On 18 May 2010 14:28, Roman Haefeli <reduzie...@yahoo.de> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 07:28 -0400, chris clepper wrote: >> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Roman Haefeli <reduzie...@yahoo.de> >> wrote:
>> It just doesn't make sense at all to have the compressor >> output mixed >> with the input signal (It not only doesn't make sense, it even >> adds >> strange phasing effects, if the the dynamic processor uses a >> look-ahead >> delay). [SNIP] >> In the box, latency has to be compensated for though, so you will have >> to delay the source to properly mix with the compressed output. You >> can simply send the 'dry' signal through the same compression with a >> 1:1 ratio and high threshold to achieve this. > > I don't fully understand that last sentence: why sending the dry signal > through a compression (which makes it not dry anymore) and how does > threshold matter, when the ratio is 1:1 (which is basically the same as > sending the signal not through a compressor at all) ? >; The point is to split the signal through two digital compressors, one wet (ie with a ratio of more than 1:1) and the other 'dry'. In this way both the wet and dry signal have the same processing delay, thus avoiding the phase cancellation issues when they are recombined in the main mix bus. That aside, there's a much easier way to preserve transients - just slow down the compressor's attack time.... _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
