For sure…but there are some who are good at it as per my example of Archicad. I know the guys there a little…its not a big deal to do it that way and keeps plenty of clients very happy.
Yeah that has issues…but as mentioned can be easily solved and make all parties happy
Dont be so fast with UAD…UAD1 cards were a scam…blew my money on them and basically no upgrade…maybe $50 or something ridiculous off the price of UAD 2…although Im still using them along with powercore thanks to JBridge.
Waves, to be fair have been good, I still use C1 because of its little caveats
Native Instruments are particularly GOOD…I still use Kore solidly with no problems, Spectral Delay etc all still running fine
Difference is they have good coders and stuff just works imvho
It’s been a while since I took a DSP class, but I remember reading about new ways of doing it digitally a while back. There were tradeoffs that had to do with aliasing. Perhaps the change in the interface reflects the use of more modern techniques. Such that having the user spell out what they want done more explicitly, and the performance of the technique used is more beneficial, and allows one to pinpoint what part of their request is producing what would be perceived as distortion, especially if it was nearing or certainly above the Nyquist.
I mean, you would have to choose a the order of application etc. for the user otherwise, and that might produce undesirable results, where as allowing the user to choose could produce what they want, or at least show them where it goes wrong.
If I remember right, the method that aliased below Nyquist was much more performant. If that is being used, and, if as I am guessing, there is a difference in the order you apply those transformations, then allowing the user to choose makes a lot of sense.
On the other hand, over time, those coding it would get better at it, and be able to start to move closer to a simpler interface, but also with the added benefit of performance. One could for example, train an AI to create tables rather than doing all of the computation every time, trading memory for computation.
I also think that I remember reading that the old way of coding it had really bad performance.
There are a couple that do it…ironically most of them free. I think QRange does it…I did test it as a crossover and got a null. I actually dont use the input filters on Cubase for exactly that reason. They are really convenient and ok for the purpose of basic HL/LF ie if not summing but if you do split bussing, then they are a def nono.
QRange is a little glitchy but one of the best linear phase eqs out there.
If they simply had a type ie current and LW, then they would actually be perfect, everything else about them is good; esp the daw integration…but if you cant sum the results…well its useless.
Thanks! Now I get what you mean. Yea, and if you tested it, then it seems like my guess might be at least close or similar. Because aliasing below Nyquist, no matter how little is going to be a problem in that case. Still, a ridiculous and wild guess though.
But realistically, how much of a problem is it to your ears?
Some of them are really bad
Some of them…negligible as a single element
but
with each phase anomally comes mud
mud and more mud.
If you are doing 3 tracks…then not really an issue. However you need to run a scope on it in the sub/LF and when you are dealing with kinetic energy ie at those freqencies, layer of elements is your enemy if you want glue and punch…you just cant cheat physics; hence why 808 bass rocks…its pure sine and all the psychoacoustics are happening much higher up…in the mud
I have a fish nailed to a cross on my apartment wall. It sings to me with glassy eyes, and quotes from Kafka. Hey, what’s come down over me? And the kissing and the color come crashing down.
There is mud, and then there is mud. Mud is the next big thing. Just wait. It’s coming back.
It never went away…it just comes with autotune now…free!
Its so much like life drawing…we learn to do it real first…then we are free to use the skills to make it unreal…in a subject abstract way and enjoy the collisions along the way
Easier said than done, since so much software contains still closed source code licensed from 3rd parties.
In addition, it may contain some sections of code that the originating company is still using in newer proprietary software. And so they may not want to disclose that code.
And it may end up creating something that competes with themselves, which could turn out to be a killer blow to themselves.
Just wanted to add to some of my prior comments, that I fundamentally share your pain of suffering from discontinued products (especially by Steinberg and NI, but also some others).
In some instances, it was the result of an external partner walking away (Wizoo walking away was very painful for me), and in some cases it was apparently just company strategy to abandon and start over (VST2 and NI Kore immediately come to mind).
But I also have considerable empathy with Steinberg and others, as they try to navigate the increasingly choppy waters of commercial, open source and free competition in music software and soundware.
On one hand as users we’re living in a golden age of choice, on the other hand the very suppliers we depend on are fighting over ever smaller slices of the market. Add to that environment, a commercial monster like Apple throwing regular wrenches into the situation and investment companies stalking the industry, and it’s a pretty crazy business environment.
And that volatility spills into our user reality. The amazing advances in music software come at a price, not only in money, but also in significant workflow disruptions.
So true…full of one trick bedroom producers with bling and no sting
The actual music creation environment reflects culture ie how many movie with everything but an actual connected storyline…yesterday out at dinner…how many songs playing…empty ‘nothing’ with bling…sad
What I find is very few actual bands/groups that play songs skilfully, artfully, meaningfully together. I’m not a classical music buff but had a gig recording a quartet acoustically ie no close mic etc…wow it almost made you cry…dynamics were incredible and the story of the 4 seasons by Vivaldi…plug-ins are the same hehe; “if only I can get that gear, pre…plugin”. We have had so many great tools that the options are destructive…so much better to know one tool well than a myriad and their dependence…which brings me back to the old m band…creative and quick…but a bit hard to learn. It did need some good tut and examples
Within the folder “/Download/Legacy_Additional_Content/Additional Cubase SX Plugins/PC/Dynamics” is a multibandcompressor from 2010 - So i’m presuming that’s it?
I remember the plugin now I see it, but must admit this concept of transfer curves is something I’m ignorant on too.
My thoughts on legacy plugins is about adaptation:
(1) For compressors (multiband or not), I think about the attack, release, ratio, hard/soft knees, sidechains, threshold, dry/wet, and other parameters. These are pretty conventional (some compressors have input/output, ratio etc). Apart from the character of each compressor, the parameters guide usage. If you know these parameters, it’s easy to adapt to any new plugin if an old one is discontinued. The same goes for reverbs, EQs, and literally anything. I’m not holding brief for Steinberg or any developer who discontinues much-loved plugins. I just recently installed Fabfilter legacy plugins eg Pro-C and my God, they packed a lot of punch. One can choose to stay on those, but again, you would lose some new advancements in algorithms with the new ones. I quickly uninstalled them and reinstalled the new ones. My take is, approach plugins from the parameter familiarity point of view (unless you are going for the distinct character of the plugin).
Yes, I use it for SX and Wavelab 6 which I still use…but I think you are missing the point that eg in the case of Archicad, they keep a copy ie compiled from 32>64 bit that is compatible with the latest versions…not just a repository.
I will double check…I still have SX installed for converting old files but its course 32 bit and JBridge cant convert Steinberg plugins
In this case…its not true; check the post history; its not the same by a very long shot. Its impossible to adapt the same without using a number of plugins to do it…sure…with reverbs etc thats fine…but this is not the same. Just show me an example mixing it up like that plug could do in a couple of clicks. I have watch some Dan Worrall…Pro-c does look good but its still lacks the immediacy and being able to so easily upward expand/compress etc
Please study this picture…carefully…thats 3 quick clicks, no soft knee, upward expansion on the HF, (meant to be only ) upward compression on the mid range and upward/downward on the bass. Just try to do that with 1 plugin, 3 clicks in realtime while listening and sculpting with feel It just feels and sounds so natural
Of course, you’d hope that the feature you’re missing would’ve made it across to the new incarnations - which (for me) would be the expected path.
But with many of these older plugins there are legalities and licensing at play too. As documented on here previously. So may be other reasons why it was never updated to 64 bit.
Aurasphere, what do you want? Do you want Steinberg to recreate this concept in a future update of the current Multiband Compressor? If so, make an official request about it so that one day we can all take advantage of these extraordinary possibilities.
Let’s be constructive. Either we live with our old software, our old machines, our old computers and our old music or we go with the flow and update ourselves.
Personally, I follow the current and I adapt. Recently, Steinberg discontinued three plugins: the excellent Prologue, Mystic and Spector. If I want to hang on to these for the next ten years, I’ll have no choice but to keep Cubase version 11 installed and hope it works with future Windows updates and new computers or keep my current computer functional.
The great strength of human beings is their ability to adapt to change. The same goes for the different species on earth.
Well my point was to make it clear…for a long time now, I have not even bothered with ANY of the stock plugins in serious professional use because of the experience of using external plugins has not really let me down at all; this is true for instruments, despite how good they may be.
(20 year old C1 is still excellent, Kore still useable and excellent etc)
Exactly!
Of course not all things can follow the path but in this 1 case ie multiband, I wanted to see if anyone else had discovered how unique and powerful it actually was (so far…hmm thats no one lol)
Present a great solution for implementing that I company I work for (indirectly) manages and it works…well
(and the great weakness is to be so easily duped by fear ie gof v). Hmm…Im talking about tools for art…not intergenerational speciation time frames hehe; its the constant change that is the issue and the leaving behind of beneficial improvements ie regression. Like saying to Van Gogh…sorry buddy, cant use that brush anymore…here, try these 3 instead…they will do the same thing but of course intentional/dev study etc is an altogether different thing.
Basic psychology presents a left/right brain implementation…muscle memory is key to creativity…not my theory…its neuroscience fact. The aforementioned mband is something that fits the bill because it graphically portrays the constructs of dynamic range manipulation and includes a creative feel to solve practically all the modes involved in processing to the intended target range…and that deserves some mention; BRILLIANT in fact!
Well of course…but action is swayed by consensus…no one even noticed it gone…it would seem
I would of course simply buy another and reinforce the experience of never using stock plugins.
Well actually thats what I do…Im interested in making, mixing, producing music without relying too much on ear candy…UA Triad alone is enough in 1 box to spend years in. I generally build a box and use it; the last version I upgraded from was 6.5 to 12 (with a couple of quick steps in between for research). I treat is as hardware box. As mentioned, I still use UAD1 and powercore, I still use Polysix, MS20, wavestation, Minipoly etc as plugs but still have some of that hardware (thats what I grew up on) and simply copied/imported the presets into digital
It simply wastes too much time and defrays the idea that the next plugin will somehow do amazing things…um well recorded and played (and great songs) existed well before the ridiculous amount of options that we have today…that is actually destructive. That tool was simply the combination of many dynamics processors in 1 and not some new ear candy…ironically we now chase the ‘vintage’ which in essence was only 3 things.
Obviously the greatest error was not explaining/tutoring the MBand when it first came out…else everyone else here would also be jumping up and down lol.
Constructively? Steinberg, please provide a legacy path, without warranty etc as per the example of Archicad.
Secondly, use the new license format to allow Steinberg plugins to be used generally on licensed machines.
This plugin is a product of a company called Houpert Digital Audio,
founded in 1994 in Bremen Germany.
Steinberg had a bussiness relation with them at that time.
Onder the productname “Spectral Design” they programmed some VST’s for Steinberg.
This multiband compressor, some restoration plugins for Wavelab and others.
So I don’t think Steinberg has access to the original sourcecode.
It just feels and sounds so natural
