From: Steve H. <S.W...@ec...> - 2003-10-14 09:58:40
|
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:09:25 +0200, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote: > haven't thought about the reason much, but that behaviour is normal. on= e=20 > reason might be phase cancellation effects. the other is probably=20 > psycho-acoustic - the more ambient a sound, the less obvious and presen= t=20 > it is, and its perceived loudness decreases. Yeah, thats probably it. =20 > > Maybe we should correct for it. >=20 > don't think so. let the user do it manually. > you can't boost away phase cancellation anyway... True enough. =20 > btw, i don't like automatic gain stages at all - the makeup gain is way= =20 > overdone imho. nice feature if you want to make it really loud, and i'm= =20 > sure it does the right think mathematically, but musically it makes no=20 > sense for me to use it. IMVHO its neccesary to some extent - if you put in a signal peaking at 0d= B and compress it, it will get a fair bit 'quieter'. =20 > >> Just a touch of this gives you a bit of "tube like" distortion. I > >>never set it over about 0.3. > > > >Its nasty - needs some work, but its a bit out of my ability. >=20 > ah. i always wondered what it's supposed to do. i suggest to change the= =20 > scale label: better <------> worse ;) Fair point :) I'd prefer not to do anything of the sort, but it appears t= o be a standard feature. [indvidual bypass]=20 > >Yup, its harder than you think :( >=20 > how come ? i sorely miss individual bypasses, too. > might also be nice for testing to make sure how the "all neutral"=20 > setting sounds compared to > bypass. can be quite frightening at times... Some of the processes are intertwined, I cant rememebr how badly, but IIR= C it would require some alternative code paths, so potentially might not be "true" bypass. =20 > btw, i did a jamin demo at a linux meeting in gie=DFen. you guys earned= =20 > quite a few cheers and a good amount of outright disbelief ! :) - Steve |