audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
43 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Trond Lossius
Administrator
Hi,

A week ago I spent several days with Elin Vister, spatialising and mixing her installation “Røster III” That reminded me of something that I have been thinking of several times before, and I believe I have also raised the issue in various BOD meetings: We  urgently need to change the default unit for audio/gain from midigain to dB.

The current midigain range might be fine when dragging sliders on a screen, after all that is what it was designed for. But when representing gain levels in the models, the midigain unit is pretty meaningless and useless. During the mixing process, whenever we figured out that a certain voice need to be lowered by 2 dB, it’s a hit and miss guess how to express that in midigain. Likewise, if we’re dragging gain faders to appropriate levels, it’s complicated to translate that into decibel values. Additionally, any fade curves in midigain behave in unpredictable ways. Ee.g. a linear midigain fade-in will start out fast and slow down at the end, but it is hard to predict exactly what this will sound like. It will be much better to do such ramps using to the dB unit, and then use easing functions to get the desired curve. This way there will be a clear connection between what the curve looks like, and how it is perceived.

When doing this change, we need to decide what the dB range of audio/gain should be. Here are some possible options:

Options for lower limit:

a) -70 dB lower range in  - used by Ableton Live
b) -96 dB 16 bit audio range - used by Logic X
c) -100 dB used by Harrison Mixbus, used by Pro Tools?
d) -120 dB 20 bit audio range
e) -144 dB 24 bit audio range - In Jamoma midigain = 1 equals -144 dB

Options for upper limit:

a) 6 dB used by Live, Harrison Mixbus, Logic
b) 10 dB In Jamoma midigain = 127 equals +10 dB
c) 12 dB Protools?
d) 18 dB
e) 24 dB used by Reaper

When making the choice, we should give priority to what’s relevant and practical in 99% of the use cases rather than cater for all edge cases. For this reason I suggest that we set lower limit to -70 dB. In installation work it is my experience that when working with signals at reasonable gain levels, this gives more than enough leeway to ensure that you can softly and gradually fade sound layers in and out. At the same time, when ramping from minimum value to e.g. 0 dB over 10 seconds, you don’t get the feeling of the fadein being substantially delayed before starting, the way that is the case if lower limit is set to  -144, -120 or -96 dB. When fading in Inmost often do not start hearing the layer until it reaches somewhere between -40 or -30 dB. If a ramp from -144 dB to 0 dB happens over 10 seconds, it takes more than 7 seconds before the ramp reaches -40 dB.

As for upper limit, I would suggest to either go with +6 dB or +10 dB. Currently midigain = 127 equals +10 dB, and I generally never have problems that I need to bring audio further up. At the same time, an argument for +6 dB would be that it provides more consistency between Jamoma and the Max 4 Live widgets that are provided with Max. So, my vote would go for a range from -70 to +6 dB. Are there any objections to this?

This change need to happen before Jamoma 1.0.

Best,
Trond


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
jln
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

jln
Administrator
Hi Trond and all,

Ooooh yes ! I’ll happily break my existing patches/cues for this change. I’ve been hoping for this for quite some time as well.

-70 +6 dB seems fine to me as well.
Best,
Julien




On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Trond Lossius <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

A week ago I spent several days with Elin Vister, spatialising and mixing her installation “Røster III” That reminded me of something that I have been thinking of several times before, and I believe I have also raised the issue in various BOD meetings: We urgently need to change the default unit for audio/gain from midigain to dB.

The current midigain range might be fine when dragging sliders on a screen, after all that is what it was designed for. But when representing gain levels in the models, the midigain unit is pretty meaningless and useless. During the mixing process, whenever we figured out that a certain voice need to be lowered by 2 dB, it’s a hit and miss guess how to express that in midigain. Likewise, if we’re dragging gain faders to appropriate levels, it’s complicated to translate that into decibel values. Additionally, any fade curves in midigain behave in unpredictable ways. Ee.g. a linear midigain fade-in will start out fast and slow down at the end, but it is hard to predict exactly what this will sound like. It will be much better to do such ramps using to the dB unit, and then use easing functions to get the desired curve. This way there will be a clear connection between what the curve looks like, and how it is perceived.

When doing this change, we need to decide what the dB range of audio/gain should be. Here are some possible options:

Options for lower limit:

a) -70 dB lower range in - used by Ableton Live
b) -96 dB 16 bit audio range - used by Logic X
c) -100 dB used by Harrison Mixbus, used by Pro Tools?
d) -120 dB 20 bit audio range
e) -144 dB 24 bit audio range - In Jamoma midigain = 1 equals -144 dB

Options for upper limit:

a) 6 dB used by Live, Harrison Mixbus, Logic
b) 10 dB In Jamoma midigain = 127 equals +10 dB
c) 12 dB Protools?
d) 18 dB
e) 24 dB used by Reaper

When making the choice, we should give priority to what’s relevant and practical in 99% of the use cases rather than cater for all edge cases. For this reason I suggest that we set lower limit to -70 dB. In installation work it is my experience that when working with signals at reasonable gain levels, this gives more than enough leeway to ensure that you can softly and gradually fade sound layers in and out. At the same time, when ramping from minimum value to e.g. 0 dB over 10 seconds, you don’t get the feeling of the fadein being substantially delayed before starting, the way that is the case if lower limit is set to -144, -120 or -96 dB. When fading in Inmost often do not start hearing the layer until it reaches somewhere between -40 or -30 dB. If a ramp from -144 dB to 0 dB happens over 10 seconds, it takes more than 7 seconds before the ramp reaches -40 dB.

As for upper limit, I would suggest to either go with +6 dB or +10 dB. Currently midigain = 127 equals +10 dB, and I generally never have problems that I need to bring audio further up. At the same time, an argument for +6 dB would be that it provides more consistency between Jamoma and the Max 4 Live widgets that are provided with Max. So, my vote would go for a range from -70 to +6 dB. Are there any objections to this?

This change need to happen before Jamoma 1.0.

Best,
Trond


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Théo de la Hogue-2
Hi !
ok for me.
do I start the work on this ? or should I wait for more points of view ?

Best,
TO

Le 23 août 2015 à 12:58, Julien Rabin <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi Trond and all,

Ooooh yes ! I’ll happily break my existing patches/cues for this change. I’ve been hoping for this for quite some time as well.

-70 +6 dB seems fine to me as well.
Best,
Julien




On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Trond Lossius <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

A week ago I spent several days with Elin Vister, spatialising and mixing her installation “Røster III” That reminded me of something that I have been thinking of several times before, and I believe I have also raised the issue in various BOD meetings: We urgently need to change the default unit for audio/gain from midigain to dB.

The current midigain range might be fine when dragging sliders on a screen, after all that is what it was designed for. But when representing gain levels in the models, the midigain unit is pretty meaningless and useless. During the mixing process, whenever we figured out that a certain voice need to be lowered by 2 dB, it’s a hit and miss guess how to express that in midigain. Likewise, if we’re dragging gain faders to appropriate levels, it’s complicated to translate that into decibel values. Additionally, any fade curves in midigain behave in unpredictable ways. Ee.g. a linear midigain fade-in will start out fast and slow down at the end, but it is hard to predict exactly what this will sound like. It will be much better to do such ramps using to the dB unit, and then use easing functions to get the desired curve. This way there will be a clear connection between what the curve looks like, and how it is perceived.

When doing this change, we need to decide what the dB range of audio/gain should be. Here are some possible options:

Options for lower limit:

a) -70 dB lower range in - used by Ableton Live
b) -96 dB 16 bit audio range - used by Logic X
c) -100 dB used by Harrison Mixbus, used by Pro Tools?
d) -120 dB 20 bit audio range
e) -144 dB 24 bit audio range - In Jamoma midigain = 1 equals -144 dB

Options for upper limit:

a) 6 dB used by Live, Harrison Mixbus, Logic
b) 10 dB In Jamoma midigain = 127 equals +10 dB
c) 12 dB Protools?
d) 18 dB
e) 24 dB used by Reaper

When making the choice, we should give priority to what’s relevant and practical in 99% of the use cases rather than cater for all edge cases. For this reason I suggest that we set lower limit to -70 dB. In installation work it is my experience that when working with signals at reasonable gain levels, this gives more than enough leeway to ensure that you can softly and gradually fade sound layers in and out. At the same time, when ramping from minimum value to e.g. 0 dB over 10 seconds, you don’t get the feeling of the fadein being substantially delayed before starting, the way that is the case if lower limit is set to -144, -120 or -96 dB. When fading in Inmost often do not start hearing the layer until it reaches somewhere between -40 or -30 dB. If a ramp from -144 dB to 0 dB happens over 10 seconds, it takes more than 7 seconds before the ramp reaches -40 dB.

As for upper limit, I would suggest to either go with +6 dB or +10 dB. Currently midigain = 127 equals +10 dB, and I generally never have problems that I need to bring audio further up. At the same time, an argument for +6 dB would be that it provides more consistency between Jamoma and the Max 4 Live widgets that are provided with Max. So, my vote would go for a range from -70 to +6 dB. Are there any objections to this?

This change need to happen before Jamoma 1.0.

Best,
Trond


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Trond Lossius
Administrator
Hi

The sooner the better! I’m on Skype currently if you need a helping hand.

Best,
Trond


> On 24 Aug 2015, at 10:56, Théo de la Hogue <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi !
> ok for me.
> do I start the work on this ? or should I wait for more points of view ?
>
> Best,
> TO
>
>> Le 23 août 2015 à 12:58, Julien Rabin <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>> Hi Trond and all,
>>
>> Ooooh yes ! I’ll happily break my existing patches/cues for this change. I’ve been hoping for this for quite some time as well.
>>
>> -70 +6 dB seems fine to me as well.
>> Best,
>> Julien
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Trond Lossius <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> A week ago I spent several days with Elin Vister, spatialising and mixing her installation “Røster III” That reminded me of something that I have been thinking of several times before, and I believe I have also raised the issue in various BOD meetings: We urgently need to change the default unit for audio/gain from midigain to dB.
>>
>> The current midigain range might be fine when dragging sliders on a screen, after all that is what it was designed for. But when representing gain levels in the models, the midigain unit is pretty meaningless and useless. During the mixing process, whenever we figured out that a certain voice need to be lowered by 2 dB, it’s a hit and miss guess how to express that in midigain. Likewise, if we’re dragging gain faders to appropriate levels, it’s complicated to translate that into decibel values. Additionally, any fade curves in midigain behave in unpredictable ways. Ee.g. a linear midigain fade-in will start out fast and slow down at the end, but it is hard to predict exactly what this will sound like. It will be much better to do such ramps using to the dB unit, and then use easing functions to get the desired curve. This way there will be a clear connection between what the curve looks like, and how it is perceived.
>>
>> When doing this change, we need to decide what the dB range of audio/gain should be. Here are some possible options:
>>
>> Options for lower limit:
>>
>> a) -70 dB lower range in - used by Ableton Live
>> b) -96 dB 16 bit audio range - used by Logic X
>> c) -100 dB used by Harrison Mixbus, used by Pro Tools?
>> d) -120 dB 20 bit audio range
>> e) -144 dB 24 bit audio range - In Jamoma midigain = 1 equals -144 dB
>>
>> Options for upper limit:
>>
>> a) 6 dB used by Live, Harrison Mixbus, Logic
>> b) 10 dB In Jamoma midigain = 127 equals +10 dB
>> c) 12 dB Protools?
>> d) 18 dB
>> e) 24 dB used by Reaper
>>
>> When making the choice, we should give priority to what’s relevant and practical in 99% of the use cases rather than cater for all edge cases. For this reason I suggest that we set lower limit to -70 dB. In installation work it is my experience that when working with signals at reasonable gain levels, this gives more than enough leeway to ensure that you can softly and gradually fade sound layers in and out. At the same time, when ramping from minimum value to e.g. 0 dB over 10 seconds, you don’t get the feeling of the fadein being substantially delayed before starting, the way that is the case if lower limit is set to -144, -120 or -96 dB. When fading in Inmost often do not start hearing the layer until it reaches somewhere between -40 or -30 dB. If a ramp from -144 dB to 0 dB happens over 10 seconds, it takes more than 7 seconds before the ramp reaches -40 dB.
>>
>> As for upper limit, I would suggest to either go with +6 dB or +10 dB. Currently midigain = 127 equals +10 dB, and I generally never have problems that I need to bring audio further up. At the same time, an argument for +6 dB would be that it provides more consistency between Jamoma and the Max 4 Live widgets that are provided with Max. So, my vote would go for a range from -70 to +6 dB. Are there any objections to this?
>>
>> This change need to happen before Jamoma 1.0.
>>
>> Best,
>> Trond
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Jamoma-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Jamoma-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Jamoma-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Pascal Baltazar-5
In reply to this post by jln
+1

Pascal Baltazar
[hidden email]
http://www.baltazars.org

Le 23 août 2015 à 12:58, Julien Rabin <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi Trond and all,

Ooooh yes ! I’ll happily break my existing patches/cues for this change. I’ve been hoping for this for quite some time as well.

-70 +6 dB seems fine to me as well.
Best,
Julien




On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Trond Lossius <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

A week ago I spent several days with Elin Vister, spatialising and mixing her installation “Røster III” That reminded me of something that I have been thinking of several times before, and I believe I have also raised the issue in various BOD meetings: We urgently need to change the default unit for audio/gain from midigain to dB.

The current midigain range might be fine when dragging sliders on a screen, after all that is what it was designed for. But when representing gain levels in the models, the midigain unit is pretty meaningless and useless. During the mixing process, whenever we figured out that a certain voice need to be lowered by 2 dB, it’s a hit and miss guess how to express that in midigain. Likewise, if we’re dragging gain faders to appropriate levels, it’s complicated to translate that into decibel values. Additionally, any fade curves in midigain behave in unpredictable ways. Ee.g. a linear midigain fade-in will start out fast and slow down at the end, but it is hard to predict exactly what this will sound like. It will be much better to do such ramps using to the dB unit, and then use easing functions to get the desired curve. This way there will be a clear connection between what the curve looks like, and how it is perceived.

When doing this change, we need to decide what the dB range of audio/gain should be. Here are some possible options:

Options for lower limit:

a) -70 dB lower range in - used by Ableton Live
b) -96 dB 16 bit audio range - used by Logic X
c) -100 dB used by Harrison Mixbus, used by Pro Tools?
d) -120 dB 20 bit audio range
e) -144 dB 24 bit audio range - In Jamoma midigain = 1 equals -144 dB

Options for upper limit:

a) 6 dB used by Live, Harrison Mixbus, Logic
b) 10 dB In Jamoma midigain = 127 equals +10 dB
c) 12 dB Protools?
d) 18 dB
e) 24 dB used by Reaper

When making the choice, we should give priority to what’s relevant and practical in 99% of the use cases rather than cater for all edge cases. For this reason I suggest that we set lower limit to -70 dB. In installation work it is my experience that when working with signals at reasonable gain levels, this gives more than enough leeway to ensure that you can softly and gradually fade sound layers in and out. At the same time, when ramping from minimum value to e.g. 0 dB over 10 seconds, you don’t get the feeling of the fadein being substantially delayed before starting, the way that is the case if lower limit is set to -144, -120 or -96 dB. When fading in Inmost often do not start hearing the layer until it reaches somewhere between -40 or -30 dB. If a ramp from -144 dB to 0 dB happens over 10 seconds, it takes more than 7 seconds before the ramp reaches -40 dB.

As for upper limit, I would suggest to either go with +6 dB or +10 dB. Currently midigain = 127 equals +10 dB, and I generally never have problems that I need to bring audio further up. At the same time, an argument for +6 dB would be that it provides more consistency between Jamoma and the Max 4 Live widgets that are provided with Max. So, my vote would go for a range from -70 to +6 dB. Are there any objections to this?

This change need to happen before Jamoma 1.0.

Best,
Trond


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Pascal Baltazar-5
In reply to this post by Trond Lossius

Le 22 août 2015 à 20:01, Trond Lossius <[hidden email]> a écrit :

my vote would go for a range from -70 to +6 dB.

That sounds like a reasonable choice.
Though, you didn’t mention the clipmode: should it be high or none ?
I see pros and cons for both (e.g. not clipping on the top could be quite dangerous…)
I don’t see why gain should be clipped at the bottom end… and I'd rather not clip it at all, actually…
what do you think ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Théo de la Hogue-2
In reply to this post by Pascal Baltazar-5
Hi again,
this is done !

it was not an obvious change but it works (you’ll need to rebuild Modular and Max).

you’ll need to update all presets files to replace audio/gain 100.000 into audio/gain 0.000
otherwise close your hears before to turn audio on !

I’ve also updated j.ui audio/gain widget range to -70.0 +6.0.

Best,
TO

Le 24 août 2015 à 13:43, Pascal Baltazar <[hidden email]> a écrit :

+1


Le 23 août 2015 à 12:58, Julien Rabin <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi Trond and all,

Ooooh yes ! I’ll happily break my existing patches/cues for this change. I’ve been hoping for this for quite some time as well.

-70 +6 dB seems fine to me as well.
Best,
Julien




On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Trond Lossius <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

A week ago I spent several days with Elin Vister, spatialising and mixing her installation “Røster III” That reminded me of something that I have been thinking of several times before, and I believe I have also raised the issue in various BOD meetings: We urgently need to change the default unit for audio/gain from midigain to dB.

The current midigain range might be fine when dragging sliders on a screen, after all that is what it was designed for. But when representing gain levels in the models, the midigain unit is pretty meaningless and useless. During the mixing process, whenever we figured out that a certain voice need to be lowered by 2 dB, it’s a hit and miss guess how to express that in midigain. Likewise, if we’re dragging gain faders to appropriate levels, it’s complicated to translate that into decibel values. Additionally, any fade curves in midigain behave in unpredictable ways. Ee.g. a linear midigain fade-in will start out fast and slow down at the end, but it is hard to predict exactly what this will sound like. It will be much better to do such ramps using to the dB unit, and then use easing functions to get the desired curve. This way there will be a clear connection between what the curve looks like, and how it is perceived.

When doing this change, we need to decide what the dB range of audio/gain should be. Here are some possible options:

Options for lower limit:

a) -70 dB lower range in - used by Ableton Live
b) -96 dB 16 bit audio range - used by Logic X
c) -100 dB used by Harrison Mixbus, used by Pro Tools?
d) -120 dB 20 bit audio range
e) -144 dB 24 bit audio range - In Jamoma midigain = 1 equals -144 dB

Options for upper limit:

a) 6 dB used by Live, Harrison Mixbus, Logic
b) 10 dB In Jamoma midigain = 127 equals +10 dB
c) 12 dB Protools?
d) 18 dB
e) 24 dB used by Reaper

When making the choice, we should give priority to what’s relevant and practical in 99% of the use cases rather than cater for all edge cases. For this reason I suggest that we set lower limit to -70 dB. In installation work it is my experience that when working with signals at reasonable gain levels, this gives more than enough leeway to ensure that you can softly and gradually fade sound layers in and out. At the same time, when ramping from minimum value to e.g. 0 dB over 10 seconds, you don’t get the feeling of the fadein being substantially delayed before starting, the way that is the case if lower limit is set to -144, -120 or -96 dB. When fading in Inmost often do not start hearing the layer until it reaches somewhere between -40 or -30 dB. If a ramp from -144 dB to 0 dB happens over 10 seconds, it takes more than 7 seconds before the ramp reaches -40 dB.

As for upper limit, I would suggest to either go with +6 dB or +10 dB. Currently midigain = 127 equals +10 dB, and I generally never have problems that I need to bring audio further up. At the same time, an argument for +6 dB would be that it provides more consistency between Jamoma and the Max 4 Live widgets that are provided with Max. So, my vote would go for a range from -70 to +6 dB. Are there any objections to this?

This change need to happen before Jamoma 1.0.

Best,
Trond


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Théo de la Hogue-2
In reply to this post by Pascal Baltazar-5

Le 24 août 2015 à 15:45, Pascal Baltazar <[hidden email]> a écrit :

I see pros and cons for both (e.g. not clipping on the top could be quite dangerous…)
my hears say +1 !
(but it is not clipped for the moment so be carefull)

Best
TO

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Trond Lossius
Administrator
In reply to this post by Pascal Baltazar-5
Thanks a lot, Theo!

As for clipping: It definitively needs to be clipped at both ends -70 dB should be mapped to linear gain of 0. I’ll update the dB unit in the gain dataspace for this. I guess that we should also alter the function for midigain so that midi range 0 127 maps the same range, but with a slightly “bent” curve.

The sole question here is if everyone can live with -70 dB, or if someone feels that the lower limit should be at -96 dB. Below is a simple patch that mimics linear dB fadein and fadeout with the lower threshold set to -70, -96, -120 and -144 dB. Please give it a good listening to see what fade ins and outs work the best for you. Personally, when listening through headphones at full volume, I can still hear a little bit of sound leaking through at -70 db. That might be an argument for setting the lower limit to -96 dB. As for -120 and -144 dB, I find that the sound stays silent for too long during fade in or out.

And what about those cases where one need more than +6 dB gain? In these situations I’d say that it would make sense to apply gain adjustments prior (or other kinds of dynamic corrections such as limiting or compressing) earlier in the signal chain. Out gain levels should be attuned to signals that are expected to be reasonably hot.

