Oh! And yes, I think we can all agree that Bitwig's documentation is really nice in some ways, but REALLY lacking in detail where we need it the most. I'm a pro technical communicator for my day job, so I understand the "minimalism" approach Bitwig is trying to take in their doc. But I think they're being far too minimalistic where it counts, which is mainly in all the device and modulator descriptions.
Ableton's great chapter 32 "Audio Fact Sheet" is a stellar example of the level of detail we need where it really COUNTS. And I think that the Bitwig doc about their devices/instruments and modulators should be hitting at least the same level of detail as Ableton's doc about their devices/instruments.
Latest News: Bitwig Updates Bitwig Studio to 5.2
Automation Inaccuracies
-
- KVRist
- 120 posts since 1 Nov, 2010
I did a little test: https://i.imgur.com/VBCXHuG.png
All three waveforms are bounces of an Organ device patch with a pure sinewave.
The first waveform is simple mixer level automation.
Second waveform is an FX layer containing 3 tools in series. All of the amplitudes of those tools are mapped to 1 macro knob.
Third waveform is the same device as the second waveform, but instead of a macro knob, I used a button.
Bounced in 32bit float.
Project file: https://mega.nz/#!algSCYrY!Wad-AA9GVz56 ... p_92GTckVw
All three waveforms are bounces of an Organ device patch with a pure sinewave.
The first waveform is simple mixer level automation.
Second waveform is an FX layer containing 3 tools in series. All of the amplitudes of those tools are mapped to 1 macro knob.
Third waveform is the same device as the second waveform, but instead of a macro knob, I used a button.
Bounced in 32bit float.
Project file: https://mega.nz/#!algSCYrY!Wad-AA9GVz56 ... p_92GTckVw
((( ~ )))
