The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Acustica Audio releases Scarlet4: The mastering EQ that rules them all
Old 4 weeks ago
  #331
Lives for gear
 

As said ... first things first ... there are still several bugs in Scarlet-4 that need fixing.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #332
Gear Addict
 
plexus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zaphod View Post
This is pure dunning-krugher
You don't have a clue about the time required for doing it, or the team required for doing it (you are implicitly guessing I'm involved in doing it, so my time could be better spent on that activity) or the time required for beta testing after we have those packs, or the cost derived by doing it twice because also original files need a further correction.
Also it's interesting we don't want to change expectations about our schedule.
We are just an humble company, we plan things in the best way we can, trying to minimize cyclic fixes, mistakes, and optimizing our limited resources.
We'll stick with the plan
Actually I do know how much effort it takes - I work in the digital product industry. Just a suggestion, for each product, is on the product page to have a section that states: what vector rates are included, which ones will be coming, a launch date if known, the nature of the input gain and any other useful specs. A section perhps called "Product Specs & Notes". Not knowing what tech your site is built on, assuming the usual back-end that companies use, sure yes this would take some effort but it would answer a lot of questions people have and keep those questions out of the forums and support tickets. But whatever works for you... keep on truck'n.

Last edited by plexus; 4 weeks ago at 04:20 AM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #333
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkandKurious View Post
.. and I understand why you have to prioritise 44.1 and 96 over 48.
.. I don't. From my perspective, mixing and occasional mastering, 95% of the projects I receive are at 48kHz. Is this just me? To me it looks like most of the world is using 48kHz now. Not 44 nor 96. CDs are long dead and youtube is such a dominant platform that the video standard of 48/24 seems to be the norm now for most. Add to that the small benefit of moving the nyquist frequency up by 2kHz and it's just icing on the cake. So yeah, I don't understand why an old samplerate with little benefits (other than a tiny bit faster processing) is the 2nd choice.

Especially when the original sampling is 96kHz which would directly result in faster and better conversion to 48kHz rather than 44.

Old 4 weeks ago
  #334
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmanic View Post
.. I don't. From my perspective, mixing and occasional mastering, 95% of the projects I receive are at 48kHz. Is this just me? To me it looks like most of the world is using 48kHz now. Not 44 nor 96. CDs are long dead and youtube is such a dominant platform that the video standard of 48/24 seems to be the norm now for most. Add to that the small benefit of moving the nyquist frequency up by 2kHz and it's just icing on the cake. So yeah, I don't understand why an old samplerate with little benefits (other than a tiny bit faster processing) is the 2nd choice.

Especially when the original sampling is 96kHz which would directly result in faster and better conversion to 48kHz rather than 44.

Probably 90% of my work for clients is at 48kHz also. I understand that Acustica's rationale of fixing bugs in the product samples before converting to every sample rate is what I meant. It's like my habit of getting all the editing done and approved before mixing, and my subsequent frustration when a client decides to search for different takes after they've listened to the final mix.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #335
Lives for gear
 
marchhare's Avatar
 

99% at 48k
Old 4 weeks ago
  #336
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmanic View Post
.. I don't. From my perspective, mixing and occasional mastering, 95% of the projects I receive are at 48kHz. Is this just me? To me it looks like most of the world is using 48kHz now. Not 44 nor 96. CDs are long dead and youtube is such a dominant platform that the video standard of 48/24 seems to be the norm now for most.
Can't confirm this.
44.1/16bit (!) is still the standard.
Every major artist/label still releases CDs, apart from some Hiphop/EDM genres, maybe. This is slowly changing and might be over in a couple of years, but not yet.
The most important streaming services are Spotify and iTunes - both require 44.1/16bit.
Thus, about 98% of my work is 44.1, except from some occasional live recordings, where 48 (or higher) is common.

