29 Sep
2010
29 Sep
'10
3:22 a.m.
On Tue, September 28, 2010 7:33 am, Arnold Krille wrote:
Well, it was never designed as a foh tool. It is and always has been a
stereo channel post prod tool.
When it was developed I was running a 1 ghz celeron. It ran on there
without issues. I don't see why it would have problems on any recent (past
8 years) notebook/netbook or PC.
On Tuesday 28 September 2010 16:21:48 Patrick Shirkey
wrote:
Good point. Maybe Ken could clarify if he used his eeepc for the mastering
stage on his album?
I'm pretty sure that this is the reasoning
behind going with the filter
option. The resources are available even on a eeepc as Ken has reported
so
it is not really a big deal as jamin is intended for use post pro.
I don't actually remember Ken saying that he runs jamin on his eeepc.
True, he
is running an awful lot of software on there, but I doubt that he is
adding
10ms artificial delay from jamin to his live-setup...
If you want to
have it running during production then you should
probably
just get a very powerful machine or invest the time to correct the
issues
as near as possible to source.
Yes, a 1.8GHz turion64 running jack (3x1028@48kHz) and an ardour session
with
two stereo tracks, 4 plugins (SC4-compressor and an eq for each stereo) is
to
weak to also run jamin.
Please get a grip! I am not using jamin on an under-spec machine. And I am
not
mis-using it during mixing/recording of a >48-channels session either. I
even
stopped dreaming about using jamin for live-foh usage (because of the
delay
introduced by the filter). All I am saying is that jamin takes up a good amount
of resources for its
processing. [*]
This is by design. When the 2 very experienced DSP engineers Steve Harris
and Jack O'Quin and the very experienced mastering engineer Ron Parker
spec'd the backend they decided that this was the most appropriate method
given the available resources at the time.
The idea was to provide as much smoothing of the bands as possible to
create a very "clean" sound as per traditional mastering technique.
Now if you want to use a tool that is designed explicitly with that goal
in mind then you should definitely be considering jamin as an option.
And I combined Fons' argument that the filter used
is not a good
implementation
Which has not been corroborated and in fact has been out right dismissed
by my contact here.
and probably not needed anyway with my idea of a
simpler but equally
useful tool.
I think it would be worth your time to build a little mock up with pd or
jack rack and listen to the difference in the audio quality.
I have very good reason to trust my sources that Fons is not correct when
he says the current implementation is defective.
The point about using a stand alone parametric eq plugin as you suggested
is that it would definitely add artifacts to the end result which is why
the decision was made to use the linear filter.
[*] It would be uber-cool if one could switch off that
analyzer-view to
save processing cycles.
That is a good point. I know you have the skills to make that happen. Do
you have the time to craft a patch?
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.