[Jim Giberti]

[Herb Sevush] ” it’s hard to be that dumb.”

On the other hand, if CC fails, there’s a bright future for them in congress.

[Jim Giberti]

Is Exede available to you?
It’s dependable and genuine broadband with a small dish.
My studios are on a fairly remote mountain and it allows us to deliver creative around the country and I’m moving GBs of material with it and doing regular software updates of a few GBs etc.

[Jim Giberti]

[Lance Bachelder] “I agree – I immediately felt sorry for Canon and Nikon after watching this… a game changer in the truest sense. I’ll take 3 with a side of Zuiko please…”

It’s funny you say that Lance,
I recently picked up a our first 4/3 cameras (a couple of GH3s for their small, slomo capability) and subsequently got new 4/3 Primes like the 45mm Zuiko – which is a great little lens.

Anyway, yeah, I’ve actually ordered three BMPCs.

[Jim Giberti]

I don’t even like to touch the touch screens on my cameras in the field.

[Jim Giberti]

[Oliver Peters] ” I think they’ve just stepped away from the outer edges of it, like faux leather.
“

I was so looking forward to the new Sony F55 in Naugahyde.

[Jim Giberti]

That’s a great interface, sort of Neveish.

It makes sense that If you already know how to fly, you really want your cockpit laid out as you expect.
If you’re just learning to fly then I suppose it could be designed any number of ways, but I tend to think that gear like this evolved over time from people with very big brains for really good reasons.

That’s not to say that innovation isn’t critical.
But we’ve had enormous innovation and evolution in the audio world and yet this model still holds strong even with the all digital underpinnings.

There are audio things I wish that FCPX did like MOTU and visa versa.

[Jim Giberti]

And for the record David, I like the look of the Lightworks GUI and I tend to design clean and simple as often as not.

I’m fairly flexible in what I find creatively appealing – probably from being a creative director and having to write and produce to the circumstances for so long.
I like that it’s opened a lot more doors than it’s closed over the years and it’s really helped me mature and appreciate a much broader palate of creativity.
I’m still really opinionated but I have an ever growing appreciation for a lot of things that I used to dismiss or ignore.
So there’s hope for me yet.

[Jim Giberti]

[David Lawrence] “would you want a DAW with a FCPX-like magnetic timeline? Would having only one main track in default ripple mode – that all other channels must connect to – be a better, more natural UI for working with multi-channel sound?”

This, I think, gets to the heart of it, and not because Carsten is one of many video shooters/editors who aren’t familiar with recording studios and mixing. Mixing audio has very little in common with editing film/video and it has evolved to a very powerful level since we moved from analog tape.

A mixer is a mixer is a mixer and it’s not going to be replaced by Roles no matter how nicely they’re implemented in the future. Now despite having moved from a big analog console to a big digital console to now a big digital screen – I still have a mixer in front of me with all of my elements interacting in real time and the ability to effect them in real time.

Anyone who understands crafting an audio mix learned very early on – I learned it at Blake Hill Studios when I was sitting in with the engineer mixing my very first work – that the slightest adjustment to a track’s EQ or another track’s panning, or another track’s dynamics, immediately effects the overall balance of the mix and the presence of surrounding tracks. Thereby requiring a delicate balance of moves and compensations to get a great mix. That’s where the artistry of the engineer lies.

If you’re serious about mixing audio, there’s no such thing as: open in timeline, tweak, close in timeline and open something else.

Can you imagine one of those clever little animations (like Time Machine) where you click a button and the timeline morphs into a mixer with all the audio tracks and filters laid out below the viewer?
I sure can.

[Jim Giberti]

[Carsten Orlt] “I see your point Jim.

But let me ask you why you don’t use a dedicated audio mixing tool that has all this functionality that you righly would like for your type of work? Why does it have to be in the same editor?”

Obviously I do music production and scoring in a DAW (Motu DP) and I have my full studio of plugins and instruments. But like a lot of producers, there are times when it’s more efficient to handle the audio post directly within the project – specifically because of the Logic tools available in X.

While I really like the ease of “bussing” using CCs, if you like to develop your audio mix as you go, then you’re going to want go go back and forth to these elements to continue to “mix” them. I find that very unintuitive and weak using the “open in timeline” route.

So, for me at least, one of the great potentials of FCPX was flexible and powerful audio interface that would create a more integrated and efficient production workflow. I just think the value of a a real time mix laid out in front of you with immediate access to parameter controls would be a real beneficial option in FCPX.

[Jim Giberti]

[Carsten Orlt] “I would be more than surprised if they put tracks back in and all the hassle of patch panels etc. It would totally defeat what they tried to achieve.
“

Let me clarify my POV at least. When I talk about tracks in FCPX, I’m talking specifically about audio mixing within the current incarnation. As much as I like parents and kids relationships vs bussing, working with the details of a complex audio mix using compound clips has as many downsides as upsides, at least in my experience.

A reasonable evolution, like the simple addition of the, “~” added enormous flexibility to a previously hobbled (for many, not all, Bill) interface; a mixing interface for audio would give it the same kind of flexibility for more complex and detailed audio production.

Let me try and put it differently.
A traditional multitrack audio environment gives the producer a realtime view and listen of all the tracks in a mix. And that producer/engineer is skilled at sculpting the sound, as it happens – with an ongoing series of fader moves, pans, eq, dynamics, etc. We see the levels, hear the balance, the addition and subtraction of frequencies and adjustment of dynamics in realtime as they effect one another. That’s audio mixing at it’s best, and why opening and closing CCs will never match it.

But there are real advantages to the X way handles audio and that make me say, “I wish MOTU did this” and that’s why I think a traditional/proven mixing environment would only enhance it. Best of both worlds.