Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] ardour, LADSPA, a marriage
From: frankiec_AT_unforgettable.com
Date: Sat Nov 11 2000 - 02:23:34 EET
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.21.0011101953500.6815-100000_AT_frankiec.yi.org>you write:
> >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.
>
> talk to mackie about this. the D8B (and many other digital mixers) are
> definitely heading in the opposite direction.
Oh yes I know. And this is why every engineer I know hates them.
>
> digital changes everything. first, non-zero latency. second, cost
> savings. third, better integration and performance.
>
> if it was analog, i'd agree with you entirely. but as is, even trying
> to get a functioning digital patchbay seems more or less impossible
> now, let alone connecting a whole bunch of external digital gear for
> inserts, sends, etc.
I am not talking about something external. I am talking about the way
software gets layed out. How is anyone going to understand the block
diagram? It's very important to understand the signal chain. Software
has been making this a blurry mess.
Frank
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Nov 11 2000 - 03:00:17 EET