Another note:
Most of the sample library content is 44.1. If you're working with Midi/virtual instruments and sample based libraries, mixing in 48 would require upsampling -
not good...
As always, ymmv.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #337
Lives for gear
 

90% of my Mastering work comes in at 44.1 and 96k
Old 4 weeks ago
  #338
Gear Maniac
Having some issues validating the last version 2.02 in the latest version of Logic X.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #339
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.simmons View Post
Can't confirm this.
44.1/16bit (!) is still the standard.
Every major artist/label still releases CDs, apart from some Hiphop/EDM genres, maybe. This is slowly changing and might be over in a couple of years, but not yet.
The most important streaming services are Spotify and iTunes - both require 44.1/16bit.
Thus, about 98% of my work is 44.1, except from some occasional live recordings, where 48 (or higher) is common.

Another note:
Most of the sample library content is 44.1. If you're working with Midi/virtual instruments and sample based libraries, mixing in 48 would require upsampling -
not good...
As always, ymmv.
Interesting. I have the exact opposite.. but I'm not working with major releases (in the global market sense).

Most people that I work with seem to run at 48kHz in their DAW and IF they want to make a CD (I just mastered one a few weeks ago, first one in ages!) then we downsample from the 48kHz master down to 44.1kHz. I suspect most users who make their whole production (including videos for youtube) stick with 48kHz in the DAW because it makes moving stuff to any video editing suite with a "Youtube preset" a lot easier.. or at least that's my speculative take on it.

Also I just checked my Spitfireaudio products and at least the libraries I have are using 48kHz samples which makes sense as they are going to be used mostly for film/tv/video media.

EDIT: Apparently all Native Instruments orchestral libraries are 48kHz samplerate too.. and Cinesamples.

But I don't doubt you.. I also checked content from Ableton, FL Studio and Logic.. they seem to all be 44.1kHz. This definitely points towards 44.1kHz still being the norm in global DAWs. Makes sense from a storage point of view too as those few % difference will indeed make up quite a lot of space when we talk about tens of gigabytes of content.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #340
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
Pretty much exactly 25% 44.1, 48, 88.2 and 96.

I think the reason people have never complained to acustica at the lack of 48 and 88.2 vectors is their customers are probably primarily mix engineers that work at a certain rate. The more professional mastering engineers they attract with their products, the more complaints they will get about releasing incomplete products.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #341
Lives for gear
 
javahut's Avatar
If Acustica is not going to standardize all products to the same input levels, then there definitely needs to be documentation with an easy to read matrix of what's what. As it is, you have to search online forums or through each individual manual to find the info... if it's even available there. Inefficient and cumbersome at best.

The same goes for available sample rates for each product. If it's not standardized across all products... then put the information in easy to read document/graphic form.

Of course, it'd be best if it was all input levels and sample rates were standardized across all products. Since that doesn't seem possible any time soon, it wouldn't seem to be too much to ask nor too difficult for Acustica to document this information for customers/users in an easy to read/see format for all products. Especially since it's detrimental to getting the best out of the products.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #342
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaphod View Post
I'll repeat it again: I'm using successfully all products at all possible rates, but if a particular knob position is a showstopper for you just stick with scarlet 3 till you are satisfied by scarlet 4. Simple like that.
Only problem for me is that Scarlett 3 is using the 'cloned' analog hardware and it simply doesn't sound as good as Scarlett 4 Classic. That's the main reason I didn't buy any previous versions of Scarlett until now. Now you're telling me for 48kHz sessions I should use Scarlett 3 for those HF positions and 10kHz shelf? You see my problem with this right?

I think you should release all products with a minimum of 3 packs. 44.1k, 48k & 96k and make 88.2 optional or for later release if the demand is there. I can count on one hand the amount of times I receive 88.2kHz mixes for mastering annually. Same with 96kHz for that matter. The bulk of my work comes in at 44.1 or 48. These are the primary sample rates for me.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #343
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.simmons View Post
Can't confirm this.
44.1/16bit (!) is still the standard.
Every major artist/label still releases CDs, apart from some Hiphop/EDM genres, maybe. This is slowly changing and might be over in a couple of years, but not yet.
The most important streaming services are Spotify and iTunes - both require 44.1/16bit.
Thus, about 98% of my work is 44.1, except from some occasional live recordings, where 48 (or higher) is common.

