[[email protected]]

On 2011-01-21 said:
Yep, doesn't surprise me. That's why I work in the niche I
do, I don't get asked if I have autotune, or I can't just
paste that chorus in the others because the singer can't get
it right and we coaxed a good partial take out of him/her.
snip
You're lucky. I could never afford the real estate that would match
the level of equipment I had and was daydreaming about owning just
a modest remote truck for years, even before the mice and the
associated madness took over. It combines two things I love:
recording live music and travelling. Sadly, and this is a proven
fact, in this small, pretzel-shaped country of four and a half
million people, one can't keep paying the bills running a remote
truck, let alone return the investment.
IT's a push here. I"m still working to develop a good
system I like for those times when there's no sound
reinforcement needed or used and I can work without the
truck. IF we didn't have the lady's disability it would be
tougher, not that we're getting rich, in fact we're just
barely keeping the heads above water. But, the price of
admission was good, and we got in thanks to a good deal from
the remote rig's former owner who was wishing to retire,
added some additional equipment and used an inheritance.
wHen Katrina took my other rig, including my small sr rig I
wsn't really sure I wanted to do the fixed location studio
again just because of the usual clientelle at the budget end
of the business.
VOice-over work? Too many folks lowballing and undercutting
each other. Demos? Nah, didn't even want to go there
again. THis thing doesn't work as much as I"d like, but
even doing sound for a broadcast of a basketball game is
more rewarding than dealing with people who won't put the
time in before the red light comes on. I'm old, I"m grouchy
and I spent years honing my skills, both as a musician and
on the other side of the glass. THis means I don't have a
lot of patience with those who want the technology to solve
problems that should be solved by learning one's instrument
and/or how to deliver a performance.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message
...

Increasing reliance on visual information certainly goes a long way
towards eliminating the right brain from the process. No happy
accidents,
spur of the moment things. People tend to make everything in the mix
tidy,
free of noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly
proportional...
It's boring to listen to, but progress has its price.

It is so good to know that involving visual information goes so far way
towards eliminating the right brain from the process that painting,
drawing
and sculpture are no longer considered to be creative arts.

They are not generally considered musical art, a few dynamic sculptures
aside.

So what? The claim was made that "visual information certainly goes a long
way towards eliminating the right brain from the process"

It's an aural process. "Let's go see how that chorus looks". versus
"How's that painting sound?"

There's a reason blind people usually hear better than sighted folks.

I may be foolish but I think that there's a reason why I can mix and record
so much better when I can actually see the performers. I work in one venue
where I'm over 100 feet from the performers. If I hold up my arm and stick
up my thumb, it completely obscures one or two performers. I work in a
number of other venues where I mix and/or record from close enough to smell
the performer's perfume. Guess where I do my best work?

I think that's different than focusing on a screen right in front of me
watching waveforms.

We've already had the same person who allowed that visual information is a
detriment to creativity admit that his real problem with what I do is that
he feels that one of the genres of music that I work with is totally and
completely non-creative at any level. I think this says it all. He obviously
can't relate to anything but his own narrow experience and bigotry. He
could easily feel the same about some of the genres that you work with.

I could be wrong but I think that audio production is actually a multi-media
activity, even when the end product may be entirely compsed of just sound.
And, unlike our narrow-minded correspondant, I think that all genres of
music and vocal expression are worthy of our most creative and professional
efforts. Southern gospel and Blue Grass aren't my mostest favorite cups of
tea, but I still tackle gigs involving them with the same creative effort
and enthusiasm as anything else. It's music!

Great point, Arny. If one is faced with genre dislike one should hand
off the job to another who digs it, and who can at least do the job.

I have only one heavy rock production under my belt, and I don't really
want another. I did a fine job with it. The leader said it was the only
such record he'd ever heard where it sounded like it was "supposed to"
sound, yet you could hear every syllable sung by (by inexperienced
adrenaline and testosterone infused high school guys).

I found the heavily compressed and distorted sound extremely fatiguing
while mixing. I'd mix for twenty minutes to a half hour, and then take a
ten minute break.

This was pre-DAW, so a bit off-topic.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Arny Krueger]

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message
...

Increasing reliance on visual information certainly goes a long way
towards eliminating the right brain from the process. No happy
accidents,
spur of the moment things. People tend to make everything in the mix
tidy,
free of noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly
proportional...
It's boring to listen to, but progress has its price.

It is so good to know that involving visual information goes so far way
towards eliminating the right brain from the process that painting,
drawing
and sculpture are no longer considered to be creative arts.

They are not generally considered musical art, a few dynamic sculptures
aside.

So what? The claim was made that "visual information certainly goes a
long way towards eliminating the right brain from the process"


No, that's only a part of it, pulled out of a context in order to distort
its meaning.

Here is everything that you wrote about this, the whole paragraph:

"Increasing reliance on visual information certainly goes a long way towards
eliminating the right brain from the process. No happy accidents, spur of
the moment things. People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of
noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's
boring to listen to, but progress has its price."

Even more insulting, narrow and wrong than just the piece I pulled out.

This is not a decent thing to do, but you have never been able to control
that urge of yours, to make a point at all costs.

So that's your strategy - pile insult on top of insult?

There's a reason blind people usually hear better than sighted folks.

I may be foolish but I think that there's a reason why I can mix and
record so much better when I can actually see the performers. I work in
one venue where I'm over 100 feet from the performers. If I hold up my
arm and stick up my thumb, it completely obscures one or two performers.
I work in a number of other venues where I mix and/or record from close
enough to smell the performer's perfume. Guess where I do my best work?

We're discussing mixing with the mouse and computer screen, as the
predominant user interface in a modern recording studio. Stop shifting the
subject.

What I saw was an overly-general statement based on a very narrow viewpoint.
I addressed it without being personal, but for my trouble I received insult
after insult.


Nobody has heard your musical achievements anyway.

