Someone can have fun -if you know the feeling- I doubt you have ever felt such a nice and simple emotion like fun. Someone can use 100% of the dsp resources, recall anything with absolute reliability. Scope with manual dsp assignment is a very good platform. However even in that case it makes sense to 'move' as much of the processing as possible outside of the mixer, and so 'sends' can be done right in the routing window again, as well as the return signal. "Sends" are a bit more complex here, and not as easy to manage, so there might be some sense to using STM2448 mixers if you must replicate a workflow for doing monitoring and control room duties (like recording a band). Then anything that is done via 'insert' is simply 'inserted' into the signal flow before the audio stream (1 or 2 channels) enters the mixer, each in turn. So what i personally do (and I'm not on an Xite but it still applies) is 'mix' aka SUM in micro-mixers. When you do this, the only 'mixing' that occurs on the mixer is the actual summing. Were one to do this in those latter apps, the workflow would be very similar to Scope's routing environment. A typical user would do this in their DAW as 'inserts', but others might prefer a semi-modular (cable-based signal flow) environment like Plogue Bidule or Audulus etc. Airwindows (a plugin maker) for instance offers 'modules' that go pretty close to the component level so that you can 'design' your channel strip. One way of looking at a mixer, is based on the individual components in a channel strip. If you restrict your workflow to the simplest of modules (turning off unused bands on the PEQ, using high cut and low cut instead of a full eq, using the lowest dsp usage compressors etc) then inserts are less costly, but it still adds up. It's rare that you 'need' to use inserts, and when you do there's a multi-insert module that will be much less dsp intensive than a mixer.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |