HAVE TO SAY that I didnt try with sound, just in BC patchwork

I dont have something particular to comment, I would like to read comments from people with more technical knowledge than me, I am just reporting what I see

all reports made in Bertom Analyzer with
-DAW at 44,1
-BC Patchwork oversampling at "normal quality"
-updating auto phase in Bertom Analyzer each oversampling rate

1. NO OVS



2. OVS 2x



3. OVS 8x



4. OVS 8x AFTER A FEW SECS WTF!!!!



5. OVS 16x



AGAIN: I didnt try with sound, just in BC patchwork so...

so it seems that each time I put it at 8x it changes the response in the low end

8x and 16x is a very high SR, maybe the plugin dont support that? in the manual there's nothing specific, or maybe BC patchwork is doing something strange?

Or maybe I didnt understand something?

please help

 

Yes, the blue cats plugin loaders do something strange. The mb7 mixer for example creates a more and more bad frequency response if the crossover is put into the bass range.
Their plugins are in general pretty badly programmed.

However the new pulsar things are again absolutely horrible to me, I inserted it into plugin doctor, laughed, and uninstalled it again. Absolutely unbearable. Even worse then noiseash.

 

Last edited: Feb 28, 2024

thanks!

dont you think that could be to a "normal" phase distortion when using multiband filters in this case?

never tried it, never used Patchwork for multiband processing, but when I use it in parallel I find it to have a "normal" behaviour usually

I never use BC patchwork for oversampling honestly, just when I start testing a plugin before the sound I try to study its behaviour, havent open in Plugin Doc yet, will do. Please tell me more about what you have found about the plugin, because I usualli like pulsar modular stuff, at least I think that their saturator sounds very good

 

Those crossovers are linear phase as well, so .

To me the fundamental question is always "can I work with this tool on a repetitive basis?". This question automatically gets answered with "no" as soon as it has controls or behaviors that requires one to "listen closely".
I hate to listen closely. I like clear effects. I also do not make any listening comparisons, so the only way for me to evaluate a plugin goes via workflow and the technical behavior. Then I either use it or not. Afterwards I also never think about the sound of a plugin.

If this is the approach, then one will see, that the vast majority of plugins really are horrible.

 

First...I, don't use Blur Cat products because of noticeable smearing to the processed audio.

Second... The both MDN plugins are purposely non-linear along with some other coding tricks to get it to react & sound more like a hardware unit. I would expect this to be improved/refined over future iterations.

Very pleased with what they can do so far. My only gripe so far is the pricing but then, these are aimed at the Pro market. Not your average bedroom producer (so to speak).

One last bit of advice. Test with your ears first. If you notice a real issue then, analysis tools make sense.

 

So you might have had oversampling activated in both BC Patchwork and the plugin at 44100 Hz.
Maybe try running your DAW at 96000 Hz without BC Patchwork and use the plugin's built-in OS feature.

 

Did you even listen to it? Or did you make a judgement visually?

 

Try using noise and a spectrum analyser to get a more complete idea of what's really happening. A single impulse (plugindoctor/bertom) isn't necessarily 100% meaningful.

 

No, I do not listen to them. I just use them or not. I never make any plugin sound comparisons. This never was getting me to a point where I was able to work with those tools on a long term repetitive basis.
I judge them exclusively technically. Also while working with them then, I never think about how this tool "sounds".

Processors like distorted guitar amplifiers, where I am not able to judge them just by checking out the technical behaviors, I just do not make a statement about what's senseful to use technically. I only make a statement about what's senseful to use workflow wise in my opinion.
So soundwise, it is absolutely not relevant for me what to use in this case. Maybe for sound designers it is. But definetely not for me in my environment.

 

Last edited: Feb 28, 2024

Come to think of it, if there's a way to disable bypass-on-silence in BlueCat PW & Pulsar MDN, I'd be curious to see what that does to freq response.

 

No disrespect, but that is hilarious to me. The sound of an audio plugin is not relevant to you. That's a new one.

What if the testing platform is wrong and gives you misleading data? What if the plugin uses a new kind of tech that wigs out the testing platform results?

What if a plugin that tests "badly", if you were to hear it it gives you a visceral emotion that other plugins can't achieve?

What kind of audio work do you do? Is it on music? Or more like broadcast or TV foley or something? Surely not any kind of audio that involves human emotion

 

The reason why this can not be relevant is that I can either hear that there is something fundamentally wrong immediately, or it simply doesn't matter.
You see, I do not say that one can not use whatever he wants to, I just state that this particular processor could never outperform what I use for my needs. Neither by what it does to the audio signal, nor in terms of workflow. Maybe for sound designers it could, but definetely not for me in my environment.