Another note:
Most of the sample library content is 44.1. If you're working with Midi/virtual instruments and sample based libraries, mixing in 48 would require upsampling -
not good...
As always, ymmv.
Release formats and sample rates have nothing to do with production sample rates. With this mentality, we would all be recording, mixing & mastering at 44.1kHz. There are good reasons why we have samples rates higher than 44.1kHz for production even if the final release ends up back down to 44.1kHz.

In any case, as mentioned, I get a lot of mixes coming in for mastering that are 48kHz and I like to playback at the native sample rate of the client's files. So it's necessary to have 48kHz compatibility with all my software. This is 2019 one would hope that most software would support 48kHz properly these days.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #344
Lives for gear
 
zaphod's Avatar
Some suggestions for the future:
- if 48 kHz is so important to you, install Scarlet 3 and wait for an announcement of the missing sample rates. A bit like waiting for all the companies to support Catalina before installing Catalina.
- We release fully functional trials to assess whether a product meets current requirements at the time of purchase. The 48 kHz pack is also missing in the trial version, so I don't see where the problem lies
- If you are not sure to evaluate the product correctly in the presale phase we suggest you wait until the end of the presale and buy the product at the full price when the trial meets all requirements, such as missing packages.
- It is not the first time that we are asked for a release of some packages at the same time as the release of the product. The answer is simple: this is what we do. The situation is particularly relaxed because this is an update of a product that is already supporting all sample rates, and it is a product in the "presale" phase, where we notoriously release a subset of features that could be subject to change.


FAQ about frequency rates:
- release the missing package as soon as possible!
- we'll do it.

- do it tomorrow
- we will release the package when it is ready and tested, tomorrow is not ready, but it will be as soon as possible.

- do you think, asking it more often will change something?
- you're asking me, not who's creating the packages. I'll tell you that I'm waiting for packages as much as you are. But as soon as they tell me they're ready you'll be the first to know.

- will you do this again in the future?
- of course until we change our release plans to take account of this request

- when are you going to change modes?
- we don't know at the moment. We are far from changing modes, because at the moment we like the way we are operating

- and if I make an incredible mess in the forums, will it change anything?
- I would say no, as things are going very well for us.

- but are you happy to see all this chaos in the forum?
- certainly! do not imagine how many sales we have at the time when people talk about the product, good or bad

- but are you doing this on purpose?
- no. We are proceeding in this way to contain costs, and even the discussion generated by this state of affairs is facilitating the sale. But we don't do it to increase sales. We do this to keep the cost of converting products down. Scarlet is made up of thousands of samples, and we want to make sure everyone is up to date before making an expensive conversion.

- Then why could things change in the future?
- because we will be less and less interested in cost recovery, so we can afford a higher cost of the product, we can better amortize it. This happens to all companies when they enlarge

- then do it now!
- No, we have to wait for all the current scheduling to be completed.

Last edited by zaphod; 3 weeks ago at 04:35 PM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #345
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGray View Post
Release formats and sample rates have nothing to do with production sample rates.
In my world they definitely have !
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGray View Post
With this mentality, we would all be recording, mixing & mastering at 44.1kHz.
Tbc, that's exactly what I do and I know many others who do this as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGray View Post
There are good reasons why we have samples rates higher than 44.1kHz for production even if the final release ends up back down to 44.1kHz.
Yes,sure.
If a final (mastering) step with analog gear is involved, a high quality ad/da conversion can be used to change sample rate and/or bit depth.
The sonic advantage of working with 48Khz never outweighs the artifacts of downsampling in my experience. I try to avoid digital src.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGray View Post
So it's necessary to have 48kHz compatibility with all my software. This is 2019 one would hope that most software would support 48kHz properly these days.
Agreed.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #346
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by javahut View Post
If Acustica is not going to standardize all products to the same input levels, then there definitely needs to be documentation with an easy to read matrix of what's what. As it is, you have to search online forums or through each individual manual to find the info... if it's even available there. Inefficient and cumbersome at best.

The same goes for available sample rates for each product. If it's not standardized across all products... then put the information in easy to read document/graphic form.

