On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 3:12 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > is it correct that the following two scenarios give the exact same result? > (digital audio signal) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (apply fx) -> (result) > (digital audio signal) -> (apply fx) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (result)
I'll add a note that if looping the playback output, using the 1st option the FX must constantly processes. Option 2 has the FX "recorded in", which means the FX chain doesn't use CPU. Of course, this "advantage" of 2 has a disadvantage: you can't change the FX settings anymore, and certain time varying FX like Flangers and Phasers might not "line-up" if the speed of the Flanger doesn't match the loop duration. (new mail just in from Tom:) > "i'm recording the bass with compression and eq, it just makes a better > overall mix compared to applying after recording" it can be looked at as rubbish Yes totally: assuming the audio the player hears is identical regardless of settings: musicians generally perform slightly differently if they hear a compressed version of their instruments sound. If the bass player recording with comp & eq also *hears* that, as opposed to hearing it without compression... then perhaps they'll play "better" and it'll be easier to mix. HTH, -Harry PS: There's a lot of studio guides that mention slightly compressing a monitor mix to artists.. I find it interesting to read about the settings, and wether to send some reverb or not too.. :) _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
