Please Fix the audio routing

Hello,

This is not the main topic of the thread but :
have you tested the new features in the page delivery => audio:
Output Track => All Timeline Tracks?

blackmagic should try and get some input from people who are audio post production professionals

Didn't BMD simply integrate Fairlight into Resolve? Did they redesign it first? It doesn't match what the stand alone version was before BMD acquired it?

blackmagic should try and get some input from people who are audio post production professionals

Didn't BMD simply integrate Fairlight into Resolve? Did they redesign it first? It doesn't match what the stand alone version was before BMD acquired it?

Yes and no. Some things work exactly as they were including the routing page.

It functions more like a console than a DAW in some respects. I'm unclear if the issue people are having is with Bus Assign or I/O patching, which includes internal patching to track inputs. Both have an effective Source > Destination router. I find it better than a matrix for actually patching things, whereas a matrix is better for quickly seeing all assignments.

Also it sounds like at least one of the posts here refers to the Deliver page which is an altogether different issue right?

Didn't BMD simply integrate Fairlight into Resolve? Did they redesign it first? It doesn't match what the stand alone version was before BMD acquired it?

Jump to 05:30

It functions more like a console than a DAW in some respects

Will, very pleased to see you join in the discussion - was about to prompt you on Slack to provide your input as an experienced Fairlight user.

Somehow I missed both of your posts, until now.

It functions more like a console than a DAW in some respects

Will, very pleased to see you join in the discussion - was about to prompt you on Slack to provide your input as an experienced Fairlight user.

Somehow I missed both of your posts, until now.

As a new user my posts still have to be approved so there is a delay...

I meant to note with these routing pages you can do multiple assignments at once. Say you have a few 5.1 stems you want to patch to track inputs - in Patch IO select your bus outputs on the left, then select your desired track inputs on the right. They will be patched 1>1 in order. On the Xynergi control surface you can easily select a range of tracks by holding the first and double clicking the last.

Some things work exactly as they were including the routing page.

OK.

Given that Fairlight was designed specifically for Film and TV production, and is not a generalized DAW or designed for music production, woulldn't that indicate that folks coming over may simply be facing a different paradigm they need to learn?

Given that Fairlight was designed specifically for Film and TV production, and is not a generalized DAW or designed for music production, woulldn't that indicate that folks coming over may simply be facing a different paradigm they need to learn?

Yep

Amazing, how guys who don't do audio for a living insist on telling actual professionals what they should reasonably expect and how they can best adapt.

Meanwhile, there's a 3000 page thread instructing BMD on how best to alter its business model, principally to accommodate the burning necessity of the same 7 people, year after year, for monitoring with a GPU card.

My manias must be heard, but anyone else's -- no way!

Amazing, how guys who don't do audio for a living insist on telling actual professionals what they should reasonably expect and how they can best adapt.

But...don't we also have professionals familiar with stand alone Fairlight saying the same thing?

So your idea is to repeat what they say -- without actually knowing? My guess is, the developers take these objections more seriously than the readership.

I think my reasoning is pretty sound. Fairlight is specifically designed for a Film & Television work flow. It suits that purpose better than something like ProTools. (At least, that's the theory.)

So why change how it works to match ProTools?

Your "reasoning" is beside the point. At issue are the merits of the suggestion(s) and industry norms.

Most of us can't comment intelligently on either. And on that note ... my comments here are also at an end.

Your "reasoning" is beside the point.

Actually, I think it goes to the heart of the matter.

Henchman wants Fairlight to behave more like a generalized DAW, rather than a Film & TV specialized tool.

Now you're right in saying that I'm not an audio specialist and don't have much of a stake here. But I do think my "analysis" is a good viewpoint from which folks should argue their point.

Should Fairlight remain specialized for Film & Television, or take on the characteristics of a generalized DAW?

