20 Apr
2011
20 Apr
'11
1:22 a.m.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:28:49AM +0200, Julien Claassen wrote:
Hello1
Well there are a few reasons - nowadays -, why you would need
visual feedbacks. I'm thinking of alligning audio to other audio and
a metronome/clicktrack. If you need that in "perfect" sync and have
acoustic instruments - i.e. nothing, that you can sequence -, then a
visual feedback is the way to go. Another one of course is things
Certainly,
graphically representing sound on a timeline is a convenient
way of handling this and manipulating time itself, but I feel there
ought to be another way to represent it, but people have not looked hard
enough. There always is a risk to stay locked in a paradigm if one
accepts conventional ways of thinking about certain concepts. Admitedly,
I'm waxing a little philosophical here. :)
like graphic multiband EQ, where you are looking for
fine peaks at
exact frequencies - well as fine as the output can be. Still, I can
handle a four band EQ and possibly a ten band EQ, but beyond that...
I suppose it's possible, but seeing the things people have in mind
for these, visual or other analytic feedback is very helpful.
Though I wonder how
useful it truly is, apart from certain specialised
purposes. You can hear a lot of great mixes from the seventies when this
technology was unavailable. In fact, they're often more pleasing (to my
ears anyway) than a lot of the over-polished mixes one hears today.
I thought about such things quite a bit. But all the
good
solutions I came up with are very case specific or just not realtime
at all, which makes it very useable, but a pain in the ass for all
the people, that can have it otherwise.
I've mused along similar lines and come
to similar conclusions; but, as
I said above, I sometimes wonder whether the mistake is not in trying to
translate the way people are doing things to a non-visual way, rather
than coming up with an entirely new approach.
Cheers,
S.M.