Re: Has anyone ever used `echos` or `chorus`?
SoX NG <[email protected]> Fri, 7 Feb 2025 16:48:53 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.audio.sox |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Thanks to all for the input. I'll reply separately to the points in each. On 05/02/25 19:13, Doug Lee wrote: >> 2) It is exactly the same as "echo" with different (and more) parameters > I thought it differed from echo in that successive echos created by "echos" are included in what is fed into > the next echo in the effect. This would indeed mean that inputs to second and subsequent echos are replaced, > as part of the function of the effect. echos does this (you need fixed-width font here!) In--+--------+-------------------+-------------------->| | | | | * gain-in | | ____v___ _v_ ________ _v_ ________ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | delay1 | | + |-->| delay2 | | + |-->| delayN | | | |________| |___| |________| |___| |________| | | * gain-out | ^ | ^ | | + |------------> | | | | | | | Out | | | | +--------->| | | | | | * decay N | | | | +--------+-------------------->| | | | * decay 2 | | +--------+---------------------------------------->| | * decay 1 |___| So yes, delay2in is (delay1out + In) but the net result is that delay2out is (In delayed by delay2) + (In delayed by (delay1+delay2)) and these two are exactly equivalent: sox_ng --no-dither in.au out.au echos .5 .5 1000 .5 300 .5 sox_ng --no-dither in.au out.au echo .5 .5 1000 .5 300 .5 1300 .5 and so on for 3 delays etc. In fact, the test suite tests specifically that to test echo and echos against each other. (I say sox_ng, not sox, only because that's the only place it actually works!) If the echo-in-series effect is in fact what you need, it can be considered a syntactic shorthand, but I doubt that anyone ever needs specifically that. There's nothing like that in the DSP literature or in any other package that I know of. > Didn't know that either, but I do use the silence effect often, > and probably sometimes with unusual parameters - like durations of 0. The more I hear of the silence effect, the more problems I hear it has. I found out today that if you have audio that peaks midway at -1dB, to remove everything after (or before) that peak, you have to specify -3.95dB. -3.94 leave the entire recording intact. > my failure to weigh in before the "filter" effect was removed > because I subsequently tried to use the FM broadcast filter example out of the > manual only to find I didn't know how to replace that effect in the example. I didn't know about that; I wasn't following SoX in 2011. If it did something you needed it can probably be put back now though I haven't even looked at what it did yet. In general I am against removing stuff, or even making it work "better" because someone on the other side of the planet will have used what it does to create a piece of music or in a script or called from another program, and changing/removing stuff is a great way to break other people's work by remote control, without even knowing you're doing it. For example, there are compositions written in Csound in the 1980s that render bit-perfect with today's Csound the same as they did when they were written under MS/DOS. In my case, I wanted to test many different versions of SoX and had to sniff the version numbers and select -2 and -c 2 acording to how old it was. If they had kept honouring -2 as an alias, even undocumented, it would have made thing easier. Unfortunately there was a deprecation/removal frenzy some time before 14.4.2 so it's a bit late now, but I would avoid another one. M _______________________________________________ Sox-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users