Aa Blue Book Audio

[Lu Rounsaville]

Itis possible to chain effects in series or create up to 8 parallel chains that can be activated independently. This lets you create your favorite effects or instruments configurations within the plug-in, without the need for multiple busses. These configurations can be saved as presets and recalled instantly, or shared with multiple DAWs, using any plug-in format (full list below). Use the built-in audio effects to add color to your own plug-in chains.

Despite the name, you can forget about wires or cables: configuring plug-ins routing is as simple as adding or removing a row or a column in the rack's matrix. All plug-ins can also communicate with each other or with the host application using the virtual MIDI ports offered by the plug-in.

For each plug-in slot, latency compensation, presets management, undo/redo integration, audio i/o selection and individual plug-in bypass are included for optimal operation. The plug-in also stores the position of the window for each plug-in so that the layout is restored with your session or saved with presets.

This product is available as an audio plug-in (effect or a virtual instrument) and standalone application, so that it can used alone or inserted on any type of track in your favorite DAW, with up to 16 audio channels.

If you are looking for a multiband plug-ins host for multiband processing, check out the Blue Cat's MB-7 Mixer plug-in. Also, any Blue Cat Audio plug-in is compatible and can be hosted by this software.

Typical applications: Plug-ins host, custom channel strip, parallel processing, effects chainer, virtual bussing, virtual instrument, share bus and plug-ins configurations between DAWs, VST or Audio Unit to AAX, Audio Unit, effect chains A/B comparison, standalone audio processing application, multi effects processor.

"Patchwork is hugely flexible - it can even run VST plugins in non-VST hosts, like Logic [...]. PatchWork works well and is worth every penny of its asking price." - Computer Music Magazine - January 2014 - [read review on musicradar].

"Having had the pleasure of working with Patchwork and MB-7, I would most assuredly miss them if they were to disappear from my DAW. Enthusiastic thumbs up for both of these gems. Well done, Blue Cat. Very well done indeed!" - SoundBytes Music Magazine - June 2016 - [full review].

Introduce your traditional HiFi system to the exciting world of networked music libraries, streaming audio and Internet radio. Effortlessly connect and command music wirelessly from your smartphone or tablet, and unlock high fidelity music anywhere in the home.

Empowering you with full command over when and where you experience your music. Whether it involves synchronizing numerous BluOS Enabled devices or effortlessly exploring your favorite music streaming services, BluOS 4.0 offers music enthusiasts a variety of options to savour their favorite tunes.

The Audio-Technica specs include 4.5mV output, frequency response of 25Hz-25kHz, 23dB channel separation, 1.5dB output balance, 1.8-2.2g suggested tracking force (2g optimal), recommended load capacitance of 100 to 200pF (load+cable capacitance) and the standard 47kOhm resistive load. Compliance is 20 (x 10-6) . The cartridge weighs 6.1 grams. The nude microLinear stylus is fitted to an aluminum pipe cantilever.The Ortofon 2M Blue specs include 5.5mV (@1kHz, 5cm/sec), 25dB channel separation at 1kHz, 20-20kHz frequency response (+2/-1dB), dynamic compliance, lateral, 20m/mN, tracking force range is 1.6 to 2g, with recommended tracking force of 1.8g, and the other specs are very similar to the Audio Technica's, though its coil impedance is about 1/3 that of the A-T. The 2M Blue weighs 7.2 grams and features an aluminum cantilever to which is fitted a nude elliptical stylus.if you've ever compared a $99 Ortofon Red to a $236 Blue you know the sonic differences are considerable, with the Blue delivering far "faster" and more detailed performance thank in great part to its "nude" rather than the Red's bonded and far higher mass stylus. The A-T's theoretical advantage here is having a microLinear or "ridge" shaped stylus that produces more precise groove contact and less inner-groove distortion instead of the Blue's elliptical one.Instead of me giving you my opinion, why not listen for yourself? I digitized at 96/24 a selection (Gigout's "Grand Chorus in Dialogue") from Music For Organ, Brass and Percussion (Columbia M 31193) featuring E. Power Biggs and The Columbia Brass and Percussion Ensemble recorded at St. George's Church, in NYC. Edward T. Grham and Larry Keyes engineered the 1972 release, which, with its generous bottom end extension, wide dynamics and spacious ambiance seemed like a good choice to help you decide which you prefer. Of course you will have to listen "blind" and please state your preferences in the comments section. I'll reveal which is which within the week.File "1"File "2"Both cartridges were mounted to the Fluance RT85's tone arm and ran through a moderately priced phono preamp appropriate for this "front end". Try to listen to each independently rather than to "A/B" them and match levels. Enjoy! Log in or register to post comments COMMENTS Which cartridge Submitted by Manimaldoug on Fri, 2020-03-06 14:18 File 1 is the blue

