Hi Mateusz,

When saving in Nuendo with MasterQ (not EasyVerb) inserted, the Save time in Nuendo takes up to 10 times longer (about 5 seconds).

I can reproduce this each time.

Nuendo 2.1.0.10
Dual 1.42
OSX 10.2.6
1 Gig Ram
ULN-2 1.4.27
2 UAD Card

I didn't notice this problem on my setup but it can be possible since the MasterQ has a lot of parameters and presets and every of them require some initialization.

Regards,

True... but for me, this makes MasterQ unusable. It really holds up the flow of a mix.

I don't understand. Do you mean that 3 seconds of saving a project make a plug-in useless???
Please note that the saving time not only depends on the plug-in it self but also on the CPU usage during saving!

A project I'm working on now takes about 40 secounds to save in Cubase. I've never had this kind of saving times before. I use 6 instances of masterQ in my project. Even another project I'm working on took about 10 sec longer to save after I started using MasterQ plugins in the project. I'm using Cubase SX2

Rune

Thanks for confirming that Rune.

Yes, Mateusz, it really kills flow (not as bad as Rune's situation though -- holy smokes!).

My save time in Nuendo right now with 60 tracks loaded with plugs is only half a second. With just one MasterQ, it goes up to 5 seconds. That's unacceptable.

Hmmm, do not understand why a plugin is unusuable just because your software does not:

1) support 'save while play'/'save in background'
2) your application is not optimized for your platform and the save routine is too slow

Perhaps it is not the plugin that is unusable/unacceptable?? Please do not bring the tone from the Steinberg forums to this one!


Best,
Steff

Hi Steff,

You are right on one point: Nuendo does not AutoSave in the background (while idle) as it should.

However, the Save time is very, very fast, EXCEPT with this plug inserted. Too slow for me, thus unusable for me (not when I have an excellent EQ such as Sonalksis which has very little affect on resources).

Did you read Rune's post??

As for tone, I don't see anything unreasonable in my comments. I have told Mateusz the plug-in sounds great. It's just too resource heavy for my liking. If this offends you, I'm not sure why.

(Ironically, you'll find on the Nuendo forum a few posts from me praising PSP products. They are excellent, including MasterQ's sound).

[ January 09, 2004: Message edited by: mmallett ]

Steff, I don't think mmallet is using the usual Cubase forum tone here. I do agree with him that it is annoying to wait a long time for my project to save. You are also right that it might not be MasterQ, but I am pointing out this issue because I would like other people to read this post and comment on it. I do a lot of work, both commercial and personal. This strange issue appeared in both projects I tried the MasterQ. And the problem also appeared after I started using the plugins on the same songs.

We should be able to give critics on a product. It will only help the developers to make a better product. Talking about forum tone, check out the Fruity Loops forum :-)

Rune

Rune

Rune,

Good point... there could be something in Cubase SX/Nuendo that is causing this issue, and not in other DAW's.

Mateusz, anyway we can help, let us know.

Hello,

thanks for your replys.

I am absolutely with you when you say it is important to give feedback, comments and critics to the developers!
But for my understanding it is not really construtive to give short feedbacks that have fixed positions as:
this is unusable (I noticed that he pointed out that it unusable for him) or this is unacceptable.

On those points (even if you feel like that) you cannot get much out off it. The only info that you give is: I am not ok with your product! (yes, you gave the reason before - but still!)
It leaves the developer without any arguments anymore - I hope you understand that. What is he supposed to reply?
You could have ask (as Mateusz stated about his setup) about that setup to get further information. Mateusz cannot look into your computer or project - and there a thousands of variables that can cause that a problem.

I think feedback and also critics must be welcome, but destructive statements (this was not level 100, but still ...) are not contributing to solve problems, find bugs or just for the communication.

Sorry, I do not want to make a psychological thing out of it - but I felt I needed to answer.

