Brian Walton

Sadly these are all ones they have given away for free before. Would have been nice if the "curated" list included something that wasn't in a previous give away. 😁

My experience is, I never read them and find the content worthless (is these electronic music or "producer" type of content isn't of interest to me). I'm only interested in the giveaway stuff, but frankly if I'm paying for it, the interest typically is minimal at this point. I bought a number of issues of the now defunct Computer Music under this same thinking when they had something I thought was worth it (though most issues I'd go the free via library route if the give away wasn't really worth the cost) and they had more interesting giveaways than Beat from what I recall over the years. Hate to say it, but if I'm putting enough down for a subscription, I'd rather spend that money on something discounted that I'd actually use. Of course I'm not at the beginning of my VST journey, most releases don't move the needle for me at this point.

Also a waste because the digital version is free though many local libraries in the USA. 🤣

Nope: License Management: License uses online verification, but can be used for 30 days offline before needing to reconnect to the internet. License can be assigned to two different locations.

While it doesn't have the full MTurboReverb (which is insane) inside, it does have more - and better - options than the average Piano VST available within the plugin itself. Combined with the 7 pic "pair" options lots of room for creating a sense of space. Plus there is additional control under the Resonances:

Yeah, I always wondered why plugin alliance never signed up for that series and the IR loader they have given how good everything they make is.

Beat magazine is also free digitally through many local library programs in the US. https://help.pressreader.com/hc/en-us/articles/360040581231-How-to-sign-into-PressReader-through-a-library You need a local library card and a pin code for that card to access it virtually.

This is what I was afraid of. I still remember their Neural EQ thing they gave away for free being the most resource intensive for a small task thing I'd ever encountered and uninstalled it about as fast as I installed it in the first place.

Product launched today but the free tier is missing PREVIOUS MARKETING WRITEUP:

Yep, until the pianoverse deal I had basically uninstalled a number of other pianos because it not only sounds great there is a ton of variation you can get due to the (7 different) Mic pattern options which can be combined and manipulated into more combinations. That is one of the real reasons the collection takes up the space, but it is worth it. I feel bad for "laptop creators" though, as giving up a port for an external drive is annoying.

Agreed but the other option to get it is MSoundfactoryLE for $40, which give someone that plus quite a few other instruments. But that piano is certainly the standout, and at $10 is a steal for anyone with the storage space it takes.

I remember that fairly short lived product, but never tried it. I need to go back and try again but I did make some of my own IRs years ago with the free tool. Results were not at the level I hoped for. I also have some purchased packs, some free ones l, etc. my best results are mixing some IRs and then exporting that single IR to use I think ML has to give us a better way than just a static IR though. Using an IR never seems to match the actual recording. That said, I'm a big fan as IRs can sound better than some of the best options on the market that try to tweak a piezo source. Dramatic improvement, but I want next level. If it can be done with better IR than what I love gotten that would be wonderful since I already have multiple pieces of hardware to use them.

The foam wearing out also depends on the model. Sure they all wear out eventually, but my 595s are now 20 years old and holding up great on the original pads. The 598 and 599 seems like they are made out of the same basic stuff. And while replacing pads on some models is a pain, most Senns of any decent tier has the full replacement pad that sort of snaps on and off.

When you have been playing for 30+ years and only know 2 or 3 riffs, my options are limited. I'm wondering if they can do better than a single IR generation as that seems a little limiting with acoustics from my experience. If it is as simple as creating the IR then even a desktop app would be enough as we could load the IR in Tonex already. I find my enjoyment of headphones highly dependent on the particular pair. I'm a fan of Sennheiser 59x open back cans. Have multiple pairs 595, 598, 599, etc. comfortable, open and natural sounding. The 600 series sound good but different signature.

My favorite application of this is going to a guitar store to try out a guitar or gear. I've got a case that holds a power bank, tonex one, cable, turbo tuner which is good enough to check intonation, and closed back studio headphones. Don't have to listen to others attempting to play around me, and they don't have to hear me playing through some amp on .5 Also use it when the power goes out, want to plug and play in a different room in the house, small gigs straight into the PA, etc

I'm speaking only about the Melda and United plugin installers which are very efficient, way more so than updating a few individual ones. But you can select which to update within the system. It would be nice to set more individual paths though if you need to break up space. As for the extra random installs, I get the feeling that also happens with individual installs as well depending on the manufacture. I haven't done a deep dive on meldas method as unlike (waves) it has never given me an issue. Speaking holistically across brands extra installers are terrible

I think an inexpensive battery bank designed to clip onto the front of the ToneX One via the USB-C slot would have been a good idea. This certainly has a place and value for some, but for me, the ToneX One already has a lot of the functionality I'd personally get from this is a form I can use for a whole lot more, the fact it can be powered by the USB-C port is honestly an amazing feature that doesn't get the attention it deserves. Honestly what I'm hoping from IKM next is a cheap competitor to Audio Sprockets ToneDexter II using machine learning / capture such as they have done with Tonex. Honestly if they could just incorporate that kind of capture process into the existing TONEX hardware that would be a game changer.

