13 Aug
2010
13 Aug
'10
1:14 a.m.
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 23:45 +0100, Dan Mills wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 00:04 +0200,
fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
Hm? Aux set to pre are used for monitoring and to post-fader as FX send.
For my mixer it's also pre EQs, but post-EQ and pre-fader. This could be
an advantage and disadvantage ;).
Anyway, we need a mixer to control our envy24 devices, to avoid clipping
etc. for the sound card, not to do the complete mixing. We'll do the
mixing by other software or stand alone mixers.
The envy24 monitoring needs no aux.
IMO this is irrelevant, there also just is the need to have one master
meter, but all those meters.
More important is to have the option to handle multiple cards.
What an EQ is supposed to do doesn't in any
way depend on the
signal level. As long as you don't have any non-linear things
in the signal chain (dynamics and some effects) it doesn't
matter where you do the EQ.
Except that pre fade aux sends are typically tapped off post EQ by
default, so (at least in an analogue console) you need the EQ pre fader
to give a point that is post EQ but pre fader for feeding any aux sends
switched to 'pre'. Also, you want the fader as close to the mix bus as
you can get it so
that the self noise of the channel strip is attenuated by the fader (and
possibly the mute switch) rather then having the noise contribution from
48 sets of EQ always present on the output (even when only one or two
channels are routed).
Of course in a digital system you can do almost anything routing wise
trivially.
It seems to me that for the envy24 case we DONT want to pretend to be a
mixer in the general sense of the term, what is wanted is far more like
a set of input meters, control over the codecs and (possibly) a routing
matrix, everything else is better handled further up the stack.
Regards, Dan.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev