>Where did you get the notion that doing it in a computer prevents
>listening in real-time and adjusting as you go? I do that routinely, and
>include a real time live sonogram to check as well. At the end of the
>filter stack where I can see and hear exactly what each adjustment did.
>I also have a whole bunch of other analysis displays I can stick in if
>need be, but for me the critical one is the sonogram. Hardware
>sonographs are indeed a hassle, but that's where I learned to value
>them. Just glad I don't have to go through that anymore.
Of course everything in computers can be adjusted and most of it on the fly=
. But it's not always convenient, tactile or efficient particularly if you =
wish or have to work in real time. That's why the best software is supporte=
d by a wide variety of real world interfaces from JL Cooper, Mackie, Alesis=
, ADS-Technology, Behringer, Contour, Digital Design, M-audio and others. N=
ot to mention the bevy of drum pads and keyboards that can double as contro=
llers. No reason using a computer has limited to a crummy little mouse or t=
rack ball that only does one thing at a time.
>The future is computer processing, not hardware. You need to get up to
>speed on that too. To me it's a pity how many are not that good with
>computers and/or also choose their computers and software poorly. It's
>also very bad that the pricing of computer software is based on the very
>high costs of the old analog hardware. Audio software should be
>comparable in price to graphic software and it's not.
Apples to oranges, you're comparing pro audio software with consumer graphi=
cs. There's a world of very breathtakinly expensive graphics software out t=
here if you elect to purchase it.
|