On Feb 05 16:23:17, sox_ng@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > `echos` is a bizarre effect that has never worked due to a bug > that overwrote the input samples before using them). Can you please point to the specific bug? > 1) It's odd, not a classic effect and seems more like a coding enthusiasm > than a useful effect > 2) It is exactly the same as "echo" with different (and more) parameters If I am reading the manual correctly, there is a difference between echo and echos: in the echos effect, every subsequent echo added by the effect takes as its input the signal *including* all the previously added echos. > I'm thinking of removing it as useless and distracting baggage. I second the sentiment. SoX has _a_lot_ of ancient, useless baggage, https://github.com/janstary/sox/commit/b0d93f3513977f39a11a3152acce4caaf86fabc7 - the least of which, I'm afraid, is rarely used sound effects. > `chorus` has also never worked and has been fixed. Twice. > > See the waveform images in comment > > https://codeberg.org/sox_ng/sox_ng/issues/276#issuecomment-2581801 > > but it is not a chorus, which is the addition of delayed and detuned version > of the same signal; > > it is a simple flanger, of which we already have a much better one by Rob > Sykes, > > which can probably be parameterized to do the same as `chorus`, How do the 'chorus' paramaters translate the the 'flanger' parameters? In the commands given as examples in the manage for instance? Jan _______________________________________________ Sox-users mailing list Sox-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
