I hope the new GUI enables users to do everything the processor can do. As I mentioned on the other topic, please consider having several levels of adjustment visibility. Those who have pro version should be able access all adjustments. One person's unnecessary feature may be the reason another person purchased the software.
The comment about the need for adjustable low pass filtering frequency on FM processing mode made me smile, because no doubt people have used an FM processor on AM to see how the pre-emphasis limiting sounded on AM. The problem was the need to apply 10 kHz filtering afterward to meet the USA FCC mask. Indeed, the adjustable low pass filter may be needed by someone, even in FM mode.
Additionally, I have not found anything in Stereo Tool documentation indicating where in the processing chain AM or FM pre-emphasis is introduced, and if it is introduced in multiple stages. Big difference between pre-emphasis before final HF clipper, or pre-emphasis before a multiband stage that precedes the HF clipper. Or if pre-emphasis is introduced on a side chain with a parallel processor.
Scalable GUI is clearly a great idea. Does version 10 have adjustable maximum gain reduction meter scale on the compressors? For example, if I only use 3 to 5 dB GR on a the wideband, why do I need a meter that shows 25 dB of GR? The 9.92 software GUI does not have features like that. Such as scalable oscilloscope display gain with a graduated scale on the scope, like the EQs. With 9.92 I notice the scope appears to be syncing at about 60 Hz. That is fine, except when testing with tones to see exactly when clipping or GR process sets in. How about adjustable sync or trigger to input tone.
So far, I get the impression much of the ongoing work on Stereo Tool is changing the GUI and digital housekeeping. Any thoughts about the audio processing itself?
For example, I don't see any pure parallel processing. Auto EQ appears to be similar to it, but not the same thing. Can you provide the ability for a user to move processing stages around and connect them like a block diagram in order to change the architecture of the processing? Provide several unity gain blocks and summing mixer blocks and now we are all set to work with the existing processing stages/blocks, in the desired architecture.
My present application for Stereo Tool requires parametric EQ on the front end to attempt to balance a spectral imbalance in incoming audio. I don't like adjusting Auto EQ to do a fixed program EQ. If I don't need the existing parametric equalizer elsewhere, would be nice to place the equalizer in front of the Auto EQ. This or another configuration could be implemented with the block diagram architecture approach. Speaking of EQ, users may make a distinction between high and low pass filtering on the input, the output, or both the input and output. 9.92 has no apparent way to implement adjustable low pass filtering on the input. Obviously, we don't want GR or clipping on frequencies that will not be present after the output high and low pass filtering.
Please find a way to make the GUI usable for all users, basic to full-tweaker. Don't take out any adjustments.
I think one issue with the GUI may be the obtuse descriptions of control function. For example, the Knee control. User cannot subtly isolate that processor stage on the air and must try it out on another instance of Stereo Tool that is not on the air. It may be necessary to test it with tones to see the effect of the Knee control, which involves muting other bands in the multiband compressor. What a pain. Would be much more to the point to label Knee control soft to hard (knee), with the numerical scale showing how many dB above onset of compression before the set compression ratio is achieved. It may very well be the knee control numerical values already mean exactly that, but you don't say so. A knee setting that could have been completed intuitively in a second turns into an ordeal by forcing a user to go through a long process of verification. Interestingly, there are applications where a 32 dB knee (above onset of compression) is desired.
When testing, it seems like compression ratios are pretty mushy. I set for 5 to 1 and measure something lower, like 2.5 to 1. There may be another control setting that makes the compression ratios match the indicated values. Again, keep that other control in there, but disclose its effect on the actual compression ratio. I am counting on the processor to do what it says it is doing. Don't want to find out that a 10 to 2 multiband has actually been doing 10 to 4.
Another example- in the wideband, if indicated release time is accurate only at a specific setting of Rel Release, you should say that. Don't you agree that most people see release as time to return to onset of GR, not another level? The Rel Release is an excellent adjustment that should be left in, but please just be a bit clearer about the function. If I set release at 150 milliseconds, I don't want to be ambushed by another control that actually made it 40 milliseconds.
Sorry to go on about this. It is a great processor. You don't need to dumb down the GUI. You just need more specific descriptions of the actual processing function parameter on the GUI controls or pop-up descriptions.
I like Stereo Tool very much. Thank you for developing it.