michi95

😕
Plutonium ?
😕
For my ears Plutonium and Passive Aggressor have as much similarities as the "twins" Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito.
in Twins (1988)
Ok, both wear the same suits (jackets, neck-ties and shirts).
Like Plutonium and Passive Aggressor wear the same suits (Breakway).

I understood Jesse’s explanations in the way that Passive Aggressor should be some kind of Reference Setting 2.0.
viewtopic.php?p=7092#p7092

[quote author=”JesseG”]…… bass …… I’m still 99% fixated on keeping it much the way it is right now.[/quote]Yes, Jesse keep it !
It is perfect.
Always this questions and wishes:
"more bass …. more, more".
Very often not a problem of processing.
In most cases a problem of bad equipment (or bad taste).
Sorry, I did not want to offend anybody.
But, I think one of the intentions for this preset is to process "with respect" to the original sound character.
There are already enough other presets that change the whole sound character of every music to a punchy hammer.

And as the name implies this one is a
Passive Aggressor ➡ 💡 ❗

➡ Jesse, keep it this way !

@ JesseG

Definitively, you are on the right way ! 🙂

[quote author=”yorkie98″]this one normally plays havoc with the AGC[/quote]I think it is the other way round:
The AGC normally plays havoc with this type of music.
In the end we agree that this produces very often poor results.

Intelligent AGC handling is the key.

@ Leif

Thank you for your answer and time.

But how does this work in detail ?

Even if this 0 …100 range is percental and 50 is the neutral point (so that 49 is 2%, 48 is 4 %, 47 is 6% less and 51 is 2%, 52 is 4%, 53 is 6% more …..), every core setting must have a bottom (the lowest possible value).

So under certain circumstances – if the author of the preset has set one core parameter to the bottom – it can be changed using the GUI values above 50, but how can it be lowered when it is already at the bottom ?

My own explanation why there is always an audible difference with every preset and all sliders:
It has to do with the macro control structure !?
[quote author=”Leif”]The user adjustable controls adjust multiple internal parameters[/quote]
So it is against the (mathematical) probability that all of the combined multiple internal core parameters in one GUI macro control slider have absolute zero values by default ?

Is this theory correct ?

Or do you have any further information for me to undertsand this system ?

I will try to answer this question on my own by programming my Korg Z1 synthesizer which has a similar macro control system.
You can adjust multiple parameters with one of five central performance knobs on the front panel.
For example changing cutoff, resonance, LFO modulation and effect depth at once with one of these knobs.
This works also with percental values (+- 100).
http://www.vintagesynth.com/korg/z1.php
Maybe this will help me to understand the way it works (with Breakaway).

[quote author=”greatstart”]The hardware supports it, but for some reason, there’s no option to change it to 192k on the XP driver.

The latest Realtek driver has the option of going 192k.[/quote] ❓
The driver for Vista or Windows 7 ?
Or (now) for XP too ?

[quote author=”Leif”]Oh i’m counting in hexadecimal, so after 0.99.99 is 0.99.9A. Will we get to 1.0 in my lifetime? Who knows 🙂[/quote]I know, because I am a scientist. 8)

I have done a few calculations to predict the beta releases and the final 1.0 version.
All calculations using the decimal system !

Guillou wrote
you can have 0.90.96 …97 …98 …99 but after, it can be 0.91.00 …01……..

Using decimal system:
There are 900 (9×100)
+ 4 (builds 96, 97, 98, 99 of 0.90.xy betas)
= 904
leftover betas before version 1.0 !

Or if this is not enough for Leif and he starts with the hexadecimal system:
There are 3840 (15×256)
+ 161 (256-95)
= 4001
leftover betas before version 1.0 !

I hope that is enough, Leif ?
If you have 80 years leftover to live on this planet (and before the release of version 1.0 !)
using the hexadecimal system, you will have to release approx. every week a new beta version.

So, you better stop wasting your time by reading my ridicolous posts or any other in this forum and better start today writing new betas and compile them.
Because if you want to release version 1.0 in five years, you have to build 16 beta versions every week.
We are waiting for 2.28571…….. new betas every day.
Yesterday we had build 95.
Today we are still waiting for build 96 and 97.
I can’ t wait until Thursday when we will get 0.90.98 and 0.90.99 !

Have fun !

PS: The calculations are based on one product (like BA Live) !
For all your other products (BA Enhancer, Broadcast, DJ, etc.) you should consider to clone yourself.
You are lucky, because BA Live and Broadcast are already at 0.90 ! 8)

I had to reboot Windows (XP pro SP2) after the installation of BA Live 0.90.95 on top of build 94.
Is this a general change (back to the way the older updates worked) or is it just for the step from build 94 to build 95 ?

Maybe it is a stupid question:
Does this occur with version 0.90.93 too, or not ?
(-> install build 93 on top of build 94 and see what will happen).

Sorry, if you have done an update from build 93 to build 94.

But it is better to ask one question too much than one question too little.

You won’t believe what happened to me with build 94 (while I was writing
how stable all the betas worked for me – I never had any problem):
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1003&start=0