# Use Automation for having more interesting mixes



## Beat Kaufmann (Dec 7, 2018)

Hi all
I just made a video that should motivate you all to put more on automation in the mix. The potential is great. The goal is to keep as many parameters as possible in motion.
Text in the Video: English / German. I wish you success.


Have fun and all the best
Beat


----------



## novaburst (Dec 7, 2018)

Very beautiful piece @Beat Kaufmann, my personal approach would be automation on the midi files and none on the audio file or final mix.

automation on midi files gives you the chance to dissect where as the final mix once a part is move all the mix moves and has the potential the piece out of focus.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Dec 9, 2018)

Hi novaburst
Thanks for the compliment "beautiful music".

Whether you want to automate at Midi or with audio files is probably a philosophical and a technical question (It's best to do it on both sides ).

Why do I "mix midi" at the audio side? Here are my story and a few thoughts:

A) Who guarantees that you can play all your midi sounds 2030 (only 12 years from now on) . Licenses, Dongles, programs, Logic or Windows need to work as today. If yes you could create completely new mixes with the effects of the future in 2030. Unfortunately, that is not guaranteed.
I was once WIN-Logic User (V5.5) Then Logic said goodby (2004?) to the windows users. Today my entire Logic-work is useless ... because I did (as obviously you) only an audio bounce of the whole projects).
If I had produced audio files, then today I could make a better and other mixes.

B) I hardly believe that one balances an instrument in its volume on the Midi side, as I did with the solo violin on the audio side in the video above.

C) I do not think that the one makes the whole orchestral sound a bit darker with an EQ on the midi side when the solo violin is playing. This belongs to a typical Audiomixing job. Do you do that? You will say that you increase the CC11 (expression) of the violin. I say "Yes i did it as well with midi".

D) There is also a fourth point for me: If you have access to every little note, articulation and every Midi-controller until the end at any time and at the same time you should get to a final audio mix, then you most time deal with those little details. So the mix never really ends. That's also why I like to separate Midi and Audio. Once, when midi plays music I change to Audio and mix the music. So everything comes to an end much faster for me.

So my way is therefore optimizing the midi side - also with automation ... then bouncing them to audio files. Then I do the definitive mix only via audio files.

Everyone has his way as it seems .
Beat


----------



## novaburst (Dec 9, 2018)

of course after midi automation all the midi files will get bounced to audio, once your file is in audio final mix then all automation should stop and you should concentrate on EQ and compression, and other FX, but no automation an the final audio mix.



Beat Kaufmann said:


> Everyone has his way as it seems .
> Beat



Perhaps


----------



## Henu (Dec 10, 2018)

novaburst said:


> no automation an the final audio mix.



Absolutely _as much automation as needed_ to the final mix as well. I get your point- technically you shouldn't need any at that stage anymore, but due to compressing, EQ' ing and whatnot, it's almost inevitable. And sometimes you also want to take artistic/ mixing/ producing decisions too.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Dec 10, 2018)

Agree with Beat. There's obviously the whole topic of compatibility and future-proofing. Also, audio is real. It's reliable. It is what it is - as opposite to MIDI, which is not what it is. 

I always mix everything in audio. MIDI sequencing, fumbling around with virtual instruments etc. is a completely different part of the job. I like to separate them mentally for proper focus. It's a real thing.

Also, MIDI is unreliable for mixing. I don't wanna think about round robins, variations of samples, voice count, and all this other nonsense when I'm trying to make the mix sound good.
Make it as perfect as possible just by orchestration first, then sequencing, editing, CC curves, etc. - not falling into the trap of "mixing while composing" and reaching for ill-advised shortcuts and band-aid.

Once it sounds like proper music in MIDI on its own - bounce it to audio, don't touch it again. And then it's on to panning, reverbs, EQ, comp, all the other jazz, in completely liberty and focus. Forget your VI template's logic, enter audio mixing logic - "making music sound good" logic. Also much easier to do things on the tech side of it - routing etc.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Dec 10, 2018)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> Hi all
> I just made a video that should motivate you all to put more on automation in the mix. The potential is great. The goal is to keep as many parameters as possible in motion.
> Text in the Video: English / German. I wish you success.
> 
> ...



Automation can help adding extra realism to mixes and performances. Thank you for pointing that out. THough that isn´t the topic here, actually I would still say in your case here the are a lots of other issues which can´t be fixed by automation...watch out those kinds of things as well..


----------



## Silence-is-Golden (Dec 10, 2018)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Automation can help adding extra realism to mixes and performances. Thank you for pointing that out. THough that isn´t the topic here, actually I would still say in your case here the are a lots of other issues which can´t be fixed by automation...watch out those kinds of things as well..


are you referring in this case in general to "orchestration" and/or how to properly use signal processors?


----------



## Henu (Dec 10, 2018)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I always mix everything in audio. MIDI sequencing, fumbling around with virtual instruments etc. is a completely different part of the job. I like to separate them mentally for proper focus. It's a real thing.



Couldn't agree more. I also master all final files in separate projects to maintain the focus and to get some perspective.


----------



## Mornats (Dec 10, 2018)

Thanks for making and sharing that Beat. It's a lovely piece and it's opened my eyes to using automation more than I do. Dipping the high end frequencies of the orchestra to let the solo violin shine through is something that will help my pieces for sure. As I use Izotope's Neutron I could sidechain a low pass filter using the violin signal which may make it a little easier to set up (although with perhaps not as good results).


----------



## Dietz (Dec 10, 2018)

novaburst said:


> my personal approach would be automation on the midi files and none on the audio file or final mix.


Using this approach you will run into serious problems as soon as you us any kind of dynamic processing for the resulting audio signal. It will always take place post-automation, which _might_ be useful on rare occasions, but not in general. The threshold settings can't deal with every-changing input levels, most of the time.

But in any case: ... automation is the real secret of all good mixes.


----------



## ryans (Dec 10, 2018)

Great stuff Beat... Also credit to the maestro Morricone


----------



## novaburst (Dec 11, 2018)

Dietz said:


> But in any case: ... automation is the real secret of all good mixes.



This is a first never heard this statement ever. 

From the very best nope never heard that before guess you learn something new every day
.


----------



## Dietz (Dec 11, 2018)

novaburst said:


> This is a first never heard this statement ever.
> 
> From the very best nope never heard that before guess you learn something new every day
> .



I'm not sure if you're making fun of me, but in case you're really surprised, then let me assure you that it is like I wrote.

Once preparations and restoration issues are solved, all good mixing engineers spend considerable amount of time to automate the volumes of individual signals and/or groups, FX-returns, filters and EQs, and sometimes even master busses. This will breathe all the life into a good, but otherwise static basic mix setup. Automation adds drama, suspense, impact, flow and interest, it makes little details audible just in the right moment. A mix without automation is like a great dish before cooking. 

... but I assume you knew this already and were just bantering me.


----------



## novaburst (Dec 11, 2018)

@Dietz no I am not making fun of you,

as I would encourage all automation be completed using midi files only using your cc for any expressions, velocity, attack, and tons more for the purpose of realism, and dynamic range fo each midi track and individual notes if need be also helps to get your balance correct before bouncing to your final audio mix. 

When you are on you final mix and something sounds out of place then go back to the midi file and sort it then bounce the whole piece once again or as many times as needed, 

If you consider active eq, or active compression as automation then that is OK but to me that is not automation. 

Always correct or change in the original midi file, when in the audio just polish and and gloss.


----------



## Dietz (Dec 11, 2018)

I think see where you're coming from. MIDI-automation is a perfect way to simulate a believable, conclusive performance with virtual instruments. Actual mixing should be done on the audio level, though. Otherwise it might happen quite often that your mixing devices (a.k.a. plug-ins  ...) don't see the proper input level - which is even more important in times where "analog modelling" brings back not just saturation, but also noise and hum on the other end of the spectrum. And so on ... 

Mixing is not just polish and gloss, it can make or break a production - just like cooking can make or break a the final dish of perfectly fine ingredients.  It's not a substitution for proper performance and recordings, but the final step with its own (artistic) possibilities and (technical) intricacies.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Dec 11, 2018)

novaburst said:


> of course after midi automation all the midi files will get bounced to audio, once your file is in audio final mix then all automation should stop and you should concentrate on EQ and compression, and other FX, but no automation an the final audio mix.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps


Why?


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Dec 11, 2018)

novaburst said:


> @Dietz no I am not making fun of you,
> 
> as I would encourage all automation be completed using midi files only using your cc for any expressions, velocity, attack, and tons more for the purpose of realism, and dynamic range fo each midi track and individual notes if need be also helps to get your balance correct before bouncing to your final audio mix.
> 
> ...


