On Friday 19 March 2010 20:16:14 Tim E. Real wrote: > On March 19, 2010 07:53:23 am Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > I do not really understand what the problem is with using MIDI control > > change for mixers. The resolution? For 2 data bytes there are 127 * 127 > > = 16129 steps. The number of channels? It's unlimited when using as much > > IOs as needed. IMO there already is a standard for all apps, it's called > > MIDI. > > IMO automation is overrated, it's useful, but OTOH how often is it > > needed to change settings during an opus? Most times a mix, selected > > synth etc. are fixed from the start to the end of an opus. For example, > > normally a musician plays an instrument dynamically by the touch or by > > using a volume pedal. Dynamic for the loudness seldom is done by a fader > > after the recording is done. > > I disagree. > Automation, especially audio automation, is extremely important. > Some examples: <stripped the example>
You use the wrong tool. With ardour: Slice the original take, move the ends to overlap a tiny bit with the new take, let the automatic fades do their job. Or move the boundaries edge to edge and use the fact that ardour has a slight fade-in/-out at region borders because they would pop otherwise regardless whether they overlap with another region or not. Works like charm and doesn't need automation. Have fun, Arnold
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
