Posted: Sat May 25, 2002 2:22 am
Automation - getting your sequencer to twiddle knobs & faders 4 you in the mix. Often fairly dodgy, in my experience
Scope Users Community
https://www.forums.scopeusers.com/
It depends on your style, as I have said all along. I just mixed two acoustic guitars and vocals in the pulsar mixer because it is 0 latency and because of the high quality effects (masterverb, and the SSB stuff). But when I make my music, I am still mixing in Cubase. I use synths and FX outta pulsar. mix, sequence, more FX in cubase. the VST FX are WAY MORE experimental than anything on pulsar. The propac mixer is much better than the big mixer, i still don't use it much though.On 2002-05-25 03:14, djevo wrote:
Algorythm >>: would you also 'advice' to don't use the Pulsar mixer that comes with the ProPack?
Explain 'dodgy' to me... that isn't very positive I think?On 2002-05-25 03:22, wayne wrote:
Automation - getting your sequencer to twiddle knobs & faders 4 you in the mix. Often fairly dodgy, in my experience
What do you mean by way more experimantal? You think they are better to use then the Pulasr FX?On 2002-05-25 06:33, algorhythm wrote:It depends on your style, as I have said all along. I just mixed two acoustic guitars and vocals in the pulsar mixer because it is 0 latency and because of the high quality effects (masterverb, and the SSB stuff). But when I make my music, I am still mixing in Cubase. I use synths and FX outta pulsar. mix, sequence, more FX in cubase. the VST FX are WAY MORE experimental than anything on pulsar. The propac mixer is much better than the big mixer, i still don't use it much though.
You probaly like this one the most..?Pulsar doesn't have: resynthesis like "rebuilder", granulation like "robobear", reordering algorithms like deconstructor (rotor oscillator on pulsar is close but less controlled)