I doubt there is any mixing engineer in the world who would agree with that but who knows.


----------



## novaburst (Dec 11, 2018)

Dietz said:


> I think see where you're coming from. MIDI-automation is a perfect way to simulate a believable, conclusive performance with virtual instruments. Actual mixing should be done on the audio level, though. Otherwise it might happen quite often that your mixing devices (a.k.a. plug-ins  ...) don't see the proper input level - which is even more important in times where "analog modelling" brings back not just saturation, but also noise and hum on the other end of the spectrum. And so on ...
> 
> Mixing is not just polish and gloss, it can make or break a production - just like cooking can make or break a the final dish of perfectly fine ingredients.  It's not a substitution for proper performance and recordings, but the final step with its own (artistic) possibilities and (technical) intricacies.



To have a choice weather to automation correction, or any change the choice between the actual midi file and or the final audio mix, to me the midi file would be far better. 

Automation on the final mix would and almost every time throws the whole mix out of balance, because you have all the instrument, moving or changing at the same time and that is very difficult to control. 

Most of the time to get some thing out of the way so something else can be heard you only need to adjust one or two instruments not all of them. 

With an audio file final mix adjusting individual instruments is near impossible what ever you adjust it will adjust the whole piece, coursing loudness or low vouume in one or many parts of the piece.


----------



## novaburst (Dec 11, 2018)

Markus Kohlprath said:


> Why?



Try to give an idea of how you would deal with a mix, to some it's what works, but as you can see there are different approaches to this art.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 11, 2018)

I'm still learning orchestral mockup production, but my approach and feeling at the moment is to use MIDI automation for the "performance", and audio automation for the "mix".

So on a track by track basis I'm trying to make each track sound cohesive as if from the player's ears and perspective, the articulations relative to each other are all the right level, the dynamics are what I want, etc. But at this point in the process, NOT the overall level of the instrument in the mix. Just this instrument in isolation, does it sound right from note to note, use MIDI automation to make it sound right. MIDI automation can influence the sample layers of the instrument in ways that audio automation can not and does not. When you raise CC11, you could be changing completely the timbre and sound of the instrument, not just the level, in a way that makes sense according to the sample instrument's designer. That's specifically when you want to use MIDI automation, and why, in order to get the actual instrument to add certain aspects of dynamic sound that is more then just raising/lowering the volume. As we all know, articulations are not always normalized, so this is a good place to do that also, perhaps with CC7, so that the track, in isolation, sounds like the performance the player would want out of the instrument.

When it comes time to mix the overall sound with all tracks, I think audio automation is preferable for numerous reasons. In terms of freezing the track for the future, bouncing the track from midi to audio after the above MIDI automation has all been worked out, then provides a great starting point to do the overall mix using all audio tracks.


----------



## Dietz (Dec 11, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> use MIDI automation for the "performance", and audio automation for the "mix".



This!


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Dec 11, 2018)

Silence-is-Golden said:


> are you referring in this case in general to "orchestration" and/or how to properly use signal processors?



You have not asked me, but I like to give an answer.

*Generally for Midi:*

If you make music with samples, you work with "dead" sounds, because every time you play the note X, it's the same sample. OK, modern libraries trigger a few variants ... But in the real game, *none note! sounds equal.*
If you don't do anything, your Midifile has the same tempo from start to finish ... In real play, *there is always a different tempo ... at any single time sequence.*

When playing with samples, the same volume is always present at the same sustained tone. In real play, *the tone level of sustained tones is never that of another ...*

"Real" music thus lives by chance within limits and by the human intention of influencing sounds. But it also depends on the skill of the artist and so on. 
*All this means that Midi should leave as little static as possible.*​
Here 2 small examples:
https://www.beat-kaufmann.com/vitutorials/vi-tips--tricks-4/index.php (No. 34)
and https://youtu.be/Qcv61DicWA4
-------------------------------------------------- -------------------
*For Audio*

In my video above you can see that apparently the violin does not always sound the same. This is related to the different samples that have been recorded at a certain volume in a certain situation. The combination I used did not fit this perfectly. Somewhat louder on the Midi side might have meant a different layer, which I did not want... So with a flexible volume and other flexible parameters you can...

