DigitalAudioSoft - EQ Suite

sonolive · Post by **sonolive** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:50 am

NO MARTIN IT DOESN'T

I TRIED IT WITH WAVE, PINK NOISE , WHITE NOISE !!! BEST RESULTS BUT NO CANCELLATION WITH A 30 HZ SINE !!! (QUITE NORMAL ! NO ?)

NO WAY ! THERE IS NO CANCELLATION !!!

WHAT KIND OF WAVE DO YOU USE , A BASS DRUM ? A BASS ?

IT WORKS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT WITH TWO PEQ4 OR TWO POLTEQ BUT NOT AT ALL WITH ONE PEQ AND ONE POLTEQ !!!

CHEERS
OLIVE

[ This Message was edited by: sonolive on 2006-09-23 12:51 ]

[ This Message was edited by: sonolive on 2006-09-23 12:53 ]

[ This Message was edited by: sonolive on 2006-09-23 12:54 ]

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:02 pm

sonolive:

So, which exact day is the cut-off for a free SL9000 Master Comp? 30th September?

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:05 pm

Man, can we not just have a right old go at Shell, Nestle, Macdonalds, Sony, MS etc etc instead of a small company (whichever one) who are only trying to support our platform.

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:14 pm

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:48 pm

either if this is working or not....

Sono is much more friendly than Eric.... he is discussing the things at all..

Post by **hubird** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:21 pm

scientific rational discussion, that's all indeed

no matter who's right

digitalaudiosoft · Post by **digitalaudiosoft** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:19 pm

On 2006-09-23 20:48, hifiboom wrote:
either if this is working or not....

Sono is much more friendly than Eric.... he is discussing the things at all..

because olive (sonolive) is able to speak english better than me and explain in english what i say in french.
maybe a bit of tolerance will be welcome.

eric

digitalaudiosoft · Post by **digitalaudiosoft** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:37 pm

On 2006-09-23 13:14, MCCYRANO wrote:

It is VERY important to turn off all other bands.

martin,

why are you always testing a band alone ?
maybe you should try with all band activated.it will be more funny i think ..
do you understand what is "interaction" ?

the only thing i can say is that polteq do not sound like a simple cw eq ,it's a reason why this plugin is becomming a reference for cw das customers.

eric

_________________
http://www.digitalaudiosoft.com

[ This Message was edited by: digitalaudiosoft on 2006-09-24 01:12 ]

digitalaudiosoft · Post by **digitalaudiosoft** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:15 am

On 2006-09-23 13:02, voidar wrote:
sonolive:

So, which exact day is the cut-off for a free SL9000 Master Comp? 30th September?

hi voidar,

http://www.digitalaudiosoft.com/news.html

1 of october 2006

eric

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:22 am

digitalaudiosoft · Post by **digitalaudiosoft** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:45 am

On 2006-09-24 01:22, MCCYRANO wrote:

So far, as I remember, you never made a wrong information on your Poltec. Thats very fair, but sometimes statements are misleading...
Poltec is soundwise nothing else than combined parametric CW-EQs.

of course,but now, how can you prove what is inside the module ?why polteq do not sound like combined para cw eq ? maybe it's because there is or there are something else in the circuit ,like for the sl9000 master comp ,you know that.but i will never tell you what is it...digitalaudiosoft devellopers are not here to tell you how to make a good plugin.

customers buy plugins not the man who has made them

eric

_________________
http://www.digitalaudiosoft.com

[ This Message was edited by: digitalaudiosoft on 2006-09-24 01:46 ]

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:57 am

sonolive · Post by **sonolive** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:59 am

Poltec is soundwise nothing else than combined parametric CW-EQs.

Hey Martin !

How could it be different ? We all (DP or SDK developpers) work on CW plateform developpement with CW atoms for programming SHARC DSP !
So IT MUST BE CW ATOMS Combinations !!! but all the interest of our (and others developpers) is THIS ! What combination for what sound !

Try and think of this for your future developpements devices , instead of trying to understand how ours work !
cheers
olive

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:08 am

digitalaudiosoft · Post by **digitalaudiosoft** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:31 am

On 2006-09-24 01:59, sonolive wrote:
Poltec is soundwise nothing else than combined parametric CW-EQs.

Hey Martin !

How could it be different ? We all (DP or SDK developpers) work on CW plateform developpement with CW atoms for programming SHARC DSP !
So IT MUST BE CW ATOMS Combinations !!! but all the interest of our (and others developpers) is THIS ! What combination for what sound !

Try and think of this for your future developpements devices , instead of trying to understand how ours work !
cheers
olive

but is he able to understand how a plug works ? i don't think so !

eric

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:36 am

digitalaudiosoft · Post by **digitalaudiosoft** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:46 am

mccyrano ,you should stop writing...

bye

eric

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:16 am

On 2006-09-24 01:45, digitalaudiosoft wrote:
...how can you prove what is inside the module ?why polteq do not sound like combined para cw eq ? maybe it's because there is or there are something else in the circuit
...but i will never tell you what is it...digitalaudiosoft devellopers are not here to tell you how to make a good plugin...

well, then let's have a look at <a href=http://www.gyraf.dk/gy_pd/pultec/pultec.htm>the real McCoy</a>
... now that they mention a 56k modem line separation transformer 'works and sounds' quite well, I will for sure build it - I have a small pile of that crap in the closet and always hoped it would be useful for something...

regarding the re-use of CWA's atoms

since there are basic 'abstract' math routines, a filter (for example) can be implemented in a number of ways - as shown by Adern.

I assume that the basic filter type by CWA is equivalent to an RC (resistor/capacitor) ladder, while a Pulteq type eq is LC (inductivity/capacitor) based.

The latter could be implemented by either: adding a math model of a true coil,
by applying a model that uses the OP amp 'subsitute' coil design,
or by altering the parameters of an existing eq to approach the originals response.

while the last point may read 'cheating' it is in fact quite useful - you might turn just one single knob on the surface, but with (the help of) an internal table it sets half a dozen parameters even according to complex rules.

cheers, Tom

digitalaudiosoft · Post by **digitalaudiosoft** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:48 am

http://www.tube-tech.com/image/PE-1C-Perspective.jpg

here is a tubetech...
polteq ,pultec,tubetech...
we have never said that polteq was a true pultec.we have always said that we are taking the best of a hardware and we are inspired by their technologies and their philosophy...and if we have to modify a circuit ,to add on a dyneq to simulate a tube reaction on certain frequencies ,we do it.
only members say and think that it was an ams rmx16,a ssl 9000,a pultec, a neve..
and what ?
those the polteq sound good ? yes !
does the rmx160 sound good ,yes! and a member has a member recognized in it a true amsrmx16 hardware...
that the most important thing isn't it ?
but to understand what a plug is based on , you have to know what is the hardware.not only reading pdf on a website

olive and i are sound engineer,i work with ssl tubetech pultec ams lexicon 480 harware...and like for broadcast plugins, when we devellope a scope plugins we do like that with a true rtw dyn scale vu meter for exemple :
 <img SRC="http://www.digitalaudiosoft.com/test/vurt.jpg" BORDER="0"> 

we take the true hardware and we try to devellope it on scope.

eric

_________________
http://www.digitalaudiosoft.com

[ This Message was edited by: digitalaudiosoft on 2006-09-24 03:56 ]