Greetings All, I have recently posted to LAA an announcement of Mixster and other programs. These are aimed specifically at convolution reverb. They run under Linux, and with the appropriate libs, under XP which is where I will probably use them. The program called "Boxster" is for generating 3-D impulse response functions. The program called "Mixster" is for convolution, albeit nonrealtime, and for combining the tracks. It has other utilities which are useful for performing tasks associated with convolution reverb. To novice users, I'm sure it appears to be a miscellaneous grab-bag; it's not. ----------------------------------- Boxster uses Green's functions rather than ray-tracing for generating the IR's. This is a complete solution --- as complete as the finite number of samples allows --- for the ~3 billion modes in a typical concert hall. The walls are hard, but I have myself developed techniques for engineering the IR's so that they sound very realistic. I have a set of IR's that I have used for about two years now that I would be willing to share. This technique requires monophonic, dry recordings, not what people are used to. The programs are not especially easy to understand, but I'm willing to work with serious users and eventually hope to create more docs, help, and probably yet another interface. I believe that the current interface is useable by anyone who has ever solved an ODE or PDE. Steve Harris mentioned that the code for convolution is pretty easy. That's true. The hard part is engineering IR's. That is the purpose of Boxster as well as the tools that are included in Mixster. This is anything but easy, but even simple-minded approaches produce better reverbs than most DSP techniques. Several posters have suggested that a few good reverbs would be very helpful. The more I work with this, the more I think that this really is not true. Just as there are many different types of drum sets, there will probably be many different types of reverbs. As people get used to good reverbs, I think they'll become even more discriminating and want more variation. The variations will become harder and harder to distinguish for novice listeners, but more and more obvious to experienced ones. The drivers for the technology will be the discriminating engineers and listeners, not the novices. I'm amazed at just how different various IR's can be when applied to the same recording, even though the rooms are similar. There is a completely different "feel" for each one. For those who are really serious about reverb: Please don't hesitate to contact me. I'd be happy to improve the programs; they definitely need some more docs and probably yet-another-interface. All I can say is that the command-line versions were a lot worse. Thanks for your attention. I would not have posted if someone had mentioned these programs, even if only to complain about them! But no one did (that I saw). Regards to all, Dave. http://home.earthlink.net/~davidrclark
