On Tue, September 28, 2010 7:33 am, Arnold Krille wrote: > On Tuesday 28 September 2010 16:21:48 Patrick Shirkey wrote: >> 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... > Good point. Maybe Ken could clarify if he used his eeepc for the mastering stage on his album? >> 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). 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. > 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?