Stereo Tool :: Stereo Tool 7.52 BETA

I am reading this coupling mania... and i have something to ask.

As i see couplig goes b2>b1 and b3>b2.. etc, so not vice versa.

Quote:

OK my suggestion with the norm Switch is not perfect, cause 1 band can be a source band for more than 1 bands and a target band can have more than 1 source band...
But perhaps this here is the solution:
When you make a table with 4 columns and several rows:
column1: source band (to fill in a numerical value)
column2: target band (to fill in a numerical value)
column3: algorithm (mode 1 or 2, what I described in my prior post about the norm switch)
column4: percentage slider

So you can determine the algorithm per coupling way instead of per band.

I've re-read your 2 posts (this one and the one just above it) about 4 times now and I still don't follow it. Can you please tell me what the *goal* of both methods is? So which effect are you trying to accomplish and why?

With coupling method 1 (=adding the 2 control values* and putting the sum to target band) you can accomblish:
-Exactly this, what you described as the reason for putting back the matrix, cause the matrix is using this method with norm = off
So this method (with the table containing the columns i described) could substitute the matrix for easier and more effective usage

Wit coupling method 2, - the far mor important for me - (compare value 1 and 2 and feed immediately the *higher* one to the target band) you can accomblish:
-Preventing excessive boosts in bands containing no or very less energy and tends to "run away"
-Preventing some "morphing" on critical program content (hearing the re- equalisation working)
-to get sound results nearer to the original and therefore add fidelity to the sound
-and a little bit to turn away the increase in multiplex power in the case of a substantially growth of energy in the middle band(s)

Method 2 becomes more significant with a) higer MB Drives and b) steeper crossovers

The goal in my opinion is not primary to prevent a single band to stick out (even this is always partially a side effect of coupling), it *should* stick out if a loud sound comes in this area to compress such sound. And here is the reason for doing also method 2 in percent: If a single band gets a lot of energy and is therefore perforimg a high gain reduction (particular higher than in normal cases), the resulting *absolute* coupling is less - the bands coupled to the sticking out band are not pulled so deep into gain reduction (wich would be more audible, cause the output becomes quieter instead of louder).

Doing method 2 in dB would make sense in the AGC: So you can determine that the bass band is allowed to boost the bass by e.g. 6dB compared to the rest of the spectrum - and this *independent* from the input level and therefore from the Gain reduction.

Furthermore is the point i described relating to the attack and release timing affecting the coupling:
When you see method 1 (and also the coupling matrix- method) and having the following case:
You have put an amount of percent of band 3´s control value to band 2. And you have set band 2 to a slower release time than band 3. Now a loud sound causes band 3 to go deep into gain reduction. Cause of the coupling band 2 follows band 3. Now the sound energy in band 3 disappears suddenly. Band 2 should go as fast as band 3 (and not with band 2´s release time) back to the lower amount of gain reduction.

And yes, you are right - the primary direction used in coupling is *from* the middle band(s) *to* the bass bands and *to* the high end bands. I would never couple band 1 to 2, or band 5 to four, or band 4 to 3 in a 5-band preset. But also all that should be possible (for e.g. artifactional sounds) - and it would be with the described columns/rows method.

The last point is maintaining the adding- method, how the values are added.
In the matrix with norm = off the control values are added directly - right? Therefore you get such huge gain reductions in the target band unless you are using really less coupling values. It should be added by vector, so when you see the both values as orthographical vectors than the length of the third vector (the bisecting line) shows the result.

Example to clarify:
Say we have +12 dB audio in bands 1-3 and 0 dB in 4-6
1. Current behavior with coupling: -12 -10 -8 -4 -2 0 - wow, bad!!
2. Behavior with only pulling up: -12 -12 -12 -4 -2 0
3. Behavior where we only respond if BOTH sides pull a band down: -12 -12 -12 0 0 0

In case 1. you get a rise in level close to the frequency where the audio stops. You would get that anyway because band 4 will also contain sound from this band. But it makes the effect bigger.
In case 3. the spectrum is most nicely filled, but I'm not sure which one of 2 and 3 would sound most natural. There is a quite steep bump between band 3 and 4, which might be too much.

Quote:

I don't understand what you mean by the increase in multiplex power?

To stay close to the original, the current coupling might actually work pretty well (maybe too well). As I described above.

