Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] jamin: lookahead_limiter_const_1906.so ?
From: R Parker (rtp405_AT_yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Apr 30 2004 - 23:12:41 EEST
--- derek holzer <derek_AT_x-i.net> 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?
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
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 23:07:28 EEST