Re: [LAD] automation on Linux (modular approach)

From: Arnold Krille <arnold@email-addr-hidden>
Date: Fri Mar 19 2010 - 21:40:17 EET

On Friday 19 March 2010 20:16:14 Tim E. Real wrote:
> On March 19, 2010 07:53:23 am Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > I do not really understand what the problem is with using MIDI control
> > change for mixers. The resolution? For 2 data bytes there are 127 * 127
> > = 16129 steps. The number of channels? It's unlimited when using as much
> > IOs as needed. IMO there already is a standard for all apps, it's called
> > MIDI.
> > IMO automation is overrated, it's useful, but OTOH how often is it
> > needed to change settings during an opus? Most times a mix, selected
> > synth etc. are fixed from the start to the end of an opus. For example,
> > normally a musician plays an instrument dynamically by the touch or by
> > using a volume pedal. Dynamic for the loudness seldom is done by a fader
> > after the recording is done.
>
> I disagree.
> Automation, especially audio automation, is extremely important.
> Some examples:
<stripped the example>

You use the wrong tool.

With ardour:

Slice the original take, move the ends to overlap a tiny bit with the new
take, let the automatic fades do their job.
Or move the boundaries edge to edge and use the fact that ardour has a slight
fade-in/-out at region borders because they would pop otherwise regardless
whether they overlap with another region or not.

Works like charm and doesn't need automation.

Have fun,

Arnold

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Received on Sat Mar 20 00:15:02 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Mar 20 2010 - 00:15:02 EET