Right, right. I thought this

would make my intention clear, seems it didn't. I'll edit my post.

 

I know he's not the only one, but I rated this winner just because:

1. gives a reasonable explanation of his opinions
2. no "you don't know nothing"-like comments
3. no "that plugin is shit"-like comments

Talk about "endangered species" man.
BTW, when all this ends can someone let me know the conclusion? Since, you know, I want to know if the new trend is to say "KirchofEq is shit". Like Nexus 3 and others, you know what I mean...

 

Yep, thanks. You are correct, and I figured I was asking it the wrong way somehow. So a more correct question then would be, if the daw's mixer engine is 64bit float, as example; and the plugin's internal processing is an even higher bit depth; isn't anything above it an unnecessary spend of cpu resources to only decrease possibility of internal clipping, and that we should expect almost a Null result anyway? I guess my questions' point was if they are not necessarily "lying" about the numbers, but instead using them to somehow imply a superior product when it is actually almost immaterial?

 

This guy could sell you anything with his voice

 

It could be, but isn't necessarily. Some DSP processes benefit from higher precision, or higher sample rates (eg oversampling) to perform the calculations - the plug will be responsible for upconverting, processing, then downconverting back to the native precision accordingly.

But it all really depends on the processes, and the maths, and the implementations, of any given part of any given plugin. And often what a person deems is "good enough precision" will vary. If the developer thinks that upsampling to 96KHz for example is "good enough" for their application, and is a good tradeoff between quality and CPU cost, that's their call to make - even if someone else would have preferred them to upsample to 192KHz, even though it would be more costly - for them, the CPU tradeoff for the slight return on quality is worth it - for others, it isn't. These are all implementation decisions any product designer has to make. At least with software, it's usually not that costly to give the user a choice of how they choose to run, so it satisfies all kinds of users.

 

I found that and "recommended" written next to certain options on the settings is really nice to have. Example :

 

that guy gives me the creeps..

 

Just watched the review. Perfect in every technical and ethical aspects.

 

The level where he said Summing Amplifiers are just transformers saturation, completely ignoring why the transformers are there in the first place, let alone the process of passive summing with no active component involves which is why some people think it matters and prefer it that way which is fine, and being the opposite also fine. His opinion being one thing, he can have it, don't care, but not even understanding the basics before publicly publishing them while laughing about it is another level, what a joke.

 

Last edited: Jun 18, 2023

Um, you do know that passive analog summing nulls with digital summing after AD conversion, and digital summing nulls with passive analog summing after DA conversion if no distortion is involved, right?
Transformers are there because they essentially can perform continuous bit summing operation. And in absense of amplifiers, no bleed or intermodulation is happening.

 

that's not why it is there at the first place, adding them after is just strange way of doing it. People mix through analog summing to get the analog headroom during mixing and guide/allow them to do different decision while mixing. It was never there as "an effect" but just a different workflow, instead of playing at the range of dbfs digital scale, you let the individual (or bussed) signal out to their analog chain (where you can push them to how much you like, break them whatever) then summed then analog chain (stereo mix processing) then back. Of course you'll get fancy result while testing them on/off as if it is a processor, that's already questionable enough. It's like you record through pure digital DAW and let the summed stereo signal go through 72 channels of vintage Neve console by sending stereo summed signal to channel 1+2 of the console routed to 3+4 to 5+6 like a weirdo until the the end, while it's not technically wrong and you can get good result sometimes if are lucky, but doing it that way is already brings a lot of "wtf?" at the first place.

the transformers are needed to bring down the line level signal to passive level, summed, then bring up. Some passive summer doesn't have it, you kinda need preamp after that.

 

Last edited: Jun 18, 2023

I'm not bothered if I make a fool of myself as long as I learn something from it. I want to see how susceptible am I from reading of and listening to versus only listening to. I won't pretend I have a great ear. I heard the drums soften around from the 3rd second onwards until the end. Was there a one switch or was there more/none at all and I took a placebo?

 

Dan might be one of the most accurate engineers on a technical level out there. He is tongue-in-cheek, funnily cynical and sarcastic at times but basically, brutally honest. That's great for anyone questioning where they should spend their hard-earned dollars in their DAW.

That stated and speaking only for myself, after listening to an abundance of engineers who are really good online and do great jobs of explaining almost anything out there, not one of them have I thought their actual final mixes sounded like they sparkled and made me want to listen to it more than once. perfection is not always needed or desired - case in point, anyone who has heard a perfectly flat set of speakers knows they actually do not sound good to the average listener (probably more than 85% of the world)..... Spec-wise it is an amazing feat, but most people would never buy them.

 

Got some data to back this up?
I do, but they back up the exact opposite.

"The author’s research loudspeakers, the redesigned KEF system, are shown in Figure 17.3b. Although optimized for anechoic tests—that is, on-axis performance—they were clearly able to sound good in reflective spaces. This loudspeaker was preferred over all the preceding designs at the time. The implication is that smooth flat axial frequency responses and wellbehaved off-axis performance combine to yield reproduced sounds that many listeners like. That is a conclusion that has only been reinforced in subsequent years."

- Toole, F. E. (2008). Sound reproduction: The acoustics and psychoacoustics of loudspeakers and rooms.
S. 341-342

 

There's one switch around the 3sec mark but all in all there're five switches, so both EQs are active three times.

But respect, you're the first and only who got the balls to make an assessment.

(I'm still waiting for the guys who claimed they can differentiate the two easily).

 

His music is not good though, let's just stay honest here! The only pro-audio celebrity I can think of who makes worse sounding nusic than Dan is Airwindows Chris (an absolute DSP genius though).

 

You should only need one instance though. Not the Ozone Dynamic EQ, but the regular Neutron 4 EQ. Ozone Dynamic EQ doesn't have sidechain, so it's not possible with that one (unless you are doing some trickery with extra tracks and instances). In Neutron 4 EQ you can use one band as the sidechain for another band, which is practically the same thing as Kirchoff and Pro-MB does. The only downside is that in Neutron EQ you will be using up two bands for the same action that only requires one band in Kirchoff, Pro-MB, Nova etc.

 

Last edited: Jun 19, 2023

The fact that Dan's music is a bit avant-garde does not make it "not good". It just makes it musically complex in a way that most people don't understand. On the other hand, the people who do understand this kind of music are usually somewhat complex individuals themselves, bored to death by the mindless and monotonous simplicity of the broad range of music accepted by the majority.
But I must add: I don't understand Chris' music because it doesn't follow any musical rules that I know.

 

Woah now. I didn't wanna get involved talking about Dan's music, but i can't let that slide. Lets not go overbored calling Dan's music some sort of complex avant-garde thing. That's laughable. Sure Dan's music has some off-kilter patterns, but it's not complex, and it sure as hell doesn't stimulate a restless mind.

I'd say it's more "goofy" and "quirky" rather than complex and avant garde

The most surprising thing about Dan's music is that the production isn't even impressive. It's very sterile

I've always given him the benefit of the doubt and thought "he probably doesn't take making music very seriously, he just needed some royalty-free music for his videos so he just used this random shit he made that he had sitting around on his laptop", but if we're going to be calling it complex avant-garde then we're going to have to pump the brakes jeez

On the flip side, Dan's music is a hundred times better than Chris' music. But that's not saying much, Chris' music is so mind-bogglingly bad that i actually get 2nd hand embarrassment when i hear it. I don't wanna be mean, but jeez, obviously nobody's had the heart to tell him