The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Airwindows ToTape6: Mac/Windows/Linux AU/VST
Old 3 weeks ago
  #61
Lives for gear
 

Had to restart the Macbook for it to see the AU in Maschine (Never had to do that before) and it still doesn't show in Reapers dropdown list, just in the browser, that is caused by the VST plugins being by airwindows and the AU being by Airwindows, you might want to change the names to be the same.
In Maschine it has two entries in the plugin list airwindows and Airwindows.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #62
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
So I've got an update

ToTape6.zip(396k)

This revises the input gain control so that, if you're attenuating, it'll pad like normal (no weird interaction with the interleaved filter anymore). This is the kind of thing I do as an update-in-place, but since the change is pretty significant, I'm keeping the original release available.

(so if you need the 'broken' version, it's at originalToTape6.zip.)

You should be using the current version (now at the original location, and in NewUpdates.zip) and I hope it'll be more flexible as it was intended to be
Old 2 weeks ago
  #63
Lives for gear
 
Beatworld's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
So I've got an update

ToTape6.zip(396k)

This revises the input gain control so that, if you're attenuating, it'll pad like normal (no weird interaction with the interleaved filter anymore). This is the kind of thing I do as an update-in-place, but since the change is pretty significant, I'm keeping the original release available.

(so if you need the 'broken' version, it's at originalToTape6.zip.)

You should be using the current version (now at the original location, and in NewUpdates.zip) and I hope it'll be more flexible as it was intended to be
Chris are you sure you have the correct link in the ToTape6 download ???
Because the bump now sounds pretty much identical to Tape ????

UPDATE: In Plugin Doctor you can now make Tape and ToTape6 look identical (with Flutter off).
If this is intentional it is a RADICAL change to ToTape6.
No longer a true bump around 22Hz, now the full blown low shelf like feature of Tape.

Last edited by Beatworld; 2 weeks ago at 11:44 PM..
Old 2 weeks ago
  #64
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Neither is a shelf. It's because IVsnd posted, "I just ran into an issue with ToTape6 and the Head Bump parameter that might not work as intended. At 0.5 it produces a prominent long zippery tail on kicks, which is still clearly audible even at 0.20 strength and below."

I think that's because of the method of DC suppression on ToTape6, and I'd re-designed that for Tape. Neither is a shelf. They're the same algorithm, with two (now one) different extra algorithm to suppress DC build-up.

Specifically, the 'zippery tail' ToTape6 did a simple subtraction based on whether the build-up was positive or negative. Tape (and the new ToTape6) make that a factor of the output, meaning that if the head bump is swinging away from zero in either direction, it's more capable of sustaining that, but if it's settling down into silence it's pulled into complete silence. There's no such thing as a bump vs. shelf behavior as it's not a linear EQ boost: it's exaggerating what's already present in the Head Bump algorithm, a nonlinearity where it 'wants' to bring up quiet lows more than it wants to increase already-loud lows.

Thoughts? This will also go into whatever I do with the successor to BassKit etc. so it's worth talking it out now.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #65
Lives for gear
 
Beatworld's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Neither is a shelf. It's because IVsnd posted, "I just ran into an issue with ToTape6 and the Head Bump parameter that might not work as intended. At 0.5 it produces a prominent long zippery tail on kicks, which is still clearly audible even at 0.20 strength and below."

I think that's because of the method of DC suppression on ToTape6, and I'd re-designed that for Tape. Neither is a shelf. They're the same algorithm, with two (now one) different extra algorithm to suppress DC build-up.

Specifically, the 'zippery tail' ToTape6 did a simple subtraction based on whether the build-up was positive or negative. Tape (and the new ToTape6) make that a factor of the output, meaning that if the head bump is swinging away from zero in either direction, it's more capable of sustaining that, but if it's settling down into silence it's pulled into complete silence. There's no such thing as a bump vs. shelf behavior as it's not a linear EQ boost: it's exaggerating what's already present in the Head Bump algorithm, a nonlinearity where it 'wants' to bring up quiet lows more than it wants to increase already-loud lows.

Thoughts? This will also go into whatever I do with the successor to BassKit etc. so it's worth talking it out now.
I see.

Well I will have to test ToTape6 out more before reaching a conclusion.
First thing I seem to notice is a bigger CPU hit with the new version.
Is that possible, like the mastering project I have it in is stopping all the time ??

UPDATE: At this point I'm glad I still have the previous version of ToTape6 TBH.
The new version seems to increase RMS levels a lot but tame transients.
Better have a break from it and revisit it later.
Nice to have choices I guess.