Actually, a large number of people have heard the results of my mixing and
editing, both recorded and live. Perhaps not anybody who is currently
posting on RAP, but we are talking two small sets. I cannot be held
accountable if two small sets of people out of the billions in the world do
not overlap.

What you consider your best work is meaningless.

Says who? Some world-class authority? Or, some troll who responds to logical
arguments with insults?


You keep sabotaging interesting discussions on studio production with
clueless counterclaims and, when pushed to substantiate, your entire
"expertise" eventually reverts to your epic experience in recording weekly
church services.

And your gratuitous addition of the word "epic" is not an example of trying
to shift a discussion - into the toilet?

Please, please, pretty please, respect your limits and stop polluting the
newsgroup.

More insults.

We've already had the same person who allowed that visual information is
a detriment to creativity admit that his real problem with what I do is
that he feels that one of the genres of music that I work with is totally
and completely non-creative at any level. I think this says it all. He
obviously can't relate to anything but his own narrow experience and
bigotry. He could easily feel the same about some of the genres that you
work with.

I could be wrong but I think that audio production is actually a
multi-media activity, even when the end product may be entirely compsed
of just sound. And, unlike our narrow-minded correspondant, I think that
all genres of music and vocal expression are worthy of our most creative
and professional efforts. Southern gospel and Blue Grass aren't my
mostest favorite cups of tea, but I still tackle gigs involving them with
the same creative effort and enthusiasm as anything else. It's music!


You've made a fool of yourself again and now you're trying to cover it up
by spewing loads of BS. Deja vu.

Is this the best behavoir that your communist masters could teach you?

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Jan 20, 1:30 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of
noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's
boring to listen to, but progress has its price.

I believe this is misguided. People have been using automation with
analog console for many years to ride levels for consistency, mute
tracks to get rid of tape hiss and residual amp buzz and headphone
bleed when someone isn't playing, and so forth. The notion that a
clean recording is somehow "sterile" and undesirable, or that "flaws"
are to be valued, is silly IMO. Some of the finest recordings ever
made are clean and clear, and devoid of extraneous noises that only
distract the listener.

Also, if I may editorialize a bit, elsewhere in this NG is a
discussion about the difference between r.a.p. and Gearslutz. One of
the things I value most about this group is its professional-level
discourse. Your insults to others here are not needed, and only
diminish your contributions. Surely you can do better.

--Ethan

[Arny Krueger]

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message
...
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message


That still doesn't rule out the possibilty that they heard better
results simply because they expected to. I'm not (yet)
willing to accept the basic premise that there's a
fundamental problem with digital summing.

The fundamental problem with digital summing is that there's no
fundamental problem.

Nice self-contradiction.


Unlike acoustic or analog summing, digital summing is accurate,
reasonably free of artefacts.

Actually, digital summing can easily be *totally free* of artifacts. Added
distortion can be zero, and added noise can be reduced to be as small as is
desired.

Some people, however, prefer the artefacts inherent in analog summing,
especially when dealing with larger number of channels/instruments in the
mix.

This statement appears to presume facts that may not be evident.

Does analog summing always create audible artifacts?

Does analog summing always create the identical same audible artifacts?

Does analog summing always create audible artifacts once some certain yet
unstated number of inputs is reached?


Noise affects our perception of sound and seems to be indispensable
regardless of technology.

That is a false claim. The digital domain can be completely free of noise
and distortion.

Otherwise it wouldn't have to be added to pristine digital signals at
every stage of processing, including summing.


I suspect that you are referring to dithering. Dithering need not be added
unless a certain subset of all possible operations are performed on the
data.

Distortions color the sound.

Only if they exceed certain thresholds. The digital domain can be totally
free of all forms of distortion.


Some of them are perceived as more pleasing to the human ear than others.

There is a farily widespread school of thought where all unintended forms of
audible distortion is objectionable.


Analog summers, including analog consoles, all offer different packages
of subtle distortions,

However, in many cases these distortions are either simply too small to be
audible, or they are so small that they are masked by other sources of
distortion.

Hence the differences in sound.

It is not written in stone that need be any differences in sound quality in
useful signal chain(s).

Some of the best brains in the industry have been engaged in creating
software plug-ins that are supposed to emulate certain types of
distortions, so there's obviously a need for them in the digital world
too.

You seem to be confused about EFX. Many EFX exist and are widely use that
are not emulations of certain kinds of distortions that used to be common in
audio gear.

Even if a form of distortion is an emulation of a certain kind of distortion
that used to be common in certain kinds of audio gear, the fact that it
orginated that way does not affect how or why most people use it. They use
the EFX because they like what it does to the sound, regardless of what it
is or how it first came to be.

There's no big mystery. Analog summing offers relatively complex packages
of subtle artefacts

Not always. Sonically transparent summing is possible and even fairly
common.

that are in many cases desirable, but still without an equivalent, at
least as complete packages, in the form of digital processing.

So what?

Your average music listener could care less whether the EFX is a simulation
of a certain piece of equipment or involved the use of that piece of
equipment. They simply are looking for sounds that they like.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Jan 20, 1:30 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of
noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's
boring to listen to, but progress has its price.

I believe this is misguided. People have been using automation with
analog console for many years to ride levels for consistency, mute
tracks to get rid of tape hiss and residual amp buzz and headphone
bleed when someone isn't playing, and so forth. The notion that a
clean recording is somehow "sterile" and undesirable, or that "flaws"
are to be valued, is silly IMO. Some of the finest recordings ever
made are clean and clear, and devoid of extraneous noises that only
distract the listener.

Good points.

I almost get the feeling that our correspondent wants to deify audible
artifacts. He seems to presume that they are always there.

IME analog summing need not have any audible artifacts in actual use, even
when a relatively large number of inputs are involved. (what is a large
number of inputs?)

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

(hank alrich) wrote in
:


This was pre-DAW, so a bit off-topic.

Yeah, I hear those wax cylinders were a pain to work with. :-)

Steve Hawkins

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Jan 20, 1:30 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of
noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's
boring to listen to, but progress has its price.

I believe this is misguided. People have been using automation with
analog console for many years to ride levels for consistency, mute
tracks to get rid of tape hiss and residual amp buzz and headphone
bleed when someone isn't playing, and so forth. The notion that a
clean recording is somehow "sterile" and undesirable, or that "flaws"
are to be valued, is silly IMO. Some of the finest recordings ever
made are clean and clear, and devoid of extraneous noises that only
distract the listener.


Some of the finest recordings are not so clean and clear, it proves nothing.

First of all, you were talking about mixing with a mouse. I reflected on its
consequences on the creative part of the process, creative mixing, such as
the craft required to mix a modern rock or pop tune or any other production
style requiring something more than just a documentaristic, puristic
approach.

People have been using automation with analog consoles, but not everybody
could afford it. It required a big budget and even then it wasn't feasible
or even possible to mute every lip smack, every breath, to pan things with
1% accuracy, to fade in and out every note and move them around, to achieve
perfect symmetry in the stereo field, to autotune each vocal track syllable
by syllable and so forth. Nowadays it's accessible to everyone and has
become a widespread practice, almost the norm in some cases.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that clean recordings are
sterile, nor that flaws are to be valued, but that extremely powerful tool
enable people to go way over board and strip their tracks of the last breath
of life, figuratively and literally. People generally have a problem
restraining themselves from using those tools and it can often be heard in
the final product.

The rest is a matter of personal taste. You consider extraneous noises a
distraction, to others, myself included, they often contribute to the
realism of the recordings. To each his own.


Also, if I may editorialize a bit, elsewhere in this NG is a
discussion about the difference between r.a.p. and Gearslutz. One of
the things I value most about this group is its professional-level
discourse. Your insults to others here are not needed, and only
diminish your contributions. Surely you can do better.


If you really valued the professional-level discourse you wouldn't have
twisted my words and called my opinion silly.

I only have a misunderstanding with one person here, who seems to feel
obliged to **** in my plate on the increasingly rare occasions I venture to
contribute to a discussion. Even then I only refer to the technical and
logical flaws in his claims and don't react to the cheap nationalistic
shots.

If your usage of plural implies that I have also insulted your greatness by
not agreeing with your views, I sincerely don't apologise.

Predrag

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Predrag Trpkov wrote:

First of all, you were talking about mixing with a mouse. I reflected
on its consequences on the creative part of the process, creative
mixing, such as the craft required to mix a modern rock or pop tune
or any other production style requiring something more than just a
documentaristic, puristic approach.

Are you trying to say that an intuitive work style is not possible in the
box? - Allow me to compare with Beethoven, who in his later years worked
only with pen and paper and yet his music is fresh and free. I reckon we can
use him as strawman example without you getting into a debacle with him,
altho' Mr. Schikele most certainly did ... O;-)

Predrag

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

various snips

- if, on reflection two weeks later that mix wasn't as magical as
we all thought
because the intensity of the moment was compensating for something,
I can adjust
those pieces of magic that were slightly out of whack. Then I wind
up with truly
timeless magic.

INdeed, but there again, you learned the craft before you
had all these tools, and have control of the process,
instead of the process controlling you. I'm also sure that

Absolutely agreed; I made a similar point at the end of the post: an analog
background can make for a better use of the digital mix environment.

What I didn't get into (likely an entirely new thread) is how do we -- as a
practical matter -- communicate these ideas and aesthetics to those younger
engineers who have only worked with DAWs, and perhaps will never have access to
large-format analog consoles?

It's one thing to tell someone something, and they can even bob their heads in
eager agreement, but they gotta have hands-on to really get the idea.


if you were mixing for a live broadcast, gotta get it right
now, that you'd also prefer your hardware controls, or at

Again, completely agreed. Once in a while at my classical gigs I am asked to provide
audio to TV folks. Of course, no one at this local level has the money to do proper
post so it's all "live" -- they take the monitor mix of my little small-format
console and are thrilled with it; while I cringe on a number of levels.

But even with 8-12 channels I'd *never* do something like that with a mouse. Oooooh
noooo. I want all the controls, right then and there.

What I was getting at were the more "crafted" mixes, where you will take a number of
passes at it, listening, evaluating, getting a sense of the music so that you know
how to blend it, what to fix, and what to leave alone.

For me, this is partly a layered process. With the DAW, it's nice to do some little
bit of work one time on one of the middle "layers" and then have the system remember
it from there on out, rather than needing to duplicate that myself at *each* pass.

Of course, this is basic automation but DAW automation can be much richer.

And sure enough, I will undo or change some of those early tweaks.

Now there's one DAW pitfall I have seen: people will do something perhaps casually
or "temporarily," but because it's committed into computer memory, they're less
inclined to change it. This is unlike a knob or fader, which is right there, in
front of you, with no such subconscious reluctance to alter earlier work.

But overcoming this is simply part of the learning curve.


At the mixing stage of a multitrack project I"ll usually
find myself a good mouse jockey who also understands the old
ways if I"m babysitting the project through that point, and
take full advantage of the capabilities a daw offers. But,
when it's for the money right now, I want my physical
controls.

Sure. One pass, your reputation potentially on the line, you want it all instantly
visible and accessible. And the LAST thing you want to see 30 seconds before "air"
are those lovely white characters in a sea of deep blue: "Windows has experienced a
severe error and has halted the system...." or whatever the exact text might be.
Fortunately, I see very few of those. Still, there's no way I'd trust a
commodity computer with a general-purpose OS to handle a live gig!!

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
Predrag Trpkov wrote:

First of all, you were talking about mixing with a mouse. I reflected
on its consequences on the creative part of the process, creative
mixing, such as the craft required to mix a modern rock or pop tune
or any other production style requiring something more than just a
documentaristic, puristic approach.

