Anwida "Spazio" Opnions [Archive] - SAWStudio / SAC User Group

canipus

07-28-2004, 08:45 AM

It's good but not as useful to me as the new VST implementation of freeverb from Jezzar which I find more useful at getting fast (incredible) results and uses much less resources. I just replaced the Waves Renaissance verb on an advertising jingle with the freeverb and the difference was chalk and cheese. I found the freeverb really showed the Waves up. Admittedly I wasn't doing this work with SAW but on another DAW but I did try the Anwida demo with my SAW demo and freeverb with the SAW demo and that's where i noticed the big difference in resources between the 2 plugins. I think the most useful thing about the Anwida is that it's native and therefore automateable in SAW but as a reverberator it wouldn't be my first call. Also tried it on an older less powerful PC and got a load of zipper noise when editing the controls during playback - which I don't get fiddling with other plugins on the same PC. So overall I guess it's ok but I'm not excited about it. Just my 2c.

Carey Langille

07-28-2004, 09:35 AM

WOW, Thats a lot of Demo's demoing Demo's.... :) I think i would find it hard to actually judge with all the limitiations of 2 demos on top of each other!..

canipus

07-28-2004, 10:16 AM

WOW, Thats a lot of Demo's demoing Demo's.... :) I think i would find it hard to actually judge with all the limitiations of 2 demos on top of each other!..
Not really. To judge the resource load you load a track, load a plugin and hit play. The resource indicator flags up in less than a second.
For testing the reverb quality you load impulse samples less than 2 seconds long, fed the o/p into a Lynx2 D/A and then out to a Tectronix spectrum analyser coupled with FFT software on a 3.2GHz P4 PC. Then by using deconvolution I could listen to just the DSP function that comprises the signal reverberation without the original impulse masking. I could listen to the impulse response quality as well as analysing it mathematically. I then ran the same results against other high-end reverbs. Each test takes less than 2 seconds so I don't see how any demo would be a limitation?

Dave Labrecque

07-28-2004, 10:20 AM

Hey, Carey...

I'd be interested to hear your comparison with SIR and some of the IRs it'll take.

Dave

Carey Langille

07-28-2004, 10:29 AM

Hey dave, SIR is the OTHER reverb i use... I Enjoy its many possibilities as well, but i does use More CPU and you do have to use the JMS latency comp. Which srews up recording BIG TIME.... So you have to leave it patched out till your Final mix, or of course, add and remove it from the mix if your gonna overdub... Eventually SIR- Zero Latency will be awesome.... But for Now, it does have the Latency... No biggie... I guess we really have to use our Ears here.. You can try and use as many analizers as you want, and i have, but you still have to please your ears and your clients ears... I just finished a band call WELSPRING here in canada, and i used the new Anwida on it.. So far i have had nothing but amazing reviews back, 2 of them commenting on the Openness of the reverb spaces and one guy ( university Muic Prof ( Cello)) Aking me what hall i gecorded the strings in... If we can foool the masses and then some, were doing our jobs..!

canipus

07-28-2004, 10:55 AM

and one guy ( university Muic Prof ( Cello)) Aking me what hall i gecorded the strings in... If we can foool the masses and then some, were doing our jobs..!
================================================== ======
Do you know this guy's background personally?
Because someone asked that question it's not logical to then confer some some sort of status on the anwida reverb. For example, if this person was not aware that digital artificial reverbs existed, i.e all recorded reverb had to originate from natural acoustic environments, then asking the question is nothing more than passing interest with the possible inference that he liked what he heard. In other words, he made the assumption that the reverb was a real hall - not because the anwida sounded like a hall and fooled his ears, your interpretation of the question - but because his lack of knowledge led him to believe it was a hall (it couldn't possibly be anything else). I grant you that you would think a University music professor would know better, but some of these classical gurus have never even heard of recording on anything but tape.

Carey Langille

07-28-2004, 11:11 AM

He was amazed that he was hearing a digital reverb recreating a Real space so well...:confused:
Yes, hes been a friend for 22yrs and the head of University Music Dept for 25 or more yrs...To me, hes Qualified.

canipus

07-28-2004, 11:12 AM

AudioAstronomer

07-28-2004, 11:13 AM

My favorite reverb right now. period.

I dont think credentials are necassary other than I am a total hardware reverb fanatic.

Im still having a preset bug but for the life of me it seems to be completely random!! I had quite a few presets to be released in the full version but for some reason my presets kept getting reset :(

Carey Langille

07-28-2004, 11:17 AM

Read for yourself Canipus.

""Hi Users,

SIR 1.007 bugfix is released:

<LI>EQ-Bug fixed
<LI>window size problems fixed
<LI>possible crash fixed
<LI>default file option

Cheers
Christian

PS:
Yes, i'm still working on zero-latency version."""
<LI>http://www.knufinke.de/sir/index_en.html

canipus

07-28-2004, 11:24 AM

Thanks,
I'll contact him by e-mail - should prove to be an interesting communication :) based on the fact that he has to correlate the processing latency with the plugin throuhput system delay. If he manages the former I don't see how he will achieve the latter with an IIR filter unless he uses a quantum effects processor - and they don't exist!!!
canipus

AudioAstronomer

07-28-2004, 11:27 AM

Eventually SIR- Zero Latency will be awesome...
====================================

Cari.
I was under the impression that SIR uses an infinite response filter rather than finite? If I'm correct it will be interesting to see how the author will make an infinite filter with zero latency. Low latency perhaps but zero....? I think we could be waiting a long time. Has the author ever declared this to be a design goal?
canipus

Pristine does a complete calculationally exact convolution at 0 latency.

