28 Oct
2016
28 Oct
'16
8:54 p.m.
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 13:49:56 -0400, jonetsu wrote:
To a certain extent this can also apply, in the case of
the Faderport,
to switches. Pressing switches to rewind, go to markers, mute, etc, is
not exactly the same as clicking, especially when playing a guitar.
It's easy to see that the same can be applied to the footswitch for
punching in/out, although I haven't had the chance to try this yet.
How does the DAW handle jog and shuttle wheels? This makes the
difference between software, not if they have EQs with different sounds.
EQs shouldn't make sound at all, they are just filters that should do
their job, to filter what they are ask to filter, without side effects.
Using the same wheels, different DAWs not necessarily do the same.
PS:
Didn't came through:
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 20:43:14 +0200
From: Ralf Mardorf
Subject: Re: [LAU] Mixbus 32C (based on Ardour) and Reaper shootout
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 20:32:38 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Regarding the work-flow I have difficulties to
understand how software
could be compared, when using the same hardware, sound card, mouse or
remote mixer.
but while
hardware has it's fixed design and could provide a good work-flow,
software needs to care about different screen sizes, different remote
controls, so a comparison makes sense in regards to the work-flow, when
using the same monitor and external remote devices.
My claim seems to be inconsistent. Remember I'm not an English native
speaker. I try to make it clear.
When using the same hardware, then there should be no difference for
the work-flow, but usually there is. This are the pros and cons that
could be compared.
If there should be a difference for the sound quality, then just
because one or all compared DAWs provide bad programmed software. There
should be not reason to compare EQ a with EQ b, just use an EQ and see
if it does what you want it to do.