[[email protected]]

On page 223: https://books.google.com/books?id=w0... 0audio&f=true

The word 'waveform' should be replaced with 'envelope'.

[geoff]

On 1/07/2015 6:15 a.m., wrote:
On page 223: https://books.google.com/books?id=w0... 0audio&f=true

The word 'waveform' should be replaced with 'envelope'.



Can't see page 223 in 'Preview'.

Copy/Paste image to Dropbox or something ?

geoff

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 4:05:48 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 1/07/2015 6:15 a.m., wrote:
On page 223: https://books.google.com/books?id=w0... 0audio&f=true

The word 'waveform' should be replaced with 'envelope'.



Can't see page 223 in 'Preview'.

Copy/Paste image to Dropbox or something ?

geoff

For me, it ends at page 161, and mentions it's just a preview and pages are omitted.

Jack

[[email protected]]

What are you guys viewing with? If i can see it from my iPad, you should
it on your devices or a PC.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 7:22:45 PM UTC-4, wrote:
What are you guys viewing with? If i can see it from my iPad, you should
it on your devices or a PC.

Tried both IE and Firefox, same thing. Maybe iPad users get the entire book. You can hit "View All", but you get pieces of pages, extending above page 161, but not entire pages.

Jack

[geoff]

On 1/07/2015 11:22 a.m., wrote:
What are you guys viewing with? If i can see it from my iPad, you should
it on your devices or a PC.
Nothing to do with the device.

It's to do with paying for the book. To get other that a 'preview'
viewing, you need to pay some $34. It may be random which pages you see
(or don't) per session.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 1/07/2015 4:15 AM, wrote:
On page 223:
The word 'waveform' should be replaced with 'envelope'.


The "envelope" is the outline of the waveform. They are simply different
ways of looking at the SAME thing. (zoom in or zoom out)
We've covered this all here already of course.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 1/07/2015 9:12 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 1/07/2015 4:15 AM, wrote:
On page 223:
The word 'waveform' should be replaced with 'envelope'.


The "envelope" is the outline of the waveform. They are simply different
ways of looking at the SAME thing. (zoom in or zoom out)
We've covered this all here already of course.

Trevor.


I suspect rocketman is actually learning, and can now even catch out the
book author on an error !

geoff

[[email protected]]

Trevor, geoff:


Well, it's still a fine line. In the book, the image shows
individual up&down spikes, of a piece of sound a couple
minutes long. To me that's a waveform.

If I zoom out so that the spikes & lines all blend together, it
"could be" an envelope.


Not the one in the book, but: http://www.zytrax.com/tech/audio/note-adsr.gif

In that link, the dotted lines along the peaks to me are the envelope.
The up & down squiggly line is the waveform. That image clears things up
nicely.

[geoff]

On 2/07/2015 1:01 a.m., wrote:
Trevor, geoff:


Well, it's still a fine line. In the book, the image shows
individual up&down spikes, of a piece of sound a couple
minutes long. To me that's a waveform.

If I zoom out so that the spikes & lines all blend together, it
"could be" an envelope.


Not the one in the book, but: http://www.zytrax.com/tech/audio/note-adsr.gif

In that link, the dotted lines along the peaks to me are the envelope.
The up & down squiggly line is the waveform. That image clears things up
nicely.


The up-down lines are the waveform, the dotted outline is the envelope.
As soon as the 'up-down' stuff is indiscernible as separate cycles, all
you can see is an envelope.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 1/07/2015 11:01 PM, wrote:
Trevor, geoff:


Well, it's still a fine line. In the book, the image shows
individual up&down spikes, of a piece of sound a couple
minutes long. To me that's a waveform.
If I zoom out so that the spikes & lines all blend together, it
"could be" an envelope.

Not "could be", that is the envelope. Imaginary lines joining the peaks
are just that, *imaginary*.


Not the one in the book, but: http://www.zytrax.com/tech/audio/note-adsr.gif

In that link, the dotted lines along the peaks to me are the envelope.
The up & down squiggly line is the waveform. That image clears things up
nicely.

No, that just includes something that doesn't actually exist for people
who can't grasp reality without it.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Trevor, et al:

Well, thanks for nothing guys. I posted this as a test, and
you all failed with flying colors.

If that textbook calls it a waveform, and that book helped
graduate multitudes of audio professionals, then I ain't
disputing it.


As for envelopes, here's the best example I've yet found:

http://acad.carleton.edu/courses/mus...inEnvelope.png

NO spikes, no frizzies, no wigglies - just an outline.



And if this ain't a WAVEFORM: http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/...2013-05-01.jpg
then I'll eat it!

[JackA]

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 9:25:22 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Trevor, et al:

Well, thanks for nothing guys. I posted this as a test, and
you all failed with flying colors.

If that textbook calls it a waveform, and that book helped
graduate multitudes of audio professionals, then I ain't
disputing it.

-- What should they do, yell at the book?
-- Remember, to error is human.

-- I think of it more as constraints.


Jack


As for envelopes, here's the best example I've yet found:

http://acad.carleton.edu/courses/mus...inEnvelope.png

NO spikes, no frizzies, no wigglies - just an outline.



And if this ain't a WAVEFORM: http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/...2013-05-01.jpg
then I'll eat it!

[geoff]

On 3/07/2015 1:25 a.m., wrote:
Trevor, et al:

Well, thanks for nothing guys. I posted this as a test, and
you all failed with flying colors.

No.


If that textbook calls it a waveform, and that book helped
graduate multitudes of audio professionals, then I ain't
disputing it.

The book looks more like a 'pop-science' thing, so a little bit of
vagary could be expected.


As for envelopes, here's the best example I've yet found:

http://acad.carleton.edu/courses/mus...inEnvelope.png

NO spikes, no frizzies, no wigglies - just an outline.

That's an envelope all right. This time without an imaginary waveform
drawn inside it.


And if this ain't a WAVEFORM: http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/...2013-05-01.jpg
then I'll eat it!


That's a waveform for sure. With sufficient cycles shown to indicate an
envelope if one wanted.

geoff

[None]

thekma @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
Trevor, et al:

Well, thanks for nothing guys. I posted this as a test, and
you all failed with flying colors.

Hehe. Someone said that maybe "Ralphie Wiggum" was leaning here. But
no, he was just playing his usual role in the "Magic Shortbus" sitcom.
Magic Shortbus main title theme He was "testing" the people who have
been doing audio production for decades, and he says they "failed".
laugh track When he was younger, he always did poorly in school
because all his teachers "failed" his "tests". He shows the pictures
(although his original links seems to have "failed the test"), and
then blubbers about them without a clue. Then he points at the
pictures, and says, "you failed". laugh track

And he moans about forums where nobody responds to a thread where he's
soiled himself like this.
FCKWAFA.

NO spikes, no frizzies, no wigglies - just an outline.
I'll eat it!

Bone apple teat.

[Trevor]

On 2/07/2015 11:25 PM, wrote:

Well, thanks for nothing guys. I posted this as a test, and
you all failed with flying colors.

Unfortunately for you, you could not determine what is a "pass" if your
life depended on it.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 3/07/2015 6:27 AM, geoff wrote:
On 3/07/2015 1:25 a.m., wrote:
Trevor, et al:
Well, thanks for nothing guys. I posted this as a test, and
you all failed with flying colors.

No.


If that textbook calls it a waveform, and that book helped
graduate multitudes of audio professionals, then I ain't
disputing it.

The book looks more like a 'pop-science' thing, so a little bit of
vagary could be expected.

Exactly, and unlike Thekma many of us were taught to question mistakes
and vague or misleading information, not blindly take them as gospel.


As for envelopes, here's the best example I've yet found:
http://acad.carleton.edu/courses/mus...inEnvelope.png
NO spikes, no frizzies, no wigglies - just an outline.

That's an envelope all right. This time without an imaginary waveform
drawn inside it.

