|
|
Mixer Ardour .jpg (64,764 bytes) Mixer Logic .jpg (61,280 bytes) |
|
|
I would respectfiull say that which of those two you find more "clear" is rather subjective. It is true that the logic one does contain numbers, but reading them all is hardly a "fast pan overview". The other issue is that the logic design gets just as difficult to read if you add in true stereo panning (2 channels -> 2 channels, with width and direction controls). Although the screenshot of Ardour doesn't show that sort of panner (you're using a mono panner or balance control), I feel more strongly that the logic "knob" design is actually less clear for that case. |
|
|
Its not about the numbers, its about the "rotary knobs", for me its super fast from the very first moment on. If you just use standard panners (mono/balance) i'd prefer another view option. However, its just an idea! :) |
|
|
Just to give my 2c for whatever reason. To me, the Logic sample above is a lot cleaner and the pan information is isolated visually. The Ardour pan view is filled with a lot of lines and rectangles and it is a lot more difficult (for me at least) to focus on the pan information. It gets lost (more or less) among lines and rectangles vs logic has an isolated knob with both ring-led and number.. I am used to Ardour so it is not a problem but I think sonnie has a valid point. I too mean this respectfully :-) |
|
|
Having worked with analog mixing desks for far more years than with digital, I find the the sound stage view of Ardour much easier to visualize at a glance than the little pots which indicate the sound can be panned behind me. The sound stage view panner is able to be the full width of the channel strip instead of having to be half the width of the strip to keep from being too high. The panner knob was at best a compromise in the analog world where the only device available was the pot. We can do much better now with glass controls. As for the "light rings", I find them so contrasty that they are like floating light worms, distracting rather than helpful. The numbers are also confusing. Why plus and minus? Is there something wrong with the left hand side of the stage? Why 64 full scale? what does that mean? Ardour's 0->100% L and R makes so much more sense (0-10, 0-100 are just scales humans understand). As a side note: the logic mixer has the dB level number too close to the panner which makes it seem (at a glance) that it is a part of the panner rather than the fader. It seems it was decided it was more important to keep the labels in the left hand column nicely spaced than the controls making sense. To me the image of the logic mixer just points out why Ardour has gotten it right. |
|
|
i think there are layers to this. (is that a usable term?) My reasoning here is similar to what Sonnie is going for in https://tracker.ardour.org/view.php?id=8022 He has trouble finding his tracks in the mixer when having 50-100 tracks and the reason seems to be that there is not a good way to color mixer strips like many other daws can do. You can group things and color the group tab (for the sole reason of visibility) or you can color the strip but in Ardour the colored strip is just the same as all the other strips except for a small bar on the top of the channel trip. Every educational video I have seen using plain old Protools (which is one of the role models of Ardour) have better coloring of tracks and that saves time in large projects. I think the same thing applies to pan stuff.. And there is a difference between finding things and get a good overview *and* manipulating a setting (specific Panner or Fader) when you finally located the right one. |
- Anonymous