Ideally, current Fairlight users would be able to transition to the new system seamlessly with their prior investments (and motor memory) in tow. Making Resolve more like ProTools (or any other generalised audio workstation), wouldn’t be playing in to the strengths of the Fairlight system and the reasons those audio professionals selected to invest in a Fairlight system in the first place and continue using it over competing options, such as ProTools and similar.

Also it sounds like at least one of the posts here refers to the Deliver page which is an altogether different issue right?

Will:
unfortunatly not... my task to to take a mix from a really good facility, put it on a timeline and export it
without changeing anything
without fail everytime
under craaaazyass deadlines

case in point... last night was cutoff to deliver DCP's to Cannes, 11pm local time had to be uploaded on their server
i got the final final last changes, "opps put the line of dialouge back in" mix at 10.30am west coast time.. quick maths = 3.5 hours to drop in the mix, render DCP, upload before the server in France timebombs

i'm not an audio guy, i have limited hearing in one ear since birth, i only care about the
- 2pop
- track routeing
- reliable

i don't care about:
- busses
- monitoring
- effects
- level changes
- the list goes on, but you get the idea,

2pop is easy
track routeing is not reliable from media page to deliver page, many, many needless fail points

i only want to get what the producer's signed off at Pinewood's mix theatre into a theater in Cannes accuratly, reliably, quckly, and annoying part is that it was dead reliable before v14, look at v12.5's matrix

Hello,

This is not the main topic of the thread but :
have you tested the new features in the page delivery => audio:
Output Track => All Timeline Tracks?

not had a chance to yet, will give it a shot.. from reading the change notes it seems more targeted to exporting a editor's audio tracks to a mix facility, but if it can serve the purpose of avoiding f'duplight i'd be good with that

Amazing, how guys who don't do audio for a living insist on telling actual professionals what they should reasonably expect and how they can best adapt.

Meanwhile, there's a 3000 page thread instructing BMD on how best to alter its business model, principally to accommodate the burning necessity of the same 7 people, year after year, for monitoring with a GPU card.

It seems to don't see the underling differences between the two topics.

One is about changing how users interact with the software, the other is about changing how the software interacts with hardware. Not to mention one is about forcing a given methodology, while the other is about offering alternatives.

I have to 'echo' Mark (Henchman) here.

I too find Fairlight suffering from some pretty serious deficiencies, routing setup being one of them. In my roughly 20 years in pro audio, most in post, I've been mostly on Pro Tools and on Nuendo as a second DAW.

When switching from for example PT to Nuendo one has to take a moment to warp one's head around the differences, and that includes routing. However, there are some very basic similarities between the two that makes it intuitive enough to either figure out without a manual or otherwise quickly grasp it when reading the manual and then remember it. The concepts are very similar.

Looking at Fairlight on the other hand just makes at least me want to walk away from the computer. I route, I click, I hunt for selections, and I bump into problems that intuitively make zero sense to me.

I think the easiest way to understand this is just to realize that if the software, either underlying functionality or just the GUI, is significantly different from the standard in audio post, then there's a bit of an issue.

The solution to the problem is not "Yeah, but you can learn it. If I could learn it as an editor with little experience as an audio engineer, then you with your experience should have no problem." That doesn't solve the problem, because the problem is that it's convoluted and not intuitive. It's not "can you overcome that?", it's "can it be done better?". And it's just like someone said earlier: Imagine that you're a pro in editing or grading and you jump on a software that just makes little sense to you - is the solution making it make sense to you or is it us audio guys telling you visual guys to just get with the program?

I think my reasoning is pretty sound. Fairlight is specifically designed for a Film & Television work flow. It suits that purpose better than something like ProTools. (At least, that's the theory.)

I doubt that it's better suited than Pro Tools. I could be wrong, but I definitely doubt it. Granted, it has some functionality that PT doesn't have yet, but on the whole?..

So why change how it works to match ProTools?

