Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] ardour, LADSPA, a marriage
From: frankiec_AT_unforgettable.com
Date: Fri Nov 10 2000 - 22:10:06 EET
It seems to me like the way we do things in hardware is still the way to
go. Patch bays provide the most flexibility. In most studios everything
goes through the patch bay. My personal preference is to have the
recorder be the recorder and the editor, the mixer to be the mixer, the
patch bay be the patch bay, and the effects to be the effects.
FC
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
> >I had wondered how you were going to deal with this, for myself I'm not
> >worried yet, as I don't think that realtime intel reverbs are quite as
> >good as outboards yet, and they're the only stereo things I use.
>
> well, i had this all solved in an old half-done app that i did last
> two xmas-es ago, called "hdr" which had a complete
> "channel/strip/bus/send/insert" design.
>
> but ardour is *currently* designed around the notion that it is
> outputting to a multichannel device, not stereo (or even 5.1) outs
> (even if the number of channels is actually 2), and is therefore not
> concerned with mixdown in any way. to use mixer terminology, we only
> have inserts, no sends, no busses, no auxes. i think i got that right :)
>
> once you start to allow for the idea that ardour (or any other app) is
> actually doing the mixdown to stereo or 5.1 or whatever, things change
> quite a bit. heh. it will happen.
>
> --p
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Nov 10 2000 - 22:52:35 EET