They used to have individual installers but I think the perspective really depends on how many plugins in the colleciton you own. The installer is a mirror image of the Melda one and honestly if you own a few of them it actually saves a ton of time with headaches. I usually hate the extra installer non-sense too, but updating the number of Melda plugins I have without such an installer would be a massive waste of time. I've gotten enough United Plugins I'd also say the same.

Yes, my point related to misleading has to do with the perception of these differences are material from a human hearing perspective. Just because it is visually showing up in a chart doesn't mean you can consciously hear it or that the result isn't pleasing . This I think with levels that low you have to use your ears to say "does this matter to me" which is a different and perhaps more important question. Tube amplification creates both harmonic and IMD so even high end real world gear would show up on these plugin dr tests, so I think this is where using the results can potentially mislead some one into thinking a tool isn't good enough or doing something unforgivable to audio. I'm more of a test to see what is going on out of curiosity but then use your ears to determine if you like the results type.

Define clean in plugin dr. The program is great for seeing where eq curves and shapes are in a neutral way, but can be very misleading in terms of real world perception of things like distortion, phase shifts, etc.

I've been an Affinity fan since v1. But I also think that beyond the question of will it be free or not there is a lot of concern about how the development will progress. Adobe was stagnant for years with material updates but in the last 3 years have completely obliterated the pace of Affinity in workflow and feature enhancements. Even the move from v1 to v2 felt like almost nothing and then when they launch v3 about the only big deal is vector trace and getting all, not just some, of the photo tools to show up with what is effectively studio link that we had for a long time now. I need to mess with it more but as a weekly Affinity user (close to daily), I got a number of errors trying out some features in this new version. When they were bought by Canva they promised development would explode. Since it has been about a year in development since the last real update I'm not sure I agree we have seen that promise fulfilled yet. All that said, I'm thrilled I didn't have to drop another $130ish on an upgrade like I had to from v1 to v2. And as a volunteer photography educator, nothing is better than telling students high quality tools are free. Now if Capture One had not abandoned the free version, and only have the $300+ model....

I'd bet they are probably correct. The number of edit and create things completely manually is already becoming a tiny subset of the people out there creating content. I've been shocked to see how many people with no art skills at all have a canva account and literally get paid to use it at a job. Everything from an office manager using it to create name tags or flyers to people creating their entire marketing campaigns with it. The money has always been in selling to companies not individual creators and the market for people that want that AI assistance without having to dedicate years to get good at design is where the lions share is.

When I tested them I'll admit that at really extreme settings Kirchoff impressed me more than any other eq. That said, when I did a/b testing on normal settings that didn't need insane boosts someone shouldn't have to do with any decent source the differences I found to be negligible at best and the added filter types and far better interface for me personally certainly overcame any minor differences. Now if I have something that needs a crazy boost or cut, yes, Kirchoff is coming out. But for a tool that is basically on every track that I have to look at constantly, my vote goes for Toneboosters Pro. I bought Kirchoff before the TBP came out and expected it to be the end all eq but that interface leaves a lot to be desired. My eyesight and corrective lenses fall short. While it isn't anywhere close to the worst, they clearly don't have PHDs in human factors.

Honestly at that price I think the newish Toneboosters Pro EQ is a better deal. The interface is certainly more pleasing and the sound is great. Yes, I have the Kirchhoff and it is excellent, but I also find the interface elements to be "too small" even though the overall interface is resizable. It does sound as good as anything out there to me though.

For anyone that owned all 3 it felt like one app (other than a few limitations on the photo side) for years due to the studio link functionality. If you opened publisher you could switch between all 3 in the same way they have done here. vs the new interface: The announcement video claims they are going with the "free model" forever on this. Time will tell, but at least I'm glad the update wasn't another money grab. This is going to take some getting used to though with the interface changes.