Revolverb does an audibly perfect convolution with 0 latency as well. (more errors, but much much lower than SIR or Pristine space occasional errors)

If SIR will continue to use the FFT style filters for signal modification it wont be possible. I assume for 0 latency those will be disabled.... but convolution would be, and is, entirely possible :)

At the very least you can do like WAVES did, and simply say you're 0 latency, but make all your impulses have a minimum predelay ;)

mghtx

07-28-2004, 11:51 AM

I like the layout of Spazio a whole lot better than the SS reverb. It's a lot easier for me to understand (being the novice that I am). However I will be getting the SS 'verb as well so as to have choices and supporting RML. And it's a heck of a deal.

To me they both sound great.

canipus

07-28-2004, 12:10 PM

Robert,
Do you mean latency or delay?
Are you saying that the moment an i/p signal enters the plugin, the s/w starts calculating and outputs the calculation signal time coincident with the i/p? If so how does the s/w accumulate enough data to run the transfer function to get a calculation to put it out in zero time. If you're saying that the s/w buffers data and looks ahead then the time through the buffer does not give you zero latency. Every single item of hardware in my studio has more than zero latency. So how does a s/w emulation of my hardware manage to achieve what my hardware can't do?

canipus

07-28-2004, 12:24 PM

Pristine does a complete calculationally exact convolution at 0 latency.

Revolverb does an audibly perfect convolution with 0 latency as well. (more errors, but much much lower than SIR or Pristine space occasional errors)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++
Yes , then assuming they are using the correct definition of latency then they are saying that calculation time is zero BUT measured from before or after data accumulation? These people are measuring after data accumulation and hoodwinking you into thinking they've done the impossible. It's a numbers game, lower is better , zero is even better than lower. But they're all liars. They are not zero latency. Mesure the processing delay before the buffer accumulation and there you have the latency that everyone else has who quotes honest latency specifications.

AudioAstronomer

07-28-2004, 12:32 PM

Im 99.9% sure its true, absolutely 0 latency. I will double check later today of course.

It's not impossible at all. We had a long chat about this in #musicDSP on efnet a few days ago. There are many implementations that do complte convolutions with zero latency, that is no delay between the input sample being processed and output at the same sample.

AudioAstronomer

07-28-2004, 12:52 PM

Yes, I just checked on pristine space. 0 latency, 0 delay. An "unprocessed" wav lines up perfectly with a processed wave in zero latency mode.

And Im sure there's not pdc tricks goign on since SAW does not support VST pdc... and there is no "predelay" addition happening like the waves impulse reverb. I tested using an impulse of one of my favorite DI's that was 2 samples offet (due to operator error). The proessed waveform was exactly 2 samples offset during playback and mixdown. Of course, no PDC occuring.

It sounded very good as well, no immediately noticable changes in quality and this is an impulse I use daily with revolverb.

Processing load is indeed higher of course....

MMP

07-28-2004, 01:37 PM

Zero latency and zero time are two different things.

Zero latency< than the length of one sample...so for 48K < .00125 sec.

Right?

MM

canipus

07-28-2004, 01:53 PM

Robert that is audio delay not latency. You can't measure latency this way. You would have to measure the latency of the application by referencing the exact clock cycle of the CPU in your PC with the first instruction set in the s/w plugin that issues the instruction to get the first data bit in the first word to the CPU clock cycle that outputs the first bit in the first word to your PCI bus. The latency is then the reciprocal of the CPU clock in seconds. You can easily have an "effective" virtual delay in audio parlance reference samples, buffer count or what have you but you cannot have zero latency. It's the same in any hardware DSP or any physics system involving a dynamic change of state. There is a finite time taken to process a data bit. There has to be at least one clock cycle in the digital world for anything to happen. You're talking effective system delay which can be effectively zero but the instructional computation behind moving the data through that system has a time element attached to it. THAT IS LATENCY - AND IT'S NOT ZERO. The entire audio (and s/w industry) has latched onto the word latency as synonomous with delay - and even then you can't have zero delay its breaks the laws of physics. It's a virtual delay that when effectively zero means that your audio tracks effectively lines up. In absolute terms they never line up. All your audio tracks are nonoseconds apart due to the way data is picked up by the stacked heads on the platter in your hard disk. Are we worried about a few nanoseconds? Of course not. Are you aware that all the tracks on a 24 track 2" analog tape don't line up. Check under an electron microscope and you'll see they are out of sync. The effective inter track delay is zero but if you take the measurement of the time the first magnetic flux is processed by the head amplifier for track 1 and then reference that time for the same in track 2 it will be a minutely unimportant finite time difference but you have an absolute latency measurement there. You cannot have zero latency any more than you can expect electrons to travel down a wire under normal conditions faster than the speed of light.

AudioAstronomer

07-28-2004, 02:03 PM

As commonly accepted defintiinon of latency (since we're getting into semantics): the time it takes for a specific block of data on a data track to rotate around to the read/write head

In the digital audio realm, this means only the time between samples. Since there is no data occuring between samples that can be processed unless you upsample. So if the same is processed and output in the same cycle, it therefore has 0 latency.

If you wish to speak of "fader" latency in software, there is of course latency because of graphic displays etc... but if the volume change at that specific sample is output at the exact same time as the input (barring conversion latency), it is of course 0 latency.

I agree with your definition of latency, but in the audio realm we are given units of time. In the real world there is an infinite subdivision of time, which means nothign will ever be "no latency" in that system of measurements. When speaking of digital audio, we have a minimum measurement of 1 sample. If there is delay between a sample inputting, and outputting of a specific process there is absolutely ZERO latency for the system. If you want to take into account jitter etc... for hardware devices which can incur very very minute latency when using infitinite time measurements... fine. But for a specific contained system in the digital audio realm, if the system takes input and processes and passed on the output before the next smallest increment of time, there is 0 latency in the system being described. Likewise, there is 0 delay.

It can be easy to quickly start mixing units of measurement to make a point. Unfortunately in a finite system (audio sampling), any other infinite time measurements are completely invalid. If the system satisfies the definition of latency for that specific finite measurement system, it can only be called zero latency for the simple fact that it the system is not latent at all within the bounds of any measurements valid for that system.

