[Ardour-Users] a few thoughts
Gordon JC Pearce
gordonjcp at gjcp.net
Tue Dec 4 09:31:40 PST 2012
On 04/12/12 15:28, Paul Davis 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.
> its not harrison's idea of a console. its a workflow that has worked for
> hundreds or thousands of highly skilled audio engineers for years, and
> you display an incredible level of arrogance in casually dismissing it.
> in fact, it is the same level of arrogance that i did when i started
> working on ardour and thought "oh, all that silly mixer design ... its
> all just h/w limitations and we should just ignore it".
In a similar way to how Bob Moog was absolutely cock on with the
Minimoog - by being prepatched it was more limiting, allowing players to
concentrate on actually making musically useful sounds!
I ran into this arrogance and learned the same lesson close to twenty
years ago when I started working on software synthesis - "oh, why only
six operators in FM, why not eight? Why not make them all be able to
modulate all the others, then the 'standard' algorithms are just a
particular configuration with many more available. Why not give them
*all* feedback inputs, it's just the same as any other modulation input?"
I'll tell you why. It sounds crap, and it's impossible to program.
No-one in their right mind would use that pile of nonsense.
This doesn't discount the remote possibility that the grandparent poster
has come across a whole new way of mixing, that uses more than eight
busses, and that blows away everything that has gone before.
I bet you haven't, though.
More information about the Ardour-Users