[PD] Compressor in Pd

[Roman Haefeli]

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