AudioAstronomer

07-28-2004, 02:09 PM

I must also note that you seem to be making the inclusion of other portions of the system. Simply stated as I tried above, Pristine space in of itself, has 0 latency. The input sample is processed and output as that sample. Any outside factors are latencies of the complete system and have nothing to do with the specific component claiming to have 0 latency. If the component is removed, or added it will have 0 effect on the time continuity of the complete system. Every sample will be input and output at the same precise sample location, perhaps modified of the component is being used. Any data access, number crunching, visual display etc... has to happen before the next input sample arrives.... The host doesnt input a sample and say... oh, you're not done.. we'll Ill let you wait as long as you want. Of course you have a buffer to work with, but no sample is delayed. Whe the host wants the data, it gets the data. The latency inherent there is of the host, not the component (vst plugin in this case).

Goodness gracious... lol :) This thread was about Spazio right!? :) Yeah, it rocks!

canipus

07-28-2004, 02:28 PM

Michael,
You're on the right track generally in the sense that in audio, latency resolution has to resolve to a quantifiable reference. That reference can be an audio data byte but it's more commonly a single bit within the bitstream because although an audio value is held within the context of a single sample, audio processing is often done on bits in series e.g. transmitting data between audio systems is done serially and the conversion processes between the analog and digital domains tend to use delta-sigma bitstreams rather than PCM linear. Therefore the reference for both measureable transport latency and system jitter has to be a clock period within the bitstream bit rate. Your data rate may be 48kHz but your bit rate is what counts and that relates to the quantisation level of the converter. You can extrapolate the reference time to the period of the single bit. In essence the clock rate is the governing factor (which is why you get better jitter performance by putting your money into good clocks or to put it another way take two sound cards with exactly the same component chip set one costing $500 the other $2000. Why the difference? You're paying for the clock circuit not the converter silicon). At the end day your digital system computation is under control of a clock and the reference for latency will be the period of a clock cycle. Without that clock cycle there can be absolutely no computation or tranport taking place on the bitstream. Now the question remains how, many instructions can you get out of a single clock and do you reference the front edge or the trailing edge of the clock in performing latency measurement. It generally doesn't matter so long as you keep to the same set of rules in the measurement system, but if you want to improve your measurement statistics that's one of the tricks commonly used - change the reference point/rule set.
canipus

canipus

07-28-2004, 02:46 PM

AudioAstronomer

07-28-2004, 03:36 PM

This thread was about Spazio right!? Yeah, it rocks!
=======================================

Robert you made reference earlier in this thread to hardware reverb units. For the sake of clarity would you mind naming specifically which hardware units you compared Spazio against and what your comparison tests consisted of. Were the tests subjective - your ears on a pair of NS10s whose frequency response response degrades over time - or quantifiable measured tests?

Thanks

Canipus.

Err.... To my knowledge spazio does not seek to model or emulate any specific hardware devices. I simply stated my preferences for (certain) hardware reverbs to denote my tastes, which seems rather pointless since I did not specifify units I prefer. Im quite the follower of eventide's sound particularly the new orville unit.. and my old EMT plate (which we just sold since the only place to put it was very humid). I dont particularly like lexicon's units, but often its been necassary to use them to acheive popular sounds for specific kinds of music. TC doesnt impress me at all. Spazio seems to have a nice quality about it comparable to eventide's almost "indie" sound... that is to say it sounds more like a real space than an artificial reverb, and its been my observation that most commercial recordins of the past few decades rely heavily on that "artificial" sound as opposed to most indie records that focus on real space sounds.

MMP

07-28-2004, 03:47 PM

It takes me a long time to evaluate a reverb. So far, I like what I hear, but I haven't used it enough to know its value to me in my working environment.

I have been using it any place where I need to automate a reverb, and I have already used the Inverse programs for some Radio & TV spot voice FX.

My Kurzweil RSP8 reverb is what I use most of the time...I cut reverbs onto parallel tracks while tracking, so the plugins usually take a more specialized role.

I am very glad to have Spazio in my toolkit, however.

MM

matt

07-28-2004, 05:52 PM

canipus

07-28-2004, 06:50 PM

Ya, anti-reverb is the way to go!
=========================

Deconvolution rocks!

canipus

07-28-2004, 07:00 PM

AudioAstronomer

07-28-2004, 07:29 PM

TC doesnt impress me at all. Spazio seems to have a nice quality about it comparable to eventide's almost "indie" sound... that is to say it sounds more like a real space than an artificial reverb.
================================================== =====
Robert,

I'm stunned to read your comment on TC. The TC M3000/5000 are world famous in film and TV because their algorithms emulate so accurately real natural acoustic spaces. People are ordering them because the reverb is not synthesised artificial sounding. It's the total opposite of Lexicon. Did you try the TC reverbs with acoustic sounds, voices and acoustic instruments or electric instruments?

The 5000 really does hall sounds very very welll. But it really stops short when you want a small room. Like a living room, or apartment sound. Begins to get really muddy in comparison to an orville... Also I dont like how static the 5000 sounds, adjust parameters and it feels like the "area' is changing... on the orville it sounds more like you're walking around the room.... Its hard to explain. The 5000 just felt like a really nice effect... the orville was like closing your eyes and walking around into different rooms...

TotalSonic

07-28-2004, 08:00 PM

As far as Spazio goes - I really have been digging it - especially the plate algorithm - just used this on a female vocal for a psychedelic country track I recorded as the ending credits music for a short film and it worked perfect. I've kind of posted this befoe - but to me it's got a lot more versatility than the JMS Freeverb, is a lot easier to tweak settings or program new presets for than the Reverberator, is definitely more efficient than SIR, and still has a really nice smoothness to its sound. Recommended!

