4 Jan
2004
4 Jan
'04
1:02 p.m.
R Parker wrote:
Hi,
--- Joern Nettingsmeier
<nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de> wrote:
here's ron parker, back on his neverending quest for simplicity and
correctness(tm) :-D
you are right, jamin is fine as it is and should not be bloated with
features. (btw, i do agree with you in that i don't really see the point
of balance controls per band).
*however*: having a little pop-up window "correct for headphone
listening" with a bunch of tweakables can't hurt :) (runs)
but then, i was not seriously requesting that feature, i just meant
david's software is interesting food for thought in the context of
mastering, and if one day it becomes a LADSPA plug, the whole point is
moot and folks can plug it any old place in their audio chain.
davidrclark(a)earthlink.net wrote:
WARNING: I am going to over react to Joern's
reasonable suggestion because JAMin has recently
included another feature that I strongly argued
against. So, please have patience with me. I don't
have a life and I'm a loser. :) Greetings Linux Audio Users.
it might also be interesting for the jamin
developers to take a look at
this. JAMin is a very good tool. For the most part, it is
not the result of an experiment. It is a well thought
out design of typical and expected tools for the
specific task of mastering stereo audio files. It is a
very clean, easy to use and unbloated application that
is being used in real world installations. This makes
it very different from something like ecamegapedal or
any other effect where experimentation is the rule for
producing awesome and unexpected results.
very interesting pov. i completely agree. if the jamin folks do, too,
this should be put on their website as a design guideline.
best,
jörn
--
In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- Homer Simpson
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Kurfürstenstr 49, 45138 Essen, Germany
http://spunk.dnsalias.org (my server)
http://www.linuxaudiodev.org (Linux Audio Developers)