On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:35:13 -0400, jonetsu wrote: >Likewise with anything else. This is no 'Robot Mixer Invaders From >Loudness Hell' type of thing. To assume that engineers will de facto >loose total control is, totally, absurd. I don't claim that "suggestions" cause loosing control. My argument is, that it gains you nothing, more protocols, more code, to gain nothing, just cause bloatware that requires more resources and is more prone to bugs. >Separation. Clean separation of instruments in the audio field is a >must. You cannot do without it, unless the mix is meant to be leaning >towards mud, which can be a style on its own. Do you see how plugins >communicating between themselves could set up a basic separation >framework to assist the mixing engineer ? I can't. If you want to give each instrument it's own position in the frequency domain, it's still up to the engineer to decide, how it should be done. You could use presets for EQ settings as a starting point, but even those are less useful, at best they are hints for novices. On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:58:19 -0400, jonetsu wrote: >On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:45:10 -0400 Paul Davis wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:35 PM, jonetsu wrote: > >> > I disagree on that, based on so many protocols existing out there >> > that are not proprietary, that can be used openly. > >> It isn't about the existence of protocols, it's about the complexity >> of doing this via protocols at all. > >Well, if one uses OSPF to try to do VRRP... Could you give an example in what way the EQ and the compressor should talk to each other, to decide something? What should such a network be good for? Regards, Ralf _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