Best,
Steff

Thank you Steff, you make my life easier
This is what i exactly meant. Feedback from our users as well as support are important for us but the post with the information that the plug-in is useless because the song is saving slow is also "useless" for us.
I will take a look at saving/loading process in the MasterQ and I will check what could be done to make it faster but I would not like to loose the processing quality just to make it faster.

Regards,

And one more thing. Our goal is to provide good products and we prefer a communicative feedback because unlike some other copmanies we like to respond to comments and as you know we often find individual solutions whenever our product is not adequate for customer's needs.

Best to all,

Perhaps I'm missing the point here. What else do you need from me Mateusz? I am reporting behavior that occurs only when your plug is inserted. That's what Rune did. We don't know why. That's why we're telling you so that you can, as you say, " take a look at saving/loading process in the MasterQ and I will check what could be done to make it faster".

THAT'S WHAT WE WERE HOPING YOU WOULD DO!! Thankyou!!

I have to ask you to be specific too Mateusz, Steff... What more are we supposed to report other than the issue???

Mateusz... are you being serious here? I have confirmed or identified two bugs -- one in MasterQ -- the past two weeks which you've fixed. AND, I've written you personal letters of support, as well as publicly praised your plug-ins here and in other forums. This isn't helpful or encouraging?

I guess I'm just a little shocked that reporting how your plug-in behaves or misbehaves in our software is somehow "useless" to you. I can't see any behavioral information being useless to you -- ESPECIALLY when more than one user with different setups/applications etc. is reporting the exact same (or actually worse) behavior!

To be fair, it is not usable for me in a mix situation where I'm saving on the go; however, it could be used in off-line processing (but again, I EQ in the mix, so I would use an EQ that does not have this unusual issue).

Question? Maybe I've got this plug-in confused. Is it supposed to be used in mixes, or is it meant to be used by a Mastering engineer? If that's the case, then I've totally misunderstood the product. I am treating it like a Sonalksis or Cambridge.

[ January 09, 2004: Message edited by: mmallett ]

By the way, how's the weather in Poland these days?

[ January 09, 2004: Message edited by: mmallett ]

It is about -10C, some snow and fine sunshine

Well... what other information would you like me to add so that this thread is useful Mateusz?

Yes, I am. The problem is not that you "found" two bugs (the MasterQ problem is in my opinion Steinberg's bug and I had to remove some plug-in's functionality to avoid it) but the way you made it and that you reported 4 other pseudo bugs in not acceptable and "useless" way. You also continue to post everything that comes to your mind on our (and maybe not only) forum which creates a situation like this was a forum of one person. If I had to choose between your 20 bug reports + some optimistic posts and nothing I would choose nothing. If you really feel that something is wrong with our plug-in please email me or post it in a usefull, descriptive and detailed way. Posting it on every forum you know without giving a chanse to fix it doesn't bring us closer to the solution.



I think that you missunderstood. I am not against reporting problems but we have have exact description of the problem and all conditions around it to understand what happens and distinguish application/configuration problem from our own bug. In oposite you tend to post reports in a way which doesn't help us to understand and undentify the problem but rather make a reall mess on the forum.



OK. The MasterQ is designed for purposes where the quality comes to a first place. If other plug-ins feet the best your requirements then use them. Of course we will verify if there isn't a solution that wouldn'tchange the plug-in's processing but our first priority for this plug-in is the sound. If the saving time makes this plug-in useless for you it only mean that it doesn't attract you.



It depends not on our idea about using it but it depends on your priorities and requirements. If you feel that another plug-in sounds best on vocal, acc guitar or the mix please use it, if you found that the MasterQ sounds best oduring mastering use it this way. In my opinion the MasterQ is a kind of huge plug-in which due to its complexity should be used on chosen tracks, selected groups, entire mix or during mastering.

Regards,

I apologize for taking your time. I will contact you by email to arrange a refund for MasterQ.

[ January 10, 2004: Message edited by: mmallett ]

No problem but I stil think that you don't understand what I mean.

