This thread is scoped to a difference I'm seeing between Calf Filter and Filter Stereo, the latter being part of the LSP Plugin suite. Realizing I may need to file an issue upstream, I wanted to post here first to see what can be learned.
In short, the data I'm capturing from Calf Filter makes perfect sense as the automation "node" shows a value of 4053.35 (for example).
Here are the exact steps I'm taking to accomplish the above:
- On the track's
Automationmenu, set theselectscope to the plugin'sFrequencynode. - Enable
Recordin the same menu (turns red). - Back on the track, enable
Record. - In the transport, enable
Record - Start playback
Now we're recording and I can see automation nodes appear as I manipulate the Frequency dial in the plugin. Cool. As mentioned above, the captured automation nodes represent the value of Hz. Very nice.
Following the exact steps with the other plugin being discussed, the captured automation data is not at all representative of the frequency but is just an abstract value between 0 and 1 (0.783053 to be exact).
Both automation menus have mode set to Logarithmic if that matters.
re. Different automation data captured between Calf vs. lsp-plug
hi,
what's the actual issue? different plugins, different parameters, different representation of a value and range being automated, and only meaningful to the plugin at hand and no other...
the Calf may represent the values in actual scale units (Hz) while the LSP might do it in normalized to the [0, 1] interval, in abstract units--usually 0 and 1 represent the minimum and maximum values of the scale range being modeled--in fact, this is the most common representation you may find in the world of plugins, for the vast majority of parameters, on most plugin types and genres,so, the Calf case here is kinda the exception :).
from my pov. it's all working as designed and to the spec.
cheers
Yea, makes sense. I'll ping…
Yea, makes sense. I'll ping upstream to see what I can learn as the end result is kinda unusable since it turns into a guessing game of sorts. Thanks for the insights.
Rui, you were correct to…
Rui, you were correct to suggest they're using the abstracted values of 0-1. They also don't appear to be interested in improving the end user experience. Figured I'd leave this here for future travelers.
My take-away here is I'll use the LSP bits to diagnose and "mess around" but when suitable, use the Calf equivalents once I know exactly what's needed for a given task. There are 2 reasons for this: First, the issue I mentioned in this thread as it relates to automation and the "readability" of the actual data being captured/represented and second, the Calf plugins appear to persist when copying/moving between tracks/buses whereas these (more interesting and fun to work with) LSP plugins tend to reinitialize themselves in odd ways. In short, the LSP bits are more powerful and easier to work with but the Calf bits lend themselves better when it comes to overall persistence and long-term health of the project.
The right tool(s) for the right job kinda thing.
Add new comment