30 Apr
2004
30 Apr
'04
3:33 p.m.
Hi all,
where can I get the lookahead_limiter_const_1906.so LADSPA plugin which
Jamin prefers? I thought it was in the SWH plugins package, but it is
not... at least not the ones I can get with Gentoo...
***Jamin error message***
derek 19:42:38> jamin
jamin 0.8.0
(c) 2003 J. Depner, S. Harris, J. O'Quin, R. Parker and P. Shirkey
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; see the file COPYING for details.
Registering as jamin
Cannot find plugin 'lookahead_limiter_const_1906.so'
Cannot find preferred limiter, looking for alternative
***Gentoo ebuild version of SWH plugins***
media-plugins/swh-plugins-0.4.3
***Searching for "lookahead_limiter"***
root 19:48:10> find / -name "lookahead_limiter*.so" -print
/usr/lib/ladspa/lookahead_limiter_1435.so
---suggestions?
d.
--
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl
---Oblique Strategy # 131:
"Question the heroic approach"
30 Apr
30 Apr
3:51 p.m.
That's limiter doesn't exist in the wild yet. Steve is working on it.
I think it's going to be some kind of constant or predictable latency
limiter. Not sure about the exact details.
Jan
On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 12:56, derek holzer wrote:
Hi all,
where can I get the lookahead_limiter_const_1906.so LADSPA plugin which
Jamin prefers? I thought it was in the SWH plugins package, but it is
not... at least not the ones I can get with Gentoo...
***Jamin error message***
derek 19:42:38> jamin
jamin 0.8.0
(c) 2003 J. Depner, S. Harris, J. O'Quin, R. Parker and P. Shirkey
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; see the file COPYING for details.
Registering as jamin
Cannot find plugin 'lookahead_limiter_const_1906.so'
Cannot find preferred limiter, looking for alternative
***Gentoo ebuild version of SWH plugins***
media-plugins/swh-plugins-0.4.3
***Searching for "lookahead_limiter"***
root 19:48:10> find / -name "lookahead_limiter*.so" -print
/usr/lib/ladspa/lookahead_limiter_1435.so
---suggestions?
d.
--
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl
---Oblique Strategy # 131:
"Question the heroic approach"
4:20 p.m.
Derek, I think you can ignore that error. Does JAMin
start and do you have a working limiter?
ron
--- derek holzer <derek(a)x-i.net> wrote:
Hi all,
where can I get the lookahead_limiter_const_1906.so
LADSPA plugin which
Jamin prefers? I thought it was in the SWH plugins
package, but it is
not... at least not the ones I can get with
Gentoo...
***Jamin error message***
derek 19:42:38> jamin
jamin 0.8.0
(c) 2003 J. Depner, S. Harris, J. O'Quin, R. Parker
and P. Shirkey
This is free software, and you are welcome to
redistribute it
under certain conditions; see the file COPYING for
details.
Registering as jamin
Cannot find plugin 'lookahead_limiter_const_1906.so'
Cannot find preferred limiter, looking for
alternative
***Gentoo ebuild version of SWH plugins***
media-plugins/swh-plugins-0.4.3
***Searching for "lookahead_limiter"***
root 19:48:10> find / -name "lookahead_limiter*.so"
-print
/usr/lib/ladspa/lookahead_limiter_1435.so
---suggestions?
d.
--
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl
---Oblique Strategy # 131:
"Question the heroic approach"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
5:40 p.m.
Ron,
R Parker wrote:
Derek, I think you can ignore that error. Does JAMin
start and do you have a working limiter?
Of course, yes it starts, but I wondered what limiter it chooses then? A
hard limiter, or the other lookahead limiter? Checking the flattened
peaks of some of my Jamin-processed files, I might almost think it is a
hard, brickwall limiter.
d.
--
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl
---Oblique Strategy # 115:
"Make a sudden, destructive unpredictable action; incorporate"
5:47 p.m.
The only difference between the one you're using now and the one it
can't find is latency. They're both brick-wall limiters. You don't
want anything over 0dB passing through.
Jan
On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 15:02, derek holzer wrote:
Ron,
R Parker wrote:
Derek, I think you can ignore that error. Does
JAMin
start and do you have a working limiter?
Of course, yes it starts, but I wondered what limiter it chooses then? A
hard limiter, or the other lookahead limiter? Checking the flattened
peaks of some of my Jamin-processed files, I might almost think it is a
hard, brickwall limiter.
d.
--
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl
---Oblique Strategy # 115:
"Make a sudden, destructive unpredictable action; incorporate"
6:21 p.m.
Jan, you could have replied 30 seconds sooner and I
wouldn't look so ignorant. :)
ron
--- Jan Depner <eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> wrote:
The only difference between the one you're using
now
and the one it
can't find is latency. They're both brick-wall
limiters. You don't
want anything over 0dB passing through.
Jan
On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 15:02, derek holzer wrote:
limiter it chooses then? A
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
Ron,
R Parker wrote:
> Derek, I think you can ignore that error. Does
JAMin
start and
do you have a working limiter?
Of course, yes it starts, but I wondered what hard limiter, or the other lookahead limiter?
Checking the flattened
peaks of some of my Jamin-processed files, I
might
almost think it is a
hard, brickwall limiter.
d.
--
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl
---Oblique Strategy # 115:
"Make a sudden, destructive unpredictable action;
incorporate"
6:19 p.m.
--- derek holzer <derek(a)x-i.net> wrote:
Ron,
R Parker wrote:
I can't swear by this but I think it's a lookahead.
Steve or one of the other guys will need to tell us.
Do you, or anyone else, have an informed opinion for
whether lookahead or hard is the most appropriate and
why? In all honesty, I don't know. JAMin is headed for
a 1.0 release and I think it would be interesting to
debate whether we're using the best limiter for the
job. Steve and I have briefly touched on this topic a
couple times. It could be that we're using the
appropriate limiter.
ron
Derek, I think you can ignore that error. Does
JAMin
start and do you have a working limiter?
Of course, yes it starts, but I wondered what
limiter it chooses then? A
hard limiter, or the other lookahead limiter? Checking the flattened
peaks of some of my Jamin-processed files, I might
almost think it is a
hard, brickwall limiter.
d.
--
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl
---Oblique Strategy # 115:
"Make a sudden, destructive unpredictable action;
incorporate"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
6:36 p.m.
It's a brick-wall, lookahead limiter. Crank the input volume and watch
the output meter. The farther you look ahead the gentler the slope to
the absolute limit but it's still a brick wall.
Jan
On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 15:12, R Parker wrote:
--- derek holzer <derek(a)x-i.net> wrote:
Ron,
R Parker wrote:
I can't swear by this but I think it's a lookahead.
Steve or one of the other guys will need to tell us.
Do you, or anyone else, have an informed opinion for
whether lookahead or hard is the most appropriate and
why? In all honesty, I don't know. JAMin is headed for
a 1.0 release and I think it would be interesting to
debate whether we're using the best limiter for the
job. Steve and I have briefly touched on this topic a
couple times. It could be that we're using the
appropriate limiter.
ron
Derek, I think you can ignore that error. Does
JAMin
start and do you have a working limiter?
Of course, yes it starts, but I wondered what
limiter it chooses then? A
hard limiter, or the other lookahead limiter? Checking the flattened
peaks of some of my Jamin-processed files, I might
almost think it is a
hard, brickwall limiter.
d.
--
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl
---Oblique Strategy # 115:
"Make a sudden, destructive unpredictable action;
incorporate"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
6:58 p.m.
Jan,
Jan Depner wrote:
It's a brick-wall, lookahead limiter. Crank the
input volume and watch
the output meter. The farther you look ahead the gentler the slope to
the absolute limit but it's still a brick wall.
Maybe that's what I am missing in Jamin, then, is the lookahead setting.
I only see release time, and the "default" limiter gives some pretty
hammered peaks.
d.
--
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl
---Oblique Strategy # 139:
"Revaluation (a warm feeling)"
7:09 p.m.
Derek,
I'm pretty sure the "release time" is the amount of time to look
ahead. To avoid getting the lovely squashed sound make sure you are
getting no "overs" (red) on the main input meter. Also, try not to push
the limiter input signal into the red too much. I like to let it hot
red occasionally but not stay there. In addition, the multiband
compressors can do the same thing to the signal as the limiter. Of
course, it comes down to what you want personally. It's easy to over
compress/limit and destroy the dynamics of the song. It's a fine line
between over compressed and under volumed.
Jan
On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 16:20, derek holzer wrote:
Jan,
Jan Depner wrote:
It's a brick-wall, lookahead limiter. Crank
the input volume and watch
the output meter. The farther you look ahead the gentler the slope to
the absolute limit but it's still a brick wall.
Maybe that's what I am missing in Jamin, then, is the lookahead setting.
