SPL Transient Designer

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Sat May 15, 2004 4:42 am

Before I send a mail to Creamware, I just bought the SPL Transient designer. What an amazing plugin! It really is astonishing as to what you can achieve. But I want to run more that 6 instances (you can't run more than 6 which is fair enough as the hardware units are expensive and I couldn't tell the difference between the hardware unit and the plugin). So can I buy another copy an register it to the same card to run 12 instances at once?

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat May 15, 2004 5:53 pm

I'd really ask them first, as the error message 'no more channels available' doesn't give any hint on a license check at all.
I wouldn't expect it in the first place, but it could be that SPL didn't anticipate a more than 6 mono (or 3 stereo) application of the plug.

I absolutely agree on the usefulness and quality of TD.
A German mag recently called it (the hardware version) an absolut 'must have' for serious drum processing, but gently forgot to mention it's availability for the Scope platform...

cheers, Tom

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Sat May 15, 2004 6:00 pm

bassdude, do you have a Pulsar2? I don't have the plugin, but probably such device is locked to a single DSP. If it's too heavy to run 2 from a single chip, you get a hardware limitation equal to amount of DSP's.

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Sat May 15, 2004 6:29 pm

No it's really a limitation of the plug. It's not suppose to have more than six, it written on the license. I'm curious also to know if buying a second spl td would give me six more?

Post by **hubird** » Sun May 16, 2004 2:08 pm

only six-mono, alas alas!
I also would like to know if you can load two licensies in one project, it'd be worth it.
It was a little disappointment for me to have just 3 st, many signals need different settings.

I'd wish they would devellop a soft Vitalizer-MK2...now I have to DAAD convert the mainmix...

_________________
Let There Be Music!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2004-05-16 15:09 ]</font>

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Sun May 16, 2004 5:44 pm

On 2004-05-15 19:00, at0m|c wrote:
bassdude, do you have a Pulsar2? I don't have the plugin, but probably such device is locked to a single DSP. If it's too heavy to run 2 from a single chip, you get a hardware limitation equal to amount of DSP's.

Yep I have a pulsar 2. It's not heavy on DSP load at all and looks like it's just a license limit.
I'll send Creamware a mail and find out if you can license two copies to the one board without problems. I'll report back with the response.

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Mon May 17, 2004 1:11 am

Keep us informed!

Thanks

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: marcuspocus on 2004-05-17 02:11 ]</font>

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Mon May 17, 2004 5:34 am

It's supposed to be the same, it a licenced algorythm i think.

Post by **hubird** » Mon May 17, 2004 6:35 am

I've read a test once, they sound virtually the same

Immanuel · Post by **Immanuel** » Mon May 17, 2004 6:42 am

do a serach here

someone once stated, that they do not sound the same.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon May 17, 2004 9:28 am

I've re-checked (german) Keyboards 6/2000 where the plugin got a 4 page review which of course included a comparison to their former hardware review.
There's a difference mentioned regarding attack emphasis: a kick gets 'slightly' more kick - all the other 'noticable' differences were produced by applying extreme settings like 24 db gain on the final decay of a almost unhearable signal (which of course results in quantization artifacts).
Their conclusion: for practical applications there's no significant disadvantage

cheers, Tom
ps: I should dig out the old CDs and compare the audio examples

Post by **hubird** » Mon May 17, 2004 9:30 am

that one I had in mind, thanks Tom

orbita · Post by **orbita** » Sat May 22, 2004 3:42 pm

I have both hardware and software versions and would definately say that the hardware one is smoother. To my knowledge the hardware version is analogue only so it cannot use the same algorythms.
I found that adjusting the sustain on the software version introducted artifacts whereas on the hardware version it was much smoother.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat May 22, 2004 6:20 pm

of course they use the same algorithm

SPL developed a processing rule, which they call 'differential envelope technology', and first implemented it in pure analog hardware.
It's not a big deal to transfer such a rule to a software system, if you're the inventor and have a system that's capable of doing this in realtime.

I guess the processing is rather demanding in speed and precision as SPL still dominates in this segment - dunno about patents, which might also play a role...

The differences you noticed are due to quantization, which is of course not present in analog gear.
So for absolute best results the hardware version is still the way to go (the conclusion of the Keyboards review, too), yet the method of both units is the same.

cheers, Tom

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Fri May 28, 2004 6:10 pm

Finally got around to sending a mail to creamware asking about multiple registrations of the transient designer the other day. Got an answer back the same day but bad news, as it is only possible to run 6 instances in SFP at once. I guess SPL didn't want to lose too many hardware sales!

Post by **hubird** » Fri May 28, 2004 10:25 pm

thanks for that, good to know it at least