Are you trying to say that an intuitive work style is not possible in the
box? - Allow me to compare with Beethoven, who in his later years worked
only with pen and paper and yet his music is fresh and free. I reckon we
can use him as strawman example without you getting into a debacle with
him, altho' Mr. Schikele most certainly did ... O;-)


Thank you for an intelligent question. I'm not being sarcastic. It's such a
refreshing change.

An intuitive work style is possible when mixing in the box. It's just not so
easy.

Assuming that human brain is capable of processing a finite quantity of
perceptual information per time unit, that it has certain bandwidth, the
work method involving the computer screen and mouse as the main user
interface uses up a significant part of that bandwidth in processing visual
information. It leaves less bandwidth available to process aural
information.

To make things worse, such user interface, when it comes to interpreting its
logical, detail-oriented content, strongly favours our left brain. It's
quite a problem if one wants to keep creative, intuitive juices flowing.

Beethoven was dealing with an extremely simple and efficient set of graphic
symbols. Anybody can read a note in the chart and instantly hear it played
by the whole orchestra in their head. Not so easy watching a waveform or a
mixer window in Cubase.

Speaking of debacles, I did not watch, but it seems that the Danish team did
a good job of making their Croatian opponents familiar with that term
yesterday. Congratulations.

Predrag

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Jan 20, 1:30 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of
noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's
boring to listen to, but progress has its price.

I believe this is misguided. People have been using automation with
analog console for many years to ride levels for consistency, mute
tracks to get rid of tape hiss and residual amp buzz and headphone
bleed when someone isn't playing, and so forth. The notion that a
clean recording is somehow "sterile" and undesirable, or that "flaws"
are to be valued, is silly IMO. Some of the finest recordings ever
made are clean and clear, and devoid of extraneous noises that only
distract the listener.

Good points.

I almost get the feeling that our correspondent wants to deify audible
artifacts. He seems to presume that they are always there.

IME analog summing need not have any audible artifacts in actual use, even
when a relatively large number of inputs are involved. (what is a large
number of inputs?)


If you had any experience, instead of feelings, in the field of commercial
music production, where some form of analog summing is most likely to be
used, you wouldn't have had to ask about the number of channels involved.
But then, you would have also understood that the money was invested in the
analog summing devices precisely because of the artefacts they produce.
Because of the way they sound. Because they were designed to sound different
from what can be achieved mixing in the box.

We have been through this before, the same arguments, the same opinions, the
same facts. It's so boring and pointless, but I've had enough of your
aggressive ignorance chasing away people that actually used analog summing
and could say something constructive on the subject.

Predrag

[[email protected]]

On 2011-01-21 said:
big snip
INdeed, but there again, you learned the craft before you
had all these tools, and have control of the process,
instead of the process controlling you. I'm also sure that
Absolutely agreed; I made a similar point at the end of the post:
an analog background can make for a better use of the digital mix
environment.
What I didn't get into (likely an entirely new thread) is how do we
-- as a practical matter -- communicate these ideas and aesthetics
to those younger engineers who have only worked with DAWs, and
perhaps will never have access to large-format analog consoles?
It's one thing to tell someone something, and they can even bob
their heads in eager agreement, but they gotta have hands-on to
really get the idea.

THis is my point as well. I'm sure anybody will tell you
that they're glad to see the days of little bits of splicing
tape all around and the single edge blade are behind them.
But, there's something about the physical interaction that
lets you get inside the music, at least for me.

if you were mixing for a live broadcast, gotta get it right
now, that you'd also prefer your hardware controls, or at
Again, completely agreed. Once in a while at my classical gigs I am
asked to provide
audio to TV folks. Of course, no one at this local level has the
money to do proper
post so it's all "live" -- they take the monitor mix of my little
small-format console and are thrilled with it; while I cringe on a
number of levels.
But even with 8-12 channels I'd *never* do something like that with
a mouse. Oooooh
noooo. I want all the controls, right then and there.

INdeed, I couldn't work without it.

What I was getting at were the more "crafted" mixes, where you will
take a number of
passes at it, listening, evaluating, getting a sense of the music
so that you know
how to blend it, what to fix, and what to leave alone.
For me, this is partly a layered process. With the DAW, it's nice
to do some little
bit of work one time on one of the middle "layers" and then have
the system remember
it from there on out, rather than needing to duplicate that myself
at *each* pass.

INdeed, which is why for a complex multitrack project I like
to concentrate on the capture and let somebody in a good
mixing environment and a daw handle that. I've agonized
over those fader moves in a complex piece more than once,
when that was what we had. Rehearse it, rehearse it again,
and rehearse it still again. That's the world of the daw,
and it excells there. RIght tool, right job. That's the
point i keep coming back to, and note that in this thread
once again we get to which working methodology is better
when original topic was analog or digital summing. AS I
noted to ARnie earlier, it's not about whether it's analog
or digital for me, but the ui. It's changed the way I work,
but I don't think a lot of folks realized at times the
number of off the clock hours I might put in rehearsing a
rather dense complex mix, before the client got there.

snip again

Now there's one DAW pitfall I have seen: people will do something
perhaps casually
or "temporarily," but because it's committed into computer memory,
they're less inclined to change it. This is unlike a knob or fader,
which is right there, in front of you, with no such subconscious
reluctance to alter earlier work.
But overcoming this is simply part of the learning curve.

INdeed, but the folks I prefer to use for daw work are quite
willing to uncommit because if we're happy with the new
result, we print that, we can always go back if our changes
hindered instead of helped.

At the mixing stage of a multitrack project I"ll usually
find myself a good mouse jockey who also understands the old
ways if I"m babysitting the project through that point, and
take full advantage of the capabilities a daw offers. But,
when it's for the money right now, I want my physical
controls.
Sure. One pass, your reputation potentially on the line, you want
it all instantly
visible and accessible. And the LAST thing you want to see 30
seconds before "air"
are those lovely white characters in a sea of deep blue: "Windows
has experienced a
severe error and has halted the system...." or whatever the exact
text might be.
Fortunately, I see very few of those. Still, there's no way I'd
trust a commodity computer with a general-purpose OS to handle a
live gig!!

YEp, me too, and old blind man especially won't trust it
with syntehsized speech for two reasons. #1 the synthesized
speech gets in the way of the program, and #@, it makes the
system more unstable.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Arny Krueger writes:

snip

IME analog summing need not have any audible artifacts in actual
use, even when a relatively large number of inputs are involved.
(what is a large number of inputs?)

rotfl YEah it isn't whether it's analog or digital
summing with me, it's a ui question. But, if I'm not acting as engineer on the project but involved in another way, let
the person who is use the ui he's most comfortable with, so
long as it sounds good. THere's good and bad in both worlds grin.


Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[hank alrich]

Steve Hawkins wrote:

(hank alrich) wrote in
:


This was pre-DAW, so a bit off-topic.

Yeah, I hear those wax cylinders were a pain to work with. :-)

Steve Hawkins

In the end they couldn't hold a candle to a disc.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Arny Krueger]

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Jan 20, 1:30 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of
noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's
boring to listen to, but progress has its price.

I believe this is misguided. People have been using automation with
analog console for many years to ride levels for consistency, mute
tracks to get rid of tape hiss and residual amp buzz and headphone
bleed when someone isn't playing, and so forth. The notion that a
clean recording is somehow "sterile" and undesirable, or that "flaws"
are to be valued, is silly IMO. Some of the finest recordings ever
made are clean and clear, and devoid of extraneous noises that only
distract the listener.

Good points.

I almost get the feeling that our correspondent wants to deify audible
artifacts. He seems to presume that they are always there.

IME analog summing need not have any audible artifacts in actual use,
even when a relatively large number of inputs are involved. (what is a
large number of inputs?)

If you had any experience, instead of feelings, in the field of commercial
music production, where some form of analog summing is most likely to be
used, you wouldn't have had to ask about the number of channels involved.

I again see that asking for opinions is futile. Every one of my responses is
suitable to you only as a platform for creating new insults, or rerunning
the same tired old ones.

But then, you would have also understood that the money was invested in
the analog summing devices precisely because of the artefacts they
produce.

I am familiar with a number of large scale music production facilities, and
upon hearing that opinion, the people there would be polite but think that
you're nuts.

Because of the way they sound. Because they were designed to sound
different from what can be achieved mixing in the box.

Many large scale production facilities do 100% of their work in the box
because its convenient, and in their view the SQ is the same.

We have been through this before, the same arguments, the same opinions,
the same facts.

Right, and your ability to deny reality and assert the existence of
universal audible difference remains unchanged.

It's so boring and pointless,

That's because you are incapable of changing your mind, regardless of what
facts are presented.

but I've had enough of your aggressive ignorance chasing away people that
actually used analog summing and could say something constructive on the
subject.

Your idea of "constructive" is clearly "agrees with me".

Predrag

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Webb" wrote in
message ...
Arny Krueger writes:

snip

IME analog summing need not have any audible artifacts in actual
use, even when a relatively large number of inputs are involved.
(what is a large number of inputs?)

rotfl YEah it isn't whether it's analog or digital
summing with me, it's a ui question. But, if I'm not acting as engineer
on the project but involved in another way, let
the person who is use the ui he's most comfortable with, so
long as it sounds good. THere's good and bad in both worlds grin.

That's all fine. Given the absence of a digital desk that is well-designed
for your situation, you've got to do what you've got to do.

[Arny Krueger]

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message
...

Thank you for an intelligent question. I'm not being sarcastic. It's such
a refreshing change.

More of your arrogance.

An intuitive work style is possible when mixing in the box. It's just not
so easy.

For you.

Assuming that human brain is capable of processing a finite quantity of
perceptual information per time unit, that it has certain bandwidth, the
work method involving the computer screen and mouse as the main user
interface uses up a significant part of that bandwidth in processing
visual information. It leaves less bandwidth available to process aural
information.

Nothing on a computer screen has the visual bandwidth of reality.

To make things worse, such user interface, when it comes to interpreting
its logical, detail-oriented content, strongly favours our left brain.
It's quite a problem if one wants to keep creative, intuitive juices
flowing.

True for you, but not everybody.

Beethoven was dealing with an extremely simple and efficient set of
graphic symbols. Anybody can read a note in the chart and instantly hear
it played by the whole orchestra in their head. Not so easy watching a
waveform or a mixer window in Cubase.

True for you, but not everybody.

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Jan 21, 2:53 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
People have been using automation with analog consoles, but not everybody
could afford it. It required a big budget and even then it wasn't feasible
or even possible to mute every lip smack, every breath, to pan things with
1% accuracy, to fade in and out every note and move them around, to achieve
perfect symmetry in the stereo field, to autotune each vocal track syllable
by syllable and so forth. Nowadays it's accessible to everyone and has
become a widespread practice, almost the norm in some cases.

Just because abuse is possible is no reason to dismiss the tools.
Years ago amateurs did crappy work using analog recorders and analog
consoles. So what? Talented professionals will do great work using
whatever tools they prefer. And a lot of professionals these days
prefer a mouse. Of course this is preference, and people should work
however they prefer. But to blame bad recordings on using a mouse is
misguided IMO.

that extremely powerful tool
enable people to go way over board and strip their tracks of the last breath
of life, figuratively and literally. People generally have a problem
restraining themselves from using those tools and it can often be heard in
the final product.

Again, same reply as above.

If your usage of plural implies that I have also insulted your greatness by
not agreeing with your views, I sincerely don't apologise.

Yeah, this is exactly the tone I was talking about. Dude, chill. It's
only audio.

--Ethan

[Scott Dorsey]

Ethan Winer wrote:
On Jan 21, 2:53 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:

that extremely powerful tool
enable people to go way over board and strip their tracks of the last breath
of life, figuratively and literally. People generally have a problem
restraining themselves from using those tools and it can often be heard in
the final product.

Again, same reply as above.

Sadly, I agree with Ethan. However, I do agree with Predrag that a lot of
people have trouble controlling themselves when given a whole lot of options.

The thing is, this is the 21st century and we not only have all the modern
recording techniques and equipment available to us, we also have over a
century's worth of older techniques and equipment.

And if you, personally, don't get good results with the tool you are using,
there's no reason to keep using it. If the best way for you to work with
your material and your methods is to use a manual console, or analogue tape,
or even direct-to-disc recording, then by all means use it.

I can make some very strong arguments in favor of using old-style workflow
and production methods, but that's independant of the equipment. If the
equipment forces you into a method you don't like, don't use that equipment.

But if other people get terrible results because of their methods, blame
the methods.
--scott

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

[Sean Conolly]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Some of them are perceived as more pleasing to the human ear than others.

There is a farily widespread school of thought where all unintended forms
of audible distortion is objectionable.

But there is stil a lot of gear which is intentionally used because it adds
something which is not really understood. It's a deliberate application of
an unknown degree of 'distortion' (using the definition that all
non-linearities are distorting the original signal).

Sean

[Sean Conolly]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message
...

Thank you for an intelligent question. I'm not being sarcastic. It's such
a refreshing change.

More of your arrogance.

Said arrogantly...


Beethoven was dealing with an extremely simple and efficient set of
graphic symbols. Anybody can read a note in the chart and instantly hear
it played by the whole orchestra in their head. Not so easy watching a
waveform or a mixer window in Cubase.

True for you, but not everybody.

Show me an example of a single person who can look at a waveform and
describe what it sounds like, much less to find and follow the melody.

On the other hand there are countless musicans who have been trained in
sight singing and transcription who can not only reproduce the part, they
can hear the the whole piece in their head, accurately, just by reading it.

Granted the majority of people, even musicians, can do neither.

Sean

[Scott Dorsey]

Sean Conolly wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
m...
Some of them are perceived as more pleasing to the human ear than others.

There is a farily widespread school of thought where all unintended forms
of audible distortion is objectionable.

But there is stil a lot of gear which is intentionally used because it adds
something which is not really understood. It's a deliberate application of
an unknown degree of 'distortion' (using the definition that all
non-linearities are distorting the original signal).

There's a lot of that out there.

If you like it, use it.

BUT, be aware that not all of the benefit is from alterations to the signal;
a lot of what is beneficial about some of that equipment _is_ the user
interface.

I think eventually we'll be able to effectively model all of the classic
electronics in software. BUT, in many cases it totally misses the advantages
to only model the sound.
--scott

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

[hank alrich]

Sean Conolly wrote:

Show me an example of a single person who can look at a waveform and
describe what it sounds like, much less to find and follow the melody.

On the other hand there are countless musicans who have been trained in
sight singing and transcription who can not only reproduce the part, they
can hear the the whole piece in their head, accurately, just by reading it.

Granted the majority of people, even musicians, can do neither.

Sean

applause

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
Sean Conolly wrote:

Show me an example of a single person who can look at a waveform and
describe what it sounds like, much less to find and follow the melody.

On the other hand there are countless musicans who have been trained in
sight singing and transcription who can not only reproduce the part, they
can hear the the whole piece in their head, accurately, just by reading it.

Granted the majority of people, even musicians, can do neither.

Sean

applause

Does anyone remember that crazy guy who could look at classical LPs and
tell you what the album was, with the label and matrix number covered?
He claimed to just look at the grooves...
--scott

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

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 2:53 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
People have been using automation with analog consoles, but not everybody
could afford it. It required a big budget and even then it wasn't
feasible
or even possible to mute every lip smack, every breath, to pan things
with
1% accuracy, to fade in and out every note and move them around, to
achieve
perfect symmetry in the stereo field, to autotune each vocal track
syllable
by syllable and so forth. Nowadays it's accessible to everyone and has
become a widespread practice, almost the norm in some cases.

Just because abuse is possible is no reason to dismiss the tools.
Years ago amateurs did crappy work using analog recorders and analog
consoles. So what? Talented professionals will do great work using
whatever tools they prefer. And a lot of professionals these days
prefer a mouse. Of course this is preference, and people should work
however they prefer. But to blame bad recordings on using a mouse is
misguided IMO.


Straw man argument, again. I haven't dismissed the tools and I haven't
blamed bad recordings on using a mouse. Just like I never said that clean
recordings are sterile or that flaws in recordings are to be valued.

Just because I warn of the pitfalls of using your preferred tool doesn't
mean that I dismiss it. Just because I prefer certain tools for certain type
of work doesn't mean that I dismiss others. Is that so difficult to
comprehend?

Arny is the one who keeps dismissing the tools he's never used - analog
summing, but you don't seem to have a problem with it. Well, he shares your
preferences. Among other things.


that extremely powerful tool
enable people to go way over board and strip their tracks of the last
breath
of life, figuratively and literally. People generally have a problem
restraining themselves from using those tools and it can often be heard
in
the final product.

Again, same reply as above.

If your usage of plural implies that I have also insulted your greatness
by
not agreeing with your views, I sincerely don't apologise.

Yeah, this is exactly the tone I was talking about. Dude, chill. It's
only audio.


If it's only audio and if you really value professional-level discourse as
you purport, how about setting an example by trying to make a point without
patronising another and twisting their words?