File 2 has better bass so AT

I THINK:)

I am not sure I have a favorite which is really weird because both sound so different. File 1 sounds more "audiophile" to be sure. It has more HF extension, more definition. File 2 however has a mellow (warm) sound which I could easily live with especially if I had lots of recordings that could benefit from a softer presentation.

...has more and tactile bass extension, a lot more detail and wider soundstage. I hope its the Blue, because its the upgrade Ill like to do from my Red... File 2 sounds sweeter but less detailed, "uniform", with less contrasts and color...

Cartridge "1" produces a higher output and is louder - and louder cartridges always sound inherently better. Because of the lower output volume cartridge "2" appears to be flat and lifeless. But that does not necessarily say anything about playback quality.

I love these experiments! I have the blue and love it so I should be able to tell the difference, yet I really can't with any confidence. Humbling but fun. So here's my guess. I put both files into Logic pro, with no changes other then raising File 2 by +3 db to better match the levels. File 1 sounds more open and transparent but maybe not as refined in the upper mids. After raising the level of File 2 even by the minor +3 db it becomes a bit more nuanced in comparison. Just a little sweeter in the top end but not as much force and punch as file 1. So...drum roll... I think File one is the AT and file 2 is the Blue. Let the games begin!

I normalized both files in Sony Sound Forge, 1 was decreased and 2 was increased slightly. 1 has more HF extention and slightly more open. Both had decent HF extension out to 12.7 khz, but 1 had more vol at this region.

I always love these shoot-outs. I just did my own with an artist's song in 4 formats, LP, CD, 88.2khz download, and the SACD version. More science projects to look at the effects of EQ/Mastering and HF extension. Great fun.

Good idea - I'll normalize these tracks too for comparison. Just to discuss normalizing further, I normalize my full album rips before I split the tracks, never song by song. I seem to recall Michael writing about normalizing, recommending a -.10 db setting offering the best output, which is what I've used since. If memory serves, Fremer surmised that normalizing any greater reeks havoc with some playback software. I've used Sound Studio on my Macs for years. It would be interesting to know what software others use.

I have read and practiced over the years that you do want to turn on that last bit, which is above the -6db threshold (6 x the bit rate is the dynamic range). One engineer I read said that there is no reason to go above -5db, but I think that leaving 3db of loudness disregarded as not a good practice and it lowers the rest of the music as well. I generally do not go over -2db in my own work, but overs in digital are bad, so I avoid them at all costs. I noticed in these two files I had clearance at the top of the wave forms by going to -1db.

My displays are helpful when I look at other's recorded music and I see the wave form "fill" my screen and often look like a flat top hair cut near or at 0db, compressed and limited probably to -0.5db. right to the edge. This happens way too often in pop music.

I was glad to see and hear in these two files that the dynamic range was left intact and they both sounds very good to me. The one thing about vinyl it that the cutting and mastering of the LPs is hard work, then with all of the options we as listeners have in choosing a good turntable and then the hundreds of options of cartridges and phono stages it is no wonder we all hear something difference, and I haven't talked about our speakers or rooms yet.

Glad to see you normalized as well as we have read in the past that in DBT that even a .1db difference is discernable by some and the louder generally chosen as sounding better. Sounds like we both try to be honest in the science...a good thing. There is much to worry about in digital, but there is not much we can do about that with most of our players having just on and off, but now the newer dacs are giving us more listening options, a very good thing.

File 2 is brighter on top listening through my Monsoon planar computer speakers. And it brings the top end notes more forward compared to the rest of the frequency spectrum. The presentation is harsher as well. File 1's presentation is not as bright, and has a more cohesive presentation.

I'm also reminded of a conversation with Harry Weisfeld in which he said that not all cartridges mate as sonically well with certain arms. For example, the famed Denon DL-103 Weisfeld thinks sounds great with certain arms and just okay with others. So what we're hearing is how it sounds through whatever you're listening through, on THIS particular tonearm.

3a8082e126