2 Mar
2011
2 Mar
'11
11:46 p.m.
2011/3/2 David Robillard <d(a)drobilla.net>et>:
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 22:15 +0100, Olivier Guilyardi
wrote:
But you can't pretend everybody has the same "workflow" and
understanding as yours. I'm, for example, more a visual kind of
person.
On 03/02/2011 08:55 PM, Stefano D'Angelo
wrote:
Yawn. Personally I've always considered my ears better judges of audio
than pixellated waveforms on a screen.
Knobs and speakers were good enough for some of the most brilliant sonic
artists ever, and they're plenty good enough for me too. They also have
the benefit of being tactile and spontaneously creative, unlike clickey
screeney uninspiring computer staring nonsense. Feel free to spend your
time on screen things, but I would much rather spend my time on sound
things. It's sort of the whole point...
Just my opinion, if anyone cares. It's heavily influenced by the severe
lack of developer manpower around here - we're talking about what colour
to paint the car with no engine. More people with wrenches and time -
and fewer people with paintbrushes and opinions(*) - certainly wouldn't
hurt. What I don't really get is why you would ever
want visualization,
since that is more related to sound analysis, that LV2, as of now,
doesn't really support (yes, you can do whatever you want, but don't
tell me about spectrograms... that stuff is better suited to Vamp and
the like as of now - this may change, hopefully, however).
Visualization can allow realtime feedback of the applied effect as well as
improved interaction.
About my previous compressor example: imagine a single area where you have both
the input and the output waveform. It allows you to see the applied compression
but not only. The threshold above which the compression is applied can be
represented as an horizontal line which could be moved up and down.
Another example is a visual EQ as the one found in Jamin, where you both see the
live spectrum and can adjust frequency bands level.