The "envelope" is totally imaginary (just like Thekma's knowledge of
audio) and so totally irrelevant, not the actual waveform!

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "On 3/07/2015 6:27 AM, geoff wrote:

The book looks more like a 'pop-science' thing, so a little bit of
vagary could be expected.

Exactly, and unlike Thekma many of us were taught to question mistakes
and vague or misleading information, not blindly take them as gospel.


As for envelopes, here's the best example I've yet found:
http://acad.carleton.edu/courses/mus...inEnvelope.png
NO spikes, no frizzies, no wigglies - just an outline.

That's an envelope all right. This time without an imaginary waveform
drawn inside it.

The "envelope" is totally imaginary (just like Thekma's knowledge of
audio) and so totally irrelevant, not the actual waveform!

Trevor. "


You can't make any presumptions as to what I know and
don't know about audio Trevor. Not that anyone in this
good-ol-boys club has been of any help to me...


Your own descriptions(not just Trevor's) of at what point
a visual representation of sound becomes an envelope
or a waveform are at LEAST as vague as in that book
I linked to.


The point at which a waveform begins to resemble an envelope
has more to do with the size of your working monitor and also
with how zoomed in or out the image is. There is no rigid definition,
and that's why you haven't been able to provide a straight answer.

[geoff]

On 3/07/2015 11:10 p.m., wrote:


The point at which a waveform begins to resemble an envelope
has more to do with the size of your working monitor and also
with how zoomed in or out the image is. There is no rigid definition,
and that's why you haven't been able to provide a straight answer.



No yet again. And we thought you were finally getting it. It is quite
possible, and useful , to see both the waveform and the envelope of the
waveform.

The degree to which a 'useful' envelope can be discerned is certainly
to do with the frequency and the time-scale.

Where this originally stemmed from was the discussion about 'solid block
envelope when you look at a song over the width of a screen. Unless the
whole track is ultra-low frequency, you will see no waveform there - in
hyper-compressed music just the solid envelope of sound, maybe with a
few gaps or dips. But unlikey *any* waveform.

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "The degree to which a 'useful' envelope can
be discerned is certainly to do with the frequency and the
time-scale. "

So the witness admits some variation: "degree to which.."


"Where this originally stemmed from was the discussion about 'solid block
envelope when you look at a song over the width of a screen. Unless the
whole track is ultra-low frequency, you will see no waveform there - in
hyper-compressed music just the solid envelope of sound, maybe with a
few gaps or dips. But unlikey *any* waveform.

geoff "


Vague, inadmissable. Once more, in THIS - specific - example:
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/...2013-05-01.jpg

I see a waveform. Plenty of individual spikes.

[None]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 3/07/2015 11:10 p.m., thekma @ gmail.com wrote:
the usual dumb****ery
No yet again. And we thought you were finally getting it.

Nobody who's paying attention thought that he was "getting it."

[None]

thekma @ shortbus.edu wrote in message
...
You can't make any presumptions as to what I know and
don't know about audio Trevor.

You've been putting your audio ignorance on display for some years
now. You're a dumb****, and if you think nobody notices that you're a
dumb****, you're an even bigger dumb****

Not that anyone in this
good-ol-boys club has been of any help to me...

There's no reason anyone here should worry about being of any help to
you. Many have tried to teach you, but you're incapable of learning.
As always, blame anyone but yourself for your idiocy.

[None]

wrote in message
...
geoff wrote: "The degree to which a 'useful' envelope can
be discerned is certainly to do with the frequency and the
time-scale. "

So the witness admits some variation: "degree to which.."

So now, having utterly failed in the "schoolroom" charade, you pretend
this is some kind of courtroom? Anything to avoid actually learning!

Vague, inadmissable.

You don't get to decide what's admissable, dumb****. You're out of
order!

Once more,

Once more, nobody's interested in your dumb****ery. Go harass some
other forum with your moronic posting.

in THIS - specific - example:
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/...2013-05-01.jpg

I see a waveform. Plenty of individual spikes.