Predrag

[John Williamson]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Does anyone remember that crazy guy who could look at classical LPs and
tell you what the album was, with the label and matrix number covered?
He claimed to just look at the grooves...
--scott

Embarassingly accurate within his limits, too, from what I've read.

http://www.illusionworks.com/grooves.htm

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers]

On 1/22/2011 4:15 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

I think eventually we'll be able to effectively model all of the classic
electronics in software. BUT, in many cases it totally misses the advantages
to only model the sound.

True. The famous engineer used THAT compressor not because
it was the best one in his rack to give him the sound that
he was after, but often because it was the only one that he
had available, and he wanted some dynamic control. Maybe the
"toob distortion" that came along with it actually came from
pushing the front end of the console or the mix bus a little
harder before or after the track was compressed.

We hear about the fabled gear, but we don't always hear why
or how it was used.

And getting back to analog summing, sort of, I was in the
tile library this morning reading an article in EQ entitled
"Mix it Right" that had lots of tips about de-cluttering the
mixing user interface, but down underneath it all, he was
just describing the deficiencies of on-screen mixing (which,
indeed is not the same as summing with digital arithmetic).
What it all boiled down to is that the human process often
suffers when you don't have the space (or the money) for a
real mixer.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Jan 22, 5:54 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
Just because I warn of the pitfalls of using your preferred tool doesn't
mean that I dismiss it. Just because I prefer certain tools for certain type
of work doesn't mean that I dismiss others.

Then what exactly is your point? I could "warn of the outfalls" of
literally any activity including the destructive aspect of punching in
on analog tape. Now that's a real pitfall!

Arny is the one who keeps dismissing the tools he's never used - analog
summing, but you don't seem to have a problem with it. Well, he shares your
preferences. Among other things.

You don't think that in all his years doing professional audio, Arny
has never once used an analog mixing console? Really?

Regardless, I'm 62 and I've been doing this stuff since I was in my
20s in the late 1960s. So I've used "analog summing" many MANY times,
along with all of the other recording tools from the past 40+ years.
Now, if you're talking about sending tracks or stems out of a DAW to
an external mixer, I guess you'd call that a hybrid of some sort. But
it's no more "analog" than using a mixer the usual way. And it
certainly has no sonic advantages over mixing ITB, if that's what
you're implying. IMO it's just more complicated, and more expensive,
for no perceived benefit. But that's my opinion, and you're entitled
to yours.

--Ethan

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 1/22/2011 4:15 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

I think eventually we'll be able to effectively model all of the classic
electronics in software. BUT, in many cases it totally misses the
advantages
to only model the sound.

True. The famous engineer used THAT compressor not because it was the
best one in his rack to give him the sound that he was after, but often
because it was the only one that he had available, and he wanted some
dynamic control. Maybe the "toob distortion" that came along with it
actually came from pushing the front end of the console or the mix bus a
little harder before or after the track was compressed.


"Toob distortion" is guitar player shibboleth.

We hear about the fabled gear, but we don't always hear why or how it
was used.

And getting back to analog summing, sort of, I was in the tile library
this morning reading an article in EQ entitled "Mix it Right" that had
lots of tips about de-cluttering the mixing user interface, but down
underneath it all, he was just describing the deficiencies of on-screen
mixing (which, indeed is not the same as summing with digital
arithmetic). What it all boiled down to is that the human process often
suffers when you don't have the space (or the money) for a real mixer.



That depends a lot on the humans.

--
Les Cargill

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 5:54 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
Just because I warn of the pitfalls of using your preferred tool doesn't
mean that I dismiss it. Just because I prefer certain tools for certain
type
of work doesn't mean that I dismiss others.

Then what exactly is your point? I could "warn of the outfalls" of
literally any activity including the destructive aspect of punching in
on analog tape. Now that's a real pitfall!

Arny is the one who keeps dismissing the tools he's never used - analog
summing, but you don't seem to have a problem with it. Well, he shares
your
preferences. Among other things.

You don't think that in all his years doing professional audio, Arny
has never once used an analog mixing console? Really?


I'm referring to analog summing devices, the tools that Arny keeps
dismissing based on his feelings.


Regardless, I'm 62 and I've been doing this stuff since I was in my
20s in the late 1960s. So I've used "analog summing" many MANY times,
along with all of the other recording tools from the past 40+ years.
Now, if you're talking about sending tracks or stems out of a DAW to
an external mixer, I guess you'd call that a hybrid of some sort. But
it's no more "analog" than using a mixer the usual way. And it
certainly has no sonic advantages over mixing ITB, if that's what
you're implying. IMO it's just more complicated, and more expensive,
for no perceived benefit. But that's my opinion, and you're entitled
to yours.


Thank you very much. It's so generous of you.

So let me get this straight, everybody is free to dismiss the tools as long
as it's the tools you personally don't care for. It's only if they fail to
share your enthusiasm for mixing with a mouse that you'll react by twisting
their words, calling their opinion silly, misguided and insulting,
relativising all they say, using your age as credential, all the while
purporting to be preserving a professional-level discourse on the NG.

Predrag

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote:

So let me get this straight, everybody is free to dismiss the tools as
long as it's the tools you personally don't care for. It's only if they
fail to share your enthusiasm for mixing with a mouse that you'll react
by twisting their words, calling their opinion silly, misguided and
insulting, relativising all they say, using your age as credential, all
the while purporting to be preserving a professional-level discourse on
the NG.

Predrag

Enough! The semantics have become so garbled that this conversation should
end.

For example ~ "mix with a mouse" ~ If "mix" means to actively manage the
ingredients, then you cannot mix with a mouse. If "mix" means "create a
mixture without regard to time", say so.

"Analog summing" is subject to the constraints imposed by Physics. No
more, no less. Used with knowledge, it has given us a rich sonic library
and continues to contribute to much of what we hear. "Digital summing"
suspends physical laws at the whim of the programmer. Time yields
acceptance of some protocols, leading to definition by qualified
organizations. "Digital summing" really is a non-topic here.

