CUBASE WONT RECGNIZE REAKTOR PLUGIN PATCH
The patch bay in any DAW is pretty massive. Next time you’re in an analog studio don’t look at the pretty lights, ask if you can look under the table and thru the cobwebs and dust at the wiring looms and you may get an idea of the problem. It’s implementation certainly wouldn’t push creative boundaries and may even confuse a large amount of students and long time engineers and also, because of the “wiring” I allude to it would be open to buggy behaviour for some time after development and would be pretty hard to trace and fix. The question asked is reasonable enough but the further posts seem to be demanding it for the poster’s own convenience. It’s expensive enough to do that, surely? Further, as it has been a connection protocol for years, is change really needed for “creative purposes”? Yale should at least have taught the basics and not to push “creative boundaries” for the sake of it. In software, as in hardware there is the question of wiring the connections so it’s not as simple as putting a big empty knob there for anyone to twiddle. Isn’t that what we should all be doing?Įdit: I see Lars provided a reason in his last edit that came in while I was slowly punching out my reply on my iPhone peace on that. Tell me how you can do what a simple WET/DRY knob offers in a sensible number of steps o without creating sends and a return track, which is egregious for the task of achieving a mix of effected an unaffected signal for a single track?įWIW: the studio I worked in was Yale University’s Center for Studies in Music Technology, and we were taught to push creative boundaries through software. Could you elaborate? It takes time to code and speculating about how much time isn’t really an acceptable response. To the folks that posted that ‘this is not a good idea’ and ‘have you ever worked in a studio?’ I still think you dent provide a reason.
0 kommentar(er)
