lixobix wrote > This makes no sense semantically. Mixing and editing are separate > processes. We are attempting to define recordings. Why define 'mixing' as > 'mixing or editing', then 'mixing' as 'recording'?
I'm not. I'm defining a mix as the produce of mixing and editing audio tracks. And there is no way that that can be incorrect. lixobix wrote > It is easier, and makes sense to define both 'mixing' and 'editing' > separately, then define 'recording' as 'mixing' OR 'editing'. This option > did not appear to be discussed is IRC, but achieves the objective without > stretching the meaning of the terms involved. That depends on your definition of editing. You're talking specifically about editing of a mix. The guideline is talking about editing of any an audio track. Definition #3 at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/edit . lixobix wrote > 2) "Mixing is defined as changing the volume of a particular audio track > relative to other audio tracks. It also covers things such as volume > fading, panning within a sound field, or muting a track completely" > > This is partially correct, but it only explains some of the elements of > mixing. You should define mixing generally as: > > "The process of combining multiple audio tracks into a single master > track" > > Then go on: > > "The individual audio tracks are processed during mixing. This may involve > changing their volume, panning, removal, EQ, compression, and other > effects processing, such as reverb or delay" Sounds good, I'll update that in the next revision. lixobix wrote > "The result of mixing is a master track. This may be mono (one track), > stereo (2 tracks, left and right), or surround (Dolby 5.1, quadrophonic, > etc.). The master track then goes through the process of 'mastering', > which involves adding compression, EQ, and noise filtering. No, the product of mixing is a mix. The product of mastering is a master release containing a series of mastered mixes, ready for manufacturing/digital distribution. Other than those two terms, I agree. lixobix wrote > 3) "Editing of audio tracks generally takes place before mixing" > > This is not correct in this context. Different type of editing. lixobix wrote > 4) "It should be noted that mixing and editing usually apply to audio > tracks rather than the whole song. These two processes take place before > the completion of the song." > > This section is not necessary, and is confusing. It conflates the two > processes, and defines mixing as something that is "applied" to audio > tracks, which uses 'mixing' as a noun rather than a verb; it should be the > latter. I'll reword it slightly eg. "the process of mixing...". I might also try to make the distinction between editing of audio tracks and editing of a master clearer. lixobix wrote > 5) "Mastering is a related process that is applied to the whole song after > completion, to prepare it for a particular release." > > This is problematic, because of how 'releases' are currently defined. > Currently, multiple countries means multiple releases. Therefore, your > definition would mean that each of these would have unique mastering, > which is not correct. This section is not needed if you define mastering > as above. Perhaps "a particular release or group of releases"? -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651426.html Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
