Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] ardour, LADSPA, a marriage
From: Michael Thompson (mat0001_AT_jove.acs.unt.edu)
Date: Sun Nov 12 2000 - 05:44:39 EET
Hello,
I usually don't say much on this list but....
Well, I like matrix patching when working in the non-digital world just fine.
Pretty clear to me.
I will say that when I am working in the digital world I like to stay that
way. I have my computer directly connected to my speakers, control volume from
my software and or on the amp if I have to (don't have to do this much). I
find that I need a bus system in software to give me the flexibility in
routing signals, submixing signals, output routing, and effects routing not to
mention the automation of the mix down. I like to have it all in one place and
be able to see it and manipulate it from one place. For recording I can hook
up a nice mic preamp to my audio hardware and bypass any added noise from
other devices (i.e. mixer preamps etc...) plus I have the digital io thing as
well. So, to me the mixing console is only useful in sound projection at live
events. I don't do the midi thing either (except for a midi fader box when I
can get one) so no need to mix that stuff but you could use the virtual inputs
on some of the audio io cards and software like Logic or ProTools and hardware
(mix, tdm, 001) for computer systems, I have done that before and it works
fine for me. Now if linux had this software/hardware then I would be set. Its
a coming though....
Michael
Steve Harris wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 12:23:34AM +0000, frankiec_AT_unforgettable.com wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Agreed, thats why I liked my matrix patching idea, although I have to say
> Paul's "stick an effect on each output" design is as clear as could be!
>
> FWIW I personally don't want a mixer reimplemented inside my computer,
> I don't imagine that a conventional mixer routing is very efficient
> in software, plus it seems a bit of a waste to reimplement something
> that can be done better externally. I feel that cubase fell down here, as
> I thought thier virtual mixer+outboards model was over complicated and
> wastefull, I never used most of the layers, as all I was doing was
> sending channel 1 out of output 1.
>
> With a quasimodo style "build your own mixer" design, now you're talking.
>
> - Steve
-- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Michael A. Thompson +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In case you needed further proof that the human race is doomed through stupidity, here are some actual label instructions on consumer goods:9. On Nytol Sleep Aid: "Warning: May cause drowsiness" [One would hope] +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Nov 12 2000 - 06:19:14 EET