On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 12:05 +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> With unlimited tracks available, this makes sense
> of course, though it encourages postponing everything to the
> mixing stage. I'm not convinced that is always a good idea,
> you can easily end up with 'too much to handle' there.
PS: I'm especially thinking about the band in the box approach, For
synth plugins I mix already before recording and for sure, others who
record a band could use EQs before the recording too. At what time you
need the EQs doesn't matter, you need EQs for mixing music. Is there
really the need to include EQs only when they are needed and to exclude
them, when they aren't used? What exactly is the nuisance, if EQs are
always included/available, even when they aren't needed? Horsepower of
the computer? From cheap to expensive analog mixers, all provide EQs,
you can't get rid of them, when you don't need them. There is no reason
to get rid of them.
Horsepower of a DAW computer vs searching for a good working EQ, learn
that EQs usually are needed etc. ... to make EQs optional comes with
more drawbacks than advantages. There's nothing wrong with learning by
trail and error, but newbies don't become a chance to do this, when the
mixer design isn't good, when even basic tools aren't defaults.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Fri Aug 22 20:15:02 2014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 22 2014 - 20:15:02 EEST