does adminM@ have to do this too?If you want to argue against his idea, probably the way to do it would be to show those numbers are too high.
does adminM@ have to do this too?If you want to argue against his idea, probably the way to do it would be to show those numbers are too high.
If you want to argue against his idea, probably the way to do it would be to show those numbers are too high.
Almost every suggestion I make is exactly that - a prompt to discuss and refine something....+1 for the idea in general.
As for the specifics? Not sure, but, +1 to whatever the discussion-thread comes up with after everyone talks it over.
(Sometimes the best process is to start with an imperfect, "straw-man" version of an idea, and then use that to prompt discussion, out of which an optimal version of the idea will hopefully evolve.)
Yes. This.Simple for users.
Not necessarily simple to implement in full detail.
I suspect Matt jumped to the same conclusion Yek did. The OP is talking about collapsing input to mono at the entrance to the block, not stereo image processing within the block . You see the kind of a visual cue he's talking about in some modular audio apps, I'd even call it a common feature, so I don't understand the resistance to this idea. Yek is right though, it would have to be displayed in a way that doesn't add to the confusion.does adminM@ have to do this too?
And that is why you make the big $$$ and I have no clue how/why it all works!!!!!!!!!!!I'm against it. It's cluttered, and it could not be truly meaningful without a lot of work.
Too many effects have too many settings that make this potentially misleading. Quick cases in point:
Volume: What if left and right pans are centered?
Chorus, Flanger, etc.: What if spread is 0%?
Reverb: How do you show that the wet is made by summing the dry at the input?
etc. etc.