Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Looper playback is attenuated #236

Open
grough opened this issue Jan 29, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Looper playback is attenuated #236

grough opened this issue Jan 29, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@grough
Copy link

grough commented Jan 29, 2024

Voxglitch Looper appears to apply a -20dB attenuation to any file it plays back. This may be done by design, but I find myself having to multiply Looper's output signal by 10 to achieve unity gain on playback.

Steps to reproduce:

  1. Using VCV Recorder, record a signal with an amplitude range of -10V..10V and save it to disk as test.wav
  2. Load the resulting test.wav file from disk into Voxglitch Looper
  3. Observe the amplitude range of Looper's playback is -1V..1V

In my view, a less surprising behavior would be for Looper to play the file back at the same amplitude at which it was recorded.

Backward compatibility aside, I think this change would result in playback at unity gain:

- outputs[AUDIO_OUTPUT_LEFT].setVoltage(left_audio * volume);
- outputs[AUDIO_OUTPUT_RIGHT].setVoltage(right_audio * volume);
+ outputs[AUDIO_OUTPUT_LEFT].setVoltage(left_audio * volume * 10.0);
+ outputs[AUDIO_OUTPUT_RIGHT].setVoltage(right_audio * volume * 10.0);

Thank you for reading and for your fantastic modules

@clone45
Copy link
Owner

clone45 commented Jan 29, 2024

This very likely to be a bug, and thank you so much for catching it. What I'll likely do is scale the output from -5v to +5v, but provide a few different range options in the context menu, as well as a "backward-compatible" range for -1.0 to +1.0. Sorry for the inconvenience! Please be patient as I'm going through a lot of changes to my codebase at the moment and it might take a little time to fix this. :-)

@grough
Copy link
Author

grough commented Jan 29, 2024

Sounds good to me :) It can easily be worked around by boosting the output, but the new options you mentioned would save a little patching if they were to be added. Thanks for your response

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants