On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 02:24:57PM -0700, Len Ovens wrote: > Fader mapping in general has been tied to the phyisical fader and > it's length. 4in/100mm seems to be the max real estate people want > to use. Ok so far. The mapping is set up to use that 4in in the best > way possible, but seems to be the same no matter what the use. There > are three main uses I can see: > Broadcast - Fades to oo(off) happen often > Live Mix - Fades might happen once in a performance (maybe 2 or 3) > recording - Fades are more often done with some kind of automation > maybe never on a physical fader... or maybe only > on bus faders. For the latter practice will vary, depending on the user and the type of material. Speaking just for myself, I never use automation in Ardour. When necessary, levels are edited using the region gain - this keeps the faders free for manual adjustment. IMHO, automation with anything but a real physical and motorised fader is a kludge. > Assuming a recording/mixdown situation, would it make sense on a > limitless fader to continue at the same db drop per movement from > +6(or 10 or whatever) to -110? I'd say no. If you need static fader gains below -40 dB or so that probably means something else is wrong. > My reasoning is this: > By recording, I mean DAW and so 32bit float derived from 24bitADC. > Tracks are therefor recorded with more headroom and less compression > as these can be dealt with later. DAWs do not seem to think in terms > of a channel strip trim at input so that each track can put the > fader in it's most acurate possition (right around 0db) and > something loud that is really background may end up with it's fader > position quite low. This would mean minor adjustment to that track > would be difficult. This is why I'm really missing an input gain trim in Ardour. Even more so because the faders go up to only +6dB, this should be at least +10 or even +15 dB. On analog mixers the input gain trim is required in order to have a controlled level in the pre-fader chain which may include all sorts of inserts and/or sends. This is still so in a DAW using floating point signals. > Would it make sense to be able to move the range > of a fader (physical or other wise) so that it goes from -10 to oo > rather than from +10 to oo? Think put one finger on a modifier key > and then move the fader from where the signal is to where on the > fader strip you want it then release modifier key. SO if the fader > is at -20 and this was done, -20 would now be at the 0db possition. IMHO that could be very confusing. It sort invites you to control gain only at that single point. You could easily end up with an absurd gain structure, and without any visual indication of that situation. > Or if using a mouse wheel, the same amount of wheel clicks would > move the same db at any place on the fader... or a new type of fader > might make this possible too. That would certainly be possible. There is no reason at all why fader resolution should be limited by screen pixels. > The thing is, a fader is no longer an audio pad that can be > adjusted, it is a data input device and as such it just has a linear > position output. There is no reason that data and it's meaning can't > change on the fly as needed. For most mixing (even live) the fader > input is either "I need more of that" or "I need less of that". Yes, but their general position also tell you if your gain structure is more or less right. If you have a fader at -40 dB that very probably means that something else needs adjustment. > such a case, the sound the engineer hears is what they go by, not > the fader position. If the fader position has to be looked at to > change it takes the engineer's mind away from the mix momentarily > rather than if the operation position is always the same. I am > thinking what would work for a blind person, and wouldn't that be > better even for someone with sight? If you use 'real' faders you don't have to look at them. And not having them all at 0dB actually helps to find the one you need quickly - you know the 'skyline', even if only subconsciously. > Another solution might be to use a modifier key to make the fader > set a channel trim. That would make sense, faders can already be remapped to aux sends etc. on many mixers. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