Quote:

Method 2 becomes more significant with a) higer MB Drives and b) steeper crossovers

Quote:

I'm doing the opposite now though - coupling (not linking!) works in dB's. If you have a band that sticks out a lot (much less attenuation), working in dB's will pull it down further which is good. On the other hand, if a single band goes down a lot, using % would be better because it would less strongly affect the surrounding bands.

Quote:

If you want to protect a band from sticking out you need to look in both directions, always.

- Fix Phase Equalizer: Insane bass effect: https://soundcloud.com/kilohearts/datas ... rser-demos

Author:	hvz [ Sat Dec 20, 2014 12:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 7.52 BETA
Quote: I am reading this coupling mania... and i have something to ask. As i see couplig goes b2>b1 and b3>b2.. etc, so not vice versa. To avoid even more confusion... I named the old thing Coupling and the new one Linking... But that means you're talking about Linking here. If someone has an idea for clearer names let me know.

Author:	RobertSack [ Sat Dec 20, 2014 3:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 7.52 BETA
Quote: Quote: OK my suggestion with the norm Switch is not perfect, cause 1 band can be a source band for more than 1 bands and a target band can have more than 1 source band... But perhaps this here is the solution: When you make a table with 4 columns and several rows: column1: source band (to fill in a numerical value) column2: target band (to fill in a numerical value) column3: algorithm (mode 1 or 2, what I described in my prior post about the norm switch) column4: percentage slider So you can determine the algorithm per coupling way instead of per band. I've re-read your 2 posts (this one and the one just above it) about 4 times now and I still don't follow it. Can you please tell me what the goal of both methods is? So which effect are you trying to accomplish and why? Hello Hans, At first, for now it is good, that you put the matrix back into ST now. With coupling method 1 (=adding the 2 control values* and putting the sum to target band) you can accomblish: -Exactly this, what you described as the reason for putting back the matrix, cause the matrix is using this method with norm = off So this method (with the table containing the columns i described) could substitute the matrix for easier and more effective usage Wit coupling method 2, - the far mor important for me - (compare value 1 and 2 and feed immediately the higher one to the target band) you can accomblish: -Preventing excessive boosts in bands containing no or very less energy and tends to "run away" -Preventing some "morphing" on critical program content (hearing the re- equalisation working) -to get sound results nearer to the original and therefore add fidelity to the sound -and a little bit to turn away the increase in multiplex power in the case of a substantially growth of energy in the middle band(s) Method 2 becomes more significant with a) higer MB Drives and b) steeper crossovers * value1 = control value of target band itself value2 = control value of the source band multiplied by the percentage slider The goal in my opinion is not primary to prevent a single band to stick out (even this is always partially a side effect of coupling), it should stick out if a loud sound comes in this area to compress such sound. And here is the reason for doing also method 2 in percent: If a single band gets a lot of energy and is therefore perforimg a high gain reduction (particular higher than in normal cases), the resulting absolute coupling is less - the bands coupled to the sticking out band are not pulled so deep into gain reduction (wich would be more audible, cause the output becomes quieter instead of louder). Doing method 2 in dB would make sense in the AGC: So you can determine that the bass band is allowed to boost the bass by e.g. 6dB compared to the rest of the spectrum - and this independent from the input level and therefore from the Gain reduction. Furthermore is the point i described relating to the attack and release timing affecting the coupling: When you see method 1 (and also the coupling matrix- method) and having the following case: You have put an amount of percent of band 3´s control value to band 2. And you have set band 2 to a slower release time than band 3. Now a loud sound causes band 3 to go deep into gain reduction. Cause of the coupling band 2 follows band 3. Now the sound energy in band 3 disappears suddenly. Band 2 should go as fast as band 3 (and not with band 2´s release time) back to the lower amount of gain reduction. And yes, you are right - the primary direction used in coupling is from the middle band(s) to the bass bands and to the high end bands. I would never couple band 1 to 2, or band 5 to four, or band 4 to 3 in a 5-band preset. But also all that should be possible (for e.g. artifactional sounds) - and it would be with the described columns/rows method. As a summary you can see method 1 as a substitute for the matrix and method 2 as the new linking method. I would always prefer and therefore wishing me method 2, but for the presets already sounding good with the matrix method 1 would be the more interesting. Another Option is to leave the matrix built in and to add an extra page with method 2 plus a switch to decide wich method should be used. The last point is maintaining the adding- method, how the values are added. In the matrix with norm = off the control values are added directly - right? Therefore you get such huge gain reductions in the target band unless you are using really less coupling values. It should be added by vector, so when you see the both values as orthographical vectors than the length of the third vector (the bisecting line) shows the result.