I you feel that the MasterQ's sound is not worth that monay and you purchased it by mistake email
support@pspaudioware.com

Regards,

To be clear. My statements don't mean that we will not try to make a saving faster but I would like to keep a more logical queue of problems where the saving time is not a first thing which disqualifies any plug-in and especially the kind of mastering plug-in.
We will get back to the MasterQ pretty soon and prepare a new update which will fix some minor problems reported to us and we are making a list now.

Mateusz, you wrote:

"I will take a look at saving/loading process in the MasterQ and I will check what could be done to make it faster but I would not like to loose the processing quality just to make it faster".

I agree that quality must come first, but how is the saving time of the project connected to the processing quality of your MasterQ plug?

I am not saying that the MasterQ plugin should consume less CPU when used. I just don't want to wait 40 sec. every time I do a save in Cubase SX2. I'm also stating that the bug could be somewhere else, but I strongly suspect MasterQ.

Rune

I agree that very long saving times is not good but when the project is heavy loaded and the plug-in has complex initialization procedure this might happen.
How does the MasterQ processing quality influates on saving times? Except a logical high CPU usage (which extends saving times in all cases when the CPU is heavy occupied) the MasterQ also has very complex initialization which under some hosts has to be multiplied by a number of presets. In this way the complexity of the plug-in affects saving time too.
I will do my best to verify initialization routines and will try to make them working faster. I didn't realize (and didn't notice) really long saving times with this plug-in.

Regards,

FWIW -

I'm using MasterQ in Samplitude 7 Classic and saving is instantaneous whether while stopped or on-the-fly....

Save time is consideralbly shortened after the last update of MasterQ. Now (almost) instantaneous in SX2. Good work!

Is this plug too dsp hungry, like let us say Waves Lin eq?

The MasterQ is quite CPU heavy but it uses different techniques to achieve a quality sound then the Waves linear EQ.

Regards,

The savetime is ok now for me now - most of the time. It looks like there is still some problems when I use the MasterQ on group channels in Cubase SX2. The savetime went up to 35 sec with just one instance of MasterQ on a group channel. If I removed the plugin, the savetime went down. I could reproduce this behaviour. But if I closed the project and then openen it up, then the savetime was normal.

Sounds interesting Rune, we will continue to investigate this problem.

Regards,

All right, I need to step in and speak on this one. For all the complaints I've seen posted in this thread, not a one of you has actually detailed your setup for Mateusz. It's a more than a little difficult to trace a problem like slow save times unless you know the details of each setup having the problem. So, before you slam the product or the level of tech support (which is better than most companies out there, by the way), I suggest you ask yourself these questions, so you can give a more useful report than just stating the problem. As Mateusz stated numerous times, that's not enough for anyone to do anything with. The following would be examples of useful information:

What computer are you using?
What operating system?
What DAW software?
How much RAM are you using?
Are you using software synths in conjunction with your DAW software?
If so, which ones?
What other third party plugs are you using?

All of these questions need to be clearly answered before anyone can help you with your problem. Any one of the items listed above can have a profound effect on determining where the problem lies. If you'd just rather complain and get a refund, though....I guess that's your choice. Good luck with the next company... :rolleyes:

[ February 03, 2004: Message edited by: realtwang ]

[ February 03, 2004: Message edited by: realtwang ]

Actually, realtwang.... you'll see in the very first post my configuration sitting right there.

Secondly, to update this thread... Mateusz and I have been emailing each other back and forth for weeks, running tests and so forth. The fruit of that, in part, has been the current version you have.

Lastly, I have re-purchased MasterQ. It is still not perfect, but Mateusz and I have been dialoguing on some improvements which you may see in later versions.

Cheers.

Correct you are, mmallett. My apologies. It was a long thread, and I guess as I was skimming it, I missed that. Glad to see you got the problem solved, though. I guess that I so often see examples of what I was talking about on the forums I belong to, that it just kind of sets me off. I mistook your situation, but glad you haven't jumped ship on these guys. They make great sounding plugs, and are genuinely nice to deal with. Sometimes they get a bit of a hard time from people on the board. Again, my apologies, and good luck to you.