Because it's the audio-post industry standard. You take all audio engineers on the planet and all of the DAWs they use, including Resolve/Fairlight, and then you look at the top say 10% users that are truly very good audio engineers. With a large pool of Pro Tools users that 10% is going to get you a heck of a lot further than the pool for Fairlight. So, as a facility if you want good engineers you're going to need to offer them tools that they can use. Most of those good engineers are going to be good and fast at Pro Tools whereas only a minority will be using Fairlight.

So that reasoning I think holds true and it has nothing to do with whether or not Fairlight is good, it's just about numbers. And if you want to go against that reality you'll need to have a software that makes it easy to switch over. Like, really easy.

I didn't mention it in my last post, but I really get the feeling that Fairlight is going to be bound to hardware in order to be fast on it. I think that's going to be dragging down the amount of uses it gets. The UI is really not that great when editing mixing. Perhaps with those dedicated controllers we can get past it, but looking at that page again just makes me want to walk away from the computer.

And lastly, I've been nagging on Steinberg, the makers of Nuendo, for years and years regarding some functionality in Nuendo. My message to them has been very, very simple: Don't reinvent the wheel! Pro Tools works, and whatever unique features you have is what sets you apart, so just go ahead and "copy" Pro Tools for the rest. I don't need any fancy plan for how you "link" or "group" tracks, just do what PT does. I don't need any particular implementation of how VCAs work. Just do what PT does. And so the same in a way applies here: When in doubt, just "copy" what already works. What you want is users. That's a way to get more users.

PS: One more thing I guess... first-world-problems and all that... I'm NOT whining about a free software that generally speaking is absolutely amazing, and I think BMD is really the shiznitz… but I felt I just had to add my comments here...

PPS: Good 'ol Hench... For a while I thought you lost your 'edge'...

Also it sounds like at least one of the posts here refers to the Deliver page which is an altogether different issue right?

Will:
unfortunatly not... my task to to take a mix from a really good facility, put it on a timeline and export it
without changeing anything
without fail everytime
under craaaazyass deadlines

I definitely understand that type of deadline and I agree editors need to be able to have a "hands-off" layback process. I think most mixers would agree with me that we don't want any points of failure after we hand off the mix. I've seen plenty of Premiere outputs in mono instead of stereo or with wrong channel assignments. I don't have any insight into BMD's plan here. With an all-in-one package do they want a demarcation between pages or should functions be equivalent across the board? I know I'd rather Fairlight function in an audio friendly way than be tied to NLE paradigms.

IMO "Make it like Pro Tools" is not the answer here. Not because I'm tied to the way it is now. This is one area where many PT users want an improvement. The way it works in PT was great 20 years ago but is inadequate now with so many multichannel busses and various deliverables.

For me personally in Resolve I'd rather be able to open a 150 track template with all my settings and plugins ready to go. And be able to move and duplicate tracks with ease. That is some functionality in PT that could be copied.

As a P.S. - Once upon a time Fairlight was indeed "better" than PT for post production simply because it was designed to do just that. Obviously a biased statement but especially for fast turnaround work it was fantastic. I think by the time PT11 was released Fairlight was left in the dust. Except with the video engine. Pyxis is still the best.

IMO "Make it like Pro Tools" is not the answer here. Not because I'm tied to the way it is now. This is one area where many PT users want an improvement. The way it works in PT was great 20 years ago but is inadequate now with so many multichannel busses and various deliverables.

In what way?

I don't have any insight into BMD's plan here. With an all-in-one package do they want a demarcation between pages or should functions be equivalent across the board? I know I'd rather Fairlight function in an audio friendly way than be tied to NLE paradigms.

and i want you to be happy with the tools you have, i can see the use for the flexibality that comes with the complexity that defines the audio routeing currently....

and you must be able to understand that same flexibality is not a good thing from where i stand as it leads to many points of failure and offers nothing in return

the best answer would be to place the track router from v12 back in the timeline, with a toggle to send the noize to the audio page, or bypass the audio page entirely and use the "classic' matrix

the software is filled with legacy tools already, that works well in pratice, i have zero use for "legacy log curves" for example, but they still exist in the software with a toggle

the track router is one legacy tool that needs to return ASAP

Ok, then tell me how to end beeps directly to the output from the assign page, without losing the output of my tracks.
Because that's what happens when I try to patch them to the main output.

I think my reasoning is pretty sound. Fairlight is specifically designed for a Film & Television work flow. It suits that purpose better than something like ProTools. (At least, that's the theory.)

So why change how it works to match ProTools?

I work in ProTools everyday in a purely Film and Television workflow.
To say it doesn't suit that workflow better than Fairlight is laughable.

Your "reasoning" is beside the point.

Actually, I think it goes to the heart of the matter.

Henchman wants Fairlight to behave more like a generalized DAW, rather than a Film & TV specialized tool.

Now you're right in saying that I'm not an audio specialist and don't have much of a stake here. But I do think my "analysis" is a good viewpoint from which folks should argue their point.

Should Fairlight remain specialized for Film & Television, or take on the characteristics of a generalized DAW?

No, I'm saying the audio I/O setup is unnecessarly covoluted.

Your "reasoning" is beside the point.

Actually, I think it goes to the heart of the matter.

Henchman wants Fairlight to behave more like a generalized DAW, rather than a Film & TV specialized tool.

Now you're right in saying that I'm not an audio specialist and don't have much of a stake here. But I do think my "analysis" is a good viewpoint from which folks should argue their point.

Should Fairlight remain specialized for Film & Television, or take on the characteristics of a generalized DAW?

No, I'm saying the audio I/O setup is unnecessarly covoluted.

Seriously?

IMO "Make it like Pro Tools" is not the answer here. Not because I'm tied to the way it is now. This is one area where many PT users want an improvement. The way it works in PT was great 20 years ago but is inadequate now with so many multichannel busses and various deliverables.

We do that everyday in Pro Tools.

Should Fairlight remain specialized for Film & Television, or take on the characteristics of a generalized DAW?

No, I'm saying the audio I/O setup is unnecessarly covoluted.

Seriously?

Seriously.

Show me how to send my beeps directly to main outputs, without losing the audio output of tracks already being sent there.

I don't even want to do basic audio editing in the current Fairlgiht interface.

Should Fairlight remain specialized for Film & Television, or take on the characteristics of a generalized DAW?

Hello Mark,

I did not say that.To research...
Step by step for quotes

Because it's the audio-post industry standard

This is so often repeated, and yet it doesn’t necessarily ever ring true outside of the North American niche. This is mostly the default response in these types of discussions from ProTools users when the discussion doesn’t take a favourable turn.

In discussion with colleagues in Asia, confirming my experience of Europe, Fairlight and Pyramix are much more common tool sets in Broadcast and post-production. The Nuendo user base is also primarily European and Asia-based. In regions where MPEG-H has been selected, Pyramix reigns supreme. That's a growing market Resolve is now competing in with version 16.

Fact is, “Hollywood” generates in excess of 75% of its revenue outside of its “home market” (the United States), and largely in regions where viewers are not first language English speakers, and that content is almost always dubbed in to a local language in territory with a mix that may be very different from the English version. That is often also the case with television programming. In Asia (especially China), releases include additional story lines with local characters, where the film takes a very different appearance to the North American version, and often is mixed in territory. The North American mix is not the primary mix, in fact the majority of viewers will never hear the original re-recording mixer's mix.

Netflix, likewise, has indicated that over 60% of its subscription base resides outside of North America, so much so, that they’re being compelled to open facilities to produce content entirely outside of its “home market”. The expectation is that is figure will rise to 80% by 2030. European laws are changing, requiring SVOD services, such as Apple, Amazon and Netflix to produce 30% of its content in Europe for the entire pipeline or face fines. That requirement is expected to be increased to 50% in the next five years, some countries are considering a 40% local requirement.

A few years ago Netflix delivery specs had a ProTools session requirement, which has since been updated to include Nuendo or Pyramix sessions, to accommodate digital audio workstation preferences in other regions of the world, especially for dubbing. Apparently, Resolve Projects will now also be accepted with the addition of the Fairlight system - and Resolve is still the only Netflix certified application out of the applications mentioned above.

Chasing a declining market such as “Hollywood”, or attempting to replace “what Hollywood uses” is a downward spiral in futility. Chasing expanding markets and next generation workflows is a much more sensible approach.

Fact is, that a massive amount of even foreign content is mixed right here in the US.
And US feature mixers traveling to Europe and Asia to mix, aren't doing it in Nuendo or on a Fairlight.
All the major European post facilities are also simply using Pro-Tools so they can compete with the needs of their US based producers of content.

Fairlights largest source of income ended up being in Broadcast. And mostly in Asia, as NHK was an actual investor in Fairlight, before Fairlight went bankrupt again.

As far as "Mixed in Territory". You are talking a foreign dub, mixed from provided stems.

We actually do those right here in LA as well for Netflix.
Upwards of 20 different languages.

Now, if someone can kindly tell me how to quite simply route the beeps to my main outputs, without losing that output for my other tracks.

Fact is, that a massive amount of even foreign content is mixed right here in the US.
...
We actually do those right here in LA as well for Netflix.
Upwards of 20 different languages.

Enjoy that while it lasts, European laws change that, and other regions such as MENA and APAC are in process of following suit. Beyond initial fines, restricted access and complete no access policies will also be considered, leading to a loss of subscribers.

Re-read what I wrote above, the entire production will have to be in territory, and by law will not allow any part of the process to flow through the United States, or a foreign territory, at any point.

Now, if someone can kindly tell me how to quite simply route the beeps to my main outputs, without losing that output for my other tracks.

Are you using the ADR Panel?

REAPER is another DAW that Fairlight devs could take a hard look at for routing. I've used every daw on the market for decades as a pro, and I can say Reaper got it right.

Every channel can route to any other channel or multiple (or bus, and/or master bus) with simple drop-down menus on each channel/bus. It can even route from other channels/buses with the "route from" drop-down on each channel/bus. (You can change your routing from either end of the chain). The flexibility is insane (and simple af)

Hardware routing is a simple matrix window that's usually set once when setting up the studio, unless hardware changes.

No, I'm saying the audio I/O setup is unnecessarly covoluted.

Seriously?

oh yea... seriously convoluted / problematic.....

here's how a reliable working tool for deliveries does it better:

track routeing.jpg (25.54 KiB) Viewed 4108 times

this is how to get a mix from the media pool to a theatre with out busses / mixing / panning / sub mixes on and on...
none of those do anything of value in this workflow
all of those create fail points that cause needless errors

Dermot, the Link Groups functionality does exactly what you require with fewer clicks, yet you continually refuse to use the option provided, however, in another thread, you wrote:

does not fail for me as i already know how to avoid it top to tail, and do so

And now in this thread,

track routeing is not reliable from media page to deliver page, many, many needless fail points

Appears you can’t decide which it is.

Your workflow appears to be extremely basic, and Linked Groups do precisely what you require, with fewer clicks involved - all the heavy lifting performed for you automatically.

no Renauld, i can have it both ways


i do know how to avoid this trainwreck by not using Resolve to finish, a simple and concise answer

but my clients have tried to package the shows i've graded, and each and every one of them has failed to get the audio routeing correctly done

all of them have followed the advice on these pages, obvoiusly bad advice however well intentioned

in each case i fixed the issues by taking the project out of Resolve and into a software that works reliably every time, simple and concise answer to an over the top convoluted workflow for something as simple as routeing a track from media pool to deliver

some of my cleints are not all that technicaly savy, but the client who tried and failed last week has a day job as a DiT one a huge American tv series... if he fails at getting the routeing correctly done, then someone should take a long and careful look at this one more time....

track routeing.jpg (25.54 KiB) Viewed 4109 times

i may finaly be getting through.. simple, clean, concise, reliable, error proof, basic... all discribe is what is needed, a few more mouse clicks to save hours re-rendering seems like a worthwhile investment of one's time

First of all I find it telling that you grabbed one short part of my whole post to focus on. While seemingly ignoring the rest.