Author:	hvz [ Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 7.52 BETA
First thing I want to say: I have been thinking about this and reading what everyone wrote, and I have realized that band coupling can have negative effects (one loud band pulls all others down) if there's too much of it, but still, pulling a single band down that sticks out too much is a good thing. If there's a single band that's really loud it will - if the current coupling is used - not go down as far as it would otherwise have. Which means less consistency. Which is bad. So, maybe the current band coupling should be adjusted to only allow it to pull bands down, but never up. Actually that would make it closer to what the new Band Linking does. On another note, I have heard this new preset where someone turned Band Coupling off for bands 1 and 2, so a loud sound on band 3 doesn't pull bands 1 and 2 down, which leads to a much warmer sound with more constant bass. I'm now starting to think that what's happening here might be something else: Currently, if ANY band that's coupled to another band has attenuation, all the bands that it's coupled to will be attenuated as well. But, maybe it should only be able to pull a band down if it gets pulled down by BOTH sides (above and below). That would mean that if the audio level falls rapidly above or below a certain frequency, the bands there can ALL go up as much as they need to fill up the spectrum, only if there's a small hole in between the band there would be pulled down by coupling... The effect of this new preset would automatically be achieved by this. Example to clarify: Say we have +12 dB audio in bands 1-3 and 0 dB in 4-6 1. Current behavior with coupling: -12 -10 -8 -4 -2 0 - wow, bad!! 2. Behavior with only pulling up: -12 -12 -12 -4 -2 0 3. Behavior where we only respond if BOTH sides pull a band down: -12 -12 -12 0 0 0 In case 1. you get a rise in level close to the frequency where the audio stops. You would get that anyway because band 4 will also contain sound from this band. But it makes the effect bigger. In case 3. the spectrum is most nicely filled, but I'm not sure which one of 2 and 3 would sound most natural. There is a quite steep bump between band 3 and 4, which might be too much. Quote: With coupling method 1 (=adding the 2 control values* and putting the sum to target band) you can accomblish: -Exactly this, what you described as the reason for putting back the matrix, cause the matrix is using this method with norm = off So this method (with the table containing the columns i described) could substitute the matrix for easier and more effective usage Your method 1 is indeed the same as what I have now without Norm(alize). All Norm does it making sure that the sum of all the band couplings for a band is 100%. So if you specify 100% 100% 0% 0% 0%, Norm will internally convert that to 50% 50% 0% 0% 0%. With >100% coupling I find it difficult to properly control the behavior. Combined with what I wrote above (never allow a band to go higher than what you actually calculated for that band) it might get easier. Quote: Wit coupling method 2, - the far mor important for me - (compare value 1 and 2 and feed immediately the higher one to the target band) you can accomblish: -Preventing excessive boosts in bands containing no or very less energy and tends to "run away" -Preventing some "morphing" on critical program content (hearing the re- equalisation working) -to get sound results nearer to the original and therefore add fidelity to the sound -and a little bit to turn away the increase in multiplex power in the case of a substantially growth of energy in the middle band(s) I don't understand what you mean by the increase in multiplex power? To stay close to the original, the current coupling might actually work pretty well (maybe too well). As I described above. Quote: Method 2 becomes more significant with a) higer MB Drives and b) steeper crossovers Quote: The goal in my opinion is not primary to prevent a single band to stick out (even this is always partially a side effect of coupling), it should stick out if a loud sound comes in this area to compress such sound. And here is the reason for doing also method 2 in percent: If a single band gets a lot of energy and is therefore perforimg a high gain reduction (particular higher than in normal cases), the resulting absolute coupling is less - the bands coupled to the sticking out band are not pulled so deep into gain reduction (wich would be more audible, cause the output becomes quieter instead of louder). I'm doing the opposite now though - coupling (not linking!) works in dB's. If you have a band that sticks out a lot (much less attenuation), working in dB's will pull it down further which is good. On the other hand, if a single band goes down a lot, using % would be better because it would less strongly affect the surrounding bands. Quote: Doing method 2 in dB would make sense in the AGC: So you can determine that the bass band is allowed to boost the bass by e.g. 6dB compared to the rest of the spectrum - and this independent from the input level and therefore from the Gain reduction. Skipping this part for now... I first need to fully understand what to do with MB. Quote: Furthermore is the point i described relating to the attack and release timing affecting the coupling: When you see method 1 (and also the coupling matrix- method) and having the following case: You have put an amount of percent of band 3´s control value to band 2. And you have set band 2 to a slower release time than band 3. Now a loud sound causes band 3 to go deep into gain reduction. Cause of the coupling band 2 follows band 3. Now the sound energy in band 3 disappears suddenly. Band 2 should go as fast as band 3 (and not with band 2´s release time) back to the lower amount of gain reduction. This is already the case in both Band Coupling and Band Linking. Quote: And yes, you are right - the primary direction used in coupling is from the middle band(s) to the bass bands and to the high end bands. I would never couple band 1 to 2, or band 5 to four, or band 4 to 3 in a 5-band preset. But also all that should be possible (for e.g. artifactional sounds) - and it would be with the described columns/rows method. If you want to protect a band from sticking out you need to look in both directions, always. Quote: The last point is maintaining the adding- method, how the values are added. In the matrix with norm = off the control values are added directly - right? Therefore you get such huge gain reductions in the target band unless you are using really less coupling values. It should be added by vector, so when you see the both values as orthographical vectors than the length of the third vector (the bisecting line) shows the result. This is indeed how they are added - I don't understand what you mean by those vectors though because it's just a single value, not a complex (x,y) value. So why a vector?

Author:	gpagliaroli [ Sun Dec 21, 2014 1:59 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 7.52 BETA
Reviewing the coupling of some processors, see the simplicity interesting and perhaps the most logical thought as one would adjust an equalizer curve. Perhaps this complex system, the curve is achieved that allows the gradual increase of the influence of a band on the other. Transcribe the manual of the Aphex 2020: 3.1.6.3 1><2 Couples the gain control of band 1 to the gain control of band 2 in such a way that whichever band produces the greater amount of gain reduction influences the the gain of the other band through a slow averaging effect. 3.1.6.4 2><3 Couples the gain control of band 2 to the gain control of band 3 in such a way that whichever band produces the greater amount of gain reduction influences the the gain of the other band through a slow averaging effect. 3.1.6.5 3><4 Couples the gain control of band 3 to the gain control of band 4 in such a way that whichever band produces the greater amount of gain reduction influences the the gain of the other band through a slow averaging effect. It is one more to the already many option ...

Author:	gpagliaroli [ Sun Dec 21, 2014 2:48 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 7.52 BETA
Forget comment that the elastic function in the coupling, tends to cause their average gain Reductions to equalize while the fast changing compression Remains independent of each channel.

Stereo Tool https://forums.stereotool.com/

Stereo Tool 7.52 BETA https://forums.stereotool.com/viewtopic.php?t=5722	Page 22 of 33