Of course, it'd be best if it was all input levels and sample rates were standardized across all products. Since that doesn't seem possible any time soon, it wouldn't seem to be too much to ask nor too difficult for Acustica to document this information for customers/users in an easy to read/see format for all products. Especially since it's detrimental to getting the best out of the products.
I agree. I'm getting kind of annoyed at this input level confusion. First, it wasn't totally clear when AA changed over to 0 dBFS for all Acquas. And then, at no fault of the consumer, the community complained because they were confused that the calibration was changed and they didn't hear much or anything about it. As a response, one plugin was changed back to -18 calibration.

Now I can't keep track of where I need to set my input level/trim for whatever Acqua. It would be nice if they just marked where the input level should be on each GUI, but that would mean updating each GUI. Clear documentation (rather than having to download separate manuals) would be nice.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #347
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.simmons View Post
In my world they definitely have !

Tbc, that's exactly what I do and I know many others who do this as well.

Yes,sure.
If a final (mastering) step with analog gear is involved, a high quality ad/da conversion can be used to change sample rate and/or bit depth.
The sonic advantage of working with 48Khz never outweighs the artifacts of downsampling in my experience. I try to avoid digital src.

Agreed.
The consumer market is quickly shifting to high sample rates lossless compression for music streaming. Take a look at Amazon Music HD and Qobuz. $15/month, up to 24/192 kHz. Available now.

I have been recording at 96 kHz for nearly 15 years. Back in 2005, I did not mix at that rate except for small projects (12 tracks or less). But I always recorded 96k for archival purposes.

Back then it was even more important because plugins didn't have good real time oversampling or decramping like they do now. There is nothing necessarily wrong with producing at 44.1 kHz but...with processing power and storage being as fast and cheap as it is in 2019...why would you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood123 View Post
I agree. I'm getting kind of annoyed at this input level confusion. First, it wasn't totally clear when AA changed over to 0 dBFS for all Acquas. And then, at no fault of the consumer, the community complained because they were confused that the calibration was changed and they didn't hear much or anything about it. As a response, one plugin was changed back to -18 calibration.

Now I can't keep track of where I need to set my input level/trim for whatever Acqua. It would be nice if they just marked where the input level should be on each GUI, but that would mean updating each GUI. Clear documentation (rather than having to download separate manuals) would be nice.
+1. All I need is a chart/table with the plugins listed. Then on the right side column put the optimal input level. An official Acustica Audio Gain Staging Master List.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #348
Lives for gear
 
swartzfeger's Avatar
Selectable sample frequency install/uninstall in Aquarius was a promised 'upcoming feature' at least a year ago.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #349
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
Back then it was even more important because plugins didn't have good real time oversampling or decramping like they do now. There is nothing necessarily wrong with producing at 44.1 kHz but...with processing power and storage being as fast and cheap as it is in 2019...why would you?

+1. All I need is a chart/table with the plugins listed. Then on the right side column put the optimal input level. An official Acustica Audio Gain Staging Master List.
I don't know the full history of sample rate development, but I wish 60 kHz was implemented first and then we could all just forget about anything else forever.

Now there's a thought about a new Master List. It's up to you, Doom!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #350
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosewood123 View Post
I don't know the full history of sample rate development, but I wish 60 kHz was implemented first and then we could all just forget about anything else forever.

Now there's a thought about a new Master List. It's up to you, Doom!
The whole 44.1 kHz was obviously decided with the compact disc format. 88.2 kHz is a simple doubling of that. Recall, sample rate converters weren't so great in the early days. A halving is simple math.

Same reason for 24-bit audio and not 20-bit. 8-bit multiples are easier math.

48 kHz has been the video standard sample rate for a long time plus it was the highest quality sample rate of ADAT. The history and technical reasons for 48 kHz becoming the standard can be found in this detailed article: https://www.tvtechnology.com/opinion...8-khz-question

As for a new Master List...no thanks. That should be an Acustica employee's job.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #351
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
The whole 44.1 kHz was obviously decided with the compact disc format. 88.2 kHz is a simple doubling of that. Recall, sample rate converters weren't so great in the early days. A halving is simple math.

Same reason for 24-bit audio and not 20-bit. 8-bit multiples are easier math.

