Re: Mixer units
Re: Mixer units
- Subject: Re: Mixer units
- From: Robert Grant <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:30:43 -0500
Hi Bill,
Sorry if it seems that I've been whining - but the mixer discussion did
seem a bit one sided for a while ;-). I'm sure you guys are very busy.
And now you've made me very curious about the missing piece you've
alluded to...
Meanwhile I'm trying to educate myself a bit - but perhaps with this
missing piece you're hinting maybe I should wait? - and build a simple
mixer just to get my hands dirty.
The first question I've got is: Shouldn't I be using an AUKernel to do
the little bit of DSP on the input busses to the mixer? But AUKernels
seem to be associated with AUEffects (it's in AUEffectBase,h) Is that
just a bit of housekeeping or is there something that tightly couples
AUKernels to AUEffects?
Thanks,
Robert.
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 03:22 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
Firstly
We have heard you loud and clear about the shortcomings of the AUs in
the Mixer space and are planning on addressing this... I'd recommend
for those that want to know more about our upcoming "features" to
attend WWDC this year:)
Secondly - I completely understand the concept of what a hardware
mixer is - but you should bare in mind that a hw mixer is a rather
complex collection of components... So the analogy in Software is that
a "Mixer" is a collection of components... From the user's point of
view if I'm using a SW emulation of a Mixer (like Logic, Cubase,
etc...) we've become accustomed to seeing not only these features that
are seen in hardware mixers, but also the ability to load thousands of
plugins (inserts)... But remember, these AREN'T just one piece of code
(or even from one vendor - or EVEN from vendors that even know about
each other!!!)
So writing software, you are in the business of putting components
together to present complex functionality... So, what does this mean
for a Mixer Unit? It means that (with some pieces that we missed
previously that we'll talk about at WWDC) you are NOT going to get a
Mixer Unit that just does all these things with half a dozen function
calls.... But what it does mean is that the primary piece that *IS*
missing - well we'll address that!
Bill
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 06:59 PM, Robert Grant wrote:
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your input. Makes a lot of sense and I just checked the
specs of an Analog mixer I was fantasizing about before I saw
"Reason" :-) The Soundcraft Spirit M-Series is a well regarded
contemporary mixer with mono and stereo inputs. The Mono inputs
feature a Pan control and the stereo inputs feature a Balance
control. Sounds perfect to me. Of course the effects sends and
returns would be nice too. :-)
http://www.soundcraft.com/products/spirit_mseries_home.htm
Can anyone provide an example mixer AU project? Please.....
Robert.
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 09:27 PM, Bob Camp wrote:
Hi,
A lot of this comes down to having a model that people are
comfortable with. The longer it takes to figure out the presentation
the worse the user experience. Frustration is not a good thing.
When I sit down with a good old analog mixer I expect to have:
1) Pan pots - both for stereo and mono sources
2) Trim pots on each input
3) Mute and solo switches
4) Basic tone adjust
5) Aux sends and returns
If that stuff isn't there on my shiny new mixer I'm going to wonder
what I spent my money on.
I think the same thing applies to the software equivalent of the
box. A quick look at any number of analog boxes will give you a
feature set that they pretty much all have. Each feature cost them
something to put in there. None of them came for free. They put them
in there because that's what people needed and used. When they left
them out people complained or bought another brand.
The software "toolkit" probably will have the same sort of market
that the analog mixer did. It's a building block that more or less
does the same thing. You use it to as part of a setup. In the end
they should look a lot alike.
Enjoy!
Bob Camp
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 08:23 PM, Robert Grant wrote:
My problem is that a hosting app should provide a nice place for
mixing the output. If the mixer can't pan or balance stereo sources
then we should have a way of getting mono output from every music
device. I can't imagine attempting to do a mix by leaping to 20
different stereo devices and fiddling with each of their individual
pan controls on 20 different custom GUIs. Does that sound practical
to anyone else? As an example many Reason users take the individual
outs from the ReDrum and route them into the ReMix even though the
redrum has a stereo output and pan controls for each drum sound
because the ReMix gives them better and more consistent control.
_______________________________________________
coreaudio-api mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/coreaudio-api
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
_______________________________________________
coreaudio-api mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/coreaudio-api
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
-- mailto:email@hidden
tel: +1 408 974 4056
_______________________________________________________________________
___
"Much human ingenuity has gone into finding the ultimate Before.
The current state of knowledge can be summarized thus:
In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded" - Terry Pratchett
_______________________________________________________________________
___
_______________________________________________
coreaudio-api mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/coreaudio-api
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.