Nobody gives a **** what you see, dumb****. You'll never see much if
you insist on keeping your head embedded in your rectum.

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

writes:

On page 223: https://books.google.com/books?id=w0... 0audio&f=true

The word 'waveform' should be replaced with 'envelope'.

Can't see the original, so there's no way to respond intelligently.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[None]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
thekma @gmail.com writes:

On page ...
Can't see the original, so there's no way to respond intelligently.

One of Thekma's biggest problems is that he thinks everyone else sees
the world the way he sees it. Fortunately, most people don't have to
live in that hell.

[geoff]

On 3/07/2015 11:46 p.m., wrote:
geoff wrote: "The degree to which a 'useful' envelope can be
discerned is certainly to do with the frequency and the time-scale.
"

So the witness admits some variation: "degree to which.."

Do you view this as some sort of competition or trial ?


"Where this originally stemmed from was the discussion about 'solid
block envelope when you look at a song over the width of a screen.
Unless the whole track is ultra-low frequency, you will see no
waveform there - in hyper-compressed music just the solid envelope of
sound, maybe with a few gaps or dips. But unlikey *any* waveform.

geoff "


Vague, inadmissable. Once more, in THIS - specific - example:
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/...2013-05-01.jpg

I see a waveform. Plenty of individual spikes.

Yep. And not a significant enough sample to show any useful sort of
envelope for any practical purpose (other than to ascertain no, clipping
or a compression flat-line in that very small section.

geogg

[None]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
Do you view this as some sort of competition or trial ?

Thekma: witless for the persecution.

-- "Drop the vernacular."
-- "That's a derby!

[Trevor]

On 3/07/2015 9:10 PM, wrote:
You can't make any presumptions as to what I know and
don't know about audio Trevor.

Don't need to make assumptions when you have made it very clear right
here on this newsgroup what you don't know.


Not that anyone in this
good-ol-boys club has been of any help to me...

Of course not, one has to be willing to learn, and you aren't.


Your own descriptions(not just Trevor's) of at what point
a visual representation of sound becomes an envelope
or a waveform are at LEAST as vague as in that book
I linked to.

That's because you still don't understand that a sound does NOT become
an "envelope" ever!


The point at which a waveform begins to resemble an envelope
has more to do with the size of your working monitor and also
with how zoomed in or out the image is. There is no rigid definition,
and that's why you haven't been able to provide a straight answer.

Bull****!!! How many times have I said an "envelope" is simply
imaginary, so what YOU want to imagine is irrelevant to actual physics.
Not that we EVER expect you to understand.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 3/07/2015 11:00 PM, None wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 3/07/2015 11:10 p.m., thekma @ gmail.com wrote:
the usual dumb****ery
No yet again. And we thought you were finally getting it.

Nobody who's paying attention thought that he was "getting it."

Right, I too was wondering what made him think Thekma was ever going to
get anything. :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 3/07/2015 11:03 PM, None wrote:
thekma @ shortbus.edu wrote in message
...
You can't make any presumptions as to what I know and
don't know about audio Trevor.

You've been putting your audio ignorance on display for some years now.
You're a dumb****, and if you think nobody notices that you're a
dumb****, you're an even bigger dumb****

Not that anyone in this
good-ol-boys club has been of any help to me...

There's no reason anyone here should worry about being of any help to
you. Many have tried to teach you, but you're incapable of learning. As
always, blame anyone but yourself for your idiocy.

Or we are the idiots for not having kill-filed him already, something I
will attend to now I think.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "Bull****!!!"

YOU GUYS were the ones telling ME that
every image I posted - those original-vs-remasters
- as waveforms should have been referred to as
"envelopes"!


"How many times have I said an "envelope" is simply
imaginary, so what YOU want to imagine is irrelevant
to actual physics. Not that we EVER expect you to
understand. "

Now you call envelopes "imaginary". Well MAKE UP
YOUR MINDS!!

