Ralf, please stop dictating how others should work. I've been recording in
studios for 35 years and I like to think I know what I'm doing. Not everyone
who has different working methods from yours is an idiot, but that seems to
be what you are implying.
John
___
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:10:58AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 20:06 +0100, John Rigg wrote:
> > The P+G faders (generally regarded as the best)
>
> Actually you get fader units for Studer with P&G, but also with Alps
> faders. Such a module usually costs more than a complet
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 08:06:13PM +0100, John Rigg wrote:
> http://www.pennyandgiles.com/Products/Audio-Faders-Video-Controllers/Linear-Manual-Fader-PGF8000.aspx
>
> The Panel Graduations/Slots diagrams on page 3 show the taper characteristic.
The taper I'm using in some apps is very similar:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:29:30 +0200, John Rigg wrote:
Ralf, please stop dictating how others should work. I've been recording
in studios for 35 years and I like to think I know what I'm doing. Not
everyone who has different working methods from yours is an idiot, but
that seems to be what yo
On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 08:41 +0100, John Rigg wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:10:58AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 20:06 +0100, John Rigg wrote:
> > > The P+G faders (generally regarded as the best)
> >
> > Actually you get fader units for Studer with P&G, but also with Al
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:32:19PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> IOW the odd design of this mixer and some other
> mixers too, leads to learning how to mix in a
> wrong way.
I'd agree with that (while not commenting on the rest).
Regarding EQ pre or post 'tape', that is for a part
a matter or per
On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 12:05 +, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:32:19PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> > IOW the odd design of this mixer and some other
> > mixers too, leads to learning how to mix in a
> > wrong way.
>
> I'd agree with that (while not commenting on the res
On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 12:05 +, 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'
On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 15:33 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> but newbies don't become a chance to do this
^^ get :D, "bekommen/erhalten"
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists
Hi,
is it correct that the following two scenarios give the exact same result?
(digital audio signal) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (apply fx) -> (result)
(digital audio signal) -> (apply fx) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (result)
regards
Tom
___
Linu
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 04:12:12PM +0200, t...@trellis.ch wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> is it correct that the following two scenarios give the exact same result?
>
> (digital audio signal) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (apply fx) -> (result)
>
> (digital audio signal) -> (apply fx) -> (record) -> (playbac
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 04:12:12PM +0200, t...@trellis.ch wrote:
> is it correct that the following two scenarios give the exact same result?
>
> (digital audio signal) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (apply fx) -> (result)
>
> (digital audio signal) -> (apply fx) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (resu
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 07:37:43AM -0700, Len Ovens wrote:
There is no problem with CPU use. On the sender side you transmit
0..127 which is just 7 bits of an ADC measuring the voltage from a
linear fader or pot, there is no mapping at all.
Yes, I
On Fri, August 22, 2014 16:35, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 04:12:12PM +0200, t...@trellis.ch wrote:
>
>> is it correct that the following two scenarios give the exact same
>> result?
>>
>> (digital audio signal) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (apply fx) ->
>> (result)
>>
>>
>> (d
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 3:12 PM, wrote:
> is it correct that the following two scenarios give the exact same result?
> (digital audio signal) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (apply fx) -> (result)
> (digital audio signal) -> (apply fx) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (result)
I'll add a note that if l
On Fri, August 22, 2014 17:39, Harry van Haaren wrote:
>
> If the bass player recording with comp & eq also *hears* that, as
> opposed to hearing it without compression... then perhaps they'll play
> "better" and it'll be easier to mix.
>
this is an interesting side-aspect indeed that goes beyond
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 08:11:39AM -0700, Len Ovens wrote:
> It appears this: "On the sender side you transmit 0..127 which is
> just 7 bits of an ADC measuring the voltage from a linear fader or
> pot, there is no mapping at all." Is not true... or at least not
> usable as we would end up with s
On Friday 22 August 2014 11:35:34 t...@trellis.ch did opine
And Gene did reply:
> On Fri, August 22, 2014 16:35, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 04:12:12PM +0200, t...@trellis.ch wrote:
> >> is it correct that the following two scenarios give the exact same
> >> result?
> >>
> >
:)
/me likes anecdotes
On Fri, August 22, 2014 19:36, Gene Heskett wrote:
> And there is nothing that assaults ones ears more than someone who thinks
> he has to have a room thumping bass line, sets it so the axe and drums
> are about +20 db, then runs it all thru a fast compressor, "ducking" t
On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 16:39 +0100, Harry van Haaren wrote:
> I'll add a note that if looping the playback output, using the 1st
> option the FX must constantly processes. Option 2 has the FX "recorded
> in", which means the FX chain doesn't use CPU.
Unfortunately this is a very important advice!
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
A DAW such as Ardour has remnants of the in-line structure.
Logically there are still two signal paths in each track strip.
But the 'pre-tape' part, instead of being a mixer, has been
reduced to the mininum: no gain controls and fixed one-to-one
connec
21 matches
Mail list logo
