On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
Len Ovens <len@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, jonetsu wrote:
>
> > And of course, the workflow is not in question. It was brought up
> > here, but it's not the goal of the comparison.
>
> except that workflow does affect the final product.
For having recently gotten a Faderport, about which I had a
certain amount of doubts of its usefulness, I can say that moving a
fader is not the same as clicking on a fader on the screen and moving
it. It's like there is a connection that goes from the ears to the
fingers moving the fader. And that's a single fader. I can see how it
could be possible to 'play' a set of faders and pots and knobs to the
music.
To a certain extent this can also apply, in the case of the Faderport,
to switches. Pressing switches to rewind, go to markers, mute, etc, is
not exactly the same as clicking, especially when playing a guitar.
It's easy to see that the same can be applied to the footswitch for
punching in/out, although I haven't had the chance to try this yet.
The reason I toss this topic out, is simply because it's not really the
goal of the comparison made by this guy on youtube although a part
of comparing DAWs in general, and, because it's a whole topic on its
own.
> pretty much the same from one to the next in micing/mixing. It says a
> lot about the engineer's (producer too I think) focus and vision. (no
> I do not mean eyesight)
(ditching comment about Phillip Glass)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Sat Oct 29 00:15:01 2016
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Oct 29 2016 - 00:15:01 EEST