so let us demonstrate until they fix is
who is for an eq+ fix , let me know
its now or never
please fix the eq+ latencey issue
-
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 434 posts since 28 Oct, 2018
-
- KVRAF
- 2939 posts since 9 Dec, 2011 from falling
thumbs up for this! Everyone, please send an email to support@bitwig.com to make your voice heard.
Bitwig Certified Trainer
-
- KVRAF
- 2306 posts since 11 Jan, 2009 from Portland, OR, USA
what's the issue?
-
- KVRist
- 58 posts since 15 Nov, 2020
+
can someone demonstrate if eq+ is cramping or not?
can someone demonstrate if eq+ is cramping or not?
Bitwig, Renoise, Mixbus32c, Reason 12, ToneBoosters, TokyoDawnLabs...
-
- KVRAF
- 4556 posts since 3 Oct, 2013 from Budapest
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitwig/comment ... ror_in_eq/
it's officially(by design) not recommended for any parallel processing so it isn't buggy
"Where we're workarounding, we don't NEED features." - powermat
-
- KVRAF
- 2939 posts since 9 Dec, 2011 from falling
Seems like something Paul Third might enjoy doing
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqjSoS ... 1gNEAbe4vQ
Bitwig Certified Trainer
-
- KVRist
- 81 posts since 13 Apr, 2017 from Vienna
The standard EQ of a DAW like Bitwig (that shines with its FX layer capabilities) not being recommended for parallel processing seems like a bad joke to me. It's clearly a serious design flaw. I'm waiting for it to be fixed in every update, but unfortunately they seem to stick with it so far...
EDIT: Just adding that nothing is said in the manual that it shouldn't be used in parallel. It's also possible to "upgrade" EQ-2 or EQ-5 to EQ+ so it seems to be thought of being a replacement for them. But when an EQ-5 used in a parallel chain is "upgraded" to EQ+, some quite nasty phase issues can occur. It really, really should be fixed.
Last edited by flechtwerk on Sun May 15, 2022 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 434 posts since 28 Oct, 2018
phasing matters
we demonstrate in front of their office in berlin
we are thousands
we demonstrate in front of their office in berlin
we are thousands
-
- KVRian
- 597 posts since 26 Sep, 2007
Are you?D.K Envelope wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 1:09 pm phasing matters
we demonstrate in front of their office in berlin
we are thousands
-
- KVRAF
- 2306 posts since 11 Jan, 2009 from Portland, OR, USA
They will probably never fix it.
This is typical bitwig behavior -- a thing is brought to their attention, and their response is "no, it's supposed to be that way, deal with it."
As linked above, here it is again:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitwig/comment ... ror_in_eq/
Read it and weep.
Unrelated but same kind of experience, I once wrote them asking if there was any chance they'd ever add behavior so I can still get a count-in when recording into an *existing* MIDI clip (in clip launcher), the way Ableton works. In their implementation, you only get a count-in in the clip launcher when creating a brand new clip. When recording into an existing clip (e.g. doing an overdub) the count-in doesn't happen. Live has a little button in the transport allowing this behavior. Bitwig replied and said "no, it works the way it's supposed to with no count-in, if you're recording into an existing clip, just wait for it to loop around to the start and then you can start playing." In other words: we don't care, deal with it.
This is typical bitwig behavior -- a thing is brought to their attention, and their response is "no, it's supposed to be that way, deal with it."
As linked above, here it is again:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitwig/comment ... ror_in_eq/
Read it and weep.
Unrelated but same kind of experience, I once wrote them asking if there was any chance they'd ever add behavior so I can still get a count-in when recording into an *existing* MIDI clip (in clip launcher), the way Ableton works. In their implementation, you only get a count-in in the clip launcher when creating a brand new clip. When recording into an existing clip (e.g. doing an overdub) the count-in doesn't happen. Live has a little button in the transport allowing this behavior. Bitwig replied and said "no, it works the way it's supposed to with no count-in, if you're recording into an existing clip, just wait for it to loop around to the start and then you can start playing." In other words: we don't care, deal with it.
-
- KVRist
- 366 posts since 29 Mar, 2017
Yeah the "upgrade" issue was something I thought of as well. EQ+ was obviously supposed to be thought of as the default EQ device in Bitwig, with EQ-2 and EQ-5 sticking around mainly for backwards compatibility.flechtwerk wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 12:53 pmThe standard EQ of a DAW like Bitwig (that shines with its FX layer capabilities) not being recommended for parallel processing seems like a bad joke to me. It's clearly a serious design flaw. I'm waiting for it to be fixed in every update, but unfortunately they seem to stick with it so far...
EDIT: Just adding that nothing is said in the manual that it shouldn't be used in parallel. It's also possible to "upgrade" EQ-2 or EQ-5 to EQ+ so it seems to be thought of being a replacement for them. But when an EQ-5 used in a parallel chain is "upgraded" to EQ+, some quite nasty phase issues can occur. It really, really should be fixed.
-
- KVRist
- 81 posts since 13 Apr, 2017 from Vienna
Bitwig's answer quoted in that Reddit thread is so weird: "As the EQ+ is not a phase linear EQ, it is not recommended to be used in parallel processing." This is NOT a problem of "minimal phase" vs. "linear phase" EQs or something like that, it's a problem of unwanted comb filteringmholloway wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 8:01 pm They will probably never fix it.
This is typical bitwig behavior -- a thing is brought to their attention, and their response is "no, it's supposed to be that way, deal with it."
As linked above, here it is again:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitwig/comment ... ror_in_eq/
Read it and weep.
Non-linear-phase EQs are used in parallel all the time!All these excellent Dan Worrall videos have been really educational on this subject. Maybe he should do a "What's wrong with stock plugins? Bitwig EQ+ edition"
-
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 434 posts since 28 Oct, 2018
the problem is not the phase shift
but rather the uncompensadet latency
the latency is the problem tge eq5 works fine
but rather the uncompensadet latency
the latency is the problem tge eq5 works fine
-
- KVRist
- 81 posts since 13 Apr, 2017 from Vienna
Exactly.D.K Envelope wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 12:33 pm the problem is not the phase shift
but rather the uncompensadet latency
the latency is the problem tge eq5 works fine
-
- KVRian
- 841 posts since 6 Nov, 2004 from UK
Yes the latency is the problem. Everyone seems to see it other than the Devs. Today they replied to me again that "it is a conscious design decision" wow.
I mean, I understand they do not want a click when inserting it whilst playing live ... BUT the potential bad comb effect is obviously going to be much worse than a click and potentially can completely ruin the sonics in a live set. So their reasoning makes NO sense.
Considering how well designed the rest of the software is, this uncompensated latency seems sloppy and out of sorts for them.
Please do write in as they may take it more seriously if more people do so.
I mean, I understand they do not want a click when inserting it whilst playing live ... BUT the potential bad comb effect is obviously going to be much worse than a click and potentially can completely ruin the sonics in a live set. So their reasoning makes NO sense.
Considering how well designed the rest of the software is, this uncompensated latency seems sloppy and out of sorts for them.
Please do write in as they may take it more seriously if more people do so.
