22 Jun
2011
22 Jun
'11
12:36 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:17:41PM +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 05:48:13PM -0400, S. Massy
wrote:
Well, doing it by hear is what I already do, but the thought of
being
able to see it on display seems academically interesting, not to mention
eliminating some of that cursed self-doubt that plagues us all. :)
Can you think of a way to produce a more useful information output using
the relatively coarse-grainedness of a 80x25/50 terminal? I've never
seen/used an actual scope, so I'm not sure how it could be textualised
and yet retain its usefulness.
Cheers,
S.M.
I thought of that: one could split up the
frequency range using a bunch
of chains with bandpass filters, but here again, how to measure and
report in a timely, readable matter?
I'd rather go the simplest route possible, since I don't need anything
too fine-grained.
Before you waste too much time on this: such metering is
in general pretty useless, unless you are doing sound level
monitoring to determine acoustic pollution levels to some
official standard or something similar. And in that case
you need very strictly specified hardware, filters, meter
responses and postprocessing algorithms.
For musical (mixing) purposes such a display may give you
the illusion of providing some interesting info but it
doesn't.
Suppose you have a meter that displays the levels in say
ten frequency bands. How would you use its output ? Try
to make the levels equal, or fit them to some template ?
If the purpose is to find which band is responsible for
some peaks you want to reduce, forget it. Either things
will be very clear and you can easily *hear* where the
problem is, or you won't get any reliable output from
your meter at all.