Secondly, completely regardless of what you're arguing (which I disagree with) none of what you say means that Fairlight can't or shouldn't be improved as far as usability goes. None. Even if Pyramix is the "standard" in some local region that doesn't mean that a PT implementation isn't better than the current Resolve one. Ultimately from BMD's standpoint it'd be better to get Pyramix users to move over to Resolve, so I suppose we could ask them which is more intuitive and less 'clunky' (same with Nuendo users - and this one gave you that answer already).

Because it's the audio-post industry standard

This is so often repeated, and yet it doesn’t necessarily ever ring true outside of the North American niche.

Well we can certainly have a discussion about market share globally and/or locally, and we can start by setting the ground rules for such a discussion. If you really care.

This is mostly the default response in these types of discussions from ProTools users when the discussion doesn’t take a favourable turn.

Yeah, ok. I guess I'll leave it to the rest of the audience to figure out if the above is trying to deflect from the message by focusing on the messenger.

Also, PT isn't the only DAW I use...

In discussion with colleagues in Asia, confirming my experience of Europe, Fairlight and Pyramix are much more common tool sets in Broadcast and post-production.

Fairlight and Pyramix are much more common DAWs or "more common tool sets"? I have a very, very hard time seeing that either of the two is more common in Europe as a DAW for professional money-making audio post production. That doesn't mean that Resolve doesn't have a larger install base in Europe than PT, but its tool set involves not just audio but nowadays also video editing, Fusion and coloring. So from that perspective obviously that could be the case.

But even if it is it by no means concludes that the actual audio-post work is done in Resolve.

In regions where MPEG-H has been selected, Pyramix reigns supreme. That's a growing market Resolve is now competing in with version 16.

Ok, which market is that? Where can we learn about the market share Pyramix has in audio post in that region?

Fact is, “Hollywood” generates in excess of 75% of its revenue outside of its “home market” (the United States), and largely in regions where viewers are not first language English speakers, and that content is almost always dubbed in to a local language in territory with a mix that may be very different from the English version. That is often also the case with television programming. In Asia (especially China), releases include additional story lines with local characters, where the film takes a very different appearance to the North American version, and often is mixed in territory. The North American mix is not the primary mix, in fact the majority of viewers will never hear the original re-recording mixer's mix.

Netflix, likewise, has indicated that over 60% of its subscription base resides outside of North America, so much so, that they’re being compelled to open facilities to produce content entirely outside of its “home market”. The expectation is that is figure will rise to 80% by 2030. European laws are changing, requiring SVOD services, such as Apple, Amazon and Netflix to produce 30% of its content in Europe for the entire pipeline or face fines. That requirement is expected to be increased to 50% in the next five years, some countries are considering a 40% local requirement.

A few years ago Netflix delivery specs had a ProTools session requirement, which has since been updated to include Nuendo or Pyramix sessions, to accommodate digital audio workstation preferences in other regions of the world, especially for dubbing. Apparently, Resolve Projects will now also be accepted with the addition of the Fairlight system - and Resolve is still the only Netflix certified application out of the applications mentioned above.

First of all, that "Hollywood" generates most of its revenue abroad is completely irrelevant. It doesn't mean in any way that it was mixed outside of the US, just that that's where most revenue comes from.

