<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 12/04/2012 10:28 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFa_cK=+6rCVuAebJvPUupguCsUzuwGas9cWSq_MhZiWj=2HFg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:03 AM,
Adriano Petrosillo <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ampetrosillo@gmail.com" target="_blank">ampetrosillo@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFa_cK=+6rCVuAebJvPUupguCsUzuwGas9cWSq_MhZiWj=2HFg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><font color="#222222" face="arial,
sans-serif">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?).</font>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="im">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px
0px 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:
0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid
rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
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.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div>Tough, it still equates to forcing "another person's
rapid workflow" on the user, </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
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.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFa_cK=+6rCVuAebJvPUupguCsUzuwGas9cWSq_MhZiWj=2HFg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>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).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
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. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
EXACTLY!! Or his choice of an EQ. <br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.lateralforce.com">http://www.lateralforce.com</a>
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://audioandmore.wordpress.com">http://audioandmore.wordpress.com</a>
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]
</pre>
</body>
</html>