On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 11:17, R Parker wrote:
> --- Jan Depner <eviltwin69@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 09:11, R Parker wrote:
> >
> > > And what problem does six parametric bands solve
> > > during mastering? Same qustion for more
> > compression
> > > bands. If your audio is so screwed up to require
> > that
> > > type of toolset then shit can it and start over.
> > > Seriously, you don't have a mastering problem you
> > have
> > > recording and mixing problems.
> > >
> >
> > Wait now, you're the one that thought it would
> > be a good idea to add
> > meterbridge to JAMin.
>
> Really? I have no recollection of suggesting that and
> if I did am clueless as to the context within which I
> would have cast that vote.
>
Someone said that they were using meterbridge and another app to
monitor inputs to JAMin and they thought it would be a good thing if
they were included in JAMin. You replied that you agreed. I don't
remember what list it was on but I'm sure I could find it. I think it
might have been Joern's first post on the DC offset problem.
> Besides all that, what does meterbridge have to do
> with my reply?
>
You were complaining about too many things being included in JAMin.
I was just pointing out that you also want more things in JAMin.
> You just posted that
> > yesterday.
>
> For meterbride? I don't think so but am open to being
> proven wrong.
>
> Actually, when I
> > use JAMin I often find myself needing just one more
> > parametric EQ.
>
> I don't need more equalization control in JAMin but
> often process the source to prepare it for mastering.
I agree but many times I don't have anything but the stereo inputs.
I'm doing mastering for other people. If I'm mixing or recording I'll
adjust at the source.
> And in my experience that is the correct method.
>
> > Granted, I can draw any curve I want and get the
> > same effect but I can't
> > slide it to exactly the right place. There are
> > still a couple of
> > features that would be nice in JAMin. Direct out to
> > .wav files has been
> > mentioned a number of times. In fact I think you're
> > one of the
> > proponents of that.
>
> I'm not against it because it doesn't affect audio
> processing.
>
> Steve wants to add warning
> > lights for DC offset.
>
> And my response stated that I think Joern's proposal
> is good one. So I don't understand your point.
>
> > I'd like to have small delays available for low and
> > mid band.
>
> That affects the processing of audio and now that
> you're forcing the issue I will go on the record
> saying I don't know if it's a good idea. My instincts
> leave me doubtful.
>
How can it effect the audio if it's set to 0 by default? Also, it
is useful for mastering. I'm thinking about putting it somewhere out of
the way so that if you don't want to use it it will be off by default.
> Your first proposal included links to documentation
> that explained the idea. I took the time to read those
> documents. I simply wasn't convinced and didn't reply.
> I figured no response was the lowest volume vote that
> I could cast and wanted to keep the tension between
> you and I somewhat tempered.
>
> It's
> > still a mastering tool and we haven't added anything
> > that is not useful
> > for mastering.
>
> I know you feel very strongly about this feature but I
> am skeptical.
>
At the moment I'm having to run externally through my BBE to get the
delays set the way I want them. I don't like having to go
digital->analog->digital just to get a couple of per band delays.
Jan
