Re: [LAU] Subject: Albums under a label recorded and/or mixed with Linux

On Tue, September 28, 2010 5:47 pm, Jan Depner wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 18:22 -0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>> 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@email-addr-hidden) 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?
>>
>
> Since the analyzer view is only redrawn by default 10 times per
> second there really isn't much overhead to save. Take a look at
> draw_EQ_spectrum_curve in hdeq.c. You'll see that all it's really doing
> is drawing a predefined pixmap, converting 1023 levels to dB, and then
> drawing 1023 line segments. This is hardly a drag on any system. Be
> that as it may, you can adjust the frequency of the update in
> Edit->Preferences to be any value from 10 times per second to 0 times
> per second. In other words, the ability to switch off the analyzer view
> is already there.
>

Good point, thanks for the reminder.

Yet another reason why nothing has been done on jamin for a while now ;-)

-- 
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user