I’m happy to anounce that I’ve finished the implementation of a eq10q lv2 plugin new version. This new version of EQ10Q is a complete re-write of the first EQ10Q equalizer and includes some new features and improvements like:
- Removed Plotmm dependency
- Completly new eq curve
- mono and stereo versions of the plugin
Now is in beta state, but I hope that this beta is better and more stable that any previous eq10q release. Feel free to test it and let me know what is your impresion about it.
Take a look at http://eq10q.sourceforge.net for more information and free downloads.
@Boesmann: The post you seem to be refering to was not an attempt to promote my software and I don’t understand how it could be perceived as such. It was a question directed to Ben because he appeared to be proposing a change to the current Mixbus / plugin distribution model, which would directly affect (the commercial value of) an agreement I already have with Harrison, and I was surprised to see an announcement in a / this thread on a public forum without there being some formal terms and conditions / SDK etc in place which would apply to all developers wishing to have their software included with Mixbus (before such an announcement was made).
That post was justified IMHO only because of the way the “calling all DSP developers” post was made, and if I had a contract with said company I also would have been taken aback by it.
Also, I don’t see linuxDSP “spamming” thru-out the forum (you want to see what that really is, hit the Reaper forum and look for all the IK pot shots), it seemed like an honest comparison for 2 reasons…
They both are the only 2 graphical EQ’s that work in a similar way in the Linux world AFAIK
The sound of the linuxDSP Black EQ, which I have heard, justify’s the comparison to help make the EQ10Q the best it can be.
I, for one, applauded the effort to help out!
LinuxDSP is doing a fantastic job.
It is nice to have actual dev’s here in the forum.
Even the head Dev’s like Paul and Carl being such a presence in forums and help is a rarity among the software world. I am in other forums where you almost never hear from the dev’s or plugin makers.
Much goodwill from me towards all Linux VST and LV2 plugin developers like LinuxDSP and Loomer.
We should cherish people like these.
LinuxDSP endured some hard time’s, going through periods of low income but he kept the dream alive and are still at it. Also charging a pittance for very good products.
We should remember that these people’s skills is in high demand.
As a business person myself I understand you have to market.
And the way he create brand awareness by actually helping people, giving advice is not the same as spamming. LinuxDSP is a knowledge contributor here and I am grateful for it.
My two cents:
Been away for far too long from the (amateur) music prod. My home studio is gathering a bit of dust and I had to move it to our living-dining-room … my young kids are playing with my cables and gear buttons and they have ALL (or most of) my time. But I still keep an eye on the open-source evolution in audio s/w, still keep the flame burning for creating my own music with my platform of choice (linux) and in this, linuxdsp has become a MUST for DAW work under linux, by the sheer quality of his plugins.
And in case you don’t know it, linuxdsp means
Linux Damn’ Sweet Plugins
and if I can help advertise his biz by praising his products on this or that forum, I just do it.
LinuxDSP is a top notch DSP guy and developer. He is clearly trying to help the sapista. Relax.
That said, I can’t wait until sapista clears a few more hurdles so I can add this to my plugin FAV list.
When Paul starts placing linuxdsp’s comments and posts in the Hall of Shame then we’ll know linuxdsp went a bit too far, but for now I think linuxdsp has done a great job in creating pro-studio level plugins and fx for the linux world, personally I have not purchased anything from him except for the Pultec EQ (I buy things as I go along with my needs), and I can say the damn thing works amazingly well, and I think it’s awesome to see someone like him with his knowledge and who charges for his products to help someone like sapista with his free version of a parametric EQ, and I’m sure sapista is thankful also.
LinuxDSP, along with any other plugin developer who creates plugins that will work with Ardour (or Mixbus) on at least one platform that Ardour runs on, is entirely welcome to promote their work in these forums as long as it is done tastefully, without excessive hubris, and avoids deceipt or deprecation of others. All clear?
These people are helping to create/sustain a platform in which you can use Ardour to get stuff done.
I have the same issues as linuxdsp has using Ardour 2 under Debian Wheezy. But great to see there’s active work on plugins, sapista!
Boesmann: Linuxdsp’s trying to help sapista, I think that’s great! If you haven’t already bought linuxdsp’s plugins, go for them, it’ll help to stop his advertising here
Without wishing to divert this thread to yet another commercial vs free discussion, one of the things I perhaps haven’t made clear in (this thread or in others) is that as a linux user as well as a developer, one of the main motivations for creating my software was because I thought linux had great potential for audio, and I have a fundamental desire to see credible software for it that works and works well. I’ve voiced opinions previously about other software (Ardour included) and the important point is that its precisely because I believe in projects like Ardour (and others) that it’s frustrating when I see aspects of their design which are good, but could be several orders of magnitude better with a few tweaks. Better software for linux audio is in everyone’s interest - commercial / free / open-source / developers / and users. I apply the same standards when I develop / use my own software too and I’m equally disappointed if there are occasions when that doesn’t meet my own (high) expectations.
As regards commercial vs free, I think these are two different (and complementary) ‘markets’ - and therefore - odd though it may seem - I’m not too concerned about ‘competition’.
There are differences both in the quality and support expectations of free vs commercial (while there are many excellent free projects and many very helpful and committed developers, there is no obligation for a developer to continue with or support a free (not for profit) project, whereas a commercial developer has a revenue stream which depends on the quality of the product and for that reason alone should be focused on providing support or resolving issues - apart from other obligations to provide a product which is fit for purpose).
Additionally, the development costs are hugely different for a commercial developer (I have to maintain and test on many different platforms, architectures, distributions etc, all of which adds to the cost of creating the software and further necessitates the need to charge for it - but hopefully results in a comprehensively tested product. In contrast, a developer working using a machine they would likely have purchased anyway, even if they weren’t developing software - and without the requirement to test on any other platform / distro, likely has a much lower cost of development, and can therefore better afford to give the software away)
If the points I have raised are a criticism they are intended as a constructive criticism, to help improve a promising free / open source product - it could be argued that my commercial interests would be better served by not bringing the issues I have discovered to the attention of the developer(s)
@sapista: There is also something not right with the graph, at 44.1 / 48kHz sample rate, again with a peak filter, the graph shows what appears to be a de-cramped filter response, whereas the real response (using an FFT) is not de-cramped at HF, therefore it could be argued that the graph is implying a better quality filter than that which is actually being used to process the audio.
@sapista: If I switch a single band to a peak filter, and, with music (or tone) playing (it’s easier to hear the effect with music) I sweep the filter frequency from one frequency to another using the control point on the graph, it seems as though nothing has happened, however, if I stop moving the control point, the filter can be heard to move very slowly to its new position. It suggests to me that, if you cannot reproduce it, then there is something (or several) things not being properly initialised - in this case to do with your smoothing / parameter interpolation - and on my system it just happens that this causes the smoothing to default to the longest possible time-constant. This is at 44.1 / 48kHz sample rate with a 512 sample buffer setting for JACK (the latency is far too long to be a JACK buffering issue - other plugins, including my graphical (Black EQ) are very responsive by comparison)
about the latency problem. I can not reproduce it neither in ardour 2.8.14 neither ardour 3 beta5. Please can you explaint more detailedly this issue? For sure, fix problems like these is very important to me.
@All who have troubles with GUI (the curve graph)
I found a solution to that problem and it will be fixed in the next revision (beta3)
Just as LeatusPenguin, I also have the same issue with GUI in Mixbus 2.2
Here’s screenshot attached also:
@sapista: Same GUI problem for me too - works in the binary A2.8.14 from ardour.org, but Mixbus-2.2.0 and A3B5 show the same bug that others have reported.
Great news! I like this EQ, thanks!
@linuxdsp: nothing new; it’s the same thing you and I have been discussing for a long time. Email or see me on IRC if you have questions.
That look totally awesome, good you removed the plotmm dependency, it was hard to compile under some distros.