[ardour-dev] Re: issues with plugin in/out counts
nostar at comcast.net
Tue Nov 23 23:08:23 PST 2004
gerard van dongen wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 06:29:24 +0000, Doug McLain <nostar at comcast.net>
>> I am replying to Paul's original post here, even though I have read
>> thru most of the replies. I'd like to say right off the bat that I
>> agree heavily with Florian Schmidts concept of not hiding the
>> complexity from the user. I am going to try and provide examples of
>> this below.
>> Paul Davis wrote:
>>> in the last few days, i've been staring down some of the problems
>>> people have reported when using plugins that change the number of
>>> active streams in a track (e.g. a 1in/2out reverb).
>> What if the concept of 1in/2out was ditched completely?
> There are more than 2 channels possible. Not just 5.1 surround, but
> also maybe ambisonic encoding decoding plugins
> that would be 4->8 or 8->4, or a stereo compressor with a side chain:
> This is one of the things that make it complicated
Hmm, probably over my head here, but they couldn't follow the same idea
of say, an 8/8 plugin taking care of making routing adjustments if it2 8
inputs were exposed to 4 outputs? (to use a 4/8 example)
>> I shirley don't want to stick a 1/1 EQ after my Stereo Echo creating
>> a wonderful haas effect for all the world to hear!
> Wouldn't it make more sense to have the EQ applied to both channels
> If you don't allow parallel mono plugins you would have to route your
> stereo output to 2 mono busses just to apply eq after a stereo plug.
I implied that the natural location for the 1/1 EQ would be *before* the
2/2 plugin. The mono track gets EQ'ed by a mono eq, then into the 2
channel dynamic plugin, creating dynamically different L and R
channels. My point from there was that if it was allowed to stick a 1/1
plugin and either merge 2 into 1 or drop 1 channel, the effect of the
2/2 dynamic plugin would be lost.
More information about the Ardour-Dev