Re: Has anyone ever used `echos` or `chorus`?

On Feb 05 16:23:17, [email protected] wrote:
> `echos` is a bizarre effect that has never worked due to a bug
> that overwrote the input samples before using them).

Can you please point to the specific bug?

> 1) It's odd, not a classic effect and seems more like a coding enthusiasm
> than a useful effect
> 2) It is exactly the same as "echo" with different (and more) parameters

If I am reading the manual correctly, there is a difference
between echo and echos: in the echos effect, every subsequent
echo added by the effect takes as its input the signal *including*
all the previously added echos.

> I'm thinking of removing it as useless and distracting baggage.

I second the sentiment. SoX has _a_lot_ of ancient, useless baggage,
https://github.com/janstary/sox/commit/b0d93f3513977f39a11a3152acce4caaf86fabc7
- the least of which, I'm afraid, is rarely used sound effects.

> `chorus` has also never worked and has been fixed. Twice.
> 
> See the waveform images in comment
> 
> https://codeberg.org/sox_ng/sox_ng/issues/276#issuecomment-2581801
> 
> but it is not a chorus, which is the addition of delayed and detuned version
> of the same signal;
> 
> it is a simple flanger, of which we already have a much better one by Rob
> Sykes,
> 
> which can probably be parameterized to do the same as `chorus`,

How do the 'chorus' paramaters translate the the 'flanger' parameters?
In the commands given as examples in the manage for instance?

	Jan