A) Fix "errors" while mixing which happend at a certain moment. >>> Automation
B) Who says that an EQ setting is alright even with quiet music? >>> Automation

C) Crashes are often perceived too brightly while _fff_ in the mix, but they sound just OK in _mf_ parts. >>> Automation.
D) Whether alto flute or timpani, samples all come to us at the same volume. It is therefore often difficult to get a healthy dynamic over all for pieces with larger orchestras (played with samples). With a flexible "volume-shifter" in the mixer you can nicely support the dynamics of the individual sections and instruments in addition to that which was done with midi (see my uper video (volume violin / orchestra) >>> Automation
E) ...
*Summarized*
Again, the less static is set and only used when it is needed, the more our mix comes alive and thus appears more natural.
Even if I make live recordings, my mixer is constantly on the move. And if it's just fading in and out of unused microphones.

*One last matter*
It's the sum of *1000 little things* that makes a big difference in the end.
----------------------------------------​
By the way, you can read about the "1000 little things" in my tutorial "Mixing an Orchestra" ​
All the best
Beat


----------



## josephspirits (Dec 11, 2018)

Great to read everyone's approaches to this topic of automation workflow, I wish there were more threads like this.


----------



## novaburst (Dec 11, 2018)

Let me clear something up guys possibly my mistake OK ok yes all my mistake, stems stems stems (audio files) so that we are on the same page, midi then stems then final mix, so very sorry for any confusion.

Anyway please tell me why in the world why you would spend so much time doing automation with your midi file and more automation on audio file. its much more clear cut with midi files


----------



## Henu (Dec 11, 2018)

Because of this.



Dewdman42 said:


> use MIDI automation for the "performance", and audio automation for the "mix".



This sentence cannot explain it any better. After that being said, if you need justification_ why _you need to mix properly (or at all!), that's completely a different topic.


----------



## novaburst (Dec 11, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> but my approach and feeling at the moment is to use MIDI automation for the "performance", and audio automation for the "mix".



@Dewdman42 I hear you but in all honesty cant understand the type of automation you would rather do for audio stems that you feel you could not do while the project was all in midi.

getting the mix good by using your faders, FX, once you hit the stem stage should be all that is needed,

Or am I correct in saying you could do all automation in midi tracks but you just prefer to do some automation in audio even when the same could have been automated in midi.

So is it a sound thing, just what is it that you and many hear prefer do automate in audio, because I not convinced and believe the same can be done in midi what ever is done in audio.

I have automated audio but it was not because I could not do it in midi

So I beg the question if any can answer what type of audio automation are you doing in audio that can not be done in midi


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 11, 2018)

novaburst said:


> @Dewdman42 I hear you but in all honesty cant understand the type of automation you would rather do for audio stems that you feel you could not do while the project was all in midi.




Well first, you can automate audio even while the project is still in the midi stage of playing back midi tracks through audio channels hosting plugin instruments. Its a question of whether you automate CC7 to change the level coming from the plugins, or rather automate the mixer fader of the DAW on the channel hosting the plugin instrument. Is there any real difference? Maybe not, but for one thing, when you automate the mixer fader it will have a similar response across all channels, rather then being different for each plugin or even each preset within a plugin that responds to CC7 volume changes. 
Another thing is that you can visually see the faders of the mixer while mixing in the audio domain. 
You can setup groups and VCA's and other interesting things that come in handy when mixing audio.
There may be more precision with the mixer fader vs CC7. CC7 has 128 levels. Most mixer faders typically have more precision then that.
Another thing is that its a mind set thing. If you're automating audio, you are dealing with compressors and EQ and other interesting things in the audio domain that all effect the "mix". So dealing with the actual levels of the "mix" in that same audio domain just makes logical sense. 
Likewise it makes logical sense to keep that aspect of the mix out of the midi automation, so that the midi automation focuses on the performance aspects of each individual virtual instrument/player, without regards to how it sits in the mix. Use the midi CC's, including both 7 and 11, to fine tune that performance into a smooth performance. Worry about how it sits in the mix at the audio domain.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Dec 11, 2018)

novaburst said:


> Anyway please tell me why in the world why you would spend so much time doing automation with your midi file and more automation on audio file. its much more clear cut with midi files


Because you are much more precise and surgical with an audio file than with midi in a lot of aspects. And more often than not you can tweak the midi for hours and don’t get what you can achieve with a little bit of audio editing and automation. At least to my experience.


----------



## novaburst (Dec 11, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> performance. Worry about how it sits in the mix at the audio domain.