48 kHz has been the video standard sample rate for a long time plus it was the highest quality sample rate of ADAT. The history and technical reasons for 48 kHz becoming the standard can be found in this detailed article: https://www.tvtechnology.com/opinion...8-khz-question

As for a new Master List...no thanks. That should be an Acustica employee's job.
Ah yes ... I'm sad to say it, but CDs completely slipped my mind as being the delivery medium when digital first took hold. It's late here and I'm going on three hours of sleep from last night, okay. LOL what an idiot, I am. Yes, I've heard sample rate converters weren't too great in the early days. I was a kid then and haven't read back on the details of the tech development. Really interesting stuff though.

Yup, total sarcasm on my part. It's up to AA, in all seriousness.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #352
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
The consumer market is quickly shifting to high sample rates lossless compression for music streaming. Take a look at Amazon Music HD and Qobuz. $15/month, up to 24/192 kHz. Available now.

I have been recording at 96 kHz for nearly 15 years. Back in 2005, I did not mix at that rate except for small projects (12 tracks or less). But I always recorded 96k for archival purposes.

Back then it was even more important because plugins didn't have good real time oversampling or decramping like they do now. There is nothing necessarily wrong with producing at 44.1 kHz but...with processing power and storage being as fast and cheap as it is in 2019...why would you?
I see where you're coming from, it's a different perspective.
We're shifting towards a sample rate discussion here which I didn't intend.
I don't deny the sonic advantage of higher sample rates.
The simple truth is, HD music is still a niche market and probably will always be.
I highly doubt the consumer market is moving there.

To me the most significant change of the past 15 years is, nowadays I mix ( and sometimes even master ) while arranging. I have to deal with constant callbacks, changes, wishes and ideas from A+R's, artists and other producers.
It is impossible to print tracks and average projects are 60-80 audio tracks, 30-40 midis + busses, auxes etc., some twice as much.
There simply is no computer with enough processing power to handle that with say 96Khz, especially when using Acquas...

So, going back to this slightly derailed Acustica thread:
All I wanted to point out is that 44.1 is still the de facto standard in a huge part of the audio industry. Some posts created the impression that wasn't the case.
As scarlet is in pre-release(=beta, tbh) there is nothing to complain about missing 48Khz, imo.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #353
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.simmons View Post
I see where you're coming from, it's a different perspective.
We're shifting towards a sample rate discussion here which I didn't intend.
I don't deny the sonic advantage of higher sample rates.
The simple truth is, HD music is still a niche market and probably will always be.
I highly doubt the consumer market is moving there.

To me the most significant change of the past 15 years is, nowadays I mix ( and sometimes even master ) while arranging. I have to deal with constant callbacks, changes, wishes and ideas from A+R's, artists and other producers.
It is impossible to print tracks and average projects are 60-80 audio tracks, 30-40 midis + busses, auxes etc., some twice as much.
There simply is no computer with enough processing power to handle that with say 96Khz, especially when using Acquas...

So, going back to this slightly derailed Acustica thread:
All I wanted to point out is that 44.1 is still the de facto standard in a huge part of the audio industry. Some posts created the impression that wasn't the case.
As scarlet is in pre-release(=beta, tbh) there is nothing to complain about missing 48Khz, imo.
OK now I understand. You and I have very different workflows/needs. I mostly engineer rock, rap, R&B and occasionally country/singer-songwriter new folk type music. i break it down in stages so processing power is a lot less of a problem.

Your MIDI tracks aren't bounced? At the mixing stage I don't have any MIDI tracks. All virtual instruments are bounced. I hope you are charging extra for those mix changes, LOL. People who can't make up their mind annoy me...unless they are coughing up more money and in that case i'll change the mix 100 times no problem.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #354
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.simmons View Post
Can't confirm this.
44.1/16bit (!) is still the standard.
Every major artist/label still releases CDs, apart from some Hiphop/EDM genres, maybe. This is slowly changing and might be over in a couple of years, but not yet.
The most important streaming services are Spotify and iTunes - both require 44.1/16bit.
Thus, about 98% of my work is 44.1, except from some occasional live recordings, where 48 (or higher) is common.

