I had a feeling you would say something to that effect. :) I suppose it makes sense. I can imagine plenty of scenarios where Ardour would work perfectly for doing a live/monitor mix this way. One could even have presets stored as snapshots, and call them up remotely via MIDI or OSC. Is that currently possible? Is anyone using Ardour this way right now? Now if only 24+ channel Linux-friendly interfaces would get super cheap... Sean Corbett On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 13:25 -0400, Sean Corbett wrote: > >> This is probably just a way-out-there nobody-will-take-the-time idea, >> but has anyone ever thought of splitting the mixer part of Ardour from >> the DAW part? So that e.g. if you do strictly outboard mixing, you >> don't need to fire up Ardour's mixer, or more importantly, if all you >> need is a mixer and plugin-patch-points (as Alex does), you can fire >> up Ardour's mixer standalone? > > this idea is based on a misconception about how ardour works internally. > "mixing" is 100% the same as the basic signal processing that occurs on > every "signal processing route" (known to users as tracks & busses). you > can't "separate" this from mixing, but you don't have to have the editor > involved at all. > > if you want ardour as just a mixer, you create a session with only > busses, then you hide the editor window and show just the mixer. > et voila. > > --p > > > _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
