I want one!!

 
Very nice...
 
 

 
 
 

 
It looks like they've thought of everything doesn't it though Mike.
 
Shows what you can achieve if you design something that addresses the needs of your eventual end-users.

I like working in bright cheerful environments.
 
When I see a display monitor sitting at 45* I wonder where the room lighting could be placed so that there isn't an unnerving reflection on the screen.
 
I've tried to place my current monitor like that and I have to turn off most of my lights to make it work... so I went back to a near vertical position.
 
I have also mixed on analog boards long enough to feel as if there is not any need to work hyper fast on a mix. I think the most important thing you can do when you "mix" is to listen rather than to *mix* so the implication that there is a work flow that is even faster than the iconic analog mixing board doesn't seem like a potential benefit that I will appreciate.
 
I really like drawing envelopes and I use very precise near instantaneous, stair stepped, changes in level using to nodes. I rarely use a fade unless I specifically want a fade effect. It's the same way I mix on analog boards. Quick moves on the silence between words or musical phrases.  I think DAWs like to make quick precise changes too. Tapered changes increase CPU and reveal the fragility of the playback engines when the engine encounters lots of unnecessary nodes. The easiest way to get excess nodes is to ride the faders while automaton read is on, so I tend to avoid doing that and prefer to draw in the precise thing I want. I know that seems slow, but I figure it out while I am listening then I quickly make my edits and then I listen some more. If you are *listening* while you are riding the faders you are tempting yourself to hear stuff you aren't really hearing. For example; you might ride the faders 1/2dB and actually think you heard something change. If you think you can hear a 1/2dB change you are hallucinating and anything you can do to prevent inferring that you have, will ultimately make you a more effective listener.
 
I like to make my changes and then listen. We couldn't do that as effectively without automation. We had to deal with moving stuff while it was playing back but now we can avoid that and we can listen with a more open mind. I've been digging that for about 15 years now and think it was great evolutionary improvement.
 
Anyways... I guess I really like the track view paradigm.
 
 
best regards,
mike
 
 
 
 

mike_mccueTapered changes increase CPU and reveal the fragility of the playback engines when the engine encounters lots of unnecessary nodes.

 
This seems rather unlikely.

bapuBut he talks prettier than a $2 hoar, roight?
(please say you understand the Blazing Saddles reference here)

Are we accounting for inflation here?

drewfx1

mike_mccueTapered changes increase CPU and reveal the fragility of the playback engines when the engine encounters lots of unnecessary nodes.

 
This seems rather unlikely.

 
I base my estimation on first hand observation of playback smoothness and like many observation I may be making wildly incorrect conclusions.
 
I have also noted that DAWs like Pro Tools have commands that clean up envelopes by removing nodes, much like vector based illustrations programs have to simplify their shape descriptions.
 
I know by experience and observation that my installs of Illustrator and Freehand run much smoother when the shapes have simpler descriptions. That is very easy to experience.
 
I have observed similar impact on functionality while running DAWs. Perhaps I am attributing a symptom to the wrong cause? Perhaps I am just plain wrong? 
 
I shouldn't have said "taper" but rather just said "dense collections of nodes" as that is what I actually meant to describe.
 
A dense collection of nodes is a common result of moving the fader. We may hope to maintain a constant velocity (or not) but it usually seems to be interpreted and written as a series of various velocities requiring more nodes than one would probably end up with if they simply drew a taper as a linear vector or a curve with a bezier function 
 
In any event, I am, as usual, open to correction or refutation.
 
 
best regards,
mike
 
 

Hi Drew,
 Thanks for making your comment.
 
 I went and made a test and I will probably end up agreeing with you but I think there are are some qualifications to the idea.
 
 First, what I just did was make 3 projects.
 
1) No envelope
2) Flat envelope
3) freehand pencil envelope
 
 Each had the same piece of 2 track music in it routed to a master bus with an input level turned down -40dB to protect the speakers and my ears.
 
 Then I added an envelope to #2, and #3.
 
 Then I cloned 95 more tracks.
 
 I minimized all the tracks so each project had similar screen display or waveform drawing resolution.
 
 I played back each on my new Win7 x64 4.5gHz monster with 32GB memory and I could barely see much difference, maybe 1% difference for each example.  I was reminded that SONAR 8.5.2 doesn't balance the use of the cores very well in Win7 on this machine. (Pro Tools 11 is incredibly well balanced on this machine)
 
 I then copied the projects and audio to my old trusty WinXP x86 DAW. It has 4GB memory and I forget what the CPU is.
 The no envelope project ran at about 40% CPU. The flat envelope ran at about 44% CPU and the complex envelope project ran at about 48%.
 I was reminded that SONAR 8.5.2 on the old WinXP machine distributes cores very well and that the CPU meters run very stable and don't spike up and down like the Win7 x64 install.
 
 At this point I realize that my opinion about envelopes, as stated previously, was formed on much older DAW computers running early versions of Pro Audio and SONAR and that my observations of complex envelopes crippling a computer playback are very dated. I used to rescue my projects by pulling out nodes and cleaning up envelopes.
 
 Never the less, I think this test was very simplistic in that it was all just on volume envelopes rather than any type of control over a more complex process.
 
 I wonder what would happen if I started automating more than one parameter or used a parameter in a VST that messed with latency compensation?
 
 The other thing to consider is that I routinely manage my mixes so I stay just below the red line by the time I have added fancy reverbs and look ahead limiting running and the small percentage of capability I have become used to saving by running simple envelopes is still a factor in my experience of enjoying stability when I work. 
 
 In any event, thanks for making the comment and inspiring me to take a fresh look.
 
 all the best,
mike
 
 

This could lead to hand mixing!
 

 
He he, Craig said 'knobs'.
 
 

 
I just reversed over some bloke who was on his way to a fancy dress party.
 
He was wearing a 'Dracula' costume.
 
I never saw him in my rear-view mirror.
 
 

mike_mccue
Hi Drew,
 Thanks for making your comment.

 
Wow, I think I just set a new record for amount of work and reply length per word in my comment! 
 

At this point I realize that my opinion about envelopes, as stated previously, was formed on much older DAW computers running early versions of Pro Audio and SONAR and that my observations of complex envelopes crippling a computer playback are very dated. I used to rescue my projects by pulling out nodes and cleaning up envelopes.
 
 Never the less, I think this test was very simplistic in that it was all just on volume envelopes rather than any type of control over a more complex process.
 
 I wonder what would happen if I started automating more than one parameter or used a parameter in a VST that messed with latency compensation?

 
Regardless of what you're automating, the automation is more or less just a multiplication factor on the target parameter, so the automation curve itself should matter mainly in terms of how often the target parameter needs to be updated, regardless of what that parameter is. But I can't see this as being a problem.
 
But if certain parameters in certain plugins don't automate very well, that's a somewhat different issue.