Then physics changed - fundamentally.
And the proof for this is, that this measurement equipment measures on a fundamental basis.

Yes. And that's the only thing I listen to, because the processor does not give me sound, it just changes - in the exact way it's measured.
In what else way should math work anyways?


Pragmatism can make life very easy!
If I would have to use this one, if it was the only audio processor in the world, I could also work with it.

 

Last edited: Feb 28, 2024

Unlinked Stereo on distortion sounds really cool and i never heard of any other plugin doing this. I think TMT doesn't unlink the distortion on PA plugins, just create variations on the bandwith of the LR of each channel.

 

In what way gives noise as a measurement input a "more complete idea of what's really happening" than a linear full-band impulse series?

The OP says the measurements happen @ 44.1 kHz and the FFT size is 2048 samples.

1000 ms ÷ 44100 Hz × 2048 smpl = 46.4399092971 ms.
1000 ms ÷ 46.4399092971 ms × 2 = 43.06640625 Hz

The OP should have a pretty accurate idea of what's really happening from 22.05 kHz down to 43 Hz, right?

 

Last edited: Feb 29, 2024

The great thing about the diversity of the audio world is also this, namely to think that one can judge a plugin as unreliable simply by running it through the plugin doctor. First of all, in order to understand and use Plugin Doctor properly you have to run it through Hardware equipment. That is the basis. Then you can figure out how to read digital plugins. Showing a multiband with linear crossovers doesn't mean anything. Maybe to you it means first of all that you like to work with digital things, but at that point you should also check how Acon does the internal sample conversion. if you really want to judge or prefer that brand over another. I say Acon just because you showed us that. When you work with High Linear Plugins, purely digital designed to work surgically according to mathematics with very high quality filters to ensure maximum transparency and absence of aliasing, well then evaluating the workflow aspect really makes sense. If, on the other hand, you prefer to work with nonlinear tools, then each plugin or hardware equipment is a world of its own, with its own merits and demerits, and the workflow argument loses any meaning. Really, someone would need to inform me if using your forgotten, rusty, and dusty hardware with a particular flaw would enhance the track you're working on without interrupting your workflow.
one more thing for guy talked about MB7. When has BlueCat ever stated its MB7 works in linear phase? Never that I can remember. Its phase response is absolutely nonlinear and varies depending on the bell you decide to use. And that is.

 

the plugin is designed this way on purpose. instead of testing with your eyes, use your ears

 

yeah it makes sense. I did more tests outside of BC patchwork and it seems to be different.

Now I am starting to test these plugins in my workflow and I will decide what to do. Anyhow I am an API plugins addict, I also like a lot Nelson's philosophy, so I guess everything will bring me to like it ehehehe

will get back here if I find something more to add

 

This really doesn't make things better.
And honestly, I don't care what their purpose is anyways.

 

Last edited: Feb 29, 2024

PD and BertomEQA send blocks of a single sample of non-silence followed by thousands of 0s (silence) to the plugin. For BEQA, I get about 8000 samples of perfect silence for every one sample of non-silence. I haven't bothered testing PD, but it's going to be similar.

If a plugin (or host - BC PatchWork in this case) implements bypass-on-silence it may prematurely stop processing samples (because silence is wasted CPU - or so a developer might think.)

From BlueCat's webpage:
- No CPU load on idle: processing shuts down when fed with silence (optimal CPU usage).

Hmm!

You can't just cut off filters from processing or you leave them in a broken state (exactly like those ripples in the magnitude response pictures).

Filters have a tail, just like reverbs. If it's a FIR filter, the tail goes in front (delay compensated hopefully) and may be up to a couple hundred or thousand samples long. If it's an IIR filter, the tail goes to the end and may be even longer.

There are ways for plugins to tell the host "hey listen, you must continue feeding me data - even if it's just silence - for X many samples".

BUT not all plugins do this nor do all hosts respect that number.

In other words. What you may be seeing in PD/BEQA is how the plugin (and/or host) reacts to a single 1 followed by hundreds or thousands of 0s. While this is interesting, it's also not showing what it does to 99.99999999999999999999999% of material you throw at it.

I suggested noise because it's a pretty good way to make sure bypass-on-silence can't trigger, no other reason. You can try with any other signal that isn't silence too.

If there's a bypass-on-silence toggle in BC PW or MDN - even better.

I have neither MDN nor BC PatchWork and can't verify that that's what's happening. But the magnitude ripples look an awful lot like throwing 1s at filters that were cut off prematurely in the previous block.