CALF plugins?

[luciorgomes]

https://discourse.ardour.org/t/what-abo ... ins/105926

[Audiojunkie]

I do wonder to myself if it might be possible to decouple the gui from some of the plugins and use then like we do with Airwindows products. Obviously it won’t work with the more gui intensive plugins, but it looks like it may work with some of them. It’s an interesting thought…

[folderol]

It may be possible to rebuild the gui with something that can be statically linked such as FLTK. That way, provided other elements are OK you'd be pretty much future-proof.
I'd add, that a lot of code that uses gtk, only makes use of a tiny fraction of what's available, so downsizing might actually produce leaner and faster performance.

[glowrak guy]

As I recall, these were made to replace Pro-Tools plugins for the authors personal use, while still allowing the public access to them.
There's a good chance that the situation is far more "Mission accomplished!" than 'project abandoned'.

To the extent that Calf code is open-source, devs have the option to pick up and run with the ball, to a new goal.
Cheers

[bluebell]

https://discourse.ardour.org/t/what-abo ... ins/105926

It seems they talk about their own problems with Ardour and blame Calf for that.

My experience (I use them with Qtractor) is the opposite:

• Calf plugins sound good
• Calf plugins are easy to use
• Calf plugins are stable
• Calf plugins are comparatively modest in CPU consumption

When I wired the multiband compressor in Carla to get the "New York" compression style (a bit of the direct signal added to the compressed signal) I noticed some of the mentioned phase effects but when I used the multiband compressor with a non-compressing setting for the "direct" signal those effects vanished.

When used as designed I never noticed any bad effects.

That's my personal experience. I am grateful for those plugins. I used them for years and still use them.

I am grateful, too, for the actively maintained LSP plugins. They are great.

[novalix]

When I wired the multiband compressor in Carla to get the "New York" compression style (a bit of the direct signal added to the compressed signal) I noticed some of the mentioned phase effects but when I used the multiband compressor with a non-compressing setting for the "direct" signal those effects vanished.

I'd guess this was more an effect of missing latency compensation for the parallel channel. I don't know how this problem is approached in the qtractor workflow, however.

That said, the problems of especially the multiband crossover filter implementation are well described and measured. They do introduce sonic artifacts.
If you want that behaviour or not may be up to you [*], but it is existent and technically this is a serious issue.

For me the term "stable" in software usually implies aspects of "future proof" (like upgradability). I guess that is not what you are referring to?

[*] i certainly do not

[bluebell]

When I wired the multiband compressor in Carla to get the "New York" compression style (a bit of the direct signal added to the compressed signal) I noticed some of the mentioned phase effects but when I used the multiband compressor with a non-compressing setting for the "direct" signal those effects vanished.

I'd guess this was more an effect of missing latency compensation for the parallel channel. I don't know how this problem is approached in the qtractor workflow, however.

Not sure if Calf Multiband Compressor has some latency at all. I know some plugins report their latency but I don't know which tool/DAW can display it.

That said, the problems of especially the multiband crossover filter implementation are well described and measured. They do introduce sonic artifacts.

That may be but in this time there are so many plugins that CREATE distortion and artifacts, and I wonder if a discussion about Calf Multiband Compressor artifacts is related to the real world and real music.

I am with x42:
"They can still be useful in some contexts. Just be aware there might be issue and trust your ears."

Multiband Compressors do change the sound a lot. The only thing that counts is: "Do I like the result?"

For me the term "stable" in software usually implies aspects of "future proof" (like upgradability). I guess that is not what you are referring to?

I disagree. Stable means for me that something works reliably now. Future proof means that it's maintained and will be adapted when other people think they have to break things by making incompatible changes in THEIR software.

I am not happy with posts like

• "As for the rest of them I pretty much avoid them largely due to the bad press here"
• "I will avoid the Calf plugins from now on although I liked the gui and the handling very well.

This means that people don't trust their ears but rely on some technical details that may or (most probably) may not have some audible, negative effects on their work.

[Impostor]

My 2 cents:

The Calf plugins suit my needs. I'm not using all of them: I mostly use the EQs, flanger, phaser, reverb and delay, and with those, I'm happy enough. Moreover, they don't exhibit noticeably more or less issues than any other plugins, in my experience. And, they work, GUI and all, in MusE.

That's not to say I'm not looking around a bit for replacements. Still got my eye on the Uhbik suite. If that ever gets updated I'll probably get it.