I suspect it finally comes down to "tools". A departed colleague who
graduated from Capitol Records (after having handled sessions with the
Beach Boys and their contemporaries) used to say: "It's a mighty fine
workman who blames his poor tools ... !" Several here have said, in
essence, they've done good work with the tools they were given, myself
included.

Let us put this foolishness to rest and get on with matters more suitable
to the site.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Sean Conolly]

"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
...
"Predrag Trpkov" wrote:
Let us put this foolishness to rest and get on with matters more suitable
to the site.

Agreed - no reason for anyone to get their panties in a knot.

Sean

[Sean Conolly]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 1/22/2011 4:15 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

I think eventually we'll be able to effectively model all of the classic
electronics in software. BUT, in many cases it totally misses the
advantages
to only model the sound.

True. The famous engineer used THAT compressor not because it was the best
one in his rack to give him the sound that he was after, but often because
it was the only one that he had available, and he wanted some dynamic
control. Maybe the "toob distortion" that came along with it actually came
from pushing the front end of the console or the mix bus a little harder
before or after the track was compressed.

We hear about the fabled gear, but we don't always hear why or how it was
used.

And getting back to analog summing, sort of, I was in the tile library
this morning reading an article in EQ entitled "Mix it Right" that had
lots of tips about de-cluttering the mixing user interface, but down
underneath it all, he was just describing the deficiencies of on-screen
mixing (which, indeed is not the same as summing with digital arithmetic).
What it all boiled down to is that the human process often suffers when
you don't have the space (or the money) for a real mixer.

I still think it's mostly about the tools you're comfortable with. I've been
doing in the box mixing for maybe 10 years now so it's not like I can't find
my way around, but I'm still way, way faster with faders and knobs because
that's what I was doing for 20 years before I moved into the box.

My latest mixes were using the DAW to get tracks into groups with some
processing, and run stereo groups through the board for final tweak. For me
it's fast and feels good, and without both of those I'm not a happy guy.

Sean

[Arny Krueger]

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Some of them are perceived as more pleasing to the
human ear than others.

There is a farily widespread school of thought where all
unintended forms of audible distortion is objectionable.

But there is stil a lot of gear which is intentionally
used because it adds something which is not really
understood. It's a deliberate application of an unknown
degree of 'distortion' (using the definition that all
non-linearities are distorting the original signal).

Agreed, and this is also among the kinds of gear that one needs to learn how
to exploit. I'm talking about "equalizers" and EFX units.

Ideally, the equalization & EFX functions are separate units in the sense
that they can be inserted into the signal path or not, and of course they
need to be adjustable.

Over the weekend I had the experience of listening to a few hours of live
music at a nearby large church with a young production staff and very basic
but good equipment (e.g. medium-level Soundcraft analog console). I didn't
even bother to look at the knobs, but my ears told me that their channel
strips were pretty much set to flat. I don't think that they had any actual
EFX facilities on the premises. The sound of their performances was not as
engaging and interesting as it could have been given the good musicianship,
relatively good acoustics of their room, and the good basic quality of the
equipment they used.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message


Show me an example of a single person who can look at a
waveform and describe what it sounds like, much less to
find and follow the melody.

I do that all the time, within my limitations as a musician.

Visually, I find it trivial to identify: speech, singing, and instrumental
music by signt. I can usually recognize the waveforms and envelopes of many
common instruments at a glance.

While I wear headphones when I edit and mix, I can do a lot of editing and
mixing based purely on sight.

I often identify undesired noises and events and edit them out by sight.

I can recognize the difference between the contributions of two or more
people who are conversing or singing together serially.

I frequently adjust levels and equalization by sight.

I do listen to audit my work by listening to it, but listening has this big
problem - it has to happen in real time and I frequently work with events
that run over an hour.

I have edited singing parts to simulate someone singing a verse of a song
that was not sung by that singer because she forgot the words to that verse
of the song. I did it largely by sight.

Since I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer or the most experienced, I
presume that the world is full of people who do this sort of thing far more
powerfuly, effectively and flexibly than I do.

[Arny Krueger]

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in
message

Arny is the one who keeps dismissing the tools he's never
used - analog summing, but you don't seem to have a
problem with it. Well, he shares your preferences. Among
other things.

As usual Predrag conjurs up straw men and then pridefully dispatches them.

I guess in Predrag's world, analog mixers don't use analog summing. Life
must be pretty weird in post-iron curtain central Europe - different laws of
physics and all that. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in
message

I'm referring to analog summing devices, the tools that
Arny keeps dismissing based on his feelings.

If an analog console is not an analog summing device, what is it?

It is very handy for my arguments for you to make such absolutely rediculous
claims.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message

"Roy W. Rising" wrote in
message ...
"Predrag Trpkov" wrote:
Let us put this foolishness to rest and get on with
matters more suitable to the site.

Agreed - no reason for anyone to get their panties in a
knot.

Given his demonstrated desire to create "party lines" and punish people who
don't comply with his beliefs, I'm very happy to trick Predrag into to
knotting his silk underware every which way but loose.

[Mike Rivers]

On 1/23/2011 10:32 PM, Sean Conolly wrote:

I still think it's mostly about the tools you're comfortable with. I've been
doing in the box mixing for maybe 10 years now so it's not like I can't find
my way around, but I'm still way, way faster with faders and knobs because
that's what I was doing for 20 years before I moved into the box.

You're not working faster with a full set of hardware
controls because you did it that way for 20 years, you're
working faster because it's just a better user interface.
There are reasons why, and occasions when having a GUI is
better than having the limitations associated with physical
controls, but they're nearly all related to doing things
that require more time to solve a problem that shouldn't be,
or to create something different that doesn't exist in the
track and requires experimentation. Those things make the
whole task of "mixing" take longer.

When mixing means what it meant 30 years ago, you can always
do it faster with a mixer than with a GUI. But some people
tend to do more now either because they need to, or that
they can, and that always slows down the job.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff