20 Jan
2005
20 Jan
'05
12:46 p.m.
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:31:02 +0000, Steve Harris
<S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 07:00:32 -0800, Mark Knecht
wrote:
OK, point taken. An optimized design will always win in that way.
However Moore's Law says that CPU performance will continue to up so
much that I'm guessing this won't matter to me. I can already run
about 10 C1's on my 3GHz XP machine so I'm guessing I have enough
processing power to do it either way.
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:22:45 +0000, Steve Harris
<S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
Yes. Its quite complicated, and the way its burnt into JAMin shares some
of the CPU load with other processes, as an independent plugin the CPU
load would be heavy. On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 09:58:40 -0800, Mark
Knecht wrote:
I didn't mean to imply that Jamin was only plugins, but rather that I
think you said that the compressors were so thee should be no
differences using them in Jack-Rack or Jamin.
By crossover do you mean the section that divides the input signal
into the number of bands you want? Why should that not be a
specialized plugin or even a collection of stand alone linear phase
bandpass filters? What's lost in the audio by doing it that way? My first idea was to use the info provided
earlier that Jamin is
really using ladspa plugins and consider Jack Rack and a simple set of
For clarity: its not just plugins, the EQ and crossover sections are not
plugins, and probably shouldn't be.
That said there are more appropriate designs for a crossover in a plugin,
I just dont have the code around.
Maybe we can look into that sometime in the future. Again, I'm
presuming here that there is some value in being able to hook together
processing units in a user-desired way as opposed to accepting any
specific prebuilt collection and the limitation that come with it.
Thanks,
Mark