[Ardour-Users] Automation from analog mix?

[Arnold Krille]

Hi,

On Friday 17 December 2010 17:21:00 David Kastrup wrote:
> Jörn Nettingsmeier <nettings at stackingdwarves.net> writes:
> > On 12/17/2010 02:43 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> I was wondering: if you are recording using a mixer (and using pre-fader
> >> recording outputs), wouldn't it be feasible to record the analog mix and
> >> use echo compensation techniques for figuring out the fader settings (if
> >> we are more ambitious, equalizer settings) and pull them into the
> >> automation?  That would allow one to use a good analog mixer (with all
> >> its nice controls) to do all the mixing hands-on, and still get output
> >> with the quality achievable by digital mixing.
> > you mean i would feed pink noise into each of my mixer channels,
> Nope, just the usual signals.
> > buy a 32ch a/d converter to get the tape outs,
> It's already there if you are recording the sources.

No, the 16 channel converter is already there to record the main signal 
directly after the pre-amps. You need another 16 channels for the signal after 
the fader to get all the information you want for automation of eq, gate, 
compressor and volume. Another 16 channels if you want pan/balance and another 
16 channels for each post-aux. And with all these channels you have to do 
rather complex calculations to get the controller-values from the different 
effects. Most probably this means a matrix of all these source (for one 
channel) feed into a fft or something more difficult. Times 16 or whatever number 
of channels you want to "automate".

And the result will be far from satisfactory!

> > devote two or three cpu cores to analyzing what i do to the pink noise
> > and mimick that using fader and eq automation? and all that to end up
> > with a control surface that doesn't have flying faders and requires
> > the pots to pass the current value before they lock?
> With a control surface that works 100% reliably for producing a live mix
> without delay or lockup or computer involvement, yes.

If you do a live-mix, the recording computer is there to record the audio, not 
the automation. You have to change all of the settings again for the cd-mix, 
so why bother with recording the live-mix-automation???

> > plus how would you know if i do the 800hz dent with the hi-mid or the
> > low-mid band?
> Why would it matter as long as I get a setting reproducing the effect?

Here is the next problem: Even if it works for lets say a mackie-mixer, the 
next mixer will have totally different set of properties and require new 
formulas to determine the automation.

> > i don't know... maybe for the select group of users who obtain ardour
> > by fax and ocr it back in.
> If one hasn't anything worthwhile to contribute, remaining silent is
> always an option.  It's not that one gets brownie points for
> newbie-bashing.

But newbies do not get bonus-points for bashing-back at rather respected 
members of the community. And Jörn didn't really contribute "nothing 
worthwhile", did he?

In short: The idea sounds interesting at first but looses all appeal on second 
and third thought. Its to complicated and will be to error-prone.
Not to mention that todays mixing consoles are digital and can record and 
automate everything without spending that amount of cpu-cycles.

Have fun,

Arnold
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-users-ardour.org/attachments/20101217/8d14b14d/attachment-0002.pgp>