20 Oct
2016
20 Oct
'16
12:50 a.m.
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 00:13:47 +0200
Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 21:45:30 +0000, Fons Adriaensen
wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:35:58PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
>> Faders and EQs are the most important tools during the complete
>> mixing procedure. You can do a mix without any additional tool, but
>> you can't without faders and EQs.
>
>True. And depending on the type of music and how it was recorded
>in the first place, the faders may be all you need on most tracks.
Full ACK. But now I'm unsure what Jonetsu means by
the word
"placement" and I still don't understand what starting point settings
Jonetsu is talking about.
For instance, up and down, as I wrote earlier today, has to do with
frequencies and their density. Left/right is self-explanatory.
Front/back has to do with perception of the transients and a touch of
ER.
However ...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:40:58 -0400, jonetsu wrote:
>Since the beginning the context is not about a complete mix.
>I wonder...
... my concerns are related to exactly this attitude.
If the tool
starts mixing, then why doesn't it finish the mix?
Do you expect your Big Muff to spit out Jimi Hendrix licks ?
Assuming it doesn't
finish the mix, because it has got no idea how to do it, then I wonder
how it could provide an unfinished mix, that should be useful to
finish the mix.
Again, do you expect your guitar to play itself ?
If EQs are not used at this stage of the mix, then I
wonder what tools
should be used. If e.g. only faders should get commands from an
analysing tool, I wonder how it decides which track should get what
level for the raw mix and what it should gain to make the work easier.
Frequency density and transient perception are affected by compression.