Secondly, as Mark pointed out, even though the mixes sound different, I can guarantee you that they're not done from scratch. A US "Hollywood" release will have been recorded, edited and mixed in the US and then the stems will have been used for dubbing, as you point out. As a matter of fact a big discussion that doesn't seem to end is the nuisance of having to provide all the submixes and stems specifically to accommodate the 'foreign' distributors who need to dub voices. In that discussion the point is almost always made that nobody has a budget to get this done, but we make it work anyway. In other words: The (for example) Europeans that dub "Hollywood" films have little money to make that work, and since that's the case we're certainly not looking at a remix of the film. Therefore by sheer volume most of the work is still done in the country where the original mix is done... on the preferred platform.

Chasing a declining market such as “Hollywood”, or attempting to replace “what Hollywood uses” is a downward spiral in futility.

You have to be careful with the stats though. If Netflix decides to produce more content in Europe for example, will that be net-growth in European consumption or will it be a shift from "traditional" programming to the type that Netflix represents?

The distinction is meaningful because if it's a displacement of consumption then it stands to reason that there will be a shift rather than an addition. In other words existing audio post facilities will get more work from Netflix and less from other local clients. The net result is therefore not necessarily what you imply.

Chasing expanding markets and next generation workflows is a much more sensible approach.

You're telling me Fairlight as it now stands in Resolve is a "next generation workflow" DAW???...

You're telling me Fairlight as it now stands in Resolve is a "next generation workflow" DAW???...

Please don’t turn this in to a typical Gearslutz thread Mattias.

The noise level here is infinitely lower, where civility and more professional behaviour is still common, let’s please keep it that way.

BlackMagic are clearly on the right track, as with version 16 there are seemingly a lot more audio engineers coming out the woodwork having a look at Resolve and the Fairlight functionality, and joining the discussion.

The Resolve development team is clearly doing a lot right, and in an impressively short time.

You're telling me Fairlight as it now stands in Resolve is a "next generation workflow" DAW???...

Please don’t turn this in to a typical Gearslutz thread Mattias.

The noise level here is infinitely lower, where civility and more professional behaviour is still common, let’s please keep it that way.

How was my question uncivil or unprofessional?

BlackMagic are clearly on the right track, as with version 16 there are seemingly a lot more audio engineers coming out the woodwork having a look at Resolve and the Fairlight functionality, and joining the discussion.

That's right. Like Henchman and me it seems. So we agree.

The Resolve development team is clearly doing a lot right, and in an impressively short time.

Which I have said numerous times.

How was my question uncivil or unprofessional?

I would rather stop posting on this forum, than see it descend in to Gearslutz, where professionals no longer post.

This thread started with exactly that attitude.

How was my question uncivil or unprofessional?

I would rather stop posting on this forum, than see it descend in to Gearslutz, where professionals no longer post.

This thread started with exactly that attitude.

Ok, bear with me for just 1 second..

Your response to me started with this: "This is mostly the default response in these types of discussions from ProTools users when the discussion doesn’t take a favourable turn. "

I then asked you if you really thought Fairlight represents "next generation workflows" and your response to that is telling me to stay civil and professional.

Do you really not see how passive-aggressive your comments seem now?

How was my question uncivil or unprofessional?

I would rather stop posting on this forum, than see it descend in to Gearslutz, where professionals no longer post.

This thread started with exactly that attitude.

Maybe the forums you frequent there.
I find the audio post forum on Gearslutz one of the most professional audio forums I know.

And still waiting for the super easy way to route output beeps to my main output, without losing the output from my audio tracks.

Should be one simple click, right?

I doubt that [Fairlight is] better suited than Pro Tools.

That's the theory, anyway. Fairlight was designed specifically for Film & TV audio work.

I'd have to leave it to those with sufficient experience to provide opinions.

I doubt that [Fairlight is] better suited than Pro Tools.

That's the theory, anyway. Fairlight was designed specifically for Film & TV audio work.

I'd have to leave it to those with sufficient experience to provide opinions.

I understand the point and the "theory", I'm just wondering just how it's better suited. Also, who would be qualified to provide those opinions? Is Mark qualified?