I dont know man, it just sounds like a preference thing, but must say you and a few others really know your stuff.


----------



## averystemmler (Dec 12, 2018)

I try to stratify the two like this:

The MIDI stage represents what you capture from the virtual recording session. Hopefully, this means the instruments and sections are already in some kind of balance. I tend to do some mixing as I go in this stage as well (you could think of it as premixes or dailies or what have you), because I like to let the mixing possibilities influence the compositional possibilities. But at the same time, the composition keeps changing, so what sounded good at first may not work once I've added brass, three pads, and a battleship full of taikos. I try not to bury myself in plugin options at this point.

The mixing stage represents the post-production. If I have time, this is where I'll get lost in the weeds on the nitty gritty, since all the pieces of the puzzle are more or less in place. Try this compressor vs that compressor, decide how much reverb tail I really need, that sort of thing. Having some distance from the compositional process also helps for these more aesthetic decisions.

I find this helps, on the rare occasion that I actually abide by my own advice.


----------



## novaburst (Dec 12, 2018)

with instrument tracks it takes away the need to do automation in audio tracks, you can harness as many plugins FX as you disire if needed,

Also with software like Vepro FX plugins for midi is a game changer for many years now and not sure why some don't take
advantage over this fact working with midi is almost identical as working with audio but midi is cleaner and sharper and has a huge advantage. 

remember when bounced to stems you will get a slight deterioration of sound, 

I agree that taste wise some just like the audio automation but my opinion is that it is unnecessary and time wasting, 

At the end if the day an audio stem is a sample, the midi is the first hand sample you hear and that is the file you need to work with. 

More powerful workstations, more stability, more ram makes this entirely possible and should be explored in its entirely. 

Audio should be saved for manual mixing with a hardware mixer.. 


.


----------



## averystemmler (Dec 12, 2018)

novaburst said:


> remember when bounced to stems you will get a slight deterioration of sound



This is most certainly not something I've experienced, unless you're sending to outboard hardware effects, or over cables to another rig. Everything that stays in the box should be identical, excepting any sample rate or bit depth conversions.

Valid points otherwise, though.


----------



## Henu (Dec 12, 2018)

I promised myself I'll act rather civilized and refrain on posting to this particular debate, but due to having a bad day, this just hit the spot too much.



novaburst said:


> with instrument tracks it takes away the need to do automation in audio tracks, you can harness as many plugins FX as you disire if needed,



With instrument tracks only you cannot align them as accurately, and a lot of quick editing work becomes cumbersome and slow, starting from quick volume changes or fades. Also, the more your computer has to work with instrument tracks, the more it's struggling with plugins- especially heavy ones, like convolution reverbs.



novaburst said:


> ...this fact working with midi is almost identical as working with audio but midi is cleaner and sharper and has a huge advantage.



With only midi, you miss a lot of things you can do with audio, e.g. offline processing/ effecting of the track. And "midi", a.k.a _DAW- triggered .wav samples_ are not any "cleaner and sharper" than any other audio file if they use the same sample- and bit rate. Later, you also contradict yourself by stating what I also said above.



novaburst said:


> remember when bounced to stems you will get a slight deterioration of sound



This is not true, unless you bounce on purpose with inferior sample- and bit rate.



novaburst said:


> I agree that taste wise some just like the audio automation but my opinion is that it is unnecessary and time wasting,



I really hope this is some sort of a language- barrier- related mistake. Are you really saying that automation in mixing is "unnecessary and time wasting"?



novaburst said:


> Audio should be saved for manual mixing with a hardware mixer..



Please, by all means- elaborate us a bit more on this. I'd love to hear why manual mixing on hardware is superior to automated DAW according to this. And as you are so concerned about the sound "degradation", how does running your pristine midi file sound after going through some noisy analog cables, transformers, circuits and more cables?


----------



## bryla (Dec 12, 2018)

Even mastering engineers use automation to automate compressor threshold or ratios depending on the song structure or ducking resonant frequencies that only appear at certain points.


----------



## novaburst (Dec 12, 2018)

bryla said:


> Even mastering engineers use automation to automate compressor threshold or ratios depending on the song structure or ducking resonant frequencies that only appear at certain points.



If you call that automation well I guess they moving its self, 

This is standard when using active eq or limiters, and would be expected.


