[Ardour-Users] a few thoughts

[Thomas Vecchione]

By the way, one of my favorite things to do in Mixbus is to set up track
templates using the shortcut controls already existing in Mixbus, so that I
HAVE my favorite plugins already on a track as much as I need.  To be
honest I haven't used these as much lately more becuase I have gotten so
used to Harrison's DSP I haven't needed them much, but for instance setting
up a Gate on a track, with the shortcut controls set so I can adjust the
threshold and ratio (Already have the attack and release set) without ever
touching the plugin UI at all.

So a large portion of what you have described can already be accomplished,
you just can't make it as shiny as you want.

    Seablade


On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Thomas Vecchione <seablaede at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Adriano Petrosillo <
> ampetrosillo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It is still potentially "limiting", it's more of a theorical aspect
>> rather than a practical one: you still have to conform to Harrison's idea
>> of a console. What if I wanted 16 mix busses (I know, 8 is overkill
>> already, you can do most things with 4 busses, but why deny me the
>> opportunity)? Plus, I said I like the integrated approach, and I think it's
>> great to have integrated processors and FX to start from, but my pledge was
>> for more customisability, what if I wanted to make my own templates, using
>> PSP's VintageWarmer2 as a saturator instead of Harrison's DSP, for example?
>> I think this is an area where the potential openness of a project like
>> Ardour can chime in (although I can't wait for Mixbus to be ported to
>> Ardour 3...)
>>
>>
> Harrison Mixbus has 8 Mixbusses, but you can have any number of standard
> busses just like you can in Ardour.  The primary differences are that they
> use the smae DSP as the tracks, not the mixbusses(So no tape sat, a more
> defined EQ, etc.) and that there is no latency compensation just like in
> Ardour.
>
> Really it sounds like you haven't done enough research to be stating what
> you are stating.
>
>
>>
>>>
>> Tough, it still equates to forcing "another person's rapid workflow" on
>> the user, it's good as a starting point, I repeat (because it's very nice
>> to have something you can run and start mixing straight away with an
>> intuitive and powerful interface without having to mess with plugins and
>> having lots and lots of cumbersome plugin windows just to tweak a comp
>> ratio on one track while boosting mids on another and adjusting sends on
>> yet another), and I'm actually a prospective buyer of Mixbus, but it still
>> means having to conform to someone else's way of working. Acceptable (and
>> unavoidable) on hardware mixers, and also on DAWs up to a certain extent,
>> but one of the advantages of digital is actually not having THIS kind of
>> limitations. One thing is "standard number of mix busses at boot-up",
>> another is "up to 8 mix busses", it smells of "Lite Edition" software.
>>
>
> You have officially missed the point of Mixbus then, as Paul alluded to.
> The point is to allow an engineer to move faster and get a good sounding
> mix faster, and it does this in part by 'limiting' your choices so you
> don't have to worry about things.  Of course by 'limiting' it really
> doesn't as you can put in any EQ or plugin you want just like any other DAW.
>
>
>>
>> You said that all I want is just a bit more "chrome"... well, even if I
>> DID want more chrome, what's really wrong with it? And I personally don't
>> even WANT chrome, but many people I told about Ardour thought that "it
>> looked cheap" or "unrefined" or whatever compared to the other brand-name
>> DAWs they used. That's even BEFORE trying it. Like it or not, many people
>> give lots of importance to first impressions and hype, and if you want
>> Ardour to compete with other DAWs (and please don't say you don't want to
>> compete, because in the end you do compete, whether you decide to or not...
>> and I don't really think it's necessarily a bad thing), you have to also
>> appeal to those people who give looks a big deal of importance, who may
>> also be big-name professionals, musicians, artists, etc. I have argued lots
>> of times with Apple fanatics who deride Linux or Windows for even marginal
>> details, such as look and feel (or sometimes for things that weren't
>> actually even true), most of them are pathetically ignorant of even basic
>> technical details, but some of these people are accomplished graphic
>> designers, or musicians, or whatever. Idiots :D but talented idiots they
>> are.
>>
>>
> Try to be all things to all people you WILL fail.  You will never make
> everyone happy.  The companies that realize this are the ones that do
> better quicker.
>
>     Seablade
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-users-ardour.org/attachments/20121204/3573e332/attachment-0002.htm>