drjee

Freddie H
 

Not port it to x64bit VST format are the most ignorant in my opinion.
As it come for any x32bit plugins all are useless to me even if it works in bitbridge. When I see a new 32bit plugins on KVR I don't even take the time to check it out nor read about it. Have you seen any 16 bit plugins lately? no... why continue with this old outdate x32bit...especially if you can program it to FORMAT that every one want to use, x64.

I have and there are to many plugins in x64bit already that sound great.

I do not want to sound patronizing, but do you happen to know what 64 bit actually refers to? It's about the so-called word length resp size in data processing. This article in Wikipedia does explain it well: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...computer_architecture)

32 bit is no way outdated and is sufficient (and just as fast or faster for many operations as 64 bit). So, basically for audio processing the word length is just relevant when is comes to the maximum memory which can be addressed. in 32 bits it is 4GB. So in the audio plugin world onyl where you would need more than 4GB memory (for that single plugin). This might be thus relevant for a sampler like Kontakt, but not for an audio fx like a compressor. Here, 32 bit are just as good as 64 bit. It does not have anything to do with audio quality. A 32 bit vst can have internal 64 bit resolution for audio while a 64 bit vst might support just 16 bit. So if a 32 bit plugin works well bridged in a 64 bit host environment it is no way worse than any 64 bit plugin. Unfortunately, in some cases bit-bridging does not work as expected and stability issues occur or it simply does not work. In that case native 64 bit support is, of course, preferable, but it is the only reason why one (using a 64 bit host) should prefer a 64 bit plugin. Btw, many people still prefer to work in a 32 bit host - because if you do not need more than 3-4 GB memory (which many times is the case) you are just fine in 32 bit and while there are many non 64 bit plugins I do not even know one plugin which is 64 bit but does not have a 32 bit version, too.

I don't know. I know what you're saying, but i think it's overstated just a bit.

In reality you're never going to have 3-4GB available to your DAW under a 32-bit OS. Windows will see 3.5 at best (and in many cases only 2GB) and will eat a chunk of that for itself, the DAW (with no plugins loaded) will use a chunk and then you'll have a relatively small amount left over for loops and instruments. If you don't use any of those the you'll get away with a 32-bit host, and maybe with no problems.

But as you start using any modern RAM hungry items - and it won't take many at all -  you'll start swapping memory and generally taxing the system overall as it becomes RAM starved. I mean one 850MB drum kit and you're pretty much done. That's like a a third of the available RAM for the entire system, OS and all.

In a 64-bit OS with 6+GB of memory the system has lots more breathing room and is far less likely to go to the discs for any kind of caching. A loaded up 64-bit system feels way snappier on large projects to me than a RAM starved 32-bit system.

So for general tracking, low RAM usage instruments and FX, or a limited number of higher usage ones, and you'll be fine. But starting loading it up and the system starts to suffer.

Of course as i finish typing this I realize it's way off-topic...

virtual memory is not a thing of the pass on my ssd ;) 

yep ..also i can't wait to see 1 To 2.5 ssd's !! for my datas

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]

drjee

Freddie H


Not port it to x64bit VST format are the most ignorant in my opinion.
As it come for any x32bit plugins all are useless to me even if it works in bitbridge. When I see a new 32bit plugins on KVR I don't even take the time to check it out nor read about it. Have you seen any 16 bit plugins lately? no... why continue with this old outdate x32bit...especially if you can program it to FORMAT that every one want to use, x64.

I have and there are to many plugins in x64bit already that sound great.

I do not want to sound patronizing, but do you happen to know what 64 bit actually refers to? It's about the so-called word length resp size in data processing. This article in Wikipedia does explain it well: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...computer_architecture)

32 bit is no way outdated and is sufficient (and just as fast or faster for many operations as 64 bit). So, basically for audio processing the word length is just relevant when is comes to the maximum memory which can be addressed. in 32 bits it is 4GB. So in the audio plugin world onyl where you would need more than 4GB memory (for that single plugin). This might be thus relevant for a sampler like Kontakt, but not for an audio fx like a compressor. Here, 32 bit are just as good as 64 bit. It does not have anything to do with audio quality. A 32 bit vst can have internal 64 bit resolution for audio while a 64 bit vst might support just 16 bit. So if a 32 bit plugin works well bridged in a 64 bit host environment it is no way worse than any 64 bit plugin. Unfortunately, in some cases bit-bridging does not work as expected and stability issues occur or it simply does not work. In that case native 64 bit support is, of course, preferable, but it is the only reason why one (using a 64 bit host) should prefer a 64 bit plugin. Btw, many people still prefer to work in a 32 bit host - because if you do not need more than 3-4 GB memory (which many times is the case) you are just fine in 32 bit and while there are many non 64 bit plugins I do not even know one plugin which is 64 bit but does not have a 32 bit version, too.

I don't know. I know what you're saying, but i think it's overstated just a bit.

In reality you're never going to have 3-4GB available to your DAW under a 32-bit OS. Windows will see 3.5 at best (and in many cases only 2GB) and will eat a chunk of that for itself, the DAW (with no plugins loaded) will use a chunk and then you'll have a relatively small amount left over for loops and instruments. If you don't use any of those the you'll get away with a 32-bit host, and maybe with no problems.

But as you start using any modern RAM hungry items - and it won't take many at all -  you'll start swapping memory and generally taxing the system overall as it becomes RAM starved. I mean one 850MB drum kit and you're pretty much done. That's like a a third of the available RAM for the entire system, OS and all.

In a 64-bit OS with 6+GB of memory the system has lots more breathing room and is far less likely to go to the discs for any kind of caching. A loaded up 64-bit system feels way snappier on large projects to me than a RAM starved 32-bit system.

So for general tracking, low RAM usage instruments and FX, or a limited number of higher usage ones, and you'll be fine. But starting loading it up and the system starts to suffer.

Of course as i finish typing this I realize it's way off-topic...

  

 

sure, it's a bit off-topic. But I said in my statement: if you do not need a lot of memory. btw, your drum kit example is also a bit overstated since most drum samplers today use disk streaming and would probably just load like 10% or so into the memory. And if you use 32-plugins bridged I guess you can have upto 4 GB of memory for each plugin (in case you got so much memory). Or am I wrong?

Yeah, I think the difference isn't about what you *can* do, it's about the ease of doing it.

Hi Gang...

I've been playing with the R37 knob and the release switch... Definitely Becomes even more what I remember... Warm and slow...

I'm sure I'll come up with uses for the faster release and brighter curve, but it seems that I'll be using it flat/slow quite often!

Keni

Anyone compare this to Focusrite's Midnight Blue? I believe that's also very vintage. So what's with the limiter button on this module since it's being advertised as more of a compressor than a limiter but yet it has a limiter switch. What can it be used for and what does it suppose to be used for?

bobguitkillerleft

yorolpal

Middleman


Thanks Brandon, here are the files. No digs on the guitar playing, it was after work, I was tired, the sun was in my eyes and my shoes were untied.

http://soundcloud.com/phil-grabmiller/sets/la2a-comparison-tracks-1
Results are something like this.

Mid to hi the PC2A is closer to the hardware.
Low end the UAD is closer to the hardware.

Well...to my old ears the original LA2A has a rich, warm yet very defined sound.  The other two...but especially the Cake plug...have a smaller, brighter and sharper...in other words more digital sound than the LA2A.  I use the UAD all the time but stacked against the hardware...it's lacking.  As is the Cake version.  Middlemand's assessment is right on the money.  Sorry.

I think that twas my assesment....oh well painfully ignored again.

Jumping between the different files and going straight to second 14, There is a small dip in volume in the playing that seems to get leveled out the best in the hardware version, and neither cake nor UAD plug really level as nicely at this point in the audio IMO.

I would perfer to blind listen to these but I dont have anyone around now to randomly switch files for me.  I would like to hear how the chameleon labs handles things, I will load up some of those other files that Dean made into sequencer for faster switching between files (a person's audio memory is about 1/4 to 1/2 second for subtle stuff like this).  Anyway these things are really dependant on the settings, maybe the cake thing can be made to sound sweet with the right material and playing around and finding those sweetspot settings.

Still, I'm actually not happy that cake seems to be going into the plugin buisness.  There are already so many making quite good  plugs.  Cake just has a captive audience that will probably buy up their plugs, even though I think the deidicated plug makers already have these bases covered and probably offer better plugs.  SONAR is an advanced audio MIDI sequencer/DAW and they should keep improving and pushing and finding new creative stuff to do on this front, and yeah, also add anything creative and usefull that competitors have added to their DAWs too.  OK, if selling a few plugs here and there helps Cake fund core sequencer development then that's fine with me too.  I got expanded, and that gate they made for it too, since it can get sidechained to other tracks. 

musicroom


Back on topic for a minute - getting a better feel for this plug the more I use it. Trying it out on background harmony vox today and really enjoying the effect. 

Right clicking on the plug for the classic attack mode is working for bringing a smooth fullness to this particular vox trk.

I found the same thing.  Really nice on backing vocals.  I like the classic setting and use it most often so far.  This is becoming a go-to kinda quickly.  I'm starting post production on a project and the PC2A has already been useful.  

So back to the topic of this thread...
Anyone else got examples of or advice about using this PC2A plugin that we can perhaps hear, compare and learn about?

DBL

I've been following this thread for a while now and decided tonight to do my own tests. What I come up with are a few things...you guys can correct me and show me where my testing may have gone wrong because I'm no scientist. But here's what I did.

I put the UAD version on a guitar track. Pretty heavily distorted track with effects that were recorded onto the track destructively. The track was "Cult of Personality" by Living Color. The reason I chose this tune to record was because of the stop and start guitars as well as a high gain sound and effects like chorus and a slight haas effect.

After the track was recorded, I cloned it and dropped the PC2A on the track. I set the settings exactly the same as the UAD and even messed with the R37 thing from 0 to 50% to 100% and toggled the PC2a from pre to post just to try it in all possible ways.

I sent each track to its own bus where I turned on wave form preview to see what was going on. From what I hear on my end, I have to agree with James Collins in what he said. I like the way the UAD comp handles transients and it appears warmer to my ears in some way. How, I have no idea...but there's definitely a difference in tone as well as how the UAD ate up the transients a bit better on that particular guitar track. Those of you that are familiar with the tune, know what I'm talking about. It stops, it starts, it lets chords ring, it plays riffs...it's quite involved.

Now, this R37 thing. What exactly is it supposed to be doing? I do not hear a tone change nor do I see a graph change on any specific frequencies. All I see and hear is a volume change...nothing more. I'm not dissing this piece...I think it's great and am a die-hard Sonar fan. I don't mind being called a fanboy either. :) When something works for me, I support it and stand by it. But I'm also a UAD fan and think that those who have made a mention of it being way better than UAD may be too won over by hype. I sure can't hear a difference that would make me say "PC2A blows UAD away."

As I mentioned, certain transients were smoothed out in a good way on the UAD that were sometimes missed by the PC2A. Quirky starts on my guitar part when I'd stop and play, showed peaks in the PC that didn't show up in the UAD while using the same settings. Is it a good comp? Most definitely...but I'd not give it the "blows UAD away" stamp.

I actually had a video I was going to post to show you all what I'm talking about. But unfortunately, when I started the video I had remembered something I had forgotten to do for my father so I shot home for that. I may still do the vid at some point, but I'm kinda swamped with work at the moment and the more I think about it, the more it doesn't really matter. It's a great comp for the money, it does what it's supposed to do and is real close to the UAD in my opinion yet has a slightly different sound. If you're looking for a good 2A leveling amp, don't procrastinate....this works incredibly well. I just won't go as far as saying it's better than the UAD. I do have the CLA version....I may try them all and see how I fair. 

Personally, I'm not a fan of these types of compressors because I like to have a little more control over my comps. Release time, ratio and attack time are very important to me and these types of comps just really don't blow my doors off anyway...no matter what major label or producer/engineer may endorse them. Anyway, I'm no scientist, my test is probably flawed and full of holes...but this is what my ears told me, what my wave forms showed me and how it all went down on my end.

-Danny 

Dann , you're correct ...on the analyisis ...that's why asked the real HW owner to tell me if it grab transient or not .....

But one thing we gotta keep in mind : if you kill transient  , the good thing is that you master the dynamic and stabilise a sound in space BUT you actually kill the dynamic range perception .....in fact the transients are Markers tor use to evaluate the relative placement of sounds ....

And so what ?  well both got their use ...if you guyz listen to my youtube video , we can clearly hear what's going on between Cla (transients keeper) and the IK (more on the uad side) and i do prefer when transients passis....they will be hanlded on last stages of production ....

So if a HW user is present , if you can't hear it , give us a waveform comparison ;)

Zo


Dann , you're correct ...on the analyisis ...that's why asked the real HW owner to tell me if it grab transient or not .....

But one thing we gotta keep in mind : if you kill transient  , the good thing is that you master the dynamic and stabilise a sound in space BUT you actually kill the dynamic range perception .....in fact the transients are Markers tor use to evaluate the relative placement of sounds ....

And so what ?  well both got their use ...if you guyz listen to my youtube video , we can clearly hear what's going on between Cla (transients keeper) and the IK (more on the uad side) and i do prefer when transients passis....they will be hanlded on last stages of production ....

So if a HW user is present , if you can't hear it , give us a waveform comparison ;)

Yeah that's kinda what I'm seeing/hearing, Zo. For example, when I start to play, there is a bit of a transient from my pick attack. The PC2A seems to not clamp down as hard on it and it almost sounds like a coughing sound. It misses the first transient every time. Now once it gets going, it seems to come close to what the UAD is doing as far as the wave form is concerened. But there will be a few peaks here and there that it doesn't grab as hard...and you can hear them. The UAD keeps them nice and smooth and peacefully controls that first transient I mentioned every time. The rest of the UAD wave form looks nice and tight too yet not hyper-compressed. I was using both comps a bit to the extreme at 60/60 in my test which didn't alter the volume of the original wave form when I bypassed them. The wave was recorded at -6dB. I just felt the UAD was a bit smoother and a bit warmer to my ears.
 
To fool myself, I closed my eyes and pressed the mute/solo buttons on my controller like 20 times so I'd not know what was on or off and just toggled between them with my eyes closed. I picked out the UAD every time without seeing it. Again, I'm not trying to discredit the PC2A, I think it's fine as it is and is a good comp. I just didn't think it smoked the UAD.
 
-Danny

I tried that Zo...it still seems to always miss the first one. Meaning, the first time in the song that I play. Once it gets going though, it's pretty close to the UAD. But I tried everything from pre, post, 100% R37, 50%, 0%, same results. It never grabs that first hit.

-Danny