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Naturally Digital

07-28-2004, 08:54 PM

Hey guys, Its been a few weeks now and i was just wondering what everyone was thinking about the new Anwida Spazio reverb.. Personally, i have used it in about 70% of the receint projects.. I like the Detail and the Low CPU usage..Its now my first call! Any other opinions?;)
Hi Carey,

Well, I hadn't gotten around to trying it until now. It certainly sounds pretty good. The interface is nice and the selection of presets looks good. My only complaint after a brief test would be the zipper noise when adjusting parameters. :( The MIX parameter is especially bad. I'm anxious to try the midi features with my Fadermaster Pro.

It's a small thing but I kind of miss being able to right click somewhere on the plugin to start/stop playback.

I didn't check to see if the noises were present while using automation on this plugin.

Did you happen to ask them about that noise?

Dave.

canipus

07-28-2004, 10:47 PM

Hmmm. I had that zipper noise as well (quite bad in fact), but I put it down to the fact that I was running the audio test on some low end hardware as my main machine was down for servicing. I tried it on a dual 600Mhx Plll, really cause I wanted to check the resource usage. At a 600Mhz it uses up 21% per instance but that's the problem with running underpowered PCs. I imagine it will be at least half that on a top-end P4 say 10% usage. I just thought the zipper was the unoptimised machine so I never thought any more about it.

Massimiliano Tonelli

07-29-2004, 12:32 PM

Dear All

First of all I would like to introduce myself. My name is Massimiliano Tonelli and I am the main developer of the algorithms and the DSP code of Spazio.

This post is just to clarify some points.

1) freeverb and Spazio comparison

a) freeverb is based on a good sounding Schroeder-Moorer reverberation algorithm. The main idea of this algorithm was developed around the '60. Historically speaking this algorithm is the ancestor of all digital reverberation algorithms. Anyway 40 years elapsed from this seminal idea and several new and better approaches have been developed.

b) freeverb is free...and of course this is a strong point for this product. By the way we provide a free reverb as well both in DirectX and VST format.
http://www.anwida.com/dxrevlight.asp

I can say for sure that this free reverb has been appreciated much more than freeverb...despite this never created problems in selling our full DX Reverb.
http://www.anwida.com/dxrev.asp

Spazio contains algorithms that have been extremely improved in respect to the DX Reverb ones.

c) it is meaningful only to compare the room, the hall and, at the most, the plate algorithms with freeverb. Gate and inverse algorithms does not have any "equivalent" in freeverb

d) the structures that have been used in Spazio does not have any intention to imitate any other reverberator. Our only aim was sound quality.
All the algorithms required more than 2 years of research (I could state my qualifications but this is not the place neither the time).

e) it has been mentioned the analysis and comparison of impulse responses.
If this has been done (as we did several times) I think that it should have been evident to the tester how Spazio can provide a time and a modal density thousands of time higher than freeverb (by the way, also this can be mathematically derived).

f) efficiency: on my P4 2.6Ghz machine all the algorithms requires around 6% of the resources. This means that you can use quite a lot of them...
I did not test recently the freeverb implementation.
But anyway I know what's inside both the algorithms (freeverb is open source, so I know exactly what's inside) and I can say that spazio contains quite a few :) delay lines more....

g) Keep on using freeverb if you cannot hear any difference with Spazio. We will be happy because you will be satisfied.

2) SIR and Spazio comparison

a) convolution reverbs, based on efficient implementation of FIR filtering is quite different from traditional approaches.

b) the main advantage of this approach is that it can reproduce faithfully the impulse response of a measured system. If the system has been badly measured quality will be poor. Only well measured IRs of good sounding acoustic space will provide good results.

c) convolutors usually cannot provide control over reverb parameters. Now Waves did something convincing in this direction but still flexibility is poor compared to traditional approach. Anyway this direction is very interesting and we have our ideas on how to follow this path

d) convolution does not work for time varying systems (systems where the input-output transfer function, therefore the IR, changes...
a time varying function would need a convolution with a time varying IR.
As an example, Lexicon reverbs uses delay line modulation quite a lot (so it is a time varying system). By using the IR approach you will not have the exact response of a real Lexicon but just an approximation of it. Anyway I can agree that this approximation can have a convincing sound

e) convolutor requires computational resources proportional to the length of the impulse response you are using.
So if you want a really long decay you will need a lot of resources

f) zero latency convolution can be done (I do not want to discuss on the semantic of latency 0 sample or 1 sample is not a big deal in this case) and this did the fortune of Lake technology. Zero latency convolution was developed by Gardner at MIT. Different approaches exists on the way to obtain the zero latency result. Unfortunatelly Lake technology was enforcing so hardly their patent that it was (probably still is) dangerous moving in this field.

3) Zipper noise

One of our beta testers told us about the zipper noise problem on his machine.
We could not recreate the problem on ours. As we demonstrated in the past our care in fixing any problem is evident. We will find all the solutions when possible.

Best regards
Massimiliano Tonelli

ANWIDA Soft

AudioAstronomer

07-29-2004, 12:57 PM

I must mention I have not and still do not have zipper noise. When moving certain parameters, the sound pauses until the parameter is set again though.... that's of course not zipped noise. (which is noise occuring while the parameter moves)

On the other hand, my presets are still dissapearing. It's happened on 3 computers now :( seems to be completely random! :(

Thank you very much for your post! :)

Naturally Digital

07-29-2004, 01:12 PM

3) Zipper noise

One of our beta testers told us about the zipper noise problem on his machine.
We could not recreate the problem on ours. As we demonstrated in the past our care in fixing any problem is evident. We will find all the solutions when possible.

Best regards
Massimiliano Tonelli

ANWIDA Soft
Dear Massimiliano,

First off, thank you for taking the time to post here. Your input and clarification is very much appreciated. It is obvious that you care about your product! :)

RE: Zipper noise. Well, I'm intrigued to learn that it is not present on all systems. It was quite bad on my system. As I mentioned, the worst example was adjustment of the MIX parameter while playing back a track in SAWStudio. It was on a blank EDL, the file was on track 1 and I patched Spazio 'pre-fader'. When I moved the mix parameter control (either in the LCD window, or with the wheel), I had clicks and pops at full-scale digital! The file was a church bell (just happened to have it on the HD), not overly loud. I'm running a dual Athlon machine w/Tyan Tiger MB, 512mb ram and this was on a LynxOne card using the internal D/A's.

Hope this helps.

I will quickly add that as much as I appreciate having more native plugins for SAWStudio, I find the price for Spazio slightly prohibitive. At this price, I must consider whether it offers me more than I already have with RML's reverb. Yes, they are very different but it still becomes a question for me. When the price is a little lower (say $99, as in your DX upgrade price) then it is a no-brainer for me. I have even been known to purchase inexpensive plugins, only to support the development! ;) Note that I am paying in Canadian $ also, so $169 becomes $220 or more for me. I'm not asking that you lower your prices and 'lose money' but just offering thoughts FWIW.

Keep up the nice work!
Best regards,
Dave.

canipus

07-30-2004, 03:58 AM

One of our beta testers told us about the zipper noise problem on his machine.
We could not recreate the problem on ours: Massimilliano.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++

Massimilliano,

I'm not sure I understand the implication behind this statement. Are you saying

a) that because the problem only existed with one beta tester out of x number of testers you were able to quantify that the problem was specific to one machine and for whatever reason would not be likely to reoccur in the field?

b) that because it didn't happen on your machine and because your machine carries some higher statistical weighting against those of your beta testers, again, the problem would not reoccur in the field.

c) that you don't have enough beta testers to make a quantifiable assessement on the QA status of the product.

d) that the beta testers you currently employ are less than effcient and not doing their job.

If c) or d) are a limitation please consider my application as an additional tester.

BTW how many testers do you employ currently?

thank you for taking the time to join us on this forum
regards
Canipus.

Massimiliano Tonelli

07-30-2004, 06:46 AM

Dear Mr. Canipus

Spazio has been released not because we voluntarily ignore the presence of a problem. This is definitely not in our style. The impossibility of reproducing a potential bug doesn't allow an easy resolution of it. Furthermore the usability of Spazio is not compromised at all especially considering the fact that, to our knowledge, there is no zipper noise during automation.

As many habitual users of this forum can witness, we always have taken in great consideration all suggestions and any potential problem.
Any problem has always been fixed.

For what concerns point d of your previous message:

We have enough beta testers, thank you. The lack of respect towards them offends us. Our beta testers are REAL SAWStudio users that use SAWStudio every day and rely on it as the main core of their profession.
They are highly qualified professionals and very skilled SAWStudio users.

Best regards
Massimiliano Tonelli

ANWIDA Soft

Leadfoot

07-30-2004, 07:52 AM

I would like to say thank you for providing us with a very good reverb
for the Saw enviroment. In my limited time spent with the demo I realize it is one of the best plugin reverbs I have ever heard. And I will be purchasing it asap. Some people get hung up on the the most insignificant details, it's amazing they ever get any real work done. I never doubt that if there actually are any 'real' problems, they would eventually be worked out.
Please know that most of us appreciate your efforts and we know that the level of quality and the sound of the actual plug is the important part.
To all Studio users, don not piss off the third party developers, there's not many of them to begin with, be careful how you say things you know they work very hard to create this stuff for us. I'm sure they don't really have to if you know what I mean. Personally I'm very happy to see them taking on this effort, and I'm sure all of us would like that to continue.
No I'm not the Saw police, but when it affects me, well...
Lighten up,
T

Dear Mr. Canipus
Spazio has been released not because we voluntarily ignore the presence of a problem. This is definitely not in our style. The impossibility of reproducing a potential bug doesn't allow an easy resolution of it. Furthermore the usability of Spazio is not compromised at all especially considering the fact that, to our knowledge, there is no zipper noise during automation.

As many habitual users of this forum can witness, we always have taken in great consideration all suggestions and any potential problem.
Any problem has always been fixed.

For what concerns point d of your previous message:

We have enough beta testers, thank you. The lack of respect towards them offends us. Our beta testers are REAL SAWStudio users that use SAWStudio every day and rely on it as the main core of their profession.
They are highly qualified professionals and very skilled SAWStudio users.

Best regards
Massimiliano Tonelli

ANWIDA Soft

Carey Langille

07-30-2004, 08:32 AM

Thanks to the Whole Anwida team for creating new plugins just for US!! :D This Reverb really does rock. I have not heard any of this "ZIPPER" noise. Its a Time/delay affecting effect so i dont expect that all the changes i do, (Especiallly if im flinging the controlls all over the place) will make sense audio wise.. I have mixed with this reverb for 2 weeks on my last album, and it responded exactly how i expected it to with automation.. Clean, Clear, Detailed and reliabily time after time...

Hey, it might not be everyones cup of Tea, thats Cool, Just move on.... Its no beig deal.... Buy what you like.. I have what i like....

matt

07-30-2004, 08:39 AM

I tried out Spazio and quite liked the plate... not bad but SIR is still my favorite in conjunction with the JMS latency compensator at 8960 samples.

Here are some links to free VST plugs that are great for listening comparison tests. All free or by donation.

http://www.kjaerhusaudio.com/products.php

-Classic plugs of all types. Very similar to Anwida

http://www.silverspike.com/PlugIns/RubyTube/rubytube.html

-Cool tube drive

http://www.smartelectronix.com/%7Ebram/

-Really nice modulation effect

I'm still amazed at how well SAW utilizes VST plugs...

Naturally Digital

07-30-2004, 09:12 AM

Hey, it might not be everyones cup of Tea, thats Cool, Just move on.... Its no beig deal.... Buy what you like.. I have what i like....
Hi Cary,

Gee, I hope you aren't taking any of this personally... ;)

I'm glad to hear you're getting lots of mileage out of this plugin. Keep it up!

Yeah, just wanted to mention re: the noises, that yes, with reverb being a time-delay based effect there are often noises associated with moving the controls. No doubt. We also know that with Bob's reverb, you have to let go of the controls (some of them anyway) before the parameter change takes place. You can still create some clicks if you try hard enough but generally, it is pretty quiet. It's been a while since I've tried Waves Rverb so I can't speak for it. I use the Wave Mechanics and TC Reverb on my Mixtreme and they are pretty good on this front. Granted though, these are a whole different animal (DSP-based).

With Spazio, the clicks were loud enough to concern me. If there were some way to improve it by 'smoothing' things, adding some interpolation or perhaps adopting a similar method to Bob's, then I would appreciate this plugin more.

I was thinking about this yesterday... There are things that we take for granted with SAWStudio... you can grab any control on that console and 'fling it around wildly' without any real artifacts. Pretty amazing really. I've said it before... I'm spoiled with SS. :)

I'm still amazed that this can vary from machine to machine... I could see the buffer sizes having a bearing on it but that's about it. :confused: I'll have to try it again but I think I was using the high-perf. multimedia driver model with 1 or 2 buffers at 512. I'll try changing those and see what happens.

Hey, no worries guys! It's great to see so much development on the SAWStudio front. I'm really happy! At the same time, a little constructive feedback doesn't hurt. Yes, it's hard not to take it personally, but in the end it usually works to everyone's benefit. We've seen it many times before and we're seeing it today (literally). Good feedback=better products=happier users=more word of mouth etc. ...and the beat goes on!

Listen well!
Dave.

AudioAstronomer

07-30-2004, 09:24 AM

Hey Dave, which parameters cause zipper noise for you? Any specific preset, or everything?

Im really interested to get it to happen, and I think I have an idea of how to reproduce it...

Also, on the mention of price... Be glad many of us aren't attached to "HD" systems (ala sadie, digidesign, sonic solutions) where an identical plugin could easily cost 800$! Heck, even comparable VST solutions cost more :)

Naturally Digital

07-30-2004, 11:40 AM

Hi Robert,

It was the 'mix' parameter that was the worst culprit but the others exhibited it to a lesser degree. No particular preset that I remember but I can check again.

Yeah, I hear ya on the price thing. Hey, I have a small collection of plugins for the Mixtreme - they weren't exactly cheap either. :) I'll buy it eventually, it's just that there are some magical price points for me where if I think I can use something on a semi-regular basis then 100 bucks isn't too hard to swallow. Maybe that'll change in a few years... Hey, I'm not actually complaining, more just offering an excuse as to why I haven't already bought it! :o

BTW: I'm waiting to hear from Jeanne regarding the F.A. so...

Aslo, I checked out that EQ from the smartelectronix site... VERY cool. I'd never heard of it before (don't hang out at KVRVST very much) but I like it. It's very unique, kind of 'new school' in its approach and it seems to sound quite good. Thanks.

Take care,
Dave.

Naturally Digital

07-30-2004, 12:19 PM

OK. Actually, I had my buffers set to 4x1024 when I tested this. I tried lower settings down to 1x128. The noises are still there but they do 'seem' to change slightly with various buffer settings. Could be my imagination though...

For me, at 1x128, while adjusting parameters the MT Load goes goes way up and the audio stutters. As soon as I stop adjusting parameters the MT Load stabilizes. Again, I'm using a LynxOne during these tests with Bob's Hi-Perf. Multimedia drivers.

The reverb sounds good though!
Dave.

AudioAstronomer

07-30-2004, 02:21 PM

Using ASIO I dont get the stutters.. but strangle enough, the audio is muted until I "drop" the parameter sometimes... just like The SAW reverb.

I am using 1x128 buffers with no other problems though.... Im going to take it for some more test runs specifically to try and find this "bug"... in regular use and doing other strange things with it, i never experience any problems except the presets.

I did find the cause of the preset bug though! I had always did the unzip of the files with windows Zip... for some reason it copied them as read-only... BUT the flag was never checked in properties. I checked the same files in Linux and it showed the readonly attribute. Removed it and presets save fine now. I think it may have just been a problem with the original beta distribution...

TotalSonic

07-30-2004, 02:59 PM

David -
On my mastering rig here at work (P4 2.8GHz, 512 megs RAM, Lynx One tied to Mytek AD & Lucid DA) I don't get any zipper noise using the Mix parameters for any of the algorithms - and trust me - you can hear details on these RS4.5's you'd never hear anywhere else. You CAN glitch Spazio's ouptut a tiny bit if you grab the mix fader and violently go from one extreme setting to another - but if you just move it in a normal way - you get smooth results. Could this possibly be an AMD thing??

Best regards,
Steve Berson

AudioAstronomer

07-30-2004, 03:01 PM

Its not happening on my brother's AMD... Im over here now just to test that very idea :)

Bob L

07-30-2004, 03:35 PM

Jeanne Quinn

07-30-2004, 08:09 PM

BTW: I'm waiting to hear from Jeanne regarding the F.A. so...

Hi Dave,

I had sent a reply yesterday. I resent it just now. Let me know if you still haven't received it.

Thanks,
Jeanne

AudioAstronomer

07-30-2004, 09:23 PM

Hi Dave,

I had sent a reply yesterday. I resent it just now. Let me know if you still haven't received it.

Thanks,
Jeanne

Resent is one of those funny words that can make or break a sentences depending on how you pronounce it... I read this 5 times before I realized you meant something totally different! :)

Perry

07-30-2004, 09:24 PM

Dave,

MME drivers and any card... especially a Lynx card (with no interrupts)... you MUST have at least 2 preload buffers for stability... only with the ASIO driver model can you safely set to 1 preload buffer.

Of course the DWave driver and a Mixtreme also have no problem with 1 buffer... but I would still recommend at least 2 for most work... and then possibly set things higher when actually mixing a dense session so there is no chance of a glitch...

