DSP Robotics Support

Added auto makeup now too, and the makings of a method that provides a fairly efficient way of figuring out the db meters for each section fo the crossover, I call the method float summing. I avoid the need to calculate linear to db multiple times, and instead you only need to gauge it once and then that result is calculated for each band by percentile.

There's less "precise" ways to show gain however, per band that make more sense to beginners and those at an intermediate level, like in the case of bassy tracks of course, but Myself; I prefer a totally accurate meter. Even if it's for the sake of someone using a slightly dodgy naive filter lol . I've always wanted to use less mono to float however. At least with 0-1 ratios there's less art to it and I can use the 8 signal graph primitive (for the 6 signals), and only require 1 sample and then an array split which multiplies the total dBFS by the 0-1 percentile.

I hope this example is useful to those who are wanting to create something realistic sounding. Maybe you can make something scientific and something that is a re-creation of hardware. But they're useless, it's better to use naive for such things, if you produce - it's too cumbersome using a tube smooth eq device that takes up 25% CPU. Totally useless, but they sound nice. Sometimes science needs to take a back seat so that the realists can drive.

[moderator comment]

wlangfor@uoguelph.ca wrote:I hope this example is useful...

wlangfor@uoguelph.ca wrote:...available as a download to subscribers of My youtube channel

So you're just click-baiting to generate traffic for the commercial interest that you claim to be "CEO" of, then? I remind you that this is against the forum rules. Either post the schematic for critique by other members or keep your comments about it to your own internet domains.

wlangfor@uoguelph.ca wrote:...so that the realists can drive

Are you trying to imply that you are a "realist"? It's not the first word that comes to mind, I must admit!

Eventually I'll see you in court over this. You would be smarter to apologize.

wlangfor@uoguelph.ca wrote:Eventually I'll see you in court over this. You would be smarter to apologize.

You are DSP-Robotron and I claim my five pounds.

"...court..."? - this is becoming absolutely tragi-comic.

wlangfor@uoguelph.ca wrote:Eventually I'll see you in court over this.

This is essentially a private members' club, and you agreed to the rules of your own free will when you signed up for an account. However, I look forward to your legal team arranging my extradition to Canada - it's somewhere I've always wanted to see, but I could never afford the extravagance!

wlangfor@uoguelph.ca wrote:You would be smarter to apologize.

Indeed, I should apologize. Sorry everyone for allowing otherwise useful threads to be spammed by wlangfor's spurious nonsense for so long. I promise it won't happen again.

Thank-you TROG

Yes, thank you, Trog!

Thanks from me too Trog . . I think most of us have been biting our tongues for quite some time!

Thanks for the support everyone. I must add that getting out the ban-hammer is never done without much pulling of hair behind the scenes - Spogg deserves as much thanks as I do!

As far as "sock-puppeting" etc. goes, we'd really prefer that folks don't speculate on the forums (just use the report button if you see something dodgy, that way the mods get an e-mail notification - it's the little "!" triangle button). To butcher the old movie disclaimer; "any similarity with persons living or dead may be entirely coincidental (or intended as a ruse)", and one should never forget Hanlon's Razor! More, I cannot say without betraying the mod-jitsu code!