![]() Because Mixbus is based on Ardour, it is possible to add more buses (though of course they look like input tracks) and use sends to route to them… but at that point it becomes easier to use Ardour. It has proved very popular and it looks “finished” to someone used to using hardware. So Mixbus is a great layout for people who have been working under the constraints of hardware driven mixing and want an easy to learn digital solution. However, having done some of this, I would be one of the first to point out that the GUI is actually quite good and trying to create something that even does as much is hard. Such a UI is totally customizable and the user could even do it with a web interface and make it look like anything they want with any layout they want. Both could be done with a smart enough control surface as well.Īrdour (and Mixbus) offers the ability of having a simpler (or more complex) UI with the use of OSC for remote control on a tablet or hardware surface. I think at least mute groups would be possible with a script. Two things I would like to see, but that go somewhat deeper than just GUI design, are mute groups and scenes. Buttons are sized by frequency of use and buttons that have more modes than on/off have dropdowns rather than 4 buttons (automation for example). ![]() A much “nicer” user experience… less time aiming the mouse, more time adjusting without thinking too much. Harrison mixbus click tracks 64 Bit#Based on 64 bit Pearl MATE 7 series (18. Harrison mixbus click tracks full#This release features the new MixBus multitrack recording software that turnes your Linux Desktop into a full featured audio recording studio. Rather, the mouse can use any part of the fader to move it. Ready to go Professional Multitrack Recording by MixBus on MATE. In hardware a fader knob is required so fingers can manipulate it, but in software a simple line makes it easier to see where the level really is and does not make the user think they must click on the knob to move it. For example, the Mixbus channel strip “wastes” a lot of space on routing using 8 or 12 buttons/pots of space that could just as easily be done with a dropdown for something that gets used once in any one session… oh, Ardour actually does this… and in doing so leaves more room for plugins.įaders get used much more often and so are bigger. The hardware layout even when the physical size is much bigger than my screen would still be busy (but learnable) but shrinking to fit on a computer screen when the UI has many more possibilities doesn’t make sense to me. ![]() However, building the same limitations as a hardware mixer into software doesn’t really make sense. I like some of the things in Mixbus such as the DSP being built in and therefore having a nice UI. Mrskytown: I find the mixbus layout limited and busy. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |