OFFICIAL POLTEQ TEST (spamed by hubird of course...)

digitalaudiosoft · Post by **digitalaudiosoft** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:54 pm

http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21000
another post...for example...

I don't want to know why few members have decided to try to spoil me and my compagny ,but here are TRUE TEST.
Is POLTEQ a PEQ4 ? NO !
Is the DAS 4BEQ a PEQ4 ? YES !
You will find screenshot ,2 pulsar project and the DAS PEQ4 made especialy for this test with the original 4 band atom.

digitalaudiosoft · Post by **digitalaudiosoft** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:57 pm

THE 2 PROJECT AND THE DAS 4BEQ ( FREE )

-111 DB for DAS 4BEQ and - 40 for POLTEQ...

HOPE NOW, THAT EVERYBODY WILL UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO STAY COOL WHEN FEW MEMBERS ARE ALWAYS ON ALL DAS POST TO WRITE BAD THINGS.

BYE

ERIC

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:09 am

please god make it stop

make

it

stop

btw. writing ALL CAPS is not considered very good etiquette on the interwebz. Makes it look like you're shouting. I don't like to be shouted at, do you?

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:11 am

i was going to mention the caps thing but i didn't want to be at the receiving end of another Eric onslaught.

Regards,
Mythoman.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:46 am

EEK.... NOT AGAIN

Eric, please STOP THIS !!!

erminardi · Post by **erminardi** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:56 am

Thanks for the 4B EQ, it's better than creamware EQ as interface!

Music Manic · Post by **Music Manic** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:35 am

Have I missed something?

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:47 am

???????????

Yes indeed, very nice interface. Better than P4EQ!
Yes indeed, I underline 100% your testresults! 100% correct.
Polteq is not P4EQ & you will not be able to reproduce 1Polteq band with 1Para4EQ-band. Nice to have no differences in views on these points at all.

Martin

kylie · Post by **kylie** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:04 am

erminardi wrote:Thanks for the 4B EQ, it's better than creamware EQ as interface!

it (still) lacks some things p4eq has (like editing values in the text field, and all the descriptions, including the scales at the curve window), but I like the fact that the curve window is way larger than the original. I could not test it yet, but if the curve is mouse-editable, the size would matter (for me

)

but since I think that it was only built to prove that it's identical to p4eq I have no hope that DAS will put more workforce into it...

that does not mean they are not welcome to improve it

-greetings, markus-

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:25 am

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:54 am Post subject: OFFICIAL POLTEQ TEST
[snip]... ,but here are TRUE TEST.Is POLTEQ a PEQ4 ? NO !
Is the DAS 4BEQ a PEQ4 ? YES !
You will find screenshot ,2 pulsar project and the DAS PEQ4 made especialy for this test with the original 4 band atom.

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:57 am
THE 2 PROJECT AND THE DAS 4BEQ ( FREE )

-111 DB for DAS 4BEQ and - 40 for POLTEQ...
[snip]... BYE ERIC

would you mind to explain the 40dB difference between the DAS 4BEQ and a PEQ4, which are supposed to be identical.
if I use 2 PEQ4s I get -155 or so total cancellation, so the 4BEQ is by far a PEQ4...

Too fast ? here's the replay

you copy a device and make a test
the 2 candidates cancel each other by -111 db
on the other hand a true clone would cancel at -155 dB
you decide (by definition) that the 2 are identical nevertheless
thus accepting a 40 dB deviation still a proof for identity

as an irony of fate -40 db also happens to be the difference between the next 2 candidates, but this time supposed to be different
picture: it's magic... (meg ryan drives through the night in 'sleepless in seattle'...)

I know what kind of scale dB is and that -111 is a little bit softer than -40, but your balance lacks

cheers, Tom
(I'm not at all interested in the devices, but the math and the leak is interesting)

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:58 am

EDITED: removed irrelevant parts for this discussion.

Tom, I think you could maybe find the answer here:

...
Gaindifference from 0,1db in one ParaEQ set to 2000HZ -10db (-10,1), Q0,7 leads to only - 42db cancellation.

0,001db difference to -83db cancellation, so we now know in which dimensions this game playes. And these are differences on ONE Band, which occure neccessarily on devices with different knob-value-access-possibilities.

0,00001db (you can set these values with para EQ: just ignore that they won't display after typing - as one can see: they work) difference in this specific band leads to -119db canellation.

0,000001db => -124db
...

You find in the old discussion some interesting problems on reproducing all those tests were done which finally leed to the impossibility of absolutely proving things to be absolute identical in sfp. So I got to the point (which I allready told eric & co.) that I am not able to prove those things below a certain db-mark and so we could drop that discussion regaring the importance of those last dbs ... Maybe differences below -90db are THAT difference which counts in professional applications although I don't think so. Maybe Polteq is just superprofessional in a way which could be even beyond audible.

DAS makes beautiful and very professional plugins. Buy them, because they are very nice and intuitive to use. They also sound great & you have the possibility to test them before usage. Everybody is free to get his/her own impression...

Martin

digitalaudiosoft · Post by **digitalaudiosoft** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:26 am

astroman wrote: would you mind to explain the 40dB difference between the DAS 4BEQ and a PEQ4, which are supposed to be identical.
if I use 2 PEQ4s I get -155 or so total cancellation, so the 4BEQ is by far a PEQ4...

Too fast ? here's the replay

you copy a device and make a test
the 2 candidates cancel each other by -111 db
on the other hand a true clone would cancel at -155 dB
you decide (by definition) that the 2 are identical nevertheless
thus accepting a 40 dB deviation still a proof for identity

as an irony of fate -40 db also happens to be the difference between the next 2 candidates, but this time supposed to be different
picture: it's magic... (meg ryan drives through the night in 'sleepless in seattle'...)

I know what kind of scale dB is and that -111 is a little bit softer than -40, but your balance lacks

cheers, Tom
(I'm not at all interested in the devices, but the math and the leak is interesting)

no need to polemic again and again and again.....

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:28 am

sorry Martin, that is beyond the Scope of my post - and I'm far from dissing a device or a company (you may trust me, please).

this is entirely about the way a so-called proof is performed
I assume that Eric knows enough to re-build CWA's PEQ just with a different surface, at least that's how I understood his attempt.
The graphic for sure doesn't influence the sound, doesn't it ?
So where's the difference from then ?
It should cancel at -155 as that's what a clone does (and afaik even someone from DAS wrote something like this sometime ago).

cheers, Tom

ps: this is my style of writing
polemic would have been to write that you're too stupid to do your own bulletproof test, bla, bla, dissing you for zero dB and ignoring 40 etc

I'm far from that, but I will not endlessly repeat that I don't have the slightest motivation to interfere or disturb your business.
I've written at least 10 times that you make a very good reverb and I'm dead serious on that.
I'll also repeat that the 2800 members of planetZ who haven't yet bought it are pretty stupid (offense intended), but it's not the first time that an excellent device is ignored and it has nothing to do with your skills, your company or even your strange way of PR.
Reaching just 4% of a potential customer base is a dead failure in business context for me - and that's where you stand - you cannot be less important, so please don't suggest I take that serious.
That is my point of view and I have reasons for it, I also know some other sales figures than those Olive posted.

Be assured that I do NOT think that it's your own fault, I've written the same a couple of years ago and I see few rasons to change my mind just because you're oversensitive.
It's a matter of fact and even a company like Apple Computer (before the i-cash-cow) went through the very same valley.
I've attended meetings with the company's top executives those years where exactly the same topic (why doesn't a superior system with easier handling and less overall costs sell better ?) was discussed - with no clue, btw...
So please don't call me names and that I'm not knowing exactly what I'm writing about.

pardon the direct approach, but someone had to tell it - it's not personal and no offence intended.

Post by **hubird** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:42 am

astroman wrote: would you mind to explain the 40dB difference between the DAS 4BEQ and a PEQ4, which are supposed to be identical.

Tom, you forget about the colour of the sound...

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:45 am

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:00 am

hubird wrote:Tom, you forget about the colour of the sound...

yes Huub, but I never forget about the color of money.... ouch

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:06 am

MCCYRANO wrote:...The problem of -111db is a problem of the knob-resolution as I discussed it in the links in my post. There are different problems too which could lead to such differences but let it alone be the knob-resolution it's by far enough to avoid "full" cancellation.

Martin

yes Martin, we certainly both know about the ghosts lurking in the corners below the surface once you start digging...

I'm far from wanting to dissect one of the devices in question, and it doesn't make much sense anyway as at that level of detail the ground is very slippery, let alone time consuming to just setup pre-conditions appropriately.

your tests have been very good to point to these problems, though it's not exactly amusing for CWA...
anyway, as long as the system sounds good one shouldn't overstress the numeric details

cheers, Tom

MCCY · Post by **MCCY** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:08 am

digitalaudiosoft · Post by **digitalaudiosoft** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:26 am

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT LEVEL..NOT ABOUT PHASE....

LOOK AT THE LISAJOU FIGURE

THERE ARE POINTS AROUND THE HORIZONTAL LINE...WHEN YOU ARE ABSOLUTLY ON PHASE THERE IS NO POINT AROUND...WHATEVER THE LEVEL ....

THIS TEST AND POST IS ABOUT PHASE AND PHASE CANCELLATION THAT IS THE REASON I HAVE MADE A SCREENSHOT WITH A PHASE METER AND A LISAJOU FIGURE...

YOU DON'T KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THAT A PHASE IS NOT A LEVEL....
MAYBE A LITTLE OF KNOWLEDGE IS NEED.

Eric

digitalaudiosoft · Post by **digitalaudiosoft** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:33 am

and you will have the same kind of result if you do this test with an urs eq or a nuendo eq or a simple eq....

excuse me about caps...it's not volontary.if i have time i will edit my post ,but now, for me ,it's enough today ...and without writing stupid...that's good ,isn't it ?

eric