As a result of viewtopic.php?t=27543, this could be a place to do some production work. I suggest we pick a multitrack session from one of the sites mentioned in the other thread (https://www.cambridge-mt.com/ms/mtk/, https://www.telefunken-elektroakustik.c ... romthelab/, or what else comes up), take a month or so to mix it and then make our results and sessions available somehow. The idea is to come into a discussion on how and why things were done, not to get a winner. My suggestion is:
of course, we respect licenses of the multitrack provider
we use only free software (apache, gpl, bsd, etc licenses)
we take four weeks or so from an agreement on a multitrack session on to finish the mix/mastering
the target volume of the mastered song lies at around -14LUfs/-2db TP (that's the target of almost all streaming platforms, but we shouldn't be strict)
we target at a mix in stereo
we could provide some kind of "mix log", a little description of the way we reached a result
we publish our session file together with our results
we do only non-destructive work on the tracks, with no extra recordings (we should be able to open the session files from other participants with the multitracks, that each one has downloaded)
No special configuration to setup bridges to non-native stuff
we don't use ai tools, Mixing Corner should be a place focused on engineering topics, not on pushing a button and no one knows, what has happened
should we use IRs?
should we meet at the jitsi instance, some members meet on saturday? The instance seems to be available 24/7.
Are these conditions ok? Do you have further ideas?
My suggestion is:
- we could provide some kind of "mix log", a little description of the way we reached a result
- we publish our session file together with our results
As someone really new to all this, I am SO looking forward to descriptions on how people arrive at their mixes! This has the potential to be really, really useful, I think. Thanks a lot for taking the helm on this, @erlkönig. <3
As someone who uses Harrison Mixbus for mixes, could we change the software requirement to Linux software rather than just free software? This is Linux Musicians forum, not FOSS Musicians forum after all.
As someone who uses Harrison Mixbus for mixes, could we change the software requirement to Linux software rather than just free software? This is Linux Musicians forum, not FOSS Musicians forum after all.
I got your point concerning Linux. I had members in mind, who are using BSD. But including proprietary solutions would mean, that you can't just load another ones session to reproduce what has been done (i have a Presswerk licensed and for that reason, i won't use it, although usually i make heavy use of it).
What does the community think about including non-free software?
As someone who uses Harrison Mixbus for mixes, could we change the software requirement to Linux software rather than just free software? This is Linux Musicians forum, not FOSS Musicians forum after all.
This is not Harrison Mixbus forum either.
The point of using FOSS when doing community things is giving everyone access to the same tools, or at least give the possibility to inspect, modify and learn without having to buy anything and make the material accessible, hopefully, for a long time, whatever will happen to the software.
We shouldn't discuss our procedere in the same thread, where we discuss a run. Therefore, for reasons of clarity, i started a separate thread for this run (viewtopic.php?t=27583).
I use the Linux version of Mixbus on Linux. I don't use any non-native tools on Linux.
I guess it's fine to limit this project to FOSS only mixes, but it's not what I do. I'm sure many people are pragmatic about using the best tools available rather than limiting themselves.
I use the Linux version of Mixbus on Linux. I don't use any non-native tools on Linux.
I guess it's fine to limit this project to FOSS only mixes, but it's not what I do. I'm sure many people are pragmatic about using the best tools available rather than limiting themselves.
I understand fully your point. But the idea of a contest is not in the core of this thread, except, most members would see it as one. Then i would switch some tools in my mixes, too. I'm absolutely with @LAM. I see more a workshop, where every tool should be available to everyone, not about some product presentation.
What is the general opinion on this?
edit: @sunrat
After rereading the thread, i see that the contest thing is a misinterpretation by me. Sorry about that. But i'm still stuck to the idea of a workshop. Out in the field, it's totally clear that one will use the tools of choice, that's what i do, too, when possible.
Maybe we could compromise on using stuff which is easily available for everyone?
That would mean:
No special configuration to setup bridges to non-native stuff
At least Free-as-in-beer native software which is downloadable without registration or stuff like that
It is still a limitation that breaks workflows (i.e. moi has to find a way to not use satin, mjuc, sddr, TDR stuff) but i think there is a real value in sharing approaches more than results.
After all the cause for this endeavour is trying to find a way to answer the question of a member of this community.
What are the general considerations about using ai tools?
That's hard. What constitutes an AI tool?
I mentioned Matchering in the other thread. Not sure I'd classify that as AI, it's just an open source Python library at heart. And there's probably not much advantage to using AI tools anyway if the track is well mixed and mastered. I had mixed results with Matchering and it more inspired me to fix my mix rather than relying on it to fix it for me.
Are any other "AI" tools open source?
As someone who uses Harrison Mixbus for mixes, could we change the software requirement to Linux software rather than just free software? This is Linux Musicians forum, not FOSS Musicians forum after all.
This is not Harrison Mixbus forum either.
Nobody was suggesting limiting options to Mixbus.
On this sites Mission Statement there stands: Our mission is to facilitate discussion, learning, and discovery of music making on the Linux platform.
For that mission, more people using commercial linux-compatible software would be better. More plugin and software makers supporting Linux means making Linux more possibilities and more intrest to use Linux as music making platform. I agree that it would be great to have all FOSS software, but I have ended up looking for more features and best tools available for the cost I am willing to pay.
Anyway, as Mixbus & Bitwig user, I won't be participating to this challenge.
As someone who uses Harrison Mixbus for mixes, could we change the software requirement to Linux software rather than just free software? This is Linux Musicians forum, not FOSS Musicians forum after all.
This is not Harrison Mixbus forum either.
Nobody was suggesting limiting options to Mixbus.
On this sites Mission Statement there stands: Our mission is to facilitate discussion, learning, and discovery of music making on the Linux platform.
For that mission, more people using commercial linux-compatible software would be better. More plugin and software makers supporting Linux means making Linux more possibilities and more intrest to use Linux as music making platform. I agree that it would be great to have all FOSS software, but I have ended up looking for more features and best tools available for the cost I am willing to pay.
Anyway, as Mixbus & Bitwig user, I won't be participating to this challenge.
The point of using FOSS when doing community things is giving everyone access to the same tools, or at least give the possibility to inspect, modify and learn without having to buy anything and make the material accessible, hopefully, for a long time, whatever will happen to the software.
I can't care less what software do you use for your projects, and it seems you are wishfully misunderstanding what I wrote.
Anyway, for learning purposes I still stand for the point above.
Mission Statement
...
We value the opportunities afforded to us by Free/Libre Open Source Software.
We will explore ways to contribute to and support FLOSS projects that we appreciate, depend on, and see potential in.
....
