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 _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
