KVR Audio

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 7:52 pm

I've been mixing my sequences fine without one.

Let's take "offhanded and snarky answers" for $1000, Alex. (there is no more $500)

pHz · Post by **pHz** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 7:54 pm

ill have "WTF does snarky mean anyway ?" for $1500 ...

slainte

rob

braj · Post by **braj** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 7:56 pm

Lunch Money wrote:Braj-- I still don't get it. You just re-arrange the tracks. I have to admit, though, part of my 'not getting it' is simply that I don't relate, which is a personal thing rather than a host weakness or strength.

I think if you were doing pieces with 40 tracks, you'd appreciate it a lot more. It definitely doesn't make much sense if you are working with 8 or less tracks.

For me it's more about tactile control. Like I said, I don't like mousing T's filters. Especially when they get tiny.

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:02 pm

braj wrote:I think if you were doing pieces with 40 tracks, you'd appreciate it a lot more. It definitely doesn't make much sense if you are working with 8 or less tracks.

Quite possible. Luckily, I'll never be there.

Even if I have 10 tracks of backing vocals (which I haven't yet), I'd sub-mix them. Show me a man doing 40 tracks with no sub-mixes, and I'll show you a fellow who needs to plan and arrange more efficiently.

For me it's more about tactile control. Like I said, I don't like mousing T's filters. Especially when they get tiny.

No doubt. I just enlarge my tracks and the filter area, though; or as is more often the case, I do my final mix-down on rendered tracks.

Greg

IIRs · Post by **IIRs** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:11 pm

Lunch Money wrote: Show me a man doing 40 tracks with no sub-mixes, and I'll show you a fellow who needs to plan and arrange more efficiently.

Spot on!

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:43 pm

platinumears wrote:
Lunch Money wrote: Show me a man doing 40 tracks with no sub-mixes, and I'll show you a fellow who needs to plan and arrange more efficiently.

Spot on!

Show me the man who is trying to find that one track feeding the submix that is just a hair too loud...oh well you know the rest.

A mixer is the most efficient way to mix.

pHz · Post by **pHz** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:44 pm

SJ_Digriz wrote:A mixer is the most efficient way to mix - IMHO.

spot on ...

slainte

rob

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:59 pm

pHz wrote:
SJ_Digriz wrote:A mixer is the most efficient way to mix - IMHO.
spot on ...
slainte rob

LOL, probably shouldn't have added the H should you?

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:00 pm

SJ, I don't see why you think it'd be more difficult to find the track that's a hair out.

There must be some logic to your reasoning, but since you didn't elaborate, I'm not seeing it.

Greg

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:09 pm

Lunch Money wrote:SJ, I don't see why you think it'd be more difficult to find the track that's a hair out. There must be some logic to your reasoning, but since you didn't elaborate, I'm not seeing it.
Greg

Come on LM, you should know by now that I'm messing around 99% of the time when these threads turn in to "yes it is" "no it isn't". This is clearly a preference situation.

Saying that, I have always found the stacked rows of mixer channels easier to read than the project pages. It's just easier for me to see what's happening. I can clearly see that someone else might have learned to do it and is more comfortable doing it a different way. Saying one way is right the other wrong is silly.

IIRs · Post by **IIRs** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:24 pm

SJ_Digriz wrote: Saying that, I have always found the stacked rows of mixer channels easier to read than the project pages. It's just easier for me to see what's happening. I can clearly see that someone else might have learned to do it and is more comfortable doing it a different way.

I learnt to do it "your" way as I grew up with Cubase.. I personally find it much easier to find the audio parameters relating to any particular track when they're in the same place as the track, rather than in some arbitrary order on a seperate page. The bigger the arrangement gets the easier that makes things IMO ..

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:28 pm

platinumears wrote:they're in the same place as the track, rather than in some arbitrary order on a seperate page. The bigger the arrangement gets the easier that makes things IMO ..

hmm...I don't know what that means. My channels are in the order I put them in on my mixer. They are grouped exactly how I want to see them. I use channel presets to show/hide different aspects and I have the master track up top so I know the timeline and marks.

Can you explain?

IIRs · Post by **IIRs** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 11:03 pm

My channels are in the order I put them in on my arrange page. They are grouped exactly how I want to see them. I use simple double clicks to show/hide different aspects, and my mouse-wheel to navigate the page, and I have an overview of everything a single key-press away at all times.

Editing automation becomes an integral part of the mixing process, as does editing a synth patch, or trying effects in different orders.

I can delete all my meters (except those for the mix buss) if I want more screen space and less irrelevent information.. or I can add an extra volume control before a compressor so I can make quick changes to the amount of compression by rebalancing the gain structure.

When I come back to my arrangement weeks / months later, it will still be obvious where to find everthing..

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:08 am

hmm...that's exactly how I view my way. I don't have a problem "knowing" how my projects are set up or where things are. And orchestrated templates can get pretty nasty with number of automation and heck just tracks in general.

parky · Post by **parky** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:15 am

pHz wrote:ill have "WTF does snarky mean anyway ?" for $1500 ...

slainte rob

snarky = a contraction of the words nasty shark. See 'used car salesmen'.

What's the point of mixers in software sequencers?