I guess I am a bit confused about the discussion of bus models.
Someone please fill me in :) I own a Mackie CFX12 which has only 4
buses. Now, if I am not mistaken, the buses are what I can assign
channels of the mixer to, and then the buses can be assigned to the
master output. Now what I do not understand is how this would not be
complimented with a 'patchbay' type approach. For instance, each
channel has inserts pre or post, and all items can be sent to the two
effects channels. However, if I wanted to string a bunch of effects
units together, I would have to do it seperately from the mixer.
Now, I would be in favor of an interface like quasimodo, where you
graphically attach all components together with virtual patch cables.
What I do not like is a 'patch-bay' that has to be in-between, there
is no reason for it. It just adds confusion by adding another
component, that in a computer is really doing nothing. Likewise, I
imagine, that if you keep the mixing part and the plugin part
seperate, things are real easy then.
If I have misunderstood anything, please let me know. I am trying to
understand the approach so that I may add to help to the discussion in
constructive ways :)
Rick
Sunday, May 13, 2001, you wrote:
>> For what it's worth. I know Paul doesn't seem to understand how much
>> difficulty his bus model is going to cause the user, so I don't expect
>> much movement here unless Almighty-God-On-High intervenes with a
>> miracle.
TP> While the buss model may or may not be the best for an all encompassing
TP> server, it is the most accurate model for representing the functionality
TP> of a physical mixer. AES/ardour is a mixer/recorder/editor, so it makes
TP> sense that it would evolve to this form to provide mixer functionality.
TP> For comparison to physical mixers, take a simple mackie 1604 vlz. It
TP> has 26 inputs, 25 outputs, 18 inserts, and 16 busses. More advanced
TP> mixers have even more busses. A user who is familiar with the buss
TP> architecture within a traditional mixer will probably find this model
TP> quite easy to understand and a pleasure to use. You favor a patchbay
TP> model. Interestingly, the patchbay configuration that many users find
TP> to be the most useful is the half normal configuration which adds
TP> limited buss functionality to the patchbay concept. One could design a
TP> gui that allows some busses to look like a patchbay, a buss with only
TP> one input. Busses are very generic and can be used in many ways,
TP> including all of the ways that a patchbay can be used. Patchbays can
TP> not provide all of the functionality of busses. AES has 32 busses, and
TP> the connection to them can be made to look like anything; a channel
TP> strip, an aux send, a patchbay, or whatever (paul, maybe you should bump
TP> this back up to 64 busses). The fact that paul realized that the buss
TP> architecture of the mixer can be opened up to be accessible to other
TP> apps should not be seen as a problem.
TP> Tom
