30 Nov
2002
30 Nov
'02
5:12 a.m.
----
From: Steve Harris <S@ec...>
Re: experiences and reflections from the UK part II
2002-08-13 10:22
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 12:15:37 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
my brother commented that the swt plugins sounded very
"digital" to
him. i bluffed by saying that i think it all comes down to the
This is very true.
Its partly a matter of taste - I like the hard digital filter sound, I
think it makes a pleasant change from analogue filters warmth.
In addition I'm a modular synthesist at heart, so if it annoyed me I would
just bung a lowpass->valve sim->lowpass on the end (this is what most VST
plugins will do).
I think I tend to use, and think of LADSPA plugins at a lower level than
most people. This became obvious at linuxtag.
But, mostly, making plugins sound warm requires more work, and no-one has
requested it (up til now).
---------
Steve, since you wrote this I have been doing a lot more work with the
ladpsa plugins and I tend to agree that the default sounds of a lot of
them are very hard.
Can you elaborate more on how and why you use "lowpass->valve
sim->lowpass on the end" to create a more warm sound?
Thanks. BTW. I think it would be a very good addition for the LAU FAQ so
I'll add this as it comes to light.
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
For the discerning hardware connoisseur
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://www.djcj.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
Being on stage with the band in front of crowds shouting, "Get off! No!
We want normal music!", I think that was more like acting than anything
I've ever done.
Goldie, 8 Nov, 2002
The Scotsman
30 Nov
30 Nov
9:17 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: LADSPA plugins - warm sound quality
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 05:55:35PM +0900, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Can you elaborate more on how and why you use
"lowpass->valve
sim->lowpass on the end" to create a more warm sound?
Thanks. BTW. I think it would be a very good addition for the LAU FAQ so
I'll add this as it comes to light.
Well, the why is easy.
The fisrt lowpass pages away some of hte higher harmonics, his most make
it sound smoother and makes the next step sound OK. The valve sim adds in
some harmonics of the lower frequencies and the final lowpass smooths out
some of the highs from the valve.
Although... I'm now coming round the the point of view that I should just
produce more self contained plugins, but I need inforamtion on what
plugins you think need softening, so any feedback is welcome.
Unfortunatly its not physically possible for me to review every plugin -
especially as I'm very busy at the moment. I'l try to get a new release out
today, it has some fixes to the chorus and an id numberering issue, but I
need to fix a bug in the oscillator first.
- Steve
2 Dec
2 Dec
10:28 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: LADSPA plugins - warm sound quality
Steve Harris wrote:
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 05:55:35PM +0900, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
What about making a new plugin called eg. Analog glow, which is simply
the "lowpass->valve sim->lowpass" combination. That could save you some
time and be more universally applicable.
I would like to do this myself and will probably look into it if you
don't have the time or interest. Although after my last attempt I think
it may take a while for me to get things working properly.
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
For the discerning hardware connoisseur
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://www.djcj.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
Being on stage with the band in front of crowds shouting, "Get off! No!
We want normal music!", I think that was more like acting than anything
I've ever done.
Goldie, 8 Nov, 2002
The Scotsman
Can you elaborate more on how and why you use
"lowpass->valve
sim->lowpass on the end" to create a more warm sound?
Thanks. BTW. I think it would be a very good addition for the LAU FAQ so
I'll add this as it comes to light.
Well, the why is easy.
The fisrt lowpass pages away some of hte higher harmonics, his most make
it sound smoother and makes the next step sound OK. The valve sim adds in
some harmonics of the lower frequencies and the final lowpass smooths out
some of the highs from the valve.
Although... I'm now coming round the the point of view that I should just
produce more self contained plugins, but I need inforamtion on what
plugins you think need softening, so any feedback is welcome.
11:50 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: LADSPA plugins - warm sound quality
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:11:54 +0900, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
What about making a new plugin called eg. Analog glow,
which is simply
the "lowpass->valve sim->lowpass" combination. That could save you some
time and be more universally applicable.
I think I probably gave the impression that its easier than it is, this
will help for some plugins, but a better solution is for me to just fix
the hard sounding plugins. To get the best results its often neccesary to
mess with the insides.
I'm considering splitting my plugin set into two parts:
building block plugins, that wouldn't particualrly sound good on thier own
(the sort of thing that is ideal for SSM, AMS or PD). eg. basic filters,
envelope followers, oscilators, simple delays etc.
"general" plugins that are more well rounded, eg. reverbs, choruses, more
complex delays etc.
That latter set should all be de-harshed, the former wouldn't.
Comments? I guess if everyone is always going to download both sets it'd
be a waste of time.
- Steve
12:09 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: LADSPA plugins - warm sound quality
Steve Harris wrote:
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:11:54 +0900, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
Fair enough. But it could still be a useful addition esp *when* we have
hundreds of people contributing plugins that are not quite up to
standard but would still benefit from this combination.
What about making a new plugin called eg. Analog
glow, which is simply
the "lowpass->valve sim->lowpass" combination. That could save you some
time and be more universally applicable.
I think I probably gave the impression that its easier than it is, this
will help for some plugins, but a better solution is for me to just fix
the hard sounding plugins. To get the best results its often neccesary to
mess with the insides.
I'm considering splitting my plugin set into two
parts:
building block plugins, that wouldn't particualrly sound good on thier own
(the sort of thing that is ideal for SSM, AMS or PD). eg. basic filters,
envelope followers, oscilators, simple delays etc.
"general" plugins that are more well rounded, eg. reverbs, choruses, more
complex delays etc.
That latter set should all be de-harshed, the former wouldn't.
Comments? I guess if everyone is always going to download both sets it'd
be a waste of time.
My guess is that people want as many plugins and fx as they can find so
splitting the package doesn't seem neccessary. However grouping the
plugins using the rdf format you have developed would be helpful.
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
For the discerning hardware connoisseur
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://www.djcj.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
Being on stage with the band in front of crowds shouting, "Get off! No!
We want normal music!", I think that was more like acting than anything
I've ever done.
Goldie, 8 Nov, 2002
The Scotsman
12:46 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: LADSPA plugins - warm sound quality
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 12:53:00 +0900, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
OK, I dont really like masking the symptoms, but I guess it would be
generally useful. I'l add it to my TODO list.
I think I
probably gave the impression that its easier than it is, this
will help for some plugins, but a better solution is for me to just fix
the hard sounding plugins. To get the best results its often neccesary to
mess with the insides.
Fair enough. But it could still be a useful addition esp *when* we have
hundreds of people contributing plugins that are not quite up to
standard but would still benefit from this combination. >I'm considering splitting my plugin set into
two parts:
My guess is that people want as many plugins and fx as
they can find so
splitting the package doesn't seem neccessary. However grouping the
plugins using the rdf format you have developed would be helpful.
True. This does come out more-or-less in the current caregorisations, I
could explicity add classes or roles for low- and high-level effects too,
but theres no hurry until more people support it in hosts.
- Steve
8056
days inactive
8058
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
5 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Patrick Shirkey -
Steve Harris