who wants one of thease in Tracktion
-
- KVRAF
- 10815 posts since 26 Nov, 2004 from UK
-
flanneljammies flanneljammies https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=19969
- KVRist
- 462 posts since 5 Apr, 2004 from Madison WI
At home, he's a tourist...
-
- KVRian
- 581 posts since 8 Dec, 2004
No thanks; I've got one sitting next to my keyboard for my hardware, and don't want a GUI like that for recording software. That's one of the reasons I ditched Logic.
Coffee please, black, no sugar.
-
- KVRAF
- 2609 posts since 26 Aug, 2002 from here
its an emu patchmix skinned
so is this like free hardware with traktion ?
so is this like free hardware with traktion ?
I believe every thread should devolve into character attacks and witch-burning. It really helps the discussion.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 10815 posts since 26 Nov, 2004 from UK
TBH i was just trolling
but i would like a mixer inside T2 (but i know most dont)
i love my 1820m because of patch mix (the mixer in the pic)
its like a digital mixer connected directly to my pc (with 18 inputs & 20 outputs) (witch i can put fx on before its sent to the pc driver &/or after it has been sent back from the pc drivers
Subz
but i would like a mixer inside T2 (but i know most dont)
i love my 1820m because of patch mix (the mixer in the pic)
its like a digital mixer connected directly to my pc (with 18 inputs & 20 outputs) (witch i can put fx on before its sent to the pc driver &/or after it has been sent back from the pc drivers
Subz
-
- KVRAF
- 1617 posts since 2 Dec, 2003
The only way I can see a mixer being integrated with tracktion is if it works like the large input display meters. The volume and pan sliders would be horizontal and overlaid on the track. I have always been anti-mixer for tracktion, but I wouldn't mind an arrangement like that (and it would stop a lot of people from whining). The only real benefit I can see from this though is that it would be easier to edit track volumes faster because you don't have to go mucking about with the small volume filters. IMO folder tracks are a much more important issue right now.
-
- KVRAF
- 3745 posts since 29 Sep, 2002 from Killafornia
Lockable volume filter sizes would help a lot I think. But I agree, foldertracks is about 1000 times more important than going back in time to re-create a mixing board.jtxx000 wrote:The only way I can see a mixer being integrated with tracktion is if it works like the large input display meters. The volume and pan sliders would be horizontal and overlaid on the track. I have always been anti-mixer for tracktion, but I wouldn't mind an arrangement like that (and it would stop a lot of people from whining). The only real benefit I can see from this though is that it would be easier to edit track volumes faster because you don't have to go mucking about with the small volume filters. IMO folder tracks are a much more important issue right now.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 10815 posts since 26 Nov, 2004 from UK
just for the recoard i fully agree!!!!AD80 wrote: But I agree, foldertracks is about 1000 times more important than going back in time to re-create a mixing board.
this post is more of a wind up than any thing else
its only becouse i know even those that want a mixer dont want anything that looks like that
the good old emulated hardware mixer
Subz
-
- KVRAF
- 3745 posts since 29 Sep, 2002 from Killafornia
Yeah right subz, we all know you want a virtual mixer complete with wooden panels and crackly dusty faders for Tracktion.djsubject wrote:just for the recoard i fully agree!!!!AD80 wrote: But I agree, foldertracks is about 1000 times more important than going back in time to re-create a mixing board.
this post is more of a wind up than any thing else
its only becouse i know even those that want a mixer dont want anything that looks like that
the good old emulated hardware mixer
Subz
-
- KVRist
- 155 posts since 4 Apr, 2005
what he said....jtxx000 wrote:The only way I can see a mixer being integrated with tracktion is if it works like the large input display meters. The volume and pan sliders would be horizontal and overlaid on the track. I have always been anti-mixer for tracktion, but I wouldn't mind an arrangement like that (and it would stop a lot of people from whining). The only real benefit I can see from this though is that it would be easier to edit track volumes faster because you don't have to go mucking about with the small volume filters. IMO folder tracks are a much more important issue right now.
-
- KVRist
- 230 posts since 25 Nov, 2004
I'm curious though: haven't the hardware mixers that are in widespread use been developed through years of experimentation and successes in manipulation of multiple tracks of audio? Granted, the Tracktion mixing paradigm is nice in that it shows quickly which effects are applied to a given track, and in what order, but it does have it's own set of shortcomings (and yes, I realize that in a software mixer, you cannot manipulate multiple faders in real time--but I consider that akin to saying a one-armed producer cannot really produce). 
Keep in mind, my comments come with a grain of salt: I learned software sequencing in Cubase.
Keep in mind, my comments come with a grain of salt: I learned software sequencing in Cubase.
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
I dunno. The only difference between the Tracktion way and any other way when it comes right down to it is wrapping your head around the way it "looks".
Either way, you're adjusting the same parameters, but with a mouse.
The real question is: what specific -advantage- does a "hardware emulating mixer" give you except for visual familiarity? I can't think of much. Any advantages you could list could also theoretically be done the Tracktion way, even in cases of a missing feature.
Or in other words, since I'm not familiar with all hosts, I'm willing to admit that, for example, Logic might have some feature in its mixer that gives it an advantage. But it wouldn't be a feature that's absolutely locked to Logic's 'hardware mixer'-type thing. It'd be a feature that could fit into Tracktion's way of working. The same way that Acid might have proper loop and better timestretch, but Tracktion's lack thereof doesn't mean that it "can't" have that functionality in its current layout.
Hardware mixers HAVE evolved to be a certain way because it's a design that suits the task well. But that doesn't mean that software, with a different set of strengths and weaknesses, should try to do it the same way. As everyone already admits, you can't exactly "ride the faders" (or multiple faders if you're dextrous enough!) with a mouse and a slider graphic. And the extent to which you CAN is just as possible in Tracktion's current way as it would be on a "Cubase sucks" type mixer.
Greg
Either way, you're adjusting the same parameters, but with a mouse.
The real question is: what specific -advantage- does a "hardware emulating mixer" give you except for visual familiarity? I can't think of much. Any advantages you could list could also theoretically be done the Tracktion way, even in cases of a missing feature.
Or in other words, since I'm not familiar with all hosts, I'm willing to admit that, for example, Logic might have some feature in its mixer that gives it an advantage. But it wouldn't be a feature that's absolutely locked to Logic's 'hardware mixer'-type thing. It'd be a feature that could fit into Tracktion's way of working. The same way that Acid might have proper loop and better timestretch, but Tracktion's lack thereof doesn't mean that it "can't" have that functionality in its current layout.
Hardware mixers HAVE evolved to be a certain way because it's a design that suits the task well. But that doesn't mean that software, with a different set of strengths and weaknesses, should try to do it the same way. As everyone already admits, you can't exactly "ride the faders" (or multiple faders if you're dextrous enough!) with a mouse and a slider graphic. And the extent to which you CAN is just as possible in Tracktion's current way as it would be on a "Cubase sucks" type mixer.
Greg