[sjaehn]

Even if you have source code of plugin or DAW, you can't rebuild it with different major version GTK. Or if that is so simple, just rebuild those calf plugins with GTK3? Good luck with it

In the most cases, it's tricky to adapt code made for GTK2 for GTK3. As you wrote, it's not just to rebuild.

And if somebody really thinks about to adapt plugin code from GTK2 to GTK3, then better take a toolkit that can be statically linked.

[GuntherT]

I am not happy with posts like

• "As for the rest of them I pretty much avoid them largely due to the bad press here"
• "I will avoid the Calf plugins from now on although I liked the gui and the handling very well.

This means that people don't trust their ears but rely on some technical details that may or (most probably) may not have some audible, negative effects on their work.

I think those posts are valid viewpoints. Even if I don't come across an issue, I would not want to invest time learning their usage and using them in a project and risk there being a problem when there are other options available. I would rather trust my ears using a set of plugins that don't have significant flaws in their code.

[funkmuscle]

I am not happy with posts like

• "As for the rest of them I pretty much avoid them largely due to the bad press here"
• "I will avoid the Calf plugins from now on although I liked the gui and the handling very well.

This means that people don't trust their ears but rely on some technical details that may or (most probably) may not have some audible, negative effects on their work.

I think those posts are valid viewpoints. Even if I don't come across an issue, I would not want to invest time learning their usage and using them in a project and risk there being a problem when there are other options available. I would rather trust my ears using a set of plugins that don't have significant flaws in their code.

Bravo!!!! Well said!!That's where I'm at right now.. Many of my sessions now have to be started in safe-mode in Mixbus32C due to the crashing caused by Calf. I have to go in and remove them then remix..
The positive is that I'm better at mixing now and I'm at the point where I'm not in need of all these plugins I've been using.

[Impostor]

I would rather trust my ears using a set of plugins that don't have significant flaws in their code.

What significant flaws? I read x42's comment on the ardour forums about automating Calf EQ introducing zippering and discontinuities, but I don't seem to have such issues myself..So, is that a significant or an irrelevant flaw, if it is even a flaw at all?

Edit: also, x42 had an issue where automating the EQ level leads to signal level jumps:
https://discourse.ardour.org/t/decrease ... f/100088/2

While when I try the same thing in MusE: sample of 50 Hz tone, duration 1s, normalized at -24dB. A fast EQ level (set near freq. of 50Hz) sweep to 0dB results in a smooth amplitude increase. An a slow level sweep (and later normalized to exacerbate any discontinuities) also results in a smooth increase. Maybe the problem x42 had was with ardour automation?

[GuntherT]

Hmmm....whose graph should I believe?

x42 is an expert. He makes major contributions to Ardour, has written an entire set of plugins himself, and he has a doctorate degree in digital audio. I trust he knows what he is taking about and also trust if the problem was with Ardour's automation, it would have been discovered and fixed by now. x42 is not the only one making these observations, either. CALF was written by a collection of people whose credentials are less known, who don't seem to be involved with any other Linux audio projects these days, and whom all have since abandoned the project.

Putting that aside, let's say x42 is wrong, and the CALF plugins are comprised of perfectly written code that the bumbling Ardour authors can't comprehend. There is still the issue of non-functioning GUIs due to them using GTK2. Why bother with them when the LSP plugin code is given high marks by others (x42 included), is actively maintained, and doesn't have a fundamental toolkit problem? I don't want to end up like funkmuscle and have to redo old projects because a set of plugins I could have avoided from the start isn't being maintained and eventually breaks a session.

[Impostor]

Hmmm....whose graph should I believe? :)

Yeah, I made that graph up. Right. My point is not that I "don't believe" x42, my point is that his issue with ardour+calf does not occur here with muse+calf. So I cannot regard his issue as a (significant) flaw at all, regardless of where his issue stems from. If I were using ardour, I may have had a different opinion.

Putting that aside, let's say x42 is wrong, and the CALF plugins are comprised of perfectly written code that the bumbling Ardour authors can't comprehend.

Straw man.

[bluebell]

Hmmm....whose graph should I believe?

Yeah, I made that graph up. Right. My point is not that I "don't believe" x42, my point is that his issue with ardour+calf does not occur here with muse+calf. So I cannot regard his issue as a (significant) flaw at all, regardless of where his issue stems from.

Putting that aside, let's say x42 is wrong, and the CALF plugins are comprised of perfectly written code that the bumbling Ardour authors can't comprehend.

Straw man.

Bashing CALF plugins is an at least 5 year old hobby of Ardour (and its commercial brother Mixbus) users