I only see release time, and the "default" limiter gives some pretty
hammered peaks.
d.
--
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl
---Oblique Strategy # 139:
"Revaluation (a warm feeling)" 
1 May
1 May
3:11 a.m.
Maybe that's what I am missing in Jamin, then, is
the lookahead setting.
I only see release time, and the "default" limiter gives some pretty
hammered peaks.
Hrm, is this a Jamin-specific plugin, or something that can be wired into
ALSA or JACK? I have an application which could benefit from some AGC-like
functionality, and in my case, turn-around latency isn't really a concern.
[I can drive a pipeline as long as I want, so long as I never lose data.]
Even if thee drink from the blissful River Lethe, thoust cannot forget Quality,
=MB=
--
A focus on Quality.
3:39 a.m.
Malcolm Baldridge <linux-audio(a)paypc.com> writes:
Hrm, is this a Jamin-specific plugin, or something
that can be wired
into ALSA or JACK? I have an application which could benefit from
some AGC-like functionality, and in my case, turn-around latency
isn't really a concern. [I can drive a pipeline as long as I want,
so long as I never lose data.]
The lookahead_limiter_1435 is a standard part of the swh-plugins
package and works with any LADSPA host. Its latency varies depending
on the value of the release parameter.
The new lookahead_limiter_const_1906 is basically the same limiter,
but with constant latency. I don't think Steve has included this one
in an swh-plugins release yet. Hence the message everyone gets when
starting JAMin. JAMin wants the constant-latency version so it can
set JACK output port latencies reliably. It's messy when the latency
changes while playing due to GUI changes.
AFAICT, either of these plugins should work (where available) with
ardour, jack-rack or any other LADSPA host.
--
joq
3:56 a.m.
Hi, Jack. You still up too? I wanted to point out that we strongly
advise not whipping that limiter release slider around while you're
doing recording ;-) It makes for some weird sounds.
Jan
On Sat, 2004-05-01 at 00:31, Jack O'Quin wrote:
Malcolm Baldridge <linux-audio(a)paypc.com>
writes:
Hrm, is this a Jamin-specific plugin, or
something that can be wired
into ALSA or JACK? I have an application which could benefit from
some AGC-like functionality, and in my case, turn-around latency
isn't really a concern. [I can drive a pipeline as long as I want,
so long as I never lose data.]
The lookahead_limiter_1435 is a standard part of the swh-plugins
package and works with any LADSPA host. Its latency varies depending
on the value of the release parameter.
The new lookahead_limiter_const_1906 is basically the same limiter,
but with constant latency. I don't think Steve has included this one
in an swh-plugins release yet. Hence the message everyone gets when
starting JAMin. JAMin wants the constant-latency version so it can
set JACK output port latencies reliably. It's messy when the latency
changes while playing due to GUI changes.
AFAICT, either of these plugins should work (where available) with
ardour, jack-rack or any other LADSPA host.
--
joq 
6:48 a.m.
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 01:12:41 -0700, R Parker wrote:
Do you, or anyone else, have an informed opinion for
whether lookahead or hard is the most appropriate and
why? In all honesty, I don't know. JAMin is headed for
a 1.0 release and I think it would be interesting to
debate whether we're using the best limiter for the
job. Steve and I have briefly touched on this topic a
couple times. It could be that we're using the
appropriate limiter.
I did a bit of reasearch at the time and it looked like all the
respectable mastering packages use lookahead. Wether the implementation is
the best for the job is another question.
I suspect it should have a peak allowance mode, which ignores very short
peaks at over 0dB and clips them.
- Steve
29 May
29 May
5:43 a.m.
--- Steve Harris <S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 01:12:41 -0700, R Parker
wrote:
That does seem like an interesting feature. The job
I'm working on now has transient spikes that are
probably +6.0dbfs above the average. I used the TAP
Scaling Limiter post fader to deal with them. This
does a good job.
Do you imagine that spikes of this extreme are beyound
the scope of the peak allowance mode?
I assume they are. Otherwise, we're probably dealing
with something that's aggresive enough to become
audible if the user isn't able to adjust it. I don't
really know and am simply speculating.
ron
Do you, or anyone else, have an informed opinion
for
whether lookahead or hard is the most appropriate
and
why? In all honesty, I don't know. JAMin is
headed
for
a 1.0 release and I think it would be interesting
to
debate whether we're using the best limiter
for
the
job. Steve and I have briefly touched on this
topic a
couple times. It could be that we're using
the
appropriate limiter.
