On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 11:12 -0400, patrick wrote:
Roman
P.S.: @pdmtl guys It's plain wrong to have a wet/dry parameter for dynamic processing fx. It just doesn't make sense at all to have the compressor output mixed with the input signal (It not only doesn't make sense, it even adds strange phasing effects, if the the dynamic processor uses a look-ahead delay). Can we agree on that? And if not, can we discuss this, so that we finally can agree on that?
yes i do agree. for me it was important to have wet/dry for all fx, but of course it doesn't make sense for all fx.
there's mtl also available: http://puredata.info/Members/mtl/index_html
Hi Patrick
As Chris Clepper, Harris Pilton and others pointed out, there is a valid use for this implementation, which even has a name: parallel compression.
I was probably thinking too much inside the box: Effects, that 'add' something to a signal deserve a 'wet/dry' controller, whereas effects that only modify the signal shouldn't have one. In the case of the compressor, you cannot add more or less compression with a 'wet/dry' controller (which is why I defeated the usefulness of it), but when implemented properly (no phase shift between dry and wet signal) it modifies the type of compression, which can be useful.
So, I rephrase my initial question: Can we agree on keeping it in? ;-)
Roman