Last edited by Beatworld; 2 weeks ago at 02:06 AM..
Old 2 weeks ago
  #66
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatworld View Post
I see.

Well I will have to test ToTape6 out more before reaching a conclusion.
First thing I seem to notice is a bigger CPU hit with the new version.
Is that possible, like the mastering project I have it it is stopping all the time ??

UPDATE: At this point I'm glad I still have the previous version of ToTape6 TBH.
The new version seems to increase RMS levels a lot but tame transients.
Better have a break from it and revisit it later.
Nice to have choices I guess.
I'm interested in to what extent the transients, are resonance around that 22 hz level that you saw as a bell. There are some very distinct differences in the algorithm:

-first one, which is cutting back the subs LOTS but only below a threshold. Turns out this wasn't a subtract, it's like a gate, but it's real aggressive once it kicks in, and it was causing artifacts. When the signal is not low enough, it has NO effect

if (fabs(inputSample) < 0.0025) {
iirHeadBumpA *= 0.99;
iirHeadBumpB *= 0.99;
} //restrain resonant quality of head bump algorithm

-current one engages at all times (a key Airwindows technique for avoiding those artifacts) but it scales, and it's always pretty tiny but even tinier when the full-bandwidth audio is high. That means if the input audio gates, the head bump will clean up more quickly, but if the input audio is loud then the head bump is more free to produce lows.

Float64 suppress = (1.0-fabs(inputSample)) * 0.00013;
if (iirHeadBumpA > suppress) iirHeadBumpA -= suppress;
if (iirHeadBumpA < -suppress) iirHeadBumpA += suppress;
if (iirHeadBumpB > suppress) iirHeadBumpB -= suppress;
if (iirHeadBumpB < -suppress) iirHeadBumpB += suppress;
//restrain resonant quality of head bump algorithm

You can also see that the original mostly doesn't apply its two multiplies and does one logic comparison, where the current one makes a variable and then does four different logic comparisons, of which two will usually result in an add or subtract. I could cut out two of those with an 'else' which would be relevant about half the time: didn't think of it as I can't make it a simple if/else without making it refer to zero and making another sort of oscillation. This one will take the head bump factors close to zero and then stop.

I think I'm going to have to stick with version 2 as I can't go back to 'suddenly kicking in a sharp attentuation when the input is quiet', but again, it's worth talking about this as this is the time to get these right. The interesting thing is, feeding this algorithm test tones masks the way it tightens up low-bass overhang: it specifically works different when the audio is going from loud to quiet, or vice versa. That also means it has distinct characteristics when fed loud bass content versus loud treble/mids content: given bass, it'll bloom more, given highs it'll be tighter (because bass and subs spend more time at high signal levels, compared to treble of equal volume). And it'll continue to fill in bass deeper and deeper, within the limits of the output waveform (which I think is why you're hearing (or reading?) it as a shelf).

Apologies for making plugins that completely confuse measuring plugins. It's like trying to run test tones through a compressor, not that either plugin is a compressor
Old 2 weeks ago
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Beatworld's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
I'm interested in to what extent the transients, are resonance around that 22 hz level that you saw as a bell. There are some very distinct differences in the algorithm:

-first one, which is cutting back the subs LOTS but only below a threshold. Turns out this wasn't a subtract, it's like a gate, but it's real aggressive once it kicks in, and it was causing artifacts. When the signal is not low enough, it has NO effect

if (fabs(inputSample) < 0.0025) {
iirHeadBumpA *= 0.99;
iirHeadBumpB *= 0.99;
} //restrain resonant quality of head bump algorithm

-current one engages at all times (a key Airwindows technique for avoiding those artifacts) but it scales, and it's always pretty tiny but even tinier when the full-bandwidth audio is high. That means if the input audio gates, the head bump will clean up more quickly, but if the input audio is loud then the head bump is more free to produce lows.

Float64 suppress = (1.0-fabs(inputSample)) * 0.00013;
if (iirHeadBumpA > suppress) iirHeadBumpA -= suppress;
if (iirHeadBumpA < -suppress) iirHeadBumpA += suppress;
if (iirHeadBumpB > suppress) iirHeadBumpB -= suppress;
if (iirHeadBumpB < -suppress) iirHeadBumpB += suppress;
//restrain resonant quality of head bump algorithm

You can also see that the original mostly doesn't apply its two multiplies and does one logic comparison, where the current one makes a variable and then does four different logic comparisons, of which two will usually result in an add or subtract. I could cut out two of those with an 'else' which would be relevant about half the time: didn't think of it as I can't make it a simple if/else without making it refer to zero and making another sort of oscillation. This one will take the head bump factors close to zero and then stop.

I think I'm going to have to stick with version 2 as I can't go back to 'suddenly kicking in a sharp attentuation when the input is quiet', but again, it's worth talking about this as this is the time to get these right. The interesting thing is, feeding this algorithm test tones masks the way it tightens up low-bass overhang: it specifically works different when the audio is going from loud to quiet, or vice versa. That also means it has distinct characteristics when fed loud bass content versus loud treble/mids content: given bass, it'll bloom more, given highs it'll be tighter (because bass and subs spend more time at high signal levels, compared to treble of equal volume). And it'll continue to fill in bass deeper and deeper, within the limits of the output waveform (which I think is why you're hearing (or reading?) it as a shelf).

Apologies for making plugins that completely confuse measuring plugins. It's like trying to run test tones through a compressor, not that either plugin is a compressor
Sorry if my post was confusing.
I wasn't even suggesting the transients being tamed were coming from the low frequencies.
I'm talking about snares, percussive type things.

As I have ToTape6 as the last insert in the mastering chain before the Limiter the Input level is, I suppose, quite loud the way I do things. I might only add 1 db of level with the Limiter.

So perhaps my method qualifies as "loud input audio".
Therefore the head bump being more "free" produces more lows.

More time with the current versions indicates that I can dial in a sound I'm happy enough with by a significant reduction of the wet signal, maybe a 40/60 wet/dry mix. This is with almost no Bump.

This allows some transients through again but still adds some fatness that the increased RMS and under the hood mojo is doing and there is a closer volume match with what is going into it.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #68
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Oh good the important thing is that you're able to get to something you want. I'm glad I implemented the flutter in such a way that it can be dialed back to nothing, because it'd get in the way of using Dry/Wet if you couldn't.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #69
Lives for gear
 
Beatworld's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Oh good the important thing is that you're able to get to something you want. I'm glad I implemented the flutter in such a way that it can be dialed back to nothing, because it'd get in the way of using Dry/Wet if you couldn't.
Yep, Flutter is off.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #70
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatworld View Post
Sorry if my post was confusing.
I wasn't even suggesting the transients being tamed were coming from the low frequencies.
I'm talking about snares, percussive type things.

As I have ToTape6 as the last insert in the mastering chain before the Limiter the Input level is, I suppose, quite loud the way I do things. I might only add 1 db of level with the Limiter.

So perhaps my method qualifies as "loud input audio".
Therefore the head bump being more "free" produces more lows.

More time with the current versions indicates that I can dial in a sound I'm happy enough with by a significant reduction of the wet signal, maybe a 40/60 wet/dry mix. This is with almost no Bump.

This allows some transients through again but still adds some fatness that the increased RMS and under the hood mojo is doing and there is a closer volume match with what is going into it.
This lines up with a track I was working on that I had gotten the punch where I wanted but ToTape definitely softened it a bit too much. No Headbump or Flutter and 40/60 wet/dry worked for me as well on the masterbus.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #71
Here for the gear
Is there a way to run new Airwindows plugins on Catalina? I can't update any of them...
Old 2 weeks ago
  #72
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by starlightstudio View Post
Is there a way to run new Airwindows plugins on Catalina? I can't update any of them...
Here’s my collection of Catalina gatekeeper instructions

I’ve got one report that says you can do a re-scan within Logic’s plugin manager, and then as you run ‘reset and re-scan selection’ you can go to system prefs/security and it’ll show that Gatekeeper stopped the plugin from opening but there was an option for ‘open anyway’. If you’re able to do it that way the plugin will pass validation in Logic.

If that doesn’t work, the Terminal command to run will be like this (if you have the NewUpdates folder open on your desktop):

sudo xattr -d -r com.apple.quarantine ~/Desktop/NewUpdates/*

sudo (you’ll supply your password) lets you do administrator stuff
xattr -d removes the attribute ‘com.apple.quarantine’ from things,
the -r means recursive so it will go into subfolders and anything in NewUpdates, so don’t point this at your whole hard drive

The reason this is necessary is, Apple won't let me support older machines. So I will support older machines, and when Apple gets really aggressive with killing backward compatibility, we have to find workarounds. You can't compile for the stuff my plugins run on, in Catalina XCode (or even vaguely close to it). So I'm building on 10.6.8 and Windows 7 (in a sealed-off virtual machine) and my stuff will continue to run on old machines.
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