Hi All,

Realtwang, thank you for your input. You are right that informative bug reports are vital feedback for us and help to locate and fix our bugs. Emotional reports without detailed system information and a good will don't help us much. We always try to Betatest our new plug-ins but as we can see Betatesters often don't see some hidden serious problems.

Thanks to some good reports on this forum and mmallet's help (which came after his first not very informative reports) we already fixed the most important problems with the MasterQ and the EasyVerb.
I think that we will fix some other minor problems too which are reported on EasyVerb's and MasterQ's topics with the next planned update.

I can understand anyone who purchase a product and require it to work properly under any configuration but from our point of view we prefer information exchange rather then fight between customers and us.

I would be glad to have more unified hosts which really obay specifications but we have to deal somehow with various imcompabilities and our own code faults. This means that virtually any new software product has some bugs.

As our goal is a long term cooperation our products are also designed to stay for a long time which also means that we have to find a way for better customer support and updates. And this is a good point to thank you all for helpfull reports and comments which help us to manage current problems and plan our future products in the more bug safe way.

Regards,

I know what you're referring to. I have to be more careful, as I am guilty of having posted issues elsewhere without enough details.

I own almost all the plugs available from PSP -- I use them all the time in my commercial mixes. They're that good -- I agree.

Cheers!
mark

Hi everyone,

I am new to this board, but needed to ask a question. I perform voice-over and audio production for a living. I just purchased the Vintage Warmer and the Master Q from your website a few weeks ago. I just love both of the plug-ins. They are truly some of the best sounding plug-ins that I have heard in a long time, and I really enjoy my Waves Gold Plug-ins as well, so this should tell you where I'm coming from.

My question concerns the Master Q plug-in. When I'm applying the plug-in to a wave file, it seems that the very front of the wave file, the very first fraction of a second of the file,is clitched with a noise that causes the file to sound muffled when applying this plug-in. It only happens with the Master Q, and no other plug-in that I'm using. If I were using this plug-in in real time, I would not be able to use it because of the clitch sound that it makes. Because I'm using this plug as a mastering tool, then it doesn't bother me as much, but it still takes away studio time because I have to apply another step in the production to correct this plug-ins problem. I will say the the Q rocks as well as the Vintage Warmer, I just wish you could correct this problem in a fix. I did download the update version of the Master Q that you put out last week, but it still has this problem. I'm using Adobe Audition (formally Cool-Edit pro) with a PC, pentium 3, 512 ram. Any advise would be so helpful.

Blessings!

Lee Bartlett

P.S. For these plug-ins, I do NOT want my money back. Keep up the great work and sound.

Can you see this "clitch" on the wave display? I just zoomed way in on a file that I just mastered using the MasterQ and I don't see anything that is not supposed to be there. I'm comparing it to the original wav file and, except for the initial fade in, it looks the same - barring the processing.

Does it cause the entire file to sound muffled or just the very beginning?

I, too, am using the MasterQ for Mastering and I don't hear or see what it is you are referring to... (That doesn't mean that it's not there....)

I am using the MQ and VW within Samplitude 7 Classic on a 2.8G P4 w/1G RAM

BTW -

Howdy Lee from a fellow Texan!!

I'm in the DFW area.

Hi On Track Recording,

The little clitch that I hear is only at the very front of the wave file, and just for a fraction of a second. For me to make the Master Q work, I have to add some silence to the front end of the file, then apply the Master Q. Then I have to go back and edit the silence out, then the wave sounds great with the Master Q. It's not such a big deal, unless I'm having to add quite a bit files, then it takes away studio time from me or my client. I hope PSP can fix this clitch, I sure love their plug-ins...some of the best in the industry.

Blessings,

Lee

Nice webswite Lee!

Blessings to you,
mark

Lee - please see my response on your own topic about this problem. Thank you again for reporting this problem.
I just hope that the problem is not just because of the latency compensation call to the host, then it would be a real problem to fix it.
I fully understand that you are using this plug-in at your studio where every minute cost monay.

Regards,