2009/8/4 Mark Knecht &lt;markknecht(a)gmail.com&gt; I am agree with you Mark. But I think a 4 band compressor could be very useful. 3 band is sometimes frustrating for me. But nothing else to change. It's a really good software. Cheers, Mysth-R -- * *************************************************************************************** * {^_^} Mysth-R {^_^} * <= Aide Auditive => * * http://myspace.com/mysthr * http://myspace.com/aideauditive * http://mysthr.free.fr/Joomla => Site dédié à l'audio sous Fedora/PlanetCCRMA. * ***************************************************************************************

On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:57:55PM +0200, Arnold Krille wrote: It depends on two things. The first is the resolution of the EQ at low frequencies. The GUI of Jamin's graphical EQ gives the impression that you can set the gain at e.g. 20Hz and 25Hz independently. This is not true and to make it possible you would need a delay of around 1 / (25 -20) seconds, or 200 ms, at least if you want linear phase. In the mininum phase case the delay depends on the derivative of the frequency response, so more differene between nearby frequencies implies more delay. This is more or less evident if you use an FFT (as the difference between the frequency bins is 1 / length), but it is really a general rule. It's easy to see that detail in the time domain (a waveform with short spikes in it) requires a wide frequency range. The dual of this (swapping the time and frequency domains) is that for detail in the frequency domain you need more time. The second reason to allow delay in a mastering app is that the kind of agressive limiting and compression expected from such an app can be implemented *much* better if you allow the processor to look ahead, which again implies delay. In fact the best possible mastering process would be off-line, non real time. I have been considering writing something similar for a long time, and during the past year I've been experimenting a lot with dynamics processing (which will sooner or later result in some application). But as for most of us I've only got 25 hours in a day and 8 days per week. One poster mentioned foh use. What functionality would be required in that case ? Note that it's generally a bad idea to drive a PA system to its limits. Ciao, -- FA Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.

On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:18:57AM +0200, Arnold Krille wrote: The Lake (later Dolby) processors used to be one of the standard solutions for this (and are still used today), see <http://www.dolby.com/professional/Live_Sound/>. They are no longer sold AFAIK, one of the reasons being that manufacturers of PA systems are integrating this sort of technology, see e.g. <http://www.labgruppen.com/> and <http://www.qscaudio.com/products/dsp/dsp30/dsp30.htm>. Integrating xover filtering, EQ, and limiting and sometime even the power amp brings some important advantages - it removes many connections, gain controls and other things that could be done or set wrong and render such processing completely useless, and it allows to adapt the processing to specific speaker units and combinations, usually selected from a menu on the user interface, or by networked remote control apps. A big PA system today is completely set up and monitored via network connections, and this can include things such as amplifier and even speaker temperatures. You can do all of this on a PC, but it's a shaky solution unless you do some further integration - for one there will be far too many gain controls after the processor, making nonsense of any carefully set limiter levels and exactly matched xovers. One other problem is to find the proper settings for your hardware, and that is one reason why this job is today done mostly by the speaker manufacturers who have precise information about the electrical, mechanical and thermal limits of their products. Not so simple but certainly possible and much more suited to software based solutions. Ciao, -- FA Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.

On 08/05/2009 10:38 PM, Jack O'Quin wrote: I think that some people might be making a subtle hint that they are missing the results of the combined efforts of the JAMin team... Maybe they are expecting some kind of reunion tour? It almost sounds like the crowds being warmed up to start chanting for a new album though... :-) Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd

On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:18:57AM +0200, Arnold Krille wrote: I know a local DJ event where the sound guy just crushes the mixer output before the mains. I've seen board tapes of the event, and it's just a big black squiggly bloc-- everything within like 95% of max. It sure is loud. Dancers love it. -ken

On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:57:55PM +0200, Arnold Krille wrote: I disagree with the 'or at least should'. Some of today's high quality PA system use very sophisticated digital filtering for crossover, beamforming and equalisation. 31-band 1/3 octave EQ is a rather primitive and crude technology (from the '70s) compared to that, and using it could be the easiest way to degrade an otherwise very good system. The same is true for studio monitoring. Ciao, -- FA Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 20:02 +0100, Folderol wrote: Yeah, it's still under observation. Steve, Jack, and I just don't have a lot of spare time. And, being from the south, I've always subscribed to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" school of thought. On the other hand, if I get retired in a couple of years, I'd like to rewrite the GUI in C++/Qt. The interface could be much improved and, since my C++ looks a lot like C, I probably wouldn't piss off Steve and Jack too much ;-) -- Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner http://www.thecfband.com "Microsoft has a new version out, Windows XP, which according to everybody is the 'most reliable Windows ever.' To me, this is like saying that asparagus is 'the most articulate vegetable ever.'" Dave Barry