I havent had these issues while testing it. I even have tolerable latencies with their much older plugins. Sound wise, i agree, it comes to personal preferences. I am sure you can sell it to someone here easily, imo its a good plugin for certain tasks.

 

well I will look into selling it for sure, thanks

 

You can't put all the blame solely on marketing either. A product is worth what people are willing to pay for it and there are plenty of naive people out there willing to pay for the latest "analog" plugin to give their mix that "vintage" and "warm" sound.

 

Well the market plays either on quality or naivity.... it's up to the buyer to decide if they want to buy it or not; with smoke and mirrors or not.... But it's pretty outlandish to assume they are smoke and mirrors without clarification of to who and to what product you are referring to; and it's mental to solicit irrespectfully to developers (who have nothing to do with the marketing part unless they are a team of one) that they released their techniques for achieving such.

You can, however (and how everyone does) analyze the signal in and out throu different methods to assume what's going on in there.... but that has nothing to do with being true in marketing, and nothing to do with the rest of the rant.

If you'd know where to look for you'd see that the information is almost never retained.... even the Kemper Profiler's guy has a patent that is publicly available... any non revolutionary DSP technique is completely documented, and those that are revolutionar are either patent pending or trade secret... But I doubt that's what you want from this... I assume that what you want is for the marketing bussiness to humble down and not say "we are the best" but that's not gonna happen and it's only dependant on how successful their marketing campaigns are, and how satisfied their clients end up with the product.... So, no; there's no way your post will change the mind of Waves or Slate Digital... and no, this is not up to developers, they just build wonderful things but are not directly involved with marketing tactics.

Footnote: if you are not convinced, or you don't like either the product or the marketing ethics... you'll always have freewares, and you'll always have "better prices" and other companies (big and small). You have the chance to not buy it

 

Quick answer to this one: There's no such thing as schematic diagram in VSTs... what's based off of schematics are either component modeling or transfer functions that are taken from. What's not based off of schematics, well are just mathematical and programming techniques to get to a desire frecuency response or some behavior. The closest you'll get to an schematic is topology charts but it's useless; is as if to say a synth has a major component that's a voice and the voice is comprised of an osc routed to a filter, routed to an amplitud output that's being affected by an envelope generator.

Frecuency response is easyly extractable from many free analysis tools, but all in all you should not care much if you are intending to put an eq either before or after.... in the mixing stage the FR is one of the most tweaked.... You should worry more about absurd modification of the response or for audio degradation.

There's no noise-floor in VSTs, unless added to achieve the "analog feel" and that noise floor is usually set in the range of -96 (absolute silence in digital) and -80db ... some bump that up to -40db but that's rare (it's supposed to be something that's there but you can't hear)


I'm really interested in what other transparencies are you looking for