Re: [LAD] [ANN] IR: LV2 Convolution Reverb

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Fons Adriaensen <fons@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:17:17AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> what you don't know (because you're not on IRC) is the question of
>> N-point editing comes up a lot. i (and others) have argued (in my
>> opinion quite successfully) that four point editing is a relic of an
>> older workflow. others who have used 2, 3 and 4 point editing a lot on
>> other systems have argued back. nobody has been persuaded to change
>> their minds, and clearly nobody with the strong feelings in favor of
>> it has been motivated thus far to implement it.
>
> Then tell me how to do the following:

the position that i take with N-point editing is not that there is
some other way to do "the following". There isn't. its that the way of
approaching the task that leads to needing to do "the following" is
rooted in an older way of thinking about the overall workflow.

anyway, i've been through this debate at least 4 times in the last 2
years. i didn't persuade people who feel that its critical, and they
didn't persuade me. status quo.

> I don't have the time to hang out in chat room all day. Fortunately

i didn't say that. but i will say this. i could have had this
conversation with you on IRC in about 50% of the time it takes via
email.

IRC is one of the channels i meant. but what i meant much more was a
reference to those people who, either via IRC, email or the bug
tracker, get involved in an issue or feature and move it forward by
(a) creating the "loop" (b) staying in the "loop". there are many bugs
in ardour that i haven't fixed because i don't personally see them as
big issues and because nobody has convinced me otherwise. it doesn't
mean i'm right, but it does mean that if i (or someone else) is going
to switch focus to feature X or bug Y, even though i (or someone else)
isn't that motivated to do so, someone has to play advocate for the
role. and its not an advocate in a sea of silence. there are long
lists of bugs and long lists of cool features that we *want* to work
on, at all times. for something to rise up above that particular ocean
of noise does, unfortunately, sometimes require a bit of advocacy that
goes beyond an email to a mailing list describing a problem.

> I'm generally not interested in VBAP. I provides the worst surround
> possible, even worse than most 5.1 panners. And in those rare cases where
> it would be a good solution, I can derive the required signals from a more
> universal encoding.

well, panners in a3 are now plugins, of a fashion (they are a bit
different from normal plugin APIs for a variety of reasons, primarily
the fact that they never do in-place processing). its quite likely
that at least the simplest of your ambi LADSPA plugins will show up in
that fashion in the not too distant future, with a GUI very similar to
the one in that screen shot.

when i was in berlin attending "serious" concerts of electro-acoustic
music, there seemed to be quite a range of opinion about ambisonics
versus VBAP. although i tend to take your word for it on such matters,
there were quite several smart people with years of experience in
multi-speaker setups who had real issues with ambisonics and felt that
VBAP was generally preferable. i don't want to make people choose.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Thu Feb 24 20:15:06 2011