[Ardour-Users] a few thoughts
althompson58 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 4 10:33:03 PST 2012
On 12/04/2012 10:28 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Adriano Petrosillo
> <ampetrosillo at gmail.com <mailto:ampetrosillo at gmail.com>> wrote:
> and I don't really get the reason to "port" the limitations of
> hardware mixers in the digital domain, as there is no real "need" and
> it's most probably a deliberate desire to limit the application's
> functionality (for marketing purposes, maybe?).
> one person's limitation is another person's rapid workflow,
> based on 30 years of actual experience of how to mix many
> different styles of music.
> Tough, it still equates to forcing "another person's rapid
> workflow" on the user,
> its not forcing anything. you don't have to buy mixbus. but everything
> about mixbus is centered on integration and workflow. if you don't
> like what they've done, don't use it and figure out a way to get
> someone else (or yourself) to invest the amount of hours that they
> (and I) put in to getting it to where it is today, but with your
> design decisions. the source is all available.
It seems that Adriano wants a piece of software that is configured to
EXACTLY his specifications, and looks pretty. The problem that he
doesn't realize is that a large percentage of people don't really care
if it's "pretty" or not, because either (a) they just simply don't care
about the looks, or; (b) they don't want to waste CPU cycles on anything
that isn't directly involving audio processing.
The thing that Adriano doesn't understand is that forcing his concept on
everyone else would make the software a LOT less attractive to everyone
but him. For instance, his idea of having a "built-in" 3 band, fixed
freq EQ on each channel would be HORRIBLE for people like me. His idea
of an EQ is reminiscent of an early 1980s EQ in a PM-700 (which is to
say NOT USABLE). So, everyone would be forced to waste CPU cycles on
all of those default EQs, in addition to the EQ they had to patch in to
make it functional. This would be made even worse if they all wasted a
bunch of CPU/memory on "pretty" GUIs.
He seems to rail against being forced to use someone else's concept of
an "ideal" mixer, but then wants even worse limitations imposed on
others so that it meets his concept of an "ideal" mixer.
I kind of understand his frustration. I started mixing in the late
1970s, and my first several exposures to DAWs was frustrating, until
someone pointed out that I shouldn't expect a computer to act, feel, and
look like the analog stuff I grew up with. I can certainly agree that
no amount of CPU is going to make a computer SOUND like analog gear -
part of that is because of the limitations and pitfalls of digital
audio, but part of it is also because of the limitations and pitfalls of
analog audio. It's just that many of us came to enjoy and depend on
those analog limitations.
I suspect someone producing experimental electronica has vastly
different requirements in a console than someone who is mixing rock
tracks with actual instruments and vocals.
> I'm not talking about track templates which adapt to ANY plugin of
> a certain type, I'm talking about track templates which use
> SPECIFIC plugins (which then goes well together with having a
> range of bundled plugins in the DAW).
> and if someone disagrees with your (or my) choices about which
> specific plugins? just like your example of the vintage warmer above.
> and yes, track templates currently already define specific plugins if
> the user made that choice.
EXACTLY!! Or his choice of an EQ.
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ardour-Users