Best,
Trond



<pre><code>
----------begin_max5_patcher----------
1715.3ocyZ0rbihCD9rySgKNtUlTR7mMyscOruDaskKAH6nIXDKHxjLSM4Ye
0uX.CNDrvSNDrsjPp+95Vs5tU94cqbhoufqbV+00+y5Uq94cqVIaRzvJ8uW4
bD8RRFpRNLmD5wi3bly8p9X3WXx1+Bz2ec5eYZOu9HslkgYx2Bnash8ZFVNb
y3hqiiyvUjTYyt5VKPrjGI4G1UhSXJoaCv8Av8qChjOCDO83ee8+peERpbdo
we6K9fVRAI2HDvNKorEQC+5t6DOt+pwuKXIweHD7PvzvuWzuC7GEtjvO.t4j
52e6Eg+1KB+hRbEG.HFgl2YATSJP7z7nY5WHNayhZx360xj4c3rMKnISQF50
LRE6sgQZvnHc.L4IgAzU5L.F.L5rFPolX1qEX0K3TQNjixbte3uI9KkjHLFP
ku5LH2DbQtIEwPZvqQ+JmjLRQiW0Vcv6ZOICmiNp.ZZcZ8SOfH60qfY.OQxU
qOpNkPEszZ.YTZQKAPtdzbF2.aWE2rFaDl1KKmcypKYjiZVoEiozWzTCeEip
HINc5cOs7HJWqAf8dUZI4.gylbXcf8Xyzy4UFI4optyjPBpXkXtdUOxNcKWa
VcNWmqMg86NfBB+MSnkBCBtJan4PNjpGI6mj7drZXBQC4KuT+WMJivdcbhyr
VL7wBpVbbOeoxxne+PFMty.6gJ9dngZup.iSaATSOxsnpunaT0hk7b82nT7Z
R9G000PmqGIcrCAghOhjGr4FNhWJuKtSbOeWPE4GJ+T9O.trC+lE16F5wWxa
bpxhD21sSf3bmCwccT.eidE5.9LJfKlxXE8A.vvz.7iPCgQxC4fQRM3FIYHN
cX7CDFzIu6vG.5dYanPN4eZwOYCYa5hGZoknqfHYz.WMcscNzUf1jcgoKdjn
1hs.AsMtfykshlEaw8LcCLt1XMaKeXGaq4xVdf4vV9PqYaki+NWNNirJr.EA
iBE5TWUfqty1fJbPJBzdgwk8iJUDG4y3xJczLl3GcPEEsZtSfibh4aT4Ds49
llH4pl.MMUhelXd+vlVQkb3y3XutTQLuD56bZZ3gbVlWSZNeQphtyLgFF6j5
LzGnRjoc.TNw7.mRdRECjQfbnEXdLjssT5zcJdOpNisqy4dtOLX+6QI3Qe4l
.4+yRhHeB8PNTRRo4BgnCOKZ1rbbSg.UJLsAibD4nhAdYtZmyIizoHt+5pXT
oPMnOy10zIiRy51Uy6kg2yzcWPxy6whLZw3cxir8wK7twTdmGuzbK6oZWctp
2c7se7DXPO2ksY7.006G6N8ufxIG4Y6XxowEzzIO+JNPerJojGYcG7p544A5
IkaAmf+NIUkBCnsw.e3jBiQjSiVNkbfmKS21XnCUca4L2B7lpi06P2Ih2OSm
y1oAzonbcSe7jmqd42cA+8mWnt1cLn2rQD8QOlTZJuQ592KnuSs2wwVemavv
dhWqy.FH8l6mIG0wKeWJpBmsFNNG4dEbjp9EdgSiihQ7Dgu+Rbk2uatJspPV
0g2Fmu7uB9Bnb86MM9hHR4Zsy9LJR9E8uEeLJC5NJCBsHCpD0w4Hv74H2P3o
JW50u5BsiZHXbn1pCStqRAXv5Izb7AIeL+TRoUz+HUihVWlXzZF0PuRavc7x
H4nSEeowhu2.ejjlhy6yhojJgyd0wNSRS9gkYuoJygedj4vIJyBiEqHyMkex
DmL+H9zcpvY1gXrRRbMSYF0NX0OzwtphmoOTsInrKcF7oCpmewwFKqpVmvdM
4J35qcAtY3iUmZtB9CmNkkArvXwxkzQA74WiB24k0s5FF.9KVV2h54XQ5xTR
mqktfWSZ2fkqHEeIJzlrktjNZ1Z1YfOqhT344qXK3UyVUI7r.e6iVG4Rd.kZ
bI1zJElVXeHuPpZ14EAUwuBZ9XHZAt0ZNav+HEk7lEJTNzWF8nevF0GlmCJ+
aVdmkar4leSM2tRyYHvZ3djpmIhQYDso6LNUTWAsySj5RW.rLcpgf+1kF8ow
LJ5M6ETfaT3oK0eRveHXOxk9aOX+G1.x58udp+OFbijEPctP98CFR9VcSsQw
.8C0VyCmEhsWmHmGI7Z+Ni4rHqOOp5yTHSUbD2r06JNaeGw4HIsfxSitx7Oi
kxJT8OXhquRmH90o0wd.Xq8APHXaiHu7.Hx9.HPU93aC.D2HisAfu6sTCDZA
.XQww+yk33tXdHfApJ2oTuxesDpW3h4g3FA.vh4g31.fo3hFd6rnmx9KQn9q
getDmaC6.WN24edr1tcz4lIFt2br0TAi16B5EBRuKlu2kxe9ExO9kw2+h34q
7ut6+AzNJV5H
-----------end_max5_patcher-----------
</code></pre>



> On 24 Aug 2015, at 15:45, Pascal Baltazar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> Le 22 août 2015 à 20:01, Trond Lossius <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>> my vote would go for a range from -70 to +6 dB.
>
> That sounds like a reasonable choice.
> Though, you didn’t mention the clipmode: should it be high or none ?
> I see pros and cons for both (e.g. not clipping on the top could be quite dangerous…)
> I don’t see why gain should be clipped at the bottom end… and I'd rather not clip it at all, actually…
> what do you think ?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Jamoma-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
tap
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

tap
Hi -- trying to catch up after being out for the weekend.

This should definitively *not* be changed in the dataspace.  The dataspace needs to work in a predictable and accurate manner and this change will break that.  Imagine, for example, that the dataspace is used to interpret the results of a test that measure the noise floors of several wavetable oscillators.  Given a linear result we want to convert to db so we can make sense of it.  This is completely breaks under this scenario and there is no way for an outsider to know where (or why it will break here).


Tim


On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Trond Lossius <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks a lot, Theo!

As for clipping: It definitively needs to be clipped at both ends -70 dB should be mapped to linear gain of 0. I’ll update the dB unit in the gain dataspace for this. I guess that we should also alter the function for midigain so that midi range 0 127 maps the same range, but with a slightly “bent” curve.

The sole question here is if everyone can live with -70 dB, or if someone feels that the lower limit should be at -96 dB. Below is a simple patch that mimics linear dB fadein and fadeout with the lower threshold set to -70, -96, -120 and -144 dB. Please give it a good listening to see what fade ins and outs work the best for you. Personally, when listening through headphones at full volume, I can still hear a little bit of sound leaking through at -70 db. That might be an argument for setting the lower limit to -96 dB. As for -120 and -144 dB, I find that the sound stays silent for too long during fade in or out.

And what about those cases where one need more than +6 dB gain? In these situations I’d say that it would make sense to apply gain adjustments prior (or other kinds of dynamic corrections such as limiting or compressing) earlier in the signal chain. Out gain levels should be attuned to signals that are expected to be reasonably hot.

