On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 02:41:44PM +0300, Kai Vehmanen wrote:
> OTOH, I think both "-etd" and "-etm" are a bit too complicated and
> special-purpose for simple delay compenstation use. I did a quick
> benchmark of a few LADSPA delay lines, and many are much faster. I'd
> suggest using e.g. "delay_n" (from swh-plugins) or "delay_5s" (from
> ladspa-sdk). These are faster than any ecasound delay op, and are
> installed on most people's machines.
Thanks for pointing these plugins out: I had missed them, somehow, when
looking for a suitable delay. They are indeed faster by an order of
magnitude. Note that delay_5s isn't suitable because it truncates the
delay parameter to the first digit or IOW, it only takes an integer
number of seconds to delay by. You'll also be pleased to know that the
LV2 version of delay_n works just as well as the ladspa one.
Cheers,
S.M.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Ecasound-list mailing list Ecasound-list@email-addr-hidden https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ecasound-listReceived on Sun May 27 00:15:08 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 27 2012 - 00:15:08 EEST