Author:	RobertSack [ Sun Dec 21, 2014 10:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 7.52 BETA
Quote: Example to clarify: Say we have +12 dB audio in bands 1-3 and 0 dB in 4-6 1. Current behavior with coupling: -12 -10 -8 -4 -2 0 - wow, bad!! 2. Behavior with only pulling up: -12 -12 -12 -4 -2 0 3. Behavior where we only respond if BOTH sides pull a band down: -12 -12 -12 0 0 0 In case 1. you get a rise in level close to the frequency where the audio stops. You would get that anyway because band 4 will also contain sound from this band. But it makes the effect bigger. In case 3. the spectrum is most nicely filled, but I'm not sure which one of 2 and 3 would sound most natural. There is a quite steep bump between band 3 and 4, which might be too much. Case 2 would be perfect if the threshold fur further reduction in band 4 is raised by 4dB, in band 5 raised by 2dB. Quote: Quote: Wit coupling method 2, - the far mor important for me - (compare value 1 and 2 and feed immediately the higher one to the target band) you can accomblish: -Preventing excessive boosts in bands containing no or very less energy and tends to "run away" -Preventing some "morphing" on critical program content (hearing the re- equalisation working) -to get sound results nearer to the original and therefore add fidelity to the sound -and a little bit to turn away the increase in multiplex power in the case of a substantially growth of energy in the middle band(s) I don't understand what you mean by the increase in multiplex power? This fact is so small you can ignore for now. It is, if you have song, and after the opening the singer and some E- Guitars etc. starts to play (in the middle frequency range) you can save a little bit of multiplex power when the higher bands are pulled a bit more down, driven by the middle bands. Quote: To stay close to the original, the current coupling might actually work pretty well (maybe too well). As I described above. Quote: Method 2 becomes more significant with a) higer MB Drives and b) steeper crossovers Quote: The goal in my opinion is not primary to prevent a single band to stick out (even this is always partially a side effect of coupling), it should stick out if a loud sound comes in this area to compress such sound. And here is the reason for doing also method 2 in percent: If a single band gets a lot of energy and is therefore perforimg a high gain reduction (particular higher than in normal cases), the resulting absolute coupling is less - the bands coupled to the sticking out band are not pulled so deep into gain reduction (wich would be more audible, cause the output becomes quieter instead of louder). I'm doing the opposite now though - coupling (not linking!) works in dB's. If you have a band that sticks out a lot (much less attenuation), working in dB's will pull it down further which is good. On the other hand, if a single band goes down a lot, using % would be better because it would less strongly affect the surrounding bands. Quote: And yes, you are right - the primary direction used in coupling is from the middle band(s) to the bass bands and to the high end bands. I would never couple band 1 to 2, or band 5 to four, or band 4 to 3 in a 5-band preset. But also all that should be possible (for e.g. artifactional sounds) - and it would be with the described columns/rows method. If you want to protect a band from sticking out you need to look in both directions, always. But this is not what I want. I don't want to protect a band from sticking out - Not in the way that any of the coupling lowers its gain reduction. So i say only in the dirction from the middle bands to the higher or to the lower bands. In a 5- band preset all the coupling ways making sense for me are: b3 to b4, b4 to b5, b3 to b2, b2 to b1 and b2 to b3. This coupling way is useful to prevent the warmth of some songs like "the common linnets - calm after the storm". In the opening of this song the instruments beside the singing does drive mainly band 1 and 2 into gain reduction. With this coupling you can reserve the warmth of this passage. The main difference of both coupling methods I will describe with this explanation: Assuming the following case: only band 3 has +12dB audio, all others have 0dB. With the coupling matrix put 50% of band 3´s control value into band 4, norm off: band 3: 12dB, band 4: 6dB Ok for this, but now all settings same but this case: band 3 has +12dB audio, band 4 has +6dB audio, all others 0dB. For an - in my opinion - optimal coupling behavior band 4´s gain reduction must not increase, it should stay at -6dB! If band 4 has +8dB it should perform 8dB gain reduction. And now - in this case - you turn off all coupling! And nothing of the gain reductions should change. This is the most important point here. And for me it is only achievabe by comparing the 2 values like method I described. ...I don't know to explain it better at the moment... Regards, Robert

Author:	hvz [ Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:50 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 7.52 BETA
While waiting for feedback about bass coupling (I'll continue with that tomorrow) I've been working on the Phase Equalizer. I found out that it was completely broken - first of all, it didn't work properly at all when the AGC was enabled. Secondly, the result was far too weak (I had to amplify it with a factor 4 to make it more useful). Thirdly, the resulting shape was cut off at the wrong place which caused ripples in the spectrum. That has now all been fixed, and now it gives a noticeable effect to the bass. Warning: The CPU load is currently HUGE. I will try to improve that tomorrow. Anyway, I'll also upload a new beta with the fixed Phase Equalizer tomorrow, and for those of you who have a lot of processing power to spare, I can suggest the following shape: Note: You might not like what this does. The purpose of this feature is to replicate the sound of some famous hardware units, which do strange things with the bass that some people really like (and others don't). This has always been the purpose of the Phase Equalizer, but it never worked in the past...