Best,
Trond



<pre><code>
----------begin_max5_patcher----------
1715.3ocyZ0rbihCD9rySgKNtUlTR7mMyscOruDaskKAH6nIXDKHxjLSM4Ye
0uX.CNDrvSNDrsjPp+95Vs5tU94cqbhoufqbV+00+y5Uq94cqVIaRzvJ8uW4
bD8RRFpRNLmD5wi3bly8p9X3WXx1+Bz2ec5eYZOu9HslkgYx2Bnash8ZFVNb
y3hqiiyvUjTYyt5VKPrjGI4G1UhSXJoaCv8Av8qChjOCDO83ee8+peERpbdo
we6K9fVRAI2HDvNKorEQC+5t6DOt+pwuKXIweHD7PvzvuWzuC7GEtjvO.t4j
52e6Eg+1KB+hRbEG.HFgl2YATSJP7z7nY5WHNayhZx360xj4c3rMKnISQF50
LRE6sgQZvnHc.L4IgAzU5L.F.L5rFPolX1qEX0K3TQNjixbte3uI9KkjHLFP
ku5LH2DbQtIEwPZvqQ+JmjLRQiW0Vcv6ZOICmiNp.ZZcZ8SOfH60qfY.OQxU
qOpNkPEszZ.YTZQKAPtdzbF2.aWE2rFaDl1KKmcypKYjiZVoEiozWzTCeEip
HINc5cOs7HJWqAf8dUZI4.gylbXcf8Xyzy4UFI4optyjPBpXkXtdUOxNcKWa
VcNWmqMg86NfBB+MSnkBCBtJan4PNjpGI6mj7drZXBQC4KuT+WMJivdcbhyr
VL7wBpVbbOeoxxne+PFMty.6gJ9dngZup.iSaATSOxsnpunaT0hk7b82nT7Z
R9G000PmqGIcrCAghOhjGr4FNhWJuKtSbOeWPE4GJ+T9O.trC+lE16F5wWxa
bpxhD21sSf3bmCwccT.eidE5.9LJfKlxXE8A.vvz.7iPCgQxC4fQRM3FIYHN
cX7CDFzIu6vG.5dYanPN4eZwOYCYa5hGZoknqfHYz.WMcscNzUf1jcgoKdjn
1hs.AsMtfykshlEaw8LcCLt1XMaKeXGaq4xVdf4vV9PqYaki+NWNNirJr.EA
iBE5TWUfqty1fJbPJBzdgwk8iJUDG4y3xJczLl3GcPEEsZtSfibh4aT4Ds49
llH4pl.MMUhelXd+vlVQkb3y3XutTQLuD56bZZ3gbVlWSZNeQphtyLgFF6j5
LzGnRjoc.TNw7.mRdRECjQfbnEXdLjssT5zcJdOpNisqy4dtOLX+6QI3Qe4l
.4+yRhHeB8PNTRRo4BgnCOKZ1rbbSg.UJLsAibD4nhAdYtZmyIizoHt+5pXT
oPMnOy10zIiRy51Uy6kg2yzcWPxy6whLZw3cxir8wK7twTdmGuzbK6oZWctp
2c7se7DXPO2ksY7.006G6N8ufxIG4Y6XxowEzzIO+JNPerJojGYcG7p544A5
IkaAmf+NIUkBCnsw.e3jBiQjSiVNkbfmKS21XnCUca4L2B7lpi06P2Ih2OSm
y1oAzonbcSe7jmqd42cA+8mWnt1cLn2rQD8QOlTZJuQ592KnuSs2wwVemavv
dhWqy.FH8l6mIG0wKeWJpBmsFNNG4dEbjp9EdgSiihQ7Dgu+Rbk2uatJspPV
0g2Fmu7uB9Bnb86MM9hHR4Zsy9LJR9E8uEeLJC5NJCBsHCpD0w4Hv74H2P3o
JW50u5BsiZHXbn1pCStqRAXv5Izb7AIeL+TRoUz+HUihVWlXzZF0PuRavc7x
H4nSEeowhu2.ejjlhy6yhojJgyd0wNSRS9gkYuoJygedj4vIJyBiEqHyMkex
DmL+H9zcpvY1gXrRRbMSYF0NX0OzwtphmoOTsInrKcF7oCpmewwFKqpVmvdM
4J35qcAtY3iUmZtB9CmNkkArvXwxkzQA74WiB24k0s5FF.9KVV2h54XQ5xTR
mqktfWSZ2fkqHEeIJzlrktjNZ1Z1YfOqhT344qXK3UyVUI7r.e6iVG4Rd.kZ
bI1zJElVXeHuPpZ14EAUwuBZ9XHZAt0ZNav+HEk7lEJTNzWF8nevF0GlmCJ+
aVdmkar4leSM2tRyYHvZ3djpmIhQYDso6LNUTWAsySj5RW.rLcpgf+1kF8ow
LJ5M6ETfaT3oK0eRveHXOxk9aOX+G1.x58udp+OFbijEPctP98CFR9VcSsQw
.8C0VyCmEhsWmHmGI7Z+Ni4rHqOOp5yTHSUbD2r06JNaeGw4HIsfxSitx7Oi
kxJT8OXhquRmH90o0wd.Xq8APHXaiHu7.Hx9.HPU93aC.D2HisAfu6sTCDZA
.XQww+yk33tXdHfApJ2oTuxesDpW3h4g3FA.vh4g31.fo3hFd6rnmx9KQn9q
getDmaC6.WN24edr1tcz4lIFt2br0TAi16B5EBRuKlu2kxe9ExO9kw2+h34q
7ut6+AzNJV5H
-----------end_max5_patcher-----------
</code></pre>



> On 24 Aug 2015, at 15:45, Pascal Baltazar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> Le 22 août 2015 à 20:01, Trond Lossius <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>> my vote would go for a range from -70 to +6 dB.
>
> That sounds like a reasonable choice.
> Though, you didn’t mention the clipmode: should it be high or none ?
> I see pros and cons for both (e.g. not clipping on the top could be quite dangerous…)
> I don’t see why gain should be clipped at the bottom end… and I'd rather not clip it at all, actually…
> what do you think ?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Jamoma-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Pascal Baltazar-5
In reply to this post by Trond Lossius
Hi !

I just listened, and IMO -70dB is not enough… I still hear the melody of your example quite distinctly, which is not the case at -96dB
I understand that the ramp is a liiiiitle long, but that seems quite OK compared to lower values (for which it’s quite long).. and it can always be compensated for by some easing function, can it not ?

so my vote would go fo -96dB

BTW, what’s the problem of not clipping the value to the bottom end ? I don’t see why it should be clipped there (but maybe I’m missing some point…)
that doesn’t seem to change anything regarding conversion to linear (what would be the converted value for 0., BTW ? would it stay -144.49, like when using j.unit ?) or midigain (we can always use negative numbers… why not ?), does it ?

