Re: [LAU] FOSS DAW recommendations

On 11/19/2017 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
>> I recently had a demonstration where the mics were wired wrong and so
>> the two "stereo" channels I recorded on were mixed up.  You think I
>> managed to split the tracks into mono in order to salvage two usable
>> tracks?  No beef.  I'd have had to do a stem export and reimport.  Or
>> something.  Didn't really fit in the demo time frame.
>
> Hi, may I offer some technical perspective:
> I'm no Ardour expert but I've studied a few areas in detail.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm curious if I've actually got this right.
>
> With the MusE Sequencer, the 'splitting' you describe is easy.
>
> The two halves of a stereo track can be further routed to any
>  other tracks, mono or stereo. In fact /any/ channels from any
>  track can be routed to any other track's channels individually.
>
> How does MusE accomplish this, while Ardour seems to /enforce/
>  track channel routing compatibility?

D'oh. Not true. Ardour's router can "route anything anywhere"
  as they say.

It looks like that splitting operation should have been possible
  with Ardour?

Tim.

> For one reason only: The panner.
>
> You see, MusE does not yet have /true/ multi-channel tracks
>  beyond 2 channels - except for synth tracks: we do support
>  all multi-channel synths.
>
> (The extra channels of such a synth track can be routed elsewhere,
>  the first two are presented on a mixer strip. In other words,
>  we don't yet have multi-channel wave tracks so you can't just
>  take all the synth channels and route them to one wave track,
>  you must split them up and send to several wave tracks.)
>
> Therefore, currently our 'panner' is just fine - it looks
>  the same whether for a mono or stereo track. MusE magically
>  manages to route all signals properly.
> For example, if you route /two/ of a stereo track's output
>  channels to some other /mono/ track, while /also/ routing
>  those channels to some other /stereo/ track, MusE's panner
>  'just works' correctly, as a panner for the former and a
>  balance for the latter.
>
> FYI: To ease user routing, instead of having to route individual
>  channels like that, we support a concept called 'omni routing'
>  where you just make /one/ connection from the source track to
>  the destination track and MusE automatically figures out how
>  to mix all those channels together - and most importantly
>  how to pan or balance - depending on the number of source
>  and destination channels. It also works for multi-channel
>  synth tracks - you can route all 16 channels of drumgizmo
>  into some other multi-channel plugin, with just one route.
>
>
> Anyway I digress...
>
> Full, true multi-channel tracks for MusE have been on my mind,
>  of course. And with that came a question:
> Since we allow such 'free-form' channel-to-channel connections,
>  then how the heck would the panner work with multi-channels?
> What panner will we show on each mixer strip?
>
> You see, it's /impossible/ with a single all-purpose panner
>  like MusE currently has.
>
> So that's why I believe Ardour enforces such routing
>  compatibility, because of the panner.
>
> Am I right, or way off again?
>
> Tim.
> The MusE Sequencer project.
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
> https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Mon Nov 20 08:15:02 2017