> The bad news is that the best way to use > this new approach is to rethink the whole process of mixing and > mastering. Or just let us find interesting ways to use the technology within the current framework... > > > ToPlug-In or not to Plug-In: > <SNIP> > So rather than speak to developers about how to improve my > programs or something like that which was suggested, I really need to > speak with potential users about what they might need or want, whether > that be a plugin or something completely different. Well, the only issue that I've had with the conversation so far is that I do not know what environment my consumer is going to listen to my music in. Will he listen on a stereo with his real room acoustics? Or will he listen on headphones without? And how do I make one mix that works for both environments? I don't see that as practical today, but maybe I'm missing your point. So, to make my point most clearly, I will do only a single final mix today for mastering. Should it use this technology or not when I don't know the listening environment? > > For example, these same programs can also be used to create > instruments. (A room can be regarded as part of a three-dimensional > instrument.) I think this was part of Ron's POV. Cool. > > On the approach used --- IR?: > > Mark Knecht asked whether or not this work was IR-based. I assume > that this means "impulse response" function based. Sorry. Yes, that is what I meant. I'm sort of bug-eyed these days looking at IR waveforms - gigabytes worth of them. > What next? > > To summarize a little bit: I can do a lot of different things here, > depending upon what people are interested in. I can try to write a > plugin that applies impulse response functions that I have generated; > I could perhaps make available the programs for producing them; I > could write a program that assists in applying them; I could write an > instrument generator; I could release a library of the utilities. Or > I could just do what J?rn suggested and wrap up what I've already > done. I suspect this would be the least useful approach for most > people, but the best approach for me and for potential collaborators. I think this makes sense actually. My input would be that you need more ears and more recorded sources to facilitate understand where this works well and where it doesn't. Electronica vs. symphonic, jazz trios vs. grunge rock, complete sound tracks vs. single instruments, drums vs. guitars vs. vocals vs. dot.dot.dot... I presume that this technology does not lend itself to automation controls within a real-time environment? When parameters are changed with the IR stuff I'm using there is a very large recalculation overhead before I can start using it again. True for yours too? (If not true, then a plug in could be of lots of uses!) >From my perspective, I think this is interesting work you've done. I hope you'll release a command line version for interested folks to use and give you feedback. > > Thanks once again for your comments and for listening to the demo. > I'd appreciate further discussion, either here or privately by email. > I've got a little more on the idea of a plugin and on real-time > concerns which I'll send a little later. > > > >