Pascal Baltazar
[hidden email]
http://www.baltazars.org

> Le 24 août 2015 à 16:51, Trond Lossius <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> Thanks a lot, Theo!
>
> As for clipping: It definitively needs to be clipped at both ends -70 dB should be mapped to linear gain of 0. I’ll update the dB unit in the gain dataspace for this. I guess that we should also alter the function for midigain so that midi range 0 127 maps the same range, but with a slightly “bent” curve.
>
> The sole question here is if everyone can live with -70 dB, or if someone feels that the lower limit should be at -96 dB. Below is a simple patch that mimics linear dB fadein and fadeout with the lower threshold set to -70, -96, -120 and -144 dB. Please give it a good listening to see what fade ins and outs work the best for you. Personally, when listening through headphones at full volume, I can still hear a little bit of sound leaking through at -70 db. That might be an argument for setting the lower limit to -96 dB. As for -120 and -144 dB, I find that the sound stays silent for too long during fade in or out.
>
> And what about those cases where one need more than +6 dB gain? In these situations I’d say that it would make sense to apply gain adjustments prior (or other kinds of dynamic corrections such as limiting or compressing) earlier in the signal chain. Out gain levels should be attuned to signals that are expected to be reasonably hot.
>
> Best,
> Trond
>
>
>
> <pre><code>
> ----------begin_max5_patcher----------
> 1715.3ocyZ0rbihCD9rySgKNtUlTR7mMyscOruDaskKAH6nIXDKHxjLSM4Ye
> 0uX.CNDrvSNDrsjPp+95Vs5tU94cqbhoufqbV+00+y5Uq94cqVIaRzvJ8uW4
> bD8RRFpRNLmD5wi3bly8p9X3WXx1+Bz2ec5eYZOu9HslkgYx2Bnash8ZFVNb
> y3hqiiyvUjTYyt5VKPrjGI4G1UhSXJoaCv8Av8qChjOCDO83ee8+peERpbdo
> we6K9fVRAI2HDvNKorEQC+5t6DOt+pwuKXIweHD7PvzvuWzuC7GEtjvO.t4j
> 52e6Eg+1KB+hRbEG.HFgl2YATSJP7z7nY5WHNayhZx360xj4c3rMKnISQF50
> LRE6sgQZvnHc.L4IgAzU5L.F.L5rFPolX1qEX0K3TQNjixbte3uI9KkjHLFP
> ku5LH2DbQtIEwPZvqQ+JmjLRQiW0Vcv6ZOICmiNp.ZZcZ8SOfH60qfY.OQxU
> qOpNkPEszZ.YTZQKAPtdzbF2.aWE2rFaDl1KKmcypKYjiZVoEiozWzTCeEip
> HINc5cOs7HJWqAf8dUZI4.gylbXcf8Xyzy4UFI4optyjPBpXkXtdUOxNcKWa
> VcNWmqMg86NfBB+MSnkBCBtJan4PNjpGI6mj7drZXBQC4KuT+WMJivdcbhyr
> VL7wBpVbbOeoxxne+PFMty.6gJ9dngZup.iSaATSOxsnpunaT0hk7b82nT7Z
> R9G000PmqGIcrCAghOhjGr4FNhWJuKtSbOeWPE4GJ+T9O.trC+lE16F5wWxa
> bpxhD21sSf3bmCwccT.eidE5.9LJfKlxXE8A.vvz.7iPCgQxC4fQRM3FIYHN
> cX7CDFzIu6vG.5dYanPN4eZwOYCYa5hGZoknqfHYz.WMcscNzUf1jcgoKdjn
> 1hs.AsMtfykshlEaw8LcCLt1XMaKeXGaq4xVdf4vV9PqYaki+NWNNirJr.EA
> iBE5TWUfqty1fJbPJBzdgwk8iJUDG4y3xJczLl3GcPEEsZtSfibh4aT4Ds49
> llH4pl.MMUhelXd+vlVQkb3y3XutTQLuD56bZZ3gbVlWSZNeQphtyLgFF6j5
> LzGnRjoc.TNw7.mRdRECjQfbnEXdLjssT5zcJdOpNisqy4dtOLX+6QI3Qe4l
> .4+yRhHeB8PNTRRo4BgnCOKZ1rbbSg.UJLsAibD4nhAdYtZmyIizoHt+5pXT
> oPMnOy10zIiRy51Uy6kg2yzcWPxy6whLZw3cxir8wK7twTdmGuzbK6oZWctp
> 2c7se7DXPO2ksY7.006G6N8ufxIG4Y6XxowEzzIO+JNPerJojGYcG7p544A5
> IkaAmf+NIUkBCnsw.e3jBiQjSiVNkbfmKS21XnCUca4L2B7lpi06P2Ih2OSm
> y1oAzonbcSe7jmqd42cA+8mWnt1cLn2rQD8QOlTZJuQ592KnuSs2wwVemavv
> dhWqy.FH8l6mIG0wKeWJpBmsFNNG4dEbjp9EdgSiihQ7Dgu+Rbk2uatJspPV
> 0g2Fmu7uB9Bnb86MM9hHR4Zsy9LJR9E8uEeLJC5NJCBsHCpD0w4Hv74H2P3o
> JW50u5BsiZHXbn1pCStqRAXv5Izb7AIeL+TRoUz+HUihVWlXzZF0PuRavc7x
> H4nSEeowhu2.ejjlhy6yhojJgyd0wNSRS9gkYuoJygedj4vIJyBiEqHyMkex
> DmL+H9zcpvY1gXrRRbMSYF0NX0OzwtphmoOTsInrKcF7oCpmewwFKqpVmvdM
> 4J35qcAtY3iUmZtB9CmNkkArvXwxkzQA74WiB24k0s5FF.9KVV2h54XQ5xTR
> mqktfWSZ2fkqHEeIJzlrktjNZ1Z1YfOqhT344qXK3UyVUI7r.e6iVG4Rd.kZ
> bI1zJElVXeHuPpZ14EAUwuBZ9XHZAt0ZNav+HEk7lEJTNzWF8nevF0GlmCJ+
> aVdmkar4leSM2tRyYHvZ3djpmIhQYDso6LNUTWAsySj5RW.rLcpgf+1kF8ow
> LJ5M6ETfaT3oK0eRveHXOxk9aOX+G1.x58udp+OFbijEPctP98CFR9VcSsQw
> .8C0VyCmEhsWmHmGI7Z+Ni4rHqOOp5yTHSUbD2r06JNaeGw4HIsfxSitx7Oi
> kxJT8OXhquRmH90o0wd.Xq8APHXaiHu7.Hx9.HPU93aC.D2HisAfu6sTCDZA
> .XQww+yk33tXdHfApJ2oTuxesDpW3h4g3FA.vh4g31.fo3hFd6rnmx9KQn9q
> getDmaC6.WN24edr1tcz4lIFt2br0TAi16B5EBRuKlu2kxe9ExO9kw2+h34q
> 7ut6+AzNJV5H
> -----------end_max5_patcher-----------
> </code></pre>
>
>
>
>> On 24 Aug 2015, at 15:45, Pascal Baltazar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Le 22 août 2015 à 20:01, Trond Lossius <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>>
>>> my vote would go for a range from -70 to +6 dB.
>>
>> That sounds like a reasonable choice.
>> Though, you didn’t mention the clipmode: should it be high or none ?
>> I see pros and cons for both (e.g. not clipping on the top could be quite dangerous…)
>> I don’t see why gain should be clipped at the bottom end… and I'd rather not clip it at all, actually…
>> what do you think ?
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Jamoma-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Jamoma-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Pascal Baltazar-5
In reply to this post by tap
My impression is that we shouldn’t change the dataspace conversions, just use dB as a the default unit, and set [-70 0] as default range values
Which means, that if someone uses the linear unit in its remote, these values would then be converted to [0.000316 1.], and they could then could further below -70 dB

Or did I miss something ?
 
Pascal Baltazar
[hidden email]
http://www.baltazars.org

Le 24 août 2015 à 17:05, Timothy Place <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi -- trying to catch up after being out for the weekend.

This should definitively *not* be changed in the dataspace.  The dataspace needs to work in a predictable and accurate manner and this change will break that.  Imagine, for example, that the dataspace is used to interpret the results of a test that measure the noise floors of several wavetable oscillators.  Given a linear result we want to convert to db so we can make sense of it.  This is completely breaks under this scenario and there is no way for an outsider to know where (or why it will break here).


Tim


On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Trond Lossius <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks a lot, Theo!

As for clipping: It definitively needs to be clipped at both ends -70 dB should be mapped to linear gain of 0. I’ll update the dB unit in the gain dataspace for this. I guess that we should also alter the function for midigain so that midi range 0 127 maps the same range, but with a slightly “bent” curve.

The sole question here is if everyone can live with -70 dB, or if someone feels that the lower limit should be at -96 dB. Below is a simple patch that mimics linear dB fadein and fadeout with the lower threshold set to -70, -96, -120 and -144 dB. Please give it a good listening to see what fade ins and outs work the best for you. Personally, when listening through headphones at full volume, I can still hear a little bit of sound leaking through at -70 db. That might be an argument for setting the lower limit to -96 dB. As for -120 and -144 dB, I find that the sound stays silent for too long during fade in or out.

And what about those cases where one need more than +6 dB gain? In these situations I’d say that it would make sense to apply gain adjustments prior (or other kinds of dynamic corrections such as limiting or compressing) earlier in the signal chain. Out gain levels should be attuned to signals that are expected to be reasonably hot.

Best,
Trond



<pre><code>
----------begin_max5_patcher----------
1715.3ocyZ0rbihCD9rySgKNtUlTR7mMyscOruDaskKAH6nIXDKHxjLSM4Ye
0uX.CNDrvSNDrsjPp+95Vs5tU94cqbhoufqbV+00+y5Uq94cqVIaRzvJ8uW4
bD8RRFpRNLmD5wi3bly8p9X3WXx1+Bz2ec5eYZOu9HslkgYx2Bnash8ZFVNb
y3hqiiyvUjTYyt5VKPrjGI4G1UhSXJoaCv8Av8qChjOCDO83ee8+peERpbdo
we6K9fVRAI2HDvNKorEQC+5t6DOt+pwuKXIweHD7PvzvuWzuC7GEtjvO.t4j
52e6Eg+1KB+hRbEG.HFgl2YATSJP7z7nY5WHNayhZx360xj4c3rMKnISQF50
LRE6sgQZvnHc.L4IgAzU5L.F.L5rFPolX1qEX0K3TQNjixbte3uI9KkjHLFP
ku5LH2DbQtIEwPZvqQ+JmjLRQiW0Vcv6ZOICmiNp.ZZcZ8SOfH60qfY.OQxU
qOpNkPEszZ.YTZQKAPtdzbF2.aWE2rFaDl1KKmcypKYjiZVoEiozWzTCeEip
HINc5cOs7HJWqAf8dUZI4.gylbXcf8Xyzy4UFI4optyjPBpXkXtdUOxNcKWa
VcNWmqMg86NfBB+MSnkBCBtJan4PNjpGI6mj7drZXBQC4KuT+WMJivdcbhyr
VL7wBpVbbOeoxxne+PFMty.6gJ9dngZup.iSaATSOxsnpunaT0hk7b82nT7Z
R9G000PmqGIcrCAghOhjGr4FNhWJuKtSbOeWPE4GJ+T9O.trC+lE16F5wWxa
bpxhD21sSf3bmCwccT.eidE5.9LJfKlxXE8A.vvz.7iPCgQxC4fQRM3FIYHN
cX7CDFzIu6vG.5dYanPN4eZwOYCYa5hGZoknqfHYz.WMcscNzUf1jcgoKdjn
1hs.AsMtfykshlEaw8LcCLt1XMaKeXGaq4xVdf4vV9PqYaki+NWNNirJr.EA
iBE5TWUfqty1fJbPJBzdgwk8iJUDG4y3xJczLl3GcPEEsZtSfibh4aT4Ds49
llH4pl.MMUhelXd+vlVQkb3y3XutTQLuD56bZZ3gbVlWSZNeQphtyLgFF6j5
LzGnRjoc.TNw7.mRdRECjQfbnEXdLjssT5zcJdOpNisqy4dtOLX+6QI3Qe4l
.4+yRhHeB8PNTRRo4BgnCOKZ1rbbSg.UJLsAibD4nhAdYtZmyIizoHt+5pXT
oPMnOy10zIiRy51Uy6kg2yzcWPxy6whLZw3cxir8wK7twTdmGuzbK6oZWctp
2c7se7DXPO2ksY7.006G6N8ufxIG4Y6XxowEzzIO+JNPerJojGYcG7p544A5
IkaAmf+NIUkBCnsw.e3jBiQjSiVNkbfmKS21XnCUca4L2B7lpi06P2Ih2OSm
y1oAzonbcSe7jmqd42cA+8mWnt1cLn2rQD8QOlTZJuQ592KnuSs2wwVemavv
dhWqy.FH8l6mIG0wKeWJpBmsFNNG4dEbjp9EdgSiihQ7Dgu+Rbk2uatJspPV
0g2Fmu7uB9Bnb86MM9hHR4Zsy9LJR9E8uEeLJC5NJCBsHCpD0w4Hv74H2P3o
JW50u5BsiZHXbn1pCStqRAXv5Izb7AIeL+TRoUz+HUihVWlXzZF0PuRavc7x
H4nSEeowhu2.ejjlhy6yhojJgyd0wNSRS9gkYuoJygedj4vIJyBiEqHyMkex
DmL+H9zcpvY1gXrRRbMSYF0NX0OzwtphmoOTsInrKcF7oCpmewwFKqpVmvdM
4J35qcAtY3iUmZtB9CmNkkArvXwxkzQA74WiB24k0s5FF.9KVV2h54XQ5xTR
mqktfWSZ2fkqHEeIJzlrktjNZ1Z1YfOqhT344qXK3UyVUI7r.e6iVG4Rd.kZ
bI1zJElVXeHuPpZ14EAUwuBZ9XHZAt0ZNav+HEk7lEJTNzWF8nevF0GlmCJ+
aVdmkar4leSM2tRyYHvZ3djpmIhQYDso6LNUTWAsySj5RW.rLcpgf+1kF8ow
LJ5M6ETfaT3oK0eRveHXOxk9aOX+G1.x58udp+OFbijEPctP98CFR9VcSsQw
.8C0VyCmEhsWmHmGI7Z+Ni4rHqOOp5yTHSUbD2r06JNaeGw4HIsfxSitx7Oi
kxJT8OXhquRmH90o0wd.Xq8APHXaiHu7.Hx9.HPU93aC.D2HisAfu6sTCDZA
.XQww+yk33tXdHfApJ2oTuxesDpW3h4g3FA.vh4g31.fo3hFd6rnmx9KQn9q
getDmaC6.WN24edr1tcz4lIFt2br0TAi16B5EBRuKlu2kxe9ExO9kw2+h34q
7ut6+AzNJV5H
-----------end_max5_patcher-----------
</code></pre>



> On 24 Aug 2015, at 15:45, Pascal Baltazar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> Le 22 août 2015 à 20:01, Trond Lossius <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>> my vote would go for a range from -70 to +6 dB.
>
> That sounds like a reasonable choice.
> Though, you didn’t mention the clipmode: should it be high or none ?
> I see pros and cons for both (e.g. not clipping on the top could be quite dangerous…)
> I don’t see why gain should be clipped at the bottom end… and I'd rather not clip it at all, actually…
> what do you think ?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Jamoma-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Trond Lossius
Administrator
In reply to this post by tap
Hi,


> On 24 Aug 2015, at 17:05, Timothy Place <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> This should definitively *not* be changed in the dataspace.  The dataspace needs to work in a predictable and accurate manner and this change will break that.  Imagine, for example, that the dataspace is used to interpret the results of a test that measure the noise floors of several wavetable oscillators.  Given a linear result we want to convert to db so we can make sense of it.  This is completely breaks under this scenario and there is no way for an outsider to know where (or why it will break here).

For the above example I would not bother to use a dataspace. I believe we also have functions for converting linear to dB and vice versa (if not we should) and in this situation I would just use these functions. There is no need to instantiate a class just to do those concessions in unit tests.

Based on my extensive experience with using dataspaces with ramps it is absolutely critical that the dB dataspace unit is implemented with a lower threshold that gets mapped to 0.000 linear. In 0.5.7 it was a common scenario to do the following in cue scripts:

        /foo/audio/gain 0. linear
        /foo/audio/gain 0. db ramp 5000

When starting the ramp, the current value gets mapped to dB as -INF, and blows audio up in all of the patch. provided that there is some feedback mechanism further down in the patch (e.g. feedback delays or filters) I have to close and reopen the patch in order to continue working. Additionally Max (at least up through version 6) does not do proper testing for -INF sample values being output, and as a consequence I have been very close to blow up and destroy speakers at numerous occasions.

Many months ago I therefore changed the dB unit of the dataspace so that the dB range can not go below -144.49 dB (24 bit range). This lower limit need to be upped to the lower limit that we now settle for (-96 or -70 dB).

From a mathematical/engineering point of view I understand the wish to keep maths “clean”, but we have to keep in mind that the dataspace lib is first and foremost a service used as part of the node structure. As such user interaction design concerns trumps maths. Having implemented dataspace+ramp first for 0.5.7 and then again for 0.6 I am pretty confident that I have used this feature way more than anyone else involved with the development. Please trust me when I say that not having this range limit in Jamoma 0.5.7 is by far the ugliest bug left in Jamoma 0.5.7. When it explodes, you risk damages to ears and speakers. The design we are moving towards now is the same as in Live, and this is definitively something that Live has gotten right.

Best,
Trond


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Trond Lossius
Administrator
In reply to this post by Pascal Baltazar-5
Hi,


> On 24 Aug 2015, at 17:15, Pascal Baltazar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> My impression is that we shouldn’t change the dataspace conversions, just use dB as a the default unit, and set [-70 0] as default range values
> Which means, that if someone uses the linear unit in its remote, these values would then be converted to [0.000316 1.], and they could then could further below -70 dB
>
> Or did I miss something ?

Yes, we need to protect ourselves against -INF when combining ramp + dataspace, as I just detailed in another reply. The lower limit is definite, and I believe that the upper should be as well.

Best,
Trond


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Trond Lossius
Administrator
In reply to this post by Pascal Baltazar-5
Hi,


> On 24 Aug 2015, at 17:11, Pascal Baltazar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> so my vote would go fo -96dB

If you consider this important, I am fine with it. One question though: would it then make sense to go to -100, so that we have a “nicer” numerical range?

Best,
Trond
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Pascal Baltazar-5
Well, -96dB sounds maybe more standard… but I don’t really have a preference, so it’s up to you

> Le 24 août 2015 à 19:56, Trond Lossius <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
>
>> On 24 Aug 2015, at 17:11, Pascal Baltazar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> so my vote would go fo -96dB
>
> If you consider this important, I am fine with it. One question though: would it then make sense to go to -100, so that we have a “nicer” numerical range?
>
> Best,
> Trond
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Jamoma-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Pascal Baltazar-5
In reply to this post by Trond Lossius
>
>> On 24 Aug 2015, at 17:15, Pascal Baltazar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> My impression is that we shouldn’t change the dataspace conversions, just use dB as a the default unit, and set [-70 0] as default range values
>> Which means, that if someone uses the linear unit in its remote, these values would then be converted to [0.000316 1.], and they could then could further below -70 dB
>>
>> Or did I miss something ?
>
> Yes, we need to protect ourselves against -INF when combining ramp + dataspace, as I just detailed in another reply. The lower limit is definite, and I believe that the upper should be as well.