I did a bit of reasearch at the time and it looked
like all the
respectable mastering packages use lookahead. Wether
the implementation is
the best for the job is another question.
I suspect it should have a peak allowance mode,
which ignores very short
peaks at over 0dB and clips them. - Steve
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
8:46 a.m.
On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 12:35:02 -0700, R Parker wrote:
I would think 6dB would be in - its a psychoacostic effect, humans cant
detect the harmonic distortion from clipping at very short durations (< 1
ms or so I think).
In any case it would definatly be an option, the extra headroom isn't
always desirable, and it might be audible under certian circumstances.
- Steve
I suspect it
should have a peak allowance mode,
which ignores very short
peaks at over 0dB and clips them.
That does seem like an interesting feature. The job
I'm working on now has transient spikes that are
probably +6.0dbfs above the average. I used the TAP
Scaling Limiter post fader to deal with them. This
does a good job.
Do you imagine that spikes of this extreme are beyound
the scope of the peak allowance mode?
I assume they are. Otherwise, we're probably dealing
with something that's aggresive enough to become
audible if the user isn't able to adjust it. I don't
really know and am simply speculating.
2:10 p.m.
--- Steve Harris <S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 12:35:02 -0700, R Parker
wrote:
job
In many ways, I am a simple potato farmin' engineer.
The law says, do no exceed 0.0dbfs. I keep pickin' and
don't exceed that level. Of course our transient
spikes are forcing the desirable content to max at or
below -6.0dbfs--definitely not worth beans.
As an option, do you mean it's part of the user
interface so it can be turned on and off while a
transport is rolling?
With peak allowance mode, we then have a lookahead
peak limiter. Right?
The above example could have been:
*desirable content max -0.2dbfs
*transient peaks +4.0dbfs
This brings me to my next point; I believe our final
output gain should be capable of +6.0 or +10.0dbfs
because the only way I can get close to 0.0dbfs is to;
A. overdrive the limiter with compressor makeup gain,
B. overuse the boost stage, or C. use an external gain
stage (ardour return bus). Of course, A and B produce
distortion. I've done a fair amount of work with JAMin
and the external gain stage is not the exception. It
is the "rule".
Unfortunately, Ardour return bus settings can only be
recalled using snapshots--imagine a 10 song album.
Snapshots, if at all, can't be effectively recalled
while transport is rolling. So, JAMin Controler and
OSC lose the ability to reference exact levels with a
single button push.
If the JAMin Output has headroom then its capable of
being the final gain stage for every scene/song and
mute or unmute at any Ardour mixerstrip produces final
objective.
Shoot me, I'm guilty of another topic switch/feature
request but make the case based on practicle
experience. With that, I've gotta deal with the
aftermath of having my studio burglarized late last
nite. Oh well, it's part of life and if you asked my
dad he'd tell ya'll I was wrotten kid. :)
ron
I suspect
it should have a peak allowance mode,
which ignores very short
peaks at over 0dB and clips them.
That does seem like an interesting feature. The I'm working on now has transient spikes that
are
probably +6.0dbfs above the average. I used the
TAP
Scaling Limiter post fader to deal with them.
This
does a good job.
Do you imagine that spikes of this extreme are
beyound
the scope of the peak allowance mode?
I assume they are. Otherwise, we're probably
dealing
with something that's aggresive enough to
become
audible if the user isn't able to adjust it. I
don't
really know and am simply speculating.
I would think 6dB would be in - its a psychoacostic
effect, humans cant
detect the harmonic distortion from clipping at very
short durations (< 1
ms or so I think).
In any case it would definatly be an option, the
extra headroom isn't
always desirable, and it might be audible under
certian circumstance - Steve
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
1 May
1 May
6:45 a.m.
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 10:02:39 +0200, derek holzer wrote:
Ron,
R Parker wrote:
Its a limiter using the same algorithm, but it glitches the audio of you
automate attack/decay time changes.
The new one is in CVS, I need to do some bugfixes before I make another
release.
- Steve
Derek, I think you can ignore that error. Does
JAMin
start and do you have a working limiter?
Of course, yes it starts, but I wondered what limiter it chooses then? A
hard limiter, or the other lookahead limiter? Checking the flattened
peaks of some of my Jamin-processed files, I might almost think it is a
hard, brickwall limiter.
7272
days inactive
7301
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
18 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
derek holzer -
Jack O'Quin -
Jan Depner -
Malcolm Baldridge -
R Parker -
Steve Harris