Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TotalSonic]

Andrew Hamilton wrote on Tue, 01 July 2008 17:44

Maybe it's just extra latency for HQ-mode, but the single instance of Sonoris uses processing cycles like a stack of Waves IR's, if PT's CPU meter is any indicator.

Just doing a quick test now - on my slower older P4 2.8GHz using the SAWStudio native version (which features automatic latency compensation and possibly better cpu efficiency than the VST version) I get the same 12% cpu load with 5 bands engaged regardless of whether HQ mode is engaged.  

I think the RTAS wrapper might be more than partially part of the problem though.  

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Matt_G]

After messaging Pieter last week, he seems keen to port his EQ's to RTAS as he has had a number of requests for this format. This will remove the need for a wrapper & hopefully eliminate a few bugs/performance issues in the process. One problem I'm having running it as a wrapped RTAS plug is that it doesn't report the latency accurately to the host. Not that Pro Tools HD is capable of auto correcting a 66000+ sample latency anyway... lol

[Viitalahde]

Well, I bought it and been using it.

It is a good EQ, and does things that I've been wanting a solution for. I mainly seem to use it for cuts, and especially in M/S mode. It's very cool to have an EQ that goes from stereo to mid to side in seconds, and which doesn't mock up things I want to reduce. If there's an annoying tone in the snare around 1.5k, this thing can bring it down nicely without softening the transient too much.

Tiny, 0.4-0.7dB (I hate working with a mouse!) cuts in the midrange can open up things even when they already are wide open.

You've got to be careful with it.

We'll see what kind of tricks I can pull out of it, but it found a place in my chain. First thing on the chain, slight corrections. Let the analog EQ's do the wide shapings.

The bass is surprisingly good. I've got a feeling it can bring out detail where there really is none.

Waiting for the occasional mush of bass come in..

[TotalSonic]

Viitalahde wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 14:54

Well, I bought it and been using it. It is a good EQ, and does things that I've been wanting a solution for. I mainly seem to use it for cuts, and especially in M/S mode. It's very cool to have an EQ that goes from stereo to mid to side in seconds, and which doesn't mock up things I want to reduce. If there's an annoying tone in the snare around 1.5k, this thing can bring it down nicely without softening the transient too much. Tiny, 0.4-0.7dB (I hate working with a mouse!) cuts in the midrange can open up things even when they already are wide open. You've got to be careful with it. We'll see what kind of tricks I can pull out of it, but it found a place in my chain. First thing on the chain, slight corrections. Let the analog EQ's do the wide shapings. The bass is surprisingly good. I've got a feeling it can bring out detail where there really is none. Waiting for the occasional mush of bass come in..

Jaako -
I use it in the same way - mainly for small corrections.  I find it can also work surprisingly well for tilting a mix a tiny bit brighter or darker after capture by using a small (i.e. .25dB) very wide shelf boost along with an opposite small very wide shelf cut.  

Best regards,
Steve Berson  

[Viitalahde]

TotalSonic wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 20:43

I find it can also work surprisingly well for tilting a mix a tiny bit brighter or darker after capture by using a small (i.e. .25dB) very wide shelf boost along with an opposite small very wide shelf cut.

Yeah, I figured it should work very well for that. Keep the sound but make it just a tiny bit brighter or darker. Saves the time in revisions, and might work even better.

[Matt_G]

Yes I've been using it mostly for bass cuts, tilts & the HPF on occasion. The 48db p/octave filter set low around 16Hz really can clear things up beautifully without messing things up elsewhere. It's also surprising even with high Q's centered on an annoying bass resonance how well it can remove the problem without changing anything else. It's very useful indeed.

Matt

[Andrew Hamilton]

I really dig the plugin.  I am still "evaluating" it, though.  With two bands, free of charge, it's hard to justify ponying up the 225 U$D for the extra bands that I will never need.  Remember, each band's center freq can be placed anywhere in the available spectrum (16 Hz- 20 kHz, or so).  What I mean is that if I do as I've been doing, which is to place the lin phase eq after the analog chain, for touch up purposes, the most I feel I need are two bands!  I don't need Save, because I always take real (camera) snapshots of my settings (even screenshots).  I don't need automation because I don't work that way.  This is manna from Heaven.  

Alright, I promise to pay up soon.  But it seems a little bit retarded for me to pay for what is essentially a gift!

Also, I am really liking the concept that the analog eqs are fixing  minimum phase-frequency level issues, while the lin phase eq is merely fixing frequency level issues, and not phase.   In this respect, the linear phase eq is somewhat less useful for eq than a minimum phase eq would be, since, as someone quoted GM as saying, most eq problems are minimum phase (meaning, the phase as well as the level is the problem).   But after doing what one can with minimum phase eq corrections, it is often that a linear phase touch up can be just what the doctor ordered.  

I was surprised however to hear the following effect.  When I played a mix through the linear phase eq and put a bell boost at 16 Hz, the mix sounded brighter!  It sounded as if I had inserted a high pass.   My theory is based on what Dave Davis once told me...  A low centered bell (boost) can act like a high pass because there is an inherent roll off at the extremities of the bell.   Since there was no appreciable musical content at 16 Hz (in this particular acoustic song), the 16 Hz bell translated as a low end HPF.   However, wouldn't the result of brightness caused by the insertion of a low end hpf on a mix that didn't have subsonic energy to begin with be attributable to a minimum phase interaction?  If so, wouldn't that mean that the phase of the eq is not perfectly linear?


Andrew

[Slip]

There is another linear phase EQ plugin that I've never seen mentioned on this forum before. It's the Nugen Audio SEQ1. I might be crazy but after a shootout with the Sonoris EQ I felt like the Nugen EQ actually sounded better. Go figure. The technique they use is FFT based so it's different to the Sonoris. It allows some ridiculously large buffer sizes so you can truly make a very narrow notch even at 40hz if this is needed.

Anyhow, it costs the same as the sonoris so it's well worth checking out.

I do find the GUI of the SEQ1 a bit chubby and while zooming in on the graph while audio is playing you get some glitches and dropouts. Other than that, it's excellent.

Cheers!
Niklas

[zmix]

Andrew Hamilton wrote on Wed, 16 July 2008 20:30

I really dig the plugin.  I am still "evaluating" it, though.  With two bands, free of charge, it's hard to justify ponying up the 225 U$D for the extra bands that I will never need.  Remember, each band's center freq can be placed anywhere in the available spectrum (16 Hz- 20 kHz, or so).  What I mean is that if I do as I've been doing, which is to place the lin phase eq after the analog chain, for touch up purposes, the most I feel I need are two bands!  I don't need Save, because I always take real (camera) snapshots of my settings (even screenshots).  I don't need automation because I don't work that way.  This is manna from Heaven.   Alright, I promise to pay up soon.  But it seems a little bit retarded for me to pay for what is essentially a gift! Also, I am really liking the concept that the analog eqs are fixing  minimum phase-frequency level issues, while the lin phase eq is merely fixing frequency level issues, and not phase.   In this respect, the linear phase eq is somewhat less useful for eq than a minimum phase eq would be, since, as someone quoted GM as saying, most eq problems are minimum phase (meaning, the phase as well as the level is the problem).   But after doing what one can with minimum phase eq corrections, it is often that a linear phase touch up can be just what the doctor ordered.   I was surprised however to hear the following effect.  When I played a mix through the linear phase eq and put a bell boost at 16 Hz, the mix sounded brighter!  It sounded as if I had inserted a high pass.   My theory is based on what Dave Davis once told me...  A low centered bell (boost) can act like a high pass because there is an inherent roll off at the extremities of the bell.   Since there was no appreciable musical content at 16 Hz (in this particular acoustic song), the 16 Hz bell translated as a low end HPF.   However, wouldn't the result of brightness caused by the insertion of a low end hpf on a mix that didn't have subsonic energy to begin with be attributable to a minimum phase interaction?  If so, wouldn't that mean that the phase of the eq is not perfectly linear? Andrew

posterity