Re: [Bluemusic-users] Questions on Effects for Mixer
Brought to you by:
kunstmusik
From: Michael B. <got...@ya...> - 2006-02-28 14:29:49
|
I'll try my best to be clear on my answers here: --- Steven Yi <ste...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > ... > Now, I think maybe we should keep this to mono and > stereo issues at > the moment for the sake of making this a little > easier to comprehend > (for me at least!). I guess what's going on in my > mind now are: > > -mixer channels are nchnls in/out. I think that > nchnls out should be > required; making nchnls or less for the mixer in > seems doable > -in between the input and output, the signal may go > through various > effects, which may have either one or two channels > in and one or two > channels out > -the issue will be matching up num inputs and num > outputs, and the > rules should be the same starting from the input to > the channels, > through the effects, and out the channel out > > -if signal in is mono and effect in is mono, no > worries > -if signal in is stereo and effect in is stereo, no > worries > -if signal in is mono and effect in is stereo, my > assumption is to > make two copies of the signal and feed in to both > channels of the > stereo in > -if signal in is stereo and effect in is mono, my > assumption is to > duplicate the effect and run two copies individually > on both channels, > barring that the effect out is also mono; if the > effect in is mono and > the output stereo, then mix the stereo input signal > to a mono signal > (simple add) and feed in > > Does this sound right? > Everything but the last one sounds right to me. The problem is, in csound there seem to be several opcodes that take a mono signal and produce stereo output. Duplicating a mono effect on a stereo channel may not be what the user intends. I'm thinking at this point it might be best to leave it in the hands of the user. nchnls in/out for channels AND effects. That way, if the user has a mono effect and nchnls=2, they have to decide what to do with those two signals coming in and going out, not blue. > ... > Besides effects, I was also planning to implement > sends, though this > is complicated to me. The program's I've seen > allow doing sends > pre-fader and post-fader, and this seems to > designate where in the > sending channel it sends the signal. For the > receiving channel, I'm > not quite sure where it enters into the mix, if it > gets mixed in with > the other input signals that are channeled in to it. > Can anyone > clarify? (This is issue is a little more > complicated than I imagined > so will likely push this to the release after the > effects are > implemented). > So it usually goes like this. Sequentially, each channel has a pre-fader send, a pre-fader return, effects in the channel (like volume, panning, etc.), and a post-fader send. Buses are exactly like channels, but they take channel signal(s) as their root input (before the pre-fader send, etc.). So here's what you do for certain tasks: GROUPING SIGNALS: When mixing, you usually arrive at the situation where you want to apply one single effect or volume control on many different channels. Instead of adjusting each channel individually and hoping your adjustments match up, you hook the post-fader sends of each channel into a single bus' input. Then you can apply volume control to that bus and also use that bus' pre-fader send and return for other effects, leading to: APPLYING EFFECTS: When applying effects to a signal, you usually want to either apply the effect on the signal first and then control things like the volume, panning, etc. (thing you do from a channel/bus), or let the effect control that stuff (like compression, certain stereo reverbs, etc.). In the first instance, you'd hook the pre-fader send into the effect's input, and send the effect's output back into the pre-fader return; now the channel is controling the audio signal with effects. In the second instance, you'd hook the post-fader send into the effect's input, and send the effect's output into the final stereo signal (or a bus). I highly recommend this link: http://www.tweakheadz.com/guide.htm. It's the whole skinny, broken done in easy-to-understand terms, and covers everything from microphones to mastering. Refer to the Mixers, Mixer Hookup, and Signal Flow sections in particularly > Now, a trickier problem is what to do for nhcnls > > 2. I'm at a bit of > a loss at the moment on that one. I'd love to find > some kind of > generic rules where if the "num output from one is > less than num > channels in, then..." that could scale to n- number > of channels, but > I'm not sure there are such rules, so maybe the > mixer should be > classified as a stereo mixer only for now, and if > you're doing more > than stereo, perhaps just don't use the mixer.(???) > Probably best to cross that bridge when you get to it. Most of the csounders out there probably aren't concerned with nchnls>2 anyway, to speak nothing for the number of listeners who care about it. Until there becomes a big demand for it, I wouldn't sweat it. Michael Bechard __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |