View Single Post
Old 08-21-2012, 11:32 AM   #550
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diversgens View Post
[...] Has someone try the eq over OSC to confirm or deny this eventually bugs.
I had a look at the OSC specs for (Rea)EQ, but didn't like much about it. I had a quick test, was able to create and send stuff to ReaEQ, but was not able to receive anything back. Why are there even separate message patterns for different band types? And can we not change a band's type via OSC, like we can on the GUI? To me, it feels like a hack to work around missing *regular* 'band type' parameters. And why can't we add or remove bands either? And why does it not make a distinction between inserting a new instance or targeting an existing one, is it unable to remove an instance, target more than a single instance on a track?

Oh, and can you imagine the horror of adding hundreds of different OSC message patterns to support a handful of Cockos in-house effects? The OSC namespace is becoming a huge mess this way. :/

As far as I'm concerned, I vote to just start fixing ReaEQ's many issues before giving it any special treatment here. For example, fix the sloppy curve for its 'Log-scaled automated frequencies'. And *please* stop linking its gain parameters to the setting in Preferences > Appearance > VU Meters/Faders > Volume fader range, it doesn't make any sense. That setting is misleading at best, as it is doing things that are completely different from what it says, and it is *not* a matter of 'appearance' at all.
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote