On Tue, September 28, 2010 7:33 am, Arnold Krille
On Tuesday 28 September 2010 16:21:48 Patrick
> I'm pretty sure that this is the reasoning behind going with the
> option. The resources are available even on a
eeepc as Ken has
> 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.
is running an awful lot of software on there, but I doubt that he is
10ms artificial delay from jamin to his live-setup...
Good point. Maybe Ken could clarify if he used his eeepc for the
stage on his album?
> If you want to have it running during
production then you should
> just get a very powerful machine or invest the time to correct the
> as near as possible to source.
Yes, a 1.8GHz turion64 running jack (3x1028@48kHz) and an ardour
two stereo tracks, 4 plugins (SC4-compressor and an eq for each
weak to also run jamin.
Please get a grip! I am not using jamin on an under-spec machine. And
mis-using it during mixing/recording of a >48-channels session either.
stopped dreaming about using jamin for live-foh usage (because of the
introduced by the filter).
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
8 years) notebook/netbook or PC.
All I am saying is that jamin takes up a good
amount of resources for
This is by design. When the 2 very experienced DSP engineers Steve
and Jack O'Quin and the very experienced mastering engineer Ron Parker
spec'd the backend they decided that this was the most appropriate
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
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
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
he says the current implementation is defective.
The point about using a stand alone parametric eq plugin as you
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
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?
Since the analyzer view is only redrawn by default 10 times per
second there really isn't much overhead to save. Take a look at
draw_EQ_spectrum_curve in hdeq.c. You'll see that all it's really doing
is drawing a predefined pixmap, converting 1023 levels to dB, and then
drawing 1023 line segments. This is hardly a drag on any system. Be
that as it may, you can adjust the frequency of the update in
Edit->Preferences to be any value from 10 times per second to 0 times
per second. In other words, the ability to switch off the analyzer view
is already there.