----------



## Dietz (Dec 12, 2018)

novaburst said:


> remember when bounced to stems you will get a slight deterioration of sound


No, not as long as you don't reduce the volume of the (sampled?) source. (As a rough rule-of-thumb you will indeed lose the equivalent of 1bit dynamic resolution by reducing the level by 6dB.) - Another good reason to keep the output of your virtual instruments as close as possible to unity gain and do the balancing just once, in the audio domain.

... but in any case - in a modern DAW with at least 32bit FP dynamic resolution this whole issue might be a neglectable one anyway.


----------



## novaburst (Dec 12, 2018)

Henu said:


> Please, by all means- elaborate us a bit more on this. I'd love to hear why manual mixing on hardware is superior to automated DAW according



Sorry for not explaining, what I mean is you DAW should be hooked up to a hardware mixer, touch sensitive and all that. 



Henu said:


> This is not true, unless you bounce on purpose with inferior sample- and bit rate.



Are you telling me you can't hear hissing when you bounce to stems. 



Henu said:


> I promised myself I'll act rather civilized and refrain on posting to this particular debate, but due to having a bad day, this just hit the spot too much.



This is a real problem with many others too, you feel there is only one way of doing things and if it ant your way its the wrong way, when your challenged then you get persernal and you feel you need to put others down for your own self esteem.

When ever you feel like that it's time to stop posting 

If you feel you need to be critical because oh well every one going to agree so why not

One word ........ Sad


----------



## ThomasL (Dec 12, 2018)

Precision.
MIDI volume automation = 0 to 127 possible steps.
Audio volume automation = -133.6 to +10 dB in 0.1 steps.


----------



## averystemmler (Dec 12, 2018)

novaburst said:


> Are you telling me you can't hear hissing when you bounce to stems.



Can you describe your signal chain? That really shouldn't happen.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 12, 2018)

novaburst said:


> with instrument tracks it takes away the need to do automation in audio tracks, you can harness as many plugins FX as you disire if needed,



First, you are still missing the fact that audio automation can be performed on instrument tracks! You do not strictly speaking, need to bounce to audio tracks first. That is optional. Instrument tracks produce audio and run through the mixer and an FX section, all of which can be automated in the audio domain.

Dietz pointed something else out that is worth mentioning, which is that when you bounce to audio on a track by track basis, you can get the recording close to unity gain, which generally improves your dynamic range. 

But I want to reiterate, the audio does not, strictly speaking, need to be bounced to an audio track. What is relevant is that the output from the instrument should pretty much always be cc7=127, which is full dynamic range from the instrument. Then the audio from the plugin runs through the FX section and DAW mixer, where you can adjust how it sits in the mix.... no bouncing needed.


----------



## novaburst (Dec 12, 2018)

@Dewdman42 may I ask what DAW you use.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 12, 2018)

see my sig


----------



## novaburst (Dec 12, 2018)

I think you all need to just accept there are some that work differently, and feel more comfortable at that workflow, 

Of course you can do automation with audio, I am just i feel it works better with midi and that is where all the automation should done, 

If you don't accept that or ithen just stick with what works for you. 

I have done automation with audio and midi and I prefer midi so what do you think that is some big sin. 

Do what works for you, 

If you all just want to slam no ione learns, 

I am talking about automation in accordance with the thread, not to start a slamming match. 

You don't need to accept what I say its not the only way so just do what works for you


----------



## novaburst (Dec 12, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> see my sig



In my mobile your sig is not showing, are you using Logic.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Dec 12, 2018)

yes, among others.


----------



## novaburst (Dec 12, 2018)

OK seems to be a preferd DAW for many.


----------



## Henu (Dec 12, 2018)

novaburst said:


> If you feel you need to be critical because oh well every one going to agree so why not
> 
> One word ........ Sad



No- I feel I needed to be critical, because you are spreading complete misinformation as facts. 
As I stated before, everyone can have their workflow as they want, and there is no universal guide for that which suits us all. But stating that people needing a touch-sensitive hardware mixer for mixing "properly" or things like


novaburst said:


> Are you telling me you can't hear hissing when you bounce to stems.



are giving me a headache so bad I don't know where to start. Thus, I don't even. Happy mixing!


----------



## novaburst (Dec 13, 2018)

Henu said:


> are giving me a headache so bad I don't know where to start. Thus, I don't even. Happy mixin



That is self inflicted, or your self harming your self for what ever reason. 

You can use the ignore function, no need tor this shit

Just get on with your life.


----------