Yep, just read it… makes sense…

But then, what would you convert linear 0. to ?
The equivalent of -96dB, right ?

If yes, then I think it definitely has some incidences on dataspace management, because, as I said in the example I gave, one could use a different unit in j.remoten, and thus use its embedded dataspace conversion

Hope this helps (and I don’t miss another point ;-))

Cheers !

p


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Théo de la Hogue-2
Hi,
I’ve changed the lower range to -96

Best
TO

> Le 24 août 2015 à 20:24, Pascal Baltazar <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
>>
>>> On 24 Aug 2015, at 17:15, Pascal Baltazar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> My impression is that we shouldn’t change the dataspace conversions, just use dB as a the default unit, and set [-70 0] as default range values
>>> Which means, that if someone uses the linear unit in its remote, these values would then be converted to [0.000316 1.], and they could then could further below -70 dB
>>>
>>> Or did I miss something ?
>>
>> Yes, we need to protect ourselves against -INF when combining ramp + dataspace, as I just detailed in another reply. The lower limit is definite, and I believe that the upper should be as well.
>
> Yep, just read it… makes sense…
>
> But then, what would you convert linear 0. to ?
> The equivalent of -96dB, right ?
>
> If yes, then I think it definitely has some incidences on dataspace management, because, as I said in the example I gave, one could use a different unit in j.remoten, and thus use its embedded dataspace conversion
>
> Hope this helps (and I don’t miss another point ;-))
>
> Cheers !
>
> p
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Jamoma-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Mathieu CHAMAGNE
Hi 

sorry if I arrive a bit late in this discussion...
I guess that it's like in politic (at least in france) : the major decision are always voted during the summer holidays :-)

audio/gain
when it was expressed in midi units (midi gain) : setting it to 0 means : signal muted (* 0.)
but now, if it is in db unit, and clipped to -70db (or -96) : does it mean that signal cannot be really completely muted when audio/gain is set to lowest value ??
(-96db =  0.000016 linear)
even if we don't really ear it in most situations, .. it's not 0. !
If the signal is not music, but for example a modulation signal for a synth... it really makes a difference... 

about range & clipping
high range : I was very happy to be able to boost signal up to +10db with midi gain set to max value... so please don't lower it to +6db !
and I can't see any reason to clip it ! if for some reason I need to add +20 db, it's really cool to be able to do it without modifying the patch or adding a model ! (even if the ui slider is clipped to 6 or 10 db, I should be able to edit the value manually).


Mathieu


________________
Mathieu Chamagne
[hidden email]
http://mathieuchamagne.com

2015-08-25 10:13 GMT+02:00 Théo de la Hogue <[hidden email]>:
Hi,
I’ve changed the lower range to -96

Best
TO

> Le 24 août 2015 à 20:24, Pascal Baltazar <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
>>
>>> On 24 Aug 2015, at 17:15, Pascal Baltazar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> My impression is that we shouldn’t change the dataspace conversions, just use dB as a the default unit, and set [-70 0] as default range values
>>> Which means, that if someone uses the linear unit in its remote, these values would then be converted to [0.000316 1.], and they could then could further below -70 dB
>>>
>>> Or did I miss something ?
>>
>> Yes, we need to protect ourselves against -INF when combining ramp + dataspace, as I just detailed in another reply. The lower limit is definite, and I believe that the upper should be as well.
>
> Yep, just read it… makes sense…
>
> But then, what would you convert linear 0. to ?
> The equivalent of -96dB, right ?
>
> If yes, then I think it definitely has some incidences on dataspace management, because, as I said in the example I gave, one could use a different unit in j.remoten, and thus use its embedded dataspace conversion
>
> Hope this helps (and I don’t miss another point ;-))
>
> Cheers !
>
> p
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Jamoma-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor Your Dynamic Infrastructure at Any Scale With Datadog!
Get real-time metrics from all of your servers, apps and tools
in one place.
SourceForge users - Click here to start your Free Trial of Datadog now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=241902991&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: audio/gain parameters need to be @unit dB and @range -70 6

Diemo Schwarz

Mathieu's concerns were also at the back of my head, alongside this proposal:

In a slider, or via fixed-range integer-based mapping (0..100 or MIDI), the
conversion to dB could be non-linear, in that going from 0 to 1 input, the
output makes a step from -inf dB (amplitude 0) to -96 dB, and then the usual
mapping.

If you look closely, all the real-world software does it like that: if you hit
the bottom of a fader, it goes to -inf dB.

Best...
                                                                ...Diemo

On 02/09/15 09:36, Mathieu CHAMAGNE wrote:

> Hi
>
> sorry if I arrive a bit late in this discussion...
> I guess that it's like in politic (at least in france) : the major decision are
> always voted during the summer holidays :-)
>
> audio/gain
> when it was expressed in midi units (midi gain) : setting it to 0 means : signal
> muted (* 0.)
> but now, if it is in db unit, and clipped to -70db (or -96) : does it mean that
> signal cannot be really completely muted when audio/gain is set to lowest value ??
> (-96db =  0.000016 linear)
> even if we don't really ear it in most situations, .. it's not 0. !
> If the signal is not music, but for example a modulation signal for a synth...
> it really makes a difference...
>
> about range & clipping
> high range : I was very happy to be able to boost signal up to +10db with midi
> gain set to max value... so please don't lower it to +6db !
> and I can't see any reason to clip it ! if for some reason I need to add +20 db,
> it's really cool to be able to do it without modifying the patch or adding a
> model ! (even if the ui slider is clipped to 6 or 10 db, I should be able to
> edit the value manually).
>
>
> Mathieu
>
>
> ________________
> Mathieu Chamagne
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> http://mathieuchamagne.com
>
> 2015-08-25 10:13 GMT+02:00 Théo de la Hogue <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>
>     Hi,
>     I’ve changed the lower range to -96
>
>     Best
>     TO
>
>      > Le 24 août 2015 à 20:24, Pascal Baltazar <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>      >
>      >>
>      >>> On 24 Aug 2015, at 17:15, Pascal Baltazar <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>      >>>
>      >>> My impression is that we shouldn’t change the dataspace conversions,
>     just use dB as a the default unit, and set [-70 0] as default range values
>      >>> Which means, that if someone uses the linear unit in its remote, these
>     values would then be converted to [0.000316 1.], and they could then could
>     further below -70 dB
>      >>>
>      >>> Or did I miss something ?
>      >>
>      >> Yes, we need to protect ourselves against -INF when combining ramp +
>     dataspace, as I just detailed in another reply. The lower limit is definite,
>     and I believe that the upper should be as well.
>      >
>      > Yep, just read it… makes sense…
>      >
>      > But then, what would you convert linear 0. to ?
>      > The equivalent of -96dB, right ?
>      >
>      > If yes, then I think it definitely has some incidences on dataspace
>     management, because, as I said in the example I gave, one could use a
>     different unit in j.remoten, and thus use its embedded dataspace conversion
>      >
>      > Hope this helps (and I don’t miss another point ;-))
>      >
>      > Cheers !
>      >
>      > p


--
Diemo Schwarz, PhD -- http://diemo.concatenative.net
Sound–Music–Movement Interaction Team -- http://ismm.ircam.fr
IRCAM - Centre Pompidou -- 1, place Igor-Stravinsky, 75004 Paris, France
Phone +33-1-4478-4879 -- Fax +33-1-4478-1540

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor Your Dynamic Infrastructure at Any Scale With Datadog!
Get real-time metrics from all of your servers, apps and tools
in one place.
SourceForge users - Click here to start your Free Trial of Datadog now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=241902991&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
Jamoma-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jamoma-devel
123
Loading...