Another note:
Most of the sample library content is 44.1. If you're working with Midi/virtual instruments and sample based libraries, mixing in 48 would require upsampling -
not good...
As always, ymmv.
It is a standard as an output. I doesn't mean you cannot work in higher resolution. It actually doesn't make too much sense to work in 16bit/44.1.
It is like being a photographer and shooting 720p photos that you cannot do much with, because clients want 720p... Naturally you would use the highest useful resolution your equipment allows and render 720p to the client.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #355
Gear Addict
 

Would anyone like to share their sonic experiences regarding this EQ?

I just started using it yesterday and so far I think I prefer the classic mode but further testing is needed? The classic mode feels more relaxed to me if that makes any sense.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #356
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikola_Tesla View Post
Having some issues validating the last version 2.02 in the latest version of Logic X.
Fixed by acustica, great service and helpdesk!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #357
Gear Head
 

Regarding sample rates. Why not just hold the release back until they are ready? It sounds like you will have much more positive feedback that just focuses on the awesome sound that way.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #358
Lives for gear
 
zaphod's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by GusGranite View Post
Regarding sample rates. Why not just hold the release back until they are ready? It sounds like you will have much more positive feedback that just focuses on the awesome sound that way.
Good question
We're not very interested in feedbacks right now.
I am practically the only person who occasionally goes on the forums trying to understand if the design of a product is correct. One thing I try to understand is if our work is going in the right direction, if we are improving, if the audio quality is perceived as correct, if we have to review some priorities and so on.
Our only goal is to create as many products as possible and at the same time to minimize costs.
When the product costs less we have a margin to improve it, for example to book new sampling sessions, or to pay some external consultants such as Stedal to carry out a review of each individual error.
That's why we have a period of discounted sales where we receive various requests and fix some obvious errors.
Since add-on packages are very expensive we try to produce them only when the product is well established: for example if we have a damaged sample the fix probably requires four times the effort after the add-on packages have been released.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #359
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zaphod View Post
Good question
We're not very interested in feedbacks right now.
I am practically the only person who occasionally goes on the forums trying to understand if the design of a product is correct. One thing I try to understand is if our work is going in the right direction, if we are improving, if the audio quality is perceived as correct, if we have to review some priorities and so on.
Our only goal is to create as many products as possible and at the same time to minimize costs.
When the product costs less we have a margin to improve it, for example to book new sampling sessions, or to pay some external consultants such as Stedal to carry out a review of each individual error.
That's why we have a period of discounted sales where we receive various requests and fix some obvious errors.
Since add-on packages are very expensive we try to produce them only when the product is well established: for example if we have a damaged sample the fix probably requires four times the effort after the add-on packages have been released.
Thanks for the reply. You are a unique company. I wish you every success and longevity!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #360
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdd17 View Post
Would anyone like to share their sonic experiences regarding this EQ?

I just started using it yesterday and so far I think I prefer the classic mode but further testing is needed? The classic mode feels more relaxed to me if that makes any sense.
I also prefer the Classic, but I highly doubt I'd be able to definitely A/B them in a blind test. It comes across as more subtle in a way, while the standard mode feels tighter and drier. On a reverberant, muddy mix, maybe the standard version would get a quicker result, while on a more defined mix, the classic would get a faster result. Either way, I am spoilt for choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zaphod View Post
Good question
We're not very interested in feedbacks right now.
I am practically the only person who occasionally goes on the forums trying to understand if the design of a product is correct. One thing I try to understand is if our work is going in the right direction, if we are improving, if the audio quality is perceived as correct, if we have to review some priorities and so on.
Our only goal is to create as many products as possible and at the same time to minimize costs.
When the product costs less we have a margin to improve it, for example to book new sampling sessions, or to pay some external consultants such as Stedal to carry out a review of each individual error.
That's why we have a period of discounted sales where we receive various requests and fix some obvious errors.
Since add-on packages are very expensive we try to produce them only when the product is well established: for example if we have a damaged sample the fix probably requires four times the effort after the add-on packages have been released.
This is the clearest explanation of your process and scheduling, thank you!
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump