It should be possible to define mappings from one plugin's control parameters to another plugin's. This would have to be done by the user. At most there would be a parametric linear or logarithmic function involved fo map the values, in addition to mapping the controller numbers or NRPNs. Are there any products like this? There used to be universal patch librarians.
Regards, Mike ----------------------------------------------------- Michael Gogins Irreducible Productions http://michaelgogins.tumblr.com Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Bjorn Roche <bj...@shimmeo.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:46 PM, robert bristow-johnson > <r...@audioimagination.com> wrote: >> >> >> regarding Pro Tools (which i do not own and haven't worked with since 2002 >> when i was at Wave Mechanics, now called SoundToys), please take a look at >> this blog: >> >> http://www.avidblogs.com/pro-tools-11-analog-console/ >> >> evidently, for a single channel strip, there is a volume slider, but no >> "built-in" EQ, like in an analog board. you're s'pose to insert EQ III or >> something like that. > > > Some DAWs are like that, while others have EQs built in. > >> >> now in the avid blog, words like these are written: "... which of the 20 >> EQ plug-ins should I use?... You can build an SSL, or a Neve, ..., Sonnox, >> McDSP, iZotope, MetricHalo..." >> >> so then, in your session, you mix some kinda nice sound, save all of the >> sliders in PT automation and then ask "What would this sound like if I used >> iZ instead of McDSP?", can you or can you not apply that automation to >> corresponding parameters of the other plugin? i thought that you could. > > > I've never seen anything like that. I wonder if the industry even wants > this. Right now, if I build a protools (or other DAW) session and want to > share it with you, you have to have all the plugins I used in the session. > That's another sale for the plugin company -- unless you could substitute > other plugins easily. There are, of course, workarounds, like "freezing" a > track and so on. > >> >> if that is the case, then, IMO, someone in some standards committee at >> NAMM or AES or something should be pushing for standardization of some >> *known* common parameters. > > > I don't really see how that would be possible in a general case. How would > you map company A's 4-band parametric that also has a high and low shelf to > Company B's 5 band parametric that has no shelves, but an air-band? What if > one company offers a greater range for Q than another company? Plugins are > supposed to be as unique as possible. That's the point. > >> this, on top of the generalization that Knud Bank Christensen did last >> decade (which sorta supersedes the Orfanidis correction to the digital >> parametric EQ), really nails the specification problem down: whether it's >> analog or digital, if it's 2nd-order (and not some kinda FIR EQ), then there >> are 5 knobs corresponding to 5 coefficients that *fully* define the >> frequency response behavior of the EQ. those 5 coefficient knobs can be >> mapped to 5 parameter knobs that are meaningful to the user. > > > Can you send a reference to Christensen's work that you are referring to? > > -- > Bjorn Roche > @shimmeoapp > > _______________________________________________ > dupswapdrop: music-dsp mailing list > music-dsp@music.columbia.edu > https://lists.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp _______________________________________________ dupswapdrop: music-dsp mailing list music-dsp@music.columbia.edu https://lists.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
