On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 00:13:47 +0200 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