And some advice for when explaining concepts to
someone: HOW you explain it is AT LEAST as
important as the concept itself. Not everyone
receives and process info at the same rate or
same manner as you do.

Remember that, pal.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

YOU GUYS were the ones telling ME that
every image I posted - those original-vs-remasters
- as waveforms should have been referred to as
"envelopes"!

They are, yes. What you see on the DAW display is an envelope. And yes,
Trevor is right, the envelope is imaginary. (The waveform is also
imaginary, but that's another issue). That doesn't mean it's not a useful
abstraction, of course, but it's important not to confuse it with a
representation of actual pressure in air.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[None]

theck-mama @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
And some advice for when explaining concepts to
someone: HOW you explain it is AT LEAST as
important as the concept itself. Not everyone
receives and process info at the same rate or
same manner as you do.

Remember that, pal.

Quit blaming everyone else for the problems you create, pal. Your
little "test that the grownups failed" charade shows how little you
give a **** about actual learning. You just want to whine and blame
everyone else for your idiocy. Maybe you should **** off and whine
somewhere else, you whiney little bitch.

[JackA]

On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 6:59:26 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Trevor wrote: "Bull****!!!"

YOU GUYS were the ones telling ME that
every image I posted - those original-vs-remasters
- as waveforms should have been referred to as
"envelopes"!


"How many times have I said an "envelope" is simply
imaginary, so what YOU want to imagine is irrelevant
to actual physics. Not that we EVER expect you to
understand. "

Now you call envelopes "imaginary". Well MAKE UP
YOUR MINDS!!

Postage Paid Envelopes are common.
Letter Size Envelopes are 32 bit.
Legal Size Envelopes are 64 bit.

:-)

Jack

And some advice for when explaining concepts to
someone: HOW you explain it is AT LEAST as
important as the concept itself. Not everyone
receives and process info at the same rate or
same manner as you do.

Remember that, pal.

[JackA]

On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 7:33:37 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:

YOU GUYS were the ones telling ME that
every image I posted - those original-vs-remasters
- as waveforms should have been referred to as
"envelopes"!

They are, yes. What you see on the DAW display is an envelope.


Before audio software, I have to assume there was no such thing as a DAW.
If Pro Tools is considered DAW, then Photoshop should be named DPW. If not, why not? Why must a single piece of software be named a Workstation?

Jack

And yes,
Trevor is right, the envelope is imaginary. (The waveform is also
imaginary, but that's another issue). That doesn't mean it's not a useful
abstraction, of course, but it's important not to confuse it with a
representation of actual pressure in air.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/5/2015 8:47 PM, JackA wrote:

Before audio software, I have to assume there was no such thing as a
DAW.

That depends on your definition of each. Audio software that provided
the basics (recording, playback, and editing) ran on computers like the
Atari ST and Commodore Amiga. But they were limited in scope both
because of processing horsepower and audio I/O hardware.

At about the same time (and actually starting earlier) there were
one-box hardware audio workstations, initially analog, that offered
multitrack recording from multiple inputs, with a built-in mixer with
the conventional set of controls. That's where people started using the
term "workstation." As digital hardware and software development
evolved, so did these workstations. Roland and Akai had one-box digital
workstations with 16 inputs and 24 track recording and mixing with real
hands-on hardware controls. And no additional software to buy and install.

There were also "music workstations" that looked like a musical keyboard
and included a programmable synthesizer, a sampler (which did double
duty to record a vocal track), and a multi-track sequencer with editing
capability.

In my writing, I use "DAW program" or "DAW software" when talking about
a program like Pro Tools, I use the term "DAW" when I'm talking about a
collection of equipment - at minimum a computer running a DAW program
and an audio interface (which could be the computer's built-in "sound
card").

Why must a single piece of software be named a Workstation?

Because that's what the public knows. And the public is always right,
even if they're inaccurate.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[JackA]

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 8:01:56 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/5/2015 8:47 PM, JackA wrote:

Before audio software, I have to assume there was no such thing as a
DAW.