Author:	hvz [ Mon Dec 22, 2014 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 7.52 BETA
Windows 32 bit: Windows stand alone: http://www.stereotool.com/download/ster ... 52-019.exe Winamp DSP: http://www.stereotool.com/download/dsp_ ... 52-019.exe VST: http://www.stereotool.com/download/vst_ ... 52-019.dll CHANGES: - Save PNR data in normal INI file - Fix Phase Equalizer: Insane bass effect: https://soundcloud.com/kilohearts/datas ... rser-demos Warning: Don't use values in the Phase Equalizer below the center line. I've seen cases where this leads to very bad audio and even to complete disappearance of the sound. I will make it impossible to get below 0 in a future build. TODO: - Try to optimize Phase Equalizer - Make unoptimized Phase Equalizer (FIR-based) available again in Extreme Tweaker mode for testing purposes. Something like "Use unoptimized version (for testing)" - Fix Phase Equalizer GUI behavior (same display at different latencies etc.). And only in one direction (up = delay, no down!). Try to fix highs. - Fix Phase Equalizer nonlinearity in highs if highs are flat - Read all the posts about band coupling and decide what to do with it - Convert N-1->N etc. to actual band numbers. - Add interface for media group I talked to at IBC for 50 FM and 50 web stations. - Improve password protection. Prepare to later also support password protected presets (not now). Mail Henk M. Maybe disable for now. - Crash in BETA014 stand alone http://i.imgur.com/Fpz7Jmr.png - Move band coupling matrix to Expert mode? - Add and update presets - Change version number to 7.60 (since there's a new filter added). LATER: - Check Multiband settings Bojcha in Skype - ok, seen it, but what should I do with it? - Check Multiband meters when using band coupling. Something is weird. - Split limiters from coupling. - Add External Pulse Response option PREVIOUS: - GUI: Made CPU affinity more user friendly (pulldown and masks as backup) - GUI: Split filters in Restoration / Processing. - GUI: Display FM lowpass frequency at bottom when FM output is used. - GUI: Made Configuration, Repair and Processing settings saveable separately. - GUI: Strange jumps in waveform displays at 100 and 200 ms buffer size fixed. - GUI: Hide panels in password protected mode or something Temporarily done, now waiting for feedback. * - GUI: Reorganized Advanced Clipper ABDP panel. - Performance: Optimized band coupling in MB compressor; ignoring bands with coupling < 0.5%. - Bug fix: GUI: Fix crash when clicking on volume bars. - Bug fix: Potential GUI crash at certain display sizes fixed. - Bug fix: On program close, the parameters were removed before the HTTP server was switched off. This might cause an exception if the HTTP server is processing a request. - Added PNR Noise & Hum filter that removes constant tones and reduces noise. - ABDP: Added new "Sloppy" slider. Effect: Slightly louder, 0.5 dB more highs! And probably less pumping due to highs. () - Multiband compressor: Added Band Coupling matrix which overrules the standard band coupling settings. Only available in Extreme Tweaker mode. - Multiband compressor: Added band linking (different from already existing band coupling). - Advanced Clipper: Advanced Bass Distortion Protection (ABDP): Drop in output when strongly clipping around 2600-4000 Hz is reduced. - Advanced Clipper: ABDP: "Smooth Slide" slider added to make transition between deep bass (clipped) and less deep bass smoother. There used to be a drop upto the 2nd configured bass frequency, with this switch enabled the drop is smoothed (maximum at 1st configured bass freq, gone at 2nd). Result: Warmer, more open, less 'restrained' sound. But probably also a bit more intermodulation distortion. (which might be fixable by changing the frequencies in the preset a bit). () - Advanced Clipper: ABDP: Added extra step that detects intermodulation distortion from bass in voices and reduces it. - Advanced Clipper: Highs Gap Protection caused a jump in the spectrum between 3.5-3.8 kHz for loud highs. This is now smoothed over a bigger area (2400-4800 Hz). - Advanced Clipper: Highs Gap Protection: Now stricter than before. Slightly more IMD distortion in the highs but also better protection against volume drops caused by loud highs. - Re-recorded 'This sound is processed by Stereo Tool' sample which gets played when unregistered features are used.

Author:	rhodes54 [ Mon Dec 22, 2014 2:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 7.52 BETA
Quote: - Fix Phase Equalizer: Insane bass effect: https://soundcloud.com/kilohearts/datas ... rser-demos Ooohhh, all excited! THE tool to give ST a sound-metamorphosis!

Author:	oldiesstation [ Mon Dec 22, 2014 4:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 7.52 BETA
You NAUGHTY boy. Just keep it rockin!! SWEEEEEET

Page 22 of 33	All times are UTC+02:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/