On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 15:19 +0800, sonofzev@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> On Wed Sep 29 16:11 , "Patrick Shirkey" sent:
>
> >
> >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@48kHz) 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 ;-)
> >
>
>
>
> I've used Jamin a number of times for self-mastering releases, including a vinyl
> release in 2009. While I would prefer to go to a professional mastering agency my
> return from music currently doesn't justify it (it doesn't even pay my ardour
> subscription :) ).. . The labels I've submitted too were more happy with the
> mastering quality (probably happier than I was .. although the problem is my
> skill level not the software quality).
>
> Jamin does a very good job, I can't see any reason to change it.
>
> As for resources, I have got in the habit of not rendering my final mix-down to
> stereo and then mastering, but simply inserting Jamin into the main output of
> Ardour.. this allows for any adjustments to be made at the mix level (e.g. a
> channel being too loud)... without going through the process of rendering again..
>
I do the same. I have occasionally come up against something that I
can't handle that way but those are few and far between. When it does
happen I just export the master, make a new ardour project with just the
master track, and then run JAMin.
> On a AMD Phenom II X3 720 OC'd to ~3.5 GHZ.. I have not exceeded resource limits
> on 24 channel (48KHz 32 bit broadcast wav)... with numerous plugins, including
> some of the more complex ones then going through JACK while retaining a 128
> period and 3 buffer setting on jackd - remembering that everything inside Jack is
> in on one processor core... (with the other cores simply providing smooth X11
> rendering e.t.c..) ..
>
> It's not a eeepc but it is just an average spec PC.. (with some high quality parts).
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