That depends on your definition of each. Audio software that provided
the basics (recording, playback, and editing) ran on computers like the
Atari ST and Commodore Amiga. But they were limited in scope both
because of processing horsepower and audio I/O hardware.

At about the same time (and actually starting earlier) there were
one-box hardware audio workstations, initially analog, that offered
multitrack recording from multiple inputs, with a built-in mixer with
the conventional set of controls. That's where people started using the
term "workstation." As digital hardware and software development
evolved, so did these workstations. Roland and Akai had one-box digital
workstations with 16 inputs and 24 track recording and mixing with real
hands-on hardware controls. And no additional software to buy and install..

There were also "music workstations" that looked like a musical keyboard
and included a programmable synthesizer, a sampler (which did double
duty to record a vocal track), and a multi-track sequencer with editing
capability.

In my writing, I use "DAW program" or "DAW software" when talking about
a program like Pro Tools, I use the term "DAW" when I'm talking about a
collection of equipment - at minimum a computer running a DAW program
and an audio interface (which could be the computer's built-in "sound
card").

Why must a single piece of software be named a Workstation?

Because that's what the public knows. And the public is always right,
even if they're inaccurate.

The public, like I thought, can't define what an "oldie" is, but continue to use it.

I can understand if there's more than just software, maybe a mixing board, maybe some analog audio devices, to name it a workstation. I like to see DAS replace DAW. Unless you're specific when writing, like Pro Tools (DAW) who knows exactly what you referring to.

Ah, well.


Thanks.

Jack



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/6/2015 8:36 AM, JackA wrote:
Unless you're specific when writing, like Pro Tools (DAW) who knows
exactly what you referring to.

If the question is "What kind of DAW do you have?" and the answer is
"Pro Tools," this will satisfy most who ask, because they have some
understanding about what the technology is about. If they care, then
they'll ask about the interface, monitors, plug-ins, outboard processing
hardware and such.

Give a detailed answer to a naive questioner and you'll be accused of
being condescending or just being a show-off. I know.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/6/2015 8:36 AM, JackA wrote:
Unless you're specific when writing, like Pro Tools (DAW) who knows
exactly what you referring to.

If the question is "What kind of DAW do you have?" and the answer is
"Pro Tools," this will satisfy most who ask, because they have some
understanding about what the technology is about. If they care, then
they'll ask about the interface, monitors, plug-ins, outboard processing
hardware and such.

Until fairly recently, Pro Tools was a mixture of hardware and software.
You _had_ to use their converter and dsp box with the software. Same goes
for Sonic; Sonic really just used the host computer as a fancy terminal and
all the real number crunching was done on the Sonic card.

As desktop computers have got faster and cheaper, this has been becoming much
less common because it's now possible to do considerable processing just on
the host CPU. Pyramix, though, still uses dedicated processing hardware and
is still very much a popular choice with the classical music crowd.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 9:24:57 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/6/2015 8:36 AM, JackA wrote:
Unless you're specific when writing, like Pro Tools (DAW) who knows
exactly what you referring to.

If the question is "What kind of DAW do you have?" and the answer is
"Pro Tools," this will satisfy most who ask, because they have some
understanding about what the technology is about. If they care, then
they'll ask about the interface, monitors, plug-ins, outboard processing
hardware and such.

Until fairly recently, Pro Tools was a mixture of hardware and software.
You _had_ to use their converter and dsp box with the software. Same goes
for Sonic; Sonic really just used the host computer as a fancy terminal and
all the real number crunching was done on the Sonic card.

As desktop computers have got faster and cheaper, this has been becoming much
less common because it's now possible to do considerable processing just on
the host CPU. Pyramix, though, still uses dedicated processing hardware and
is still very much a popular choice with the classical music crowd.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Ah, okay!! NOW I understand why a "workstation".

May I ask, is there ANY software that allows mixing multi-tracks from an external mixing board? How is digital mixing done these days, especially for panning and frills? Mixing boards obsolete?

Thanks.

Jack