18 Oct
2016
18 Oct
'16
11:28 p.m.
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:35:13 -0400, jonetsu wrote:
Likewise with anything else. This is no 'Robot
Mixer Invaders From
Loudness Hell' type of thing. To assume that engineers will de facto
loose total control is, totally, absurd.
I don't claim that "suggestions" cause loosing control. My argument is,
that it gains you nothing, more protocols, more code, to gain nothing,
just cause bloatware that requires more resources and is more prone to
bugs.
Separation. Clean separation of instruments in the
audio field is a
must. You cannot do without it, unless the mix is meant to be leaning
towards mud, which can be a style on its own. Do you see how plugins
communicating between themselves could set up a basic separation
framework to assist the mixing engineer ?
I can't. If you want to give each instrument it's own position in the
frequency domain, it's still up to the engineer to decide, how it
should be done. You could use presets for EQ settings as a starting
point, but even those are less useful, at best they are hints for
novices.
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:58:19 -0400, jonetsu wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:45:10 -0400 Paul Davis wrote:
Could you give an example in what way the EQ and the compressor should
talk to each other, to decide something? What should such a network be
good for?
Regards,
Ralf
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:35 PM, jonetsu wrote:
> I disagree on that, based on so many
protocols existing out there
> that are not proprietary, that can be used openly.
It isn't about the existence of protocols,
it's about the complexity
of doing this via protocols at all.
Well, if one uses OSPF to try to do VRRP...