19 Oct
2016
19 Oct
'16
10:25 p.m.
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:27:24 -0400, jonetsu wrote:
When a client has tracks for a mixing engineer with a
Name, then the
assistant, a human, will set up the mix. The engineer will not do
that. The assistant, according to the engineer wishes, will organize
the tracks in a preferred way, set up stems, do basic clean up of
tracks, even perhaps some multing. Spending those hours, even more,
to set up the mix up so that when the engineer comes in, everything is
prepared to do the actual mix work.
The audio engineer with the promotionally effective name demands
another audio engineer for this kind of assistance. IOW a human does
the mix and another human does the fine tuning. This is quasi the
counterpart of what Fons already mentioned. Let iZotope's Track
Assitant/Neutron do the mix, then use iZotope's Track Assitant/Neutron
to do the fine tuning of the mix it produced before.
While you assume that a tool could do the raw mix and an audio engineer
finishes the mix, my claim is, that this only would be possible, if it
could be done the other way around, too. A human audio engineer does the
raw mix and the tool must be able to do the fine tuning. If the tool
shouldn't be able to do the fine tuning, after a human already did the
raw mix, then it's impossible for the tool to do a usable raw mix.
Regards,
Ralf