Commentaires sur le test : Sympathy for the Devil
- 73 réponses
- 37 participants
- 16 639 vues
- 36 followers
Softube
miles1981
Certainly, but I think that if you are a reviewer and don't understand a product – you contact the manufacturer and ask about it. The review more or less ignores the workflow entirely. It would be much easier to accept it if the review went through what working with Console 1 is like, and then concluded that "this is not for me". I could totally live with that, because, as I said (I hope) – we are well aware that Console 1 is not going to be for everybody.
As I've said, I fell the Console 1 is still an odd duck. It sits at the intersection of several product categories, and perhaps there is no one that can really properly at the moment.
True. And for an SSL console, you also need to pay about €30.000 just to purchase the thing, probably €5000 every five years to replace all capacitors. So when you factor in what you get for your money, Console 1 is a quite good deal.
I agree, but then again, the usual workflow for a mixer is to have several channels at your disposal (all of them for analog mixers, some of them for digital mixers). Here it still feels like only part of a digital mixer. OK, cheaper then having several hidden channels in a analog mixer, but still only feel like a partial mixing controller.
No traditional mixer has transport controls, not of a tape recorder or of a DAW. A mixer mixes the sound, it doesn't control the DAW or tape machine. Console 1 is completely disconnected from the DAW, but all its settings are still saved with the DAW session, unlike any other mixer that I know of.
Agreed, again.
You still have to accept that as you need to plug it to a DAW, you won't get a no-latency mixer (especially if you are using several plugins). So the only usage is for a mixing studio, and in that case, you also mix with the DAW, and you use the transport bar.
I think that this issue is interesting because it tells how you really would use Console 1. So what is the actual real-life use case for Console 1?
Well, I must disagree here. I think this is precisely where the review failed miserably. It told you absolutely nothing about working with Console 1 on a daily basis.
Thanks,
Henrik
We can agree to disagree, I guess
The reviewer did not understand the use case for the product, but I think it is also your responsibility as the manufacturer to express this use case clearly. I don't find it obvious yet.
Audio Toolkit: http://www.audio-tk.com/
Rickton
KaeRZed
J'ai déjà vu des consoles intégrer une partie "transport". Des analogiques et des numériques.
D'ailleurs, le bon vieux protocole MMC (Midi Machine Control) est spécifiquement dédié à cet usage et il ne date pas d'hier...
Pluriel
KaeRZed
Pour moi, ce n'est pas réellement une console à proprement parler mais un contrôleur hardware pour plugins émulant une tranche de console.
On peut certes avoir plusieurs instances du plug , donc plusieurs tranches, mais l'absence de section 'Master' et d'auxiliaires fait selon moi toute la différence entre une somme de tranches séparées et une 'vraie' console.
C'est peut-être jouer un peu sur les mots mais je pense que cela change beaucoup de choses quant à l'utilisation et à l'ergonomie.
En fait, quitte à provoquer les foudres de certains, cela me fait un peu penser à une "Super Liquid Mix" de Focusrite.
Mais peut-être me trompe-je...
Pluriel
Ceci dit, rien n'empêche d'insérer le plug sur le Master de notre DAW préféré afin d'obtenir un contrôle total
KaeRZed
Toute la gestion du monitoring ( casque & monitors), talk-back et j'en passe...
Pluriel
, d'où le nom "console" à mon avis source de quiproquo!KaeRZed
- < Liste des sujets
- Charte