On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 12:42 -0700, Niels Mayer wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:35 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not really, EQ normally being pre-fader. Post-fader meters in a mixer > > strip are useful only of the signal being metered is actually one > > that is physically available on some connector, e.g. as a direct out. > > It would not indicate any overload that occurs pre-fader. > > The only time I've seen EQ pre-frader is low-cut on a microphone > preamp. I was using standard "mixing board" definitions of PFL and AFL > per, http://www.mackie.com/support/faq/index.html > ...... > What are PFL and AFL? > PFL and AFL are acronyms that describe a mixer's SOLO function. PFL > stands for "Pre-Fader Listen" and allows the user to "solo" or > audition the audio in mono at a point in the signal path before the > channel fader. Perfect for a live sound situation where you need to > dial in an instrument before bringing it into the mix. AFL stands for > "After-Fader Listen" and allows the user to solo the channel at a > point in the signal path after the channel fader. This is more > commonly used for recording applications (the signal is also typically > after the EQ and pan controls). The Main Output signal is not affected > by PFL or AFL solo functions, though the Phones and Control Room > outputs are. On all Mackie mixers, the solo function serves as the > preferred way to set input levels. > ......
PFL is to level the input, so it's before everything, but the trim. Solo is behind everything. I didn't follow the thread, but I guess envy24ccontrol shouldn't become a complete mixer, but a hw control. > > Using a real mixer analogy, here the PFL levels are the current "peak" > levels from the ice1712 architecture diagram I've posted; its values > displayed in the meters present in "Monitor Inputs" and "Monitor PCMs" > panels of mudita24. The AFL levels are available (as I mentioned > earlier) only by "soloing" (aka muting all others) the channel for > which the AFL's are being determined, and looking at the resulting > levels on the digital mixer output. > > In this case, Tim E. Real's: > "post-fader meter value = pre-fader meter dB value + slider dB value" > is a trivial computation that could easily be displayed, and would be > helpful to debug situations like "why can't i hear myself in the > monitors" (because mute was on). Having a narrow second meter > displaying the AFL levels (stereo), dynamically shadowing the PFL > displayed, would be a helpful visualization of mixer function. Even > more-so with an automatic fall-off of the side peak-level. > > In contrast, it would be less helpful, and potentially more confusing > to have a modal interface that would require clicking a button to see > the PFL's, if only AFL's displayed, or vice versa. Especially for > people that might not be able to tell their AFLs from their PFLs and > just want to see some dancing meters as sings of activity. > > > If the signal just goes to a mixing bus (as in the case we are discussing) > > then it's individual level is irrelevant - the level on the mixing bus (all > > signals summed) may be. But in this case you can't overload the mixing > > bus, so even that would be useless. > > I think that we are both in agreement that the AFL level meters are > not strictly necessary. > > However, they may not be sufficient to provide a good visualization: > having the AFL levels in the meters could help with understanding > what's actually going on, hidden in the hardware. Similar to how > useful it is here > http://osx.iusethis.com/screenshot/osx/traktordjstudio3.png ... My > suggestion would be similar, except that it would either show the > computed AFL value, or it could be switched to display the overall > stereo mix output. With its function made superfluous by that option, > the standalone digital mix meter could go away. Such side-by-side > metering functionality makes it easier to visualize the level of > contribution a given input has to the overall mix level. > > > In this case, just individual buttons for L and R instead of the panner > > would be just fine, and you wouldn't need the mute buttons anynore. > > The mute buttons are useful since there's no "solo" and one might want > to set levels independently of whether a channel is monitored. The > individual levels are useful because one might just want to use this > thing as a mixer anyways, maybe because you don't have another one, > and because, now that it's adequately metered, it actually performs > the function of "midi-controlled outboard synth submix" quite nicely, > and with better fidelity than an external mixer. > > -- Niels > http://nielsmayer.com > _______________________________________________ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