Fader moves and mute switches and such during mixdow are fine with latency as high as 4 x 1024 (or more)... only when recording and monitoring from the live inputs (or performing with a VSTi synth) do you need the low latency settings.

Bob L

Yeah DWave driver! :D

uhh....sorry... couldn't resist :rolleyes:

I think a short while back Bob you were going to look over the DWave driver situation and see if there was anything else to be done with this... I think... if I remember correctly.

Were there any other features or tweaks to be made to Dirk's version of the DWave driver for SAWStudio and the Mixtreme? If there are any requests I'm pretty sure that Dirk would be open to them.

The new 4.1 Mixtreme software and Mixtreme 192 are a really hot combo (in my opinion) running along with SAWStudio. I'm just wondering if there are any other additional plans for the DWave driver.

Whatever the case... I'm extremely happy with the performance with this setup.

All the best,

Perry

Dave Labrecque

07-30-2004, 10:39 PM

Canipus,

Take a chill pill.

Bob L

07-31-2004, 09:21 AM

Naturally Digital

08-01-2004, 10:08 PM

Hi Dave,

I had sent a reply yesterday. I resent it just now. Let me know if you still haven't received it.

Thanks,
Jeanne
Hi Jeanne,

Actually, for some reason I'm not getting it. :confused: I hate when my email does that. Makes me wonder just how many messages are getting 'lost'!

Dave.

Jeanne Quinn

08-01-2004, 10:21 PM

Hi Dave,

I just sent a private message. See if that comes through okay.

Thanks!
-Jeanne

Bob L

08-01-2004, 10:25 PM

David,

If you are using spam blockers... lots of good messages may start getting lost in the ethers... I gave up on them, and deal with the spam manually.

I was accussed once too often for not replying to someone's support emails because my spam blocker decided some word in the header looked like spam.:)

Bob L

Perry

08-01-2004, 10:59 PM

I talked to Dirk and he got me set up on the newer driver using my old Mixtreme box... it worked very well.

I was very excited to see the DWave option actually working. :)

Now, I have to fit in some serious testing and see where it goes from here.

Bob L

Great!!! This is very cool news for me to hear. Dirk casually told me ...after I casually asked :rolleyes: ...a bit about what you were doing with the DWave driver (in layman's terms for me of course).

To me (IMHO) this is an awesome direction you're heading in with this Bob. I hope I haven't been annoying in continuing to ask about it, it's just that I feel this could be the coolest (and hottest ;) thing for DAWs since... well.. uhhh... since you decided to write recording software for the PC! :eek: :)

In my experiences there is considerable advantage to the DWave driver as it is now... and I get the idea that there's even more potential to be tapped. I also get the feeling that between the two of you, my favorite DAW software and my favorite soundcard have an exciting adventure in store.

And hey.. I admit it.. I like excitement!!! :rolleyes: ;)

Good luck ...and have fun... with the testing!

Perry

Andrea Forlani

08-02-2004, 12:34 AM

Thank you to all who contributed to this 3d so numerously :)
You know we love ideas and suggestions from our users.

Please, feel free to post your tech questions, support requests, comments or bug reports about Spazio for SAWStudio to our forum at http://www.anwida.com/forum

This will help us to track any possible issues and to provide a better support.

AudioAstronomer

08-02-2004, 11:49 PM

Hehe, I just noticed in the Levelizer video, Spazio is in Bob's FX list ;)

Wonder why we didnt catch that before ;)

TotalSonic

08-03-2004, 06:08 AM

Hehe, I just noticed in the Levelizer video, Spazio is in Bob's FX list ;)

Wonder why we didnt catch that before ;)

I think that's actually Anwida's Native Modulation pack plugs in his list (which is also excellent and highly recommended) - if I'm not mistaken he made this video before Spazio beta was released.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Bob L

08-03-2004, 09:16 AM

I believe I had one of the first earliest betas of Spazio, and I'm grateful for being included in the loop as Anwida was working on it.

I'm excited to see more native plugin development, and very happy with the quality of Anwida's products.

Bob L

AudioAstronomer

08-03-2004, 09:48 AM

I think that's actually Anwida's Native Modulation pack plugs in his list (which is also excellent and highly recommended) - if I'm not mistaken he made this video before Spazio beta was released.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Watch the video when he pulls up the FX choices list... its there ;)

Yura

08-03-2004, 08:01 PM

I must say when I started to try this module I noted some noises while adjusting every slider in realtime. this much more likes to "pops" "explousions" and sometimes like "zipper noise" as was mentioned here.
but those artifacts are not present when:
1) beeng in automation mode
2) adjusting parameters with MIDI external (!!!)

my machine is typical equipped enouth: P4P800 2.8, win XP.....

TotalSonic

08-03-2004, 08:40 PM

I believe I had one of the first earliest betas of Spazio, and I'm grateful for being included in the loop as Anwida was working on it.

I stand corrected!
Robert - Good eyes!

I'm excited to see more native plugin development, and very happy with the quality of Anwida's products.
Bob L

Me too! Spazio is all over the mixes I've been doing recently

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Andrea Forlani

08-04-2004, 07:23 AM

The rare "pops noises" (alias zipper noise??? - I think it's a terminological question) that some of you (David Vanderploeg and Yura) have experienced in their tests have been fixed :)
At last, we were able to reproduce the problem on a test laptop PC.

Spazio for SAWStudio 1.0.1 will be online soon.

All registered customers will receive info on how getting their free update.

Carey Langille

08-04-2004, 08:26 AM

That is AWESOME Andrea, :D You guys are as hard working and dedicated as Bob is!! To fix a problem that only shows on certain machines must be HELL! Im glad your taking the time though, because your products really do deserve it. If any of you guys have NOT tried the Native power pak or the NEW Spazio reverb, you are missing out on something truely special... These plugins need to be heard and bought and supported... I have been using some gtr amp simulators as of late in live mode with SS and have been patching in the Chorus and Flangers from Anwida.. MAN IS IT BIG!!! :eek: I Wish i could get that onstage.... I now have 2 spazios permanently patch into send one and two... I went back and changed the mix of my last album, replacing all the other Verbs with Spazio and What a difference.... I do Like SIR and i do like The Saw Verb ( when set correctly) but Spazio is BY FAR my newest fav.... Rock on Anwida.... I hope things work out for you in this currently small Saw world! Your definitily showing us all that your committed. The more we support our own developers. Anwida, JMS, and all the other guys, the more cool plug requests they will fill for us...:)

Naturally Digital

08-04-2004, 09:13 AM

Andrea,

That is great news! Thank you. I can't wait to try it.

Your efforts are greatly appreciated on this!

Best regards,
Dave.

Jon Stoll

08-04-2004, 12:54 PM

This is great work and dedication from Anwida. I have the Modulation Pack and Spazio, and they are my favorites now. I'm really looking forward to the multi-band compressor when it comes out. C'mon, guys, you don't really need any sleep, do you? :)
Regards,
Jon Stoll

Carl G.

09-17-2004, 12:26 PM

David Vanderploeg] wrote
RE: Zipper noise. Well, I'm intrigued to learn that it is not present on all systems. It was quite bad on my system. As I mentioned, the worst example was adjustment of the MIX parameter while playing back a track in SAWStudio. .....and this was on a LynxOne card using the internal D/A's.
______________
Dave,
I have the same 'loud' zipper noise as you do. I notice the commonality is the LynxOne Card (but that may not be the probelm). My 'zipper' noise...really sounds more like loud digital pops... even though my source sound file is well below max level (Spazio was patched pre also).
I'm doing more testing... Anwida said " "pop" noises during parameter changes. . . problem has been fixed in v. 1.0.1." But I was using V1.0.1 already. My case was a series of loud pops as as I'm changing parameters.
So... really my 'zipper noise' is actually a series of loud pops.

They also suggested "to increase the number of preload buffers and their lenghts to see if affects the problem" . I did all this... and still have the problem. (all the way up to 10/4096). So for the moment ... this reverb is not something I can use.

It's important to note that these pops are while live mixing only (whether or not automation is engaged or not), and do not occur when playing back the automation of those same Spazio fader movements.

(however the modulation pack does not create the pops with level changes... so I'm testing that out this weekend).

Carl G.

Naturally Digital

09-17-2004, 07:36 PM

Naturally Digital

10-04-2004, 02:02 PM

Hi Carl,

Yeah, I noticed an improvement going to v1.0.1 but the problem didn't completely go away for me.

I'm now using my Mixtreme for main playback and using the Dwave driver. I haven't tried Spazio since changing to this configuration. I'll try it and report back.

Dave.Things seem to be improved when I use Spazio on this configuration compared with the LynxOne/MME setup. Hmm...

I'm using a Spazio plate on this current project...

Spazio has a very nice "three-dimensional" quality to it.

Dave.

Carey Langille

10-04-2004, 05:07 PM

SPAZIO ROCKS..... enuf said.... :D

canipus

10-04-2004, 05:52 PM

SPAZIO ROCKS..... enuf said.... :D

"IYHO". Others may not feel quite so enthusiastic!

regards etc.

Carey Langille

10-04-2004, 07:00 PM

By the Term "OTHERS" do you mean you? Curious.... Member , not User??? Hmmm...

UpTilDawn

10-04-2004, 08:46 PM

Personally,
I could sure benefit from much clearer larger text and icons (light grey wording is barely visible sometimes).... I can barely make out the little icon in the lower righthand corner of the lcd display with reading glasses on in the Flanger plugin at 1152 X 864 res. on a 19" crt monitor..... In fact, I didn't even know it was there until I was just aimlessly clicking around looking for a bypass on the plug... And the position mark on the knobs is black on black... like many hardware counterparts, this is almost impossible to make out without close inspection..... very difficult to make fast adjustments.
Their DX light version, for instance, is clearly marked and easy to read the black text on the light green background. Somehow, I can always read it and know instantly where I have changed a setting.

Don't get me wrong.... I too really like the sound I get from these plugs. I'm just beginning to get the feeling that I won't be very happy trying to adjust a string of these plugins on a regular basis.

Just MHO

Leadfoot

10-04-2004, 08:47 PM

I bought into anwida, spazio and mod pack. Upon my initial listening and partly because I was hyped that they are native saw plugs.. I thought the verb sounded good. After spending some time using it, I actually don't think it sounds all that great. It sounds more like noise than reverb. Don't take this too hard, it's just my little opinion. Believe it or not I still tend to like the freeverb.
Although I still have yet to hear a plugin verb that really does it for me.
So on goes the quest. Or keep trying to use outboards(pita).
I still like hearing the patches in my lexicon, just scrolling thru them, they just sound so real, or at least better fake real :) I don't know, I still hear the digital graininess in plug verbs, specialy on short decay times.
My 200 bucks worth..(or whatever it was I forget..)
Tony

Bob L

10-04-2004, 09:36 PM

Sorry to interupt here, but the digital graininess problem is just simply not true with the SAWStudio verb.

Try a very short transient like a rim shot or snare crack and use a chamber like the Gymnasium HD... listen in phones to the trails... they are smooth as silk... period... and if you want even more smoothness, simply go into edit mode and add a few more All-Pass filters to the chamber and listen again... this complaint is simply not the case in this plugin... with some of the high density chambers, and others that you may add more filters to, you can create analog silk smooth chambers with almost no effort at all.

Now follow the plug with an eq and warm up the midrange or brassy up the top end and/or patch the echo pre-delay in front and there is really not much I find I'm missing from the most expensive Lexicon or any other reverb.

Just my two cents... perhaps I'm a bit too personally involved with this stuff... no... my ears still work... I buy the latest cds and compare them to the projects I mix in SAWStudio... there's nothing left to opinion... the difference is pretty darn obvious. :)

Bob L