You need Acquarius to get it.

 

Sweet thank you for the heads up.

 

Interestingly, it is not yet listed on their homepage ... but the installation worked.

 

cant create account..... always says recapatcha issue.....

 

Any blocker activated?

 

Grabbed it.

 

In every review watched so far, three things stand out:
1. Sluggishness in response (typical Acustica behavior)
2. Harshness/exaggeration in tone, Especially in upper mids & highs
3. Adjustment ramp seems to be very quick. not smooth & steady.

As I have stated before. Wish Acustica would not put so much of available resources into the GUI.
Some of their plugins work with the basic UI function in Reaper, improving performance & latency.
They once offered basic UI plugins that worked great. Even inside the N4 Player.

 

600MB for a plugin. Must be super advanced DSP algorithm.

 

Yeah, all three statements are hard to disagree with. but, there is more then the compressor alone.

 

In case you really don't know, it's based on samples.

 

Thanks for the info. I tried Acustica but the sluggish

Totally agree, same conclusion for me after trialing a couple of their products. Not worth the trouble IMO. Plenty of other plugins do the job in a much smoother way.

 

And maybe some large, scalable, graphics files?

 

Probably large, but scalable?

 

Thank you for the descriptions and comments you're posting about Cerise, and the welcome you've been giving our products lately.
I wanted to give a little bit of the developer's perspective h about some of the comments I read, and I think they're a little helpful for everyone to get an idea of what we're doing
As you may have noticed, lately I'm kind of stopping commenting on posts that either positively or negatively criticize the sound of plugins. With time we are seeing that some very balanced opinions are forming, for example, if a person describes the sound as distant from that of the hardware machine there are others maybe on the same page with a contrary opinion. I think this is what forums are for, and I think everyone has good reasons for having one opinion or the other.
The work we do is a difficult one, emulating a hardware object is an extremely complex operation and adopting a very different approach from other developers, as we do, is not an indication of a better or worse result. It's simply a different result. Sometimes it may yield a better result, sometimes it may not. I would like to make this clear, it has never occurred to us to call our system better than others. Sampling an object (an effect as we do, or a musical instrument as in the case of a classic sampler) allows you to have some advantages against some disadvantages from the sound point of view. Some types of devices are particularly complex to reproduce with an approach based on sampling, such as dynamics processors. And so on.
A criticism that I see with less and less frequency on these pages concerns the user interface and the response of plugins. While a few years ago it was normal to read a comment defining the products not practical or usable, this kind of comment is becoming less and less frequent with time, and I think it happens not only as a consequence of the optimizations that we constantly try to apply to the process but just because computers are becoming faster and faster, so also our plugins become progressively more "responsive". I'm thinking of the case of Gain Station, which by many has been defined as fast as a normal algorithmic plugin. On new processors like apple silicon, then, the result has already become impressive, so I imagine that in the next months this trend will become more and more evident. Using an M1 computer it is very difficult for me to see an appreciable difference with a classic algorithmic plugin (forgive this definition, which is improper: it is just a way to describe the result obtained with a classic implementation based on circuit analysis and/or component modeling).
The speech that interests me more is instead the one related to Aquarius, just as a software distribution platform
I try to explain why it has become important, or even necessary, for us. Our products are generally very large, they have an average occupation of a few gigabytes (samples take up a lot of space on disk and also in memory). A classic installer, like the ones we used in the past, would become a real hell for users. In fact, Aquarius acts incrementally, and apart from supporting the downgrade of a product to any previous version (it's a feature we haven't seen yet in any other competitor, I don't know if I'm wrong) it allows our users to download the minimum amount of data at each update.
It's a fantastic tool, and from our point of view, it's the main motivation behind our exponential growth: right now for example we have peak installations of 35 plugins per minute, and I consider it an outstanding result considering the size of our plugin.
Only with Cerise, released a few hours ago, we reached the quota of 30 thousand plugins installed, and half tens of thousands of other plugins installed.
Obviously, every system, no matter how performing or constantly updated, can have problems. We are available to check all these problems if you are interested in solving them, so I suggest you open a ticket. Surprisingly, the tickets we receive are very few, and even the logs of failed installations we see on the servers are rare. I can deduce that most of the problems are focused on the installation of Aquarius or the resolution of the initial login, i.e. they belong to a phase of which we don't have visibility: for example, if Aquarius is not installed correctly we don't even get a log on the server, so it becomes difficult to understand a malfunction. Sometimes also new security policies, like Apple's, add random and not repeatable problems. But if we didn't have Aquarius, trying to notarize an installer of a few gigabytes would be a titanic feat, so for the moment, I see this system as the only viable one on our side. Some download errors (e.g. corrupted downloads) instead are constantly monitored: we use many cloud providers, but with this amount of data it's possible to have some problems. With time we are improving the identification of a corrupted archive (Aquarius downloads packages around 50 megabytes) and the resume of the same by an alternative provider. Consider that for a security issue we always try to have HTTPS access and that some old computers often have very old TLS, and are adding complexity to the system.
I wanted to give a warm greeting to all those who thank us for the products; for the others, I wanted to say that we try to satisfy every request, but forgive us if we failed in this. See you soon!

 

Last edited: Dec 24, 2020

Where else, if I may ask?

For the EQ? According to my measurements, not. Half of the (knob) way results in approximately half of the boost/attenuation. For an analog unit pretty ok.

 

Last edited: Dec 24, 2020

Oh yeah, maybe not. That would have to be vector.
But I just meant for large screen size, large graphics files.

 

The main difference In my experience of using Acustica over an algo plugin is clarity. Using any algo with a good monitoring system is like throwing a blanket over your speakers. But with Acustica the sound remains clear and un-muffled. They also have the 3D aspect of real hardware nailed compared to algos. Yes your system takes a hit but the CPU drain has severely improved as time has gone by from the early releases of their plugins.
If there is one main complaint its the CPU hit and how only a few instances will cause most modest systems to become unusable without freezing or having to commit to track. I personally would love to see Acustica going hardware DSD system like UA Apollo, Waves digi grid and McDSP. Having the CPU freed up by a hardware DSP box taking the load of the plugins. Can you imagine tracking through such a system with Gold or Pink having as many Neve/API channels you like because a DSP chip is handling the load NOT your Computer? The savings and convenience compared to hardware and recall ability would be awesome.
Anyway a great company pushing the boundaries of what's possible ITB but the need for a high class expensive PC to really take advantage of what's on offer and still be limited is imho what is holding Acustica back from dominating the plugin world. Great stuff, thank you and buon Natale.

 

Imo the next step for them could be a dsp based system or at least modula working with a server based system, an acustica midi/daw controller would be lovely, i just see it as a natural progression that they would also go into hardware, to make it more interesting for everybody.
A rack based LED controller with physical endless encoders, for real time manipulation that would display the plugin of your choice.
Imagine tracking and mixing with a couple of those in your rack, it would be a game changer.

 

Can't Acquas already be used in a server network?

 

I tried it , still not my kind of Plugins with its high latency and when you turn a knob the sounds stops shortly umm no, not worth IMO