[LAU] The future of audio plugins ?

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:41:16 -0400, jonetsu wrote:
>There is a potential for other good jokes here but hmmmm... I don't
>find any at the moment.

Then simply try to answer this question:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:16:38 -0400, Robert Edge wrote:
>I suspect the first guy that thought about a wagon had something
>specific he needed to move.
>
>You don't seem to have a clear problem you are trying to solve.

You replied:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:14:36 -0400, jonetsu wrote:
>Two aspects were clearly mentioned.  Separation and 3D location.  Two
>very basic mixing tasks.

But it does not explain what the network protocol is used for.

IIUC you want an analysis tool, that does part of the work an audio
engineer does. IIUC you think an audio engineer needs more time to do
it, than a tool does. The analysis tool should load tools and talk to
the tools, to provide good settings. Based on what? How should this
work? If an engineer listens to sound and should describe another
engineer what to do, who doesn't listen to the sound, it already
is unlikely to get a good result. How should the analysing tool find
the right words, to explain the tools what they need to do?

I got a lot of jobs, because film students, who aren't audio engineers,
try to do the audio engineering for a film maker and after that there
was the need to hire another audio engineer or me to fix their
mistakes. Fixing mistakes takes much longer, than doing the audio
engineering correct in the first place.

It's my conviction, that analysing tools gain you nothing, but only
introduce bad decisions, at the cost of work/time an audio engineer
needs to fix those wrong decisions.

Please, try to give a serious answer to Robert's question.

What problem do you try to solve? IMO your vague idea would cause
issues.

Regards,
Ralf