[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 mailing list