decramping for all tracks in Preferences, as I do not see any practical value in it. That being said, I totally understand why you are going this route!
Posts: 3,156
Threads: 104
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
134
@superb: in the context of a single 'plugin', there's so much buffer-passing and memory-caching penalties inherent to plugins, that the dsp hit is unnoticeable.
In the context of a streamlined digital mixer or DAW, the effect might be more. We're still investigating.
Posts: 120
Threads: 29
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation:
2
Ben, thank you very much for addressing this.
In my opinion, the marketing, specifically a few names and taglines, was a landmine that was bound to trip at some point. Nothing to do with the products.
What's important to me:
1. If you could make x improvement to your analog and digital consoles with enough money and tech, please make it to Mixbus/32c.
2. If it messes with a good thing, make the call as if this were your analog or digital consoles. Which it sounds like you did. Maybe give 25% extra room for changing norms in the DAW as a change in the MPC could cause more issues in its market than a change in Mixbus could cause in its market. Which it also sounds like you do.
3. If it introduces a compromise at a given point in development, e.g. de-cramping = latency, that may become moot as technology advances, make the call as if this were your analog or digital consoles. Which it sounds like you did. Personally I love to know what's up, what the "compromise" might be, and why you made the call. Knowing that stuff turns users like me into part of your marketing team.
4. Let us know what's up and check your current marketing. The marketing direction (specifically "true tape" "true analog" and "modeled every capacitor....") is the only problem. It's janky. True or not, it's not translating. I'm pretty die-hard Harrison and it messes with my head. Makes me second-guess my use of your hardware and software for absolutely no productive reason. F that noise. Marketing is fine, but it should help both sales and reputation, and even if it's helping sales, it's harming reputation, and all for some stupid words.
For what it's worth, your blog posts here have been addressing exactly the reputation drama taking place in fantasy world (online.) Thanks for putting in the time to write.
-Riley
Posts: 17
Threads: 3
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation:
-1
Theirs a spelling issue. Tue should be “ True “.
@Analog4Lyfe
Posts: 515
Threads: 11
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation:
31
(10-24-2023, 03:29 PM)patrick_ Wrote: Theirs a spelling issue. Tue should be “ True “.
*There's* 
Mixbus 32C, Debian Bookworm/KDE, EVE SC205 + ADAM Sub 8 monitors, Soundcraft Compact 4, M-Audio 2496, i5 6500, 16GB RAM, WD Blue SSD 1TB, 48" LG OLED, other stuff.
Work as house engineer at a popular venue in Melbourne AU. On a quest for the holy grail, the perfect amount of cowbell.
Posts: 3,078
Threads: 54
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation:
166
10-24-2023, 06:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-24-2023, 06:18 PM by Dingo.)
@sunrat - you just flipped me back to High school and my English teacher thumping my desk... " listen boy....their is the possessive form of the pronoun they"
Macmini 8,1 | OS X 13.6.3 | 3 GHz i5 32G | Scarlett 18i20 | Mixbus 10 | PT_2024.3.1 ..... Macmini 9,1 | OS X 14.4.1 | M1 2020 | Mixbus 10 | Resolve 18.6.5
Posts: 656
Threads: 57
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation:
43
Haha... There are so many spelling and other grammatical errors in the posts here that I don't even see them anymore!
@Dingo - Funny, I don't remember us being classmates!
Cheers!
Patrick
|
