The Best Looking Host Console View

[BONES]

I would say that they are, more or less, fundamentally the same. The differences are certainly as you pointed out but when I read what you wrote it backs up what I said rather than disproving it. After all, velocity is just one of many forms of parameter modulation available in most instruments.

automation is very different to modulation.

Actually, automation is just one kind of modulation.

if you WANT to go to the effort of setting up a modulation routing so that you can control the panning of an instrument from within it triggered by an exact velocity, then that's great.

I would most likely use a panner plugin as an insert if I wanted to do that.

or, perhaps your synth doesn't have extensive modulation options to do things like that but has the exact sound you want.

So I build one that has both. actually, I've built several.

automating the pan of a channel lets you just say when you want it to be somewhere. that's just not the same as what we label modulation.

Yeah it is, I do it all the time.

you can use both tools to achieve the same ends in certain cases, but to say there's no difference between the two... blah.. blah.. blah

I don't see how automation is more or less different than modulating with an LFO compared to an ADSR envelope or velocity, do you? Seriously? Each form has its uses but, like I said, at the end of the day they all do the same basic thing.

[The Chase]

yup, automation just isn't the same as modulation, and to say it's krap is almost as stupid as the glasses you wear

dude those glasses kickass

[shamann]

I don't see how automation is more or less different than modulating with an LFO compared to an ADSR envelope or velocity, do you? Seriously? Each form has its uses but, like I said, at the end of the day they all do the same basic thing.

I'm with Bones on this, they are even frequently referred to as automation envelopes. Same objective, just different mechanisms. There can be practical differences between automation and LFOs, but they're all still modulation sources.

[stefancrs]

I agree with everything you wrote, I just want to nitpick on this one thing!

No, automation is. Velocity wouldn't work that well for them pads...

For that I would use a modulation envelope.

Sounds like automation to me.

[pHz]

i think youre all just getting your panties in a twist over the 'labelling' of these parameter modifications ...

DAW 'conventions' suggest its CALLED modulation if its dealt with as an integral part of an instrument or effect and CALLED automation if its independent of an instrument or effect and dealt with on a per-track / per-part basis ...

... but yes ... both DO modify parameters over time ... and its just a matter of preference which you like to use / see ...

... now ... can we PLEASE get back to host bashing please ???

slainte rob

[Sascha Franck]

Yeah, mine is better than yours.
But that's solely because I am using it.

[BONES]

For that I would use a modulation envelope.

Sounds like automation to me.

The only form of automation in my host is a graph. The only envelopes I have available as modulation sources are on-board the instruments I use and if you can call that automation then there is no hope of us ever reaching any sort of agreement.

[headquest]

To be fair, Bones, I think the terminology confusion is down to the fact that you are using a different host to most others writing here

PS, why do you have a picture of an Oompah-Loompah in your signature?

[stefancrs]

For that I would use a modulation envelope.

Sounds like automation to me.

The only form of automation in my host is a graph. The only envelopes I have available as modulation sources are on-board the instruments I use and if you can call that automation then there is no hope of us ever reaching any sort of agreement.

Pah, we already agree, why can't you agree on that?

[haydxn]

f**k it. the whole point of this was your comment that automation is krap and not for you. if it's so similar to modulation then you've got a huge stick up your arse, haven't you?

[BONES]

How do you figure that? Some idiot [was it you?] said that seeing automation graphs is more useful than seeing a mixer strip and I disagreed. The rest is down to you idiots taking what I said and reading into it what you wanted.

[pHz]

The rest is down to you idiots taking what I said and reading into it what you wanted.

pot >>> kettle ...

... kettle >>> pot

slainte rob

[haydxn]

Bones, howz about this whole post of yours to highlight exactly what a pompous self absorbed c**t you are? with a little luck you'll disappear up your own swollen arse before long.

1) As Scott noted earlier in the thread, a large hardware mixer might require two or three pairs of hands to do everything live in real time in the studio. In the past this is exactly what would happen in studios during mixdown - an extra pair of hands might be drafted in to help move the sliders. Automation has enabled us to mechanise the process so that you no longer need a team of people hunched over the mixer console. It is a response to this... it is one way in which the use of software within studio production has made life easier for the mixing engineer. For those of us working wholly in software, automation is basically a no brainer when you want to fade stuff in and out.

Well I wonder how I ever got by recording in a studio with just me and an engineer. Its clearly a miracle we ever got anything done.

2) Depending on the style of music you are doing you might want to use automation in more creative ways. For example, filter sweeps. Other creative effects use. Etc. Mixing down an audio recording of a rock band this may well never apply, but if you produce more overtly electronic music, automating stuff can be a key part of the creative process.

Wow! That sounds like an amazing idea. With all that power you have to wonder why a synth would need LFO's or envelopes at all. I certianly don't think I'll be needing any more modulation matrices in the future.

Bones - this might not be how you personally work, but that does not make it "krap". Lots of people do work this way, including the majority of the industry

Of course it makes it krap. Its krap if I say it is because, clearly, I've looked into it and decided on the only correct course. Surely its obvious to everyone that I'm not just making this stuff up?

BTW, you're an idiot.

[vurt]

i think youre all just getting your panties in a twist over the 'labelling' of these parameter modifications ...

DAW 'conventions' suggest its CALLED modulation if its dealt with as an integral part of an instrument or effect and CALLED automation if its independent of an instrument or effect and dealt with on a per-track / per-part basis ...

... but yes ... both DO modify parameters over time ... and its just a matter of preference which you like to use / see ...

... now ... can we PLEASE get back to host bashing please ???

slainte rob

either way it makes stuff wibble a bit


er host console view eh that would be what exactly?the best looking host?
if so id have to say mel sykes,but i dont watch much telly

[Caleb]

Of course it makes it krap. Its krap if I say it is because, clearly, I've looked into it and decided on the only correct course. Surely its obvious to everyone that I'm not just making this stuff up?

I think this wasn't meant to be taken that seriously. I believe Bones might have been making a little bit of a joke here.

Caleb