Subject: Re: [ecasound] gates - major change
From: Kai Vehmanen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Dec 18 2000 - 01:31:31 EET
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Jeremy Hall wrote:
> I looked at one point to make enm do this optionally, I wanted content,
> not silence. Tipical use is archiving NAsA Television prudently, ignoring
> dead air. After I solve my delay problems, I'll look at this, but now I
Yes, I remember that many people have asked me of the possibility to crop
audio signals based on signal volume/amplitude. And new gates allow just
One reason why I don't want to keep the old -g* behaviour is consistency.
If gates (-g*) can both change the buffer length, and mute signals,
there's nothing than separates them from effects (-e*). Now if we make
"can change the buffer length" a specific feature of -g* gates, we have a
logical way of separating gates and effects. Similarly, this makes it
easier to understand how hybrid types like -enm work. If it's under the
effect category (-e*), it will act like an effect even though the name say
"noise gate". Does this sound reasonable?
-- . http://www.eca.cx ... [ audio software for linux ] /\ . . http://www.eca.cx/sculpscape [ my armchair-tunes mp3/ra/wav ]
-- To unsubscribe send message 'unsubscribe' in the body of the message to <email@example.com>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Dec 18 2000 - 03:14:16 EET