1

http://audio.stackexchange.com/questions/126/for-live-recording-what-features-should-a-mixing-console-have-closed

The OP is asking about features necessary for live recording. I don't think this is very vague, subjective, or argumentative. Nor is he asking what the "best" is. His question is more one of process, and what kind of tool for the job. That is the kind of question I think should be allowed here, don't you?

If not, why not?

4

The OP was edited after I voted to close it. Still, there is a lot of stuff that is open in the blank.

In addition to the comment by Robert on the question, I would like to elaborate a bit on BenV's comment, and give an impression of the answers to choose from:

Live recording is not enough to know to give a proper answer. You could do primarily multitrack recording, in which I would tend to suggest a digital mixing console with different features, probably such as total recall or even DAW controller-related stuff, but you could also do a live mixdown to 2 tracks, which means you definitely want an analog mixing console with many channels, many auxes for effects, probably some busses and if you want to backup multitrack, you want to be able to get all the stuff direct-out to your multitrack recorder.

Even without mentioning portability, the type of music you plan to record, the amount of channels, etc. the difference between analog and digital consoles is big enough to not mix them up here.

4

I closed that question as vague because the author provided no information about what they were looking for.

What we are looking for is users to elaborate and get very, very specific about the situation you are trying to solve… "expert answers" will come from very specific questions that can be answered at least somewhat objectively.

Admittedly, I am not an audio engineer so it is entirely possible that it doesn't matter what the users plans on doing with it… that mixing consoles should all have the same features, regardless of application.

If that is so, please vote to re-open. But typically the specifics are very important in this type of question, otherwise you either going to get a bunch of "it depends" answers or the answers will become a list of random, brand-preference opinions.

  • 2
    I'd agree. The "live" qualifier narrows it down, but as Pelle said in his comment, it could still be anything from a DJ mix to an orchestral performance. The question was commented on and the OP never added clarification so I think closing was appropriate. – BenV Dec 10 '10 at 18:53
1

The reason I closed the question: What features something should have depends on personal preference, a better wording could be minimal requirements so it isn't subjective anymore and leads to an useful question.

  • 1
    If such a basic change would make the question acceptable, then we should be editing questions, not closing them. – Brad Dec 11 '10 at 23:30
  • 1
    @Brad: Yes, but most of the people don't have the reputation to do that yet. – Tamara Wijsman Dec 12 '10 at 0:49
  • 1
    @TomWij, then leave it for the people that do, or suggest in comments that the OP correct it, and give reasoning why. Link to the FAQ and/or relevant meta articles. We should be helping people. If we want to encourage participation in our community, we should assist those who are trying. I'm not suggesting a free-for-all here, but the OP intention seems clear enough, and we will get many more of these border-line questions again that can be fixed with edits. We should fix when we can, and suggest fixes when we can't. – Brad Dec 12 '10 at 2:57
  • @Brad: Good idea, I'll keep it in mind. :-) – Tamara Wijsman Dec 12 '10 at 9:36
  • @Both of you: this is what the flag link is for. – The Pellmeister Dec 12 '10 at 18:31
  • @Pelle: But that would in this case leads into the action that Robert performed, the question being closed. Apart from leaving a helpful comment, I believe that voting to close the question is right as it was not good in it's current form. If the question is edited within reasonable time it wouldn't gain enough votes to be closed or it would be reopened... – Tamara Wijsman Dec 12 '10 at 23:04
  • Not necessarily, if a post is flagged, it is still up to Robert (or multiple users that can close-vote) to choose whether it should be closed. If you flag a post and accompany it with a comment, the moderator that takes care of it should be aware of what to do. At least, I agree we shouldn't close post just because we don't have the reputation to edit it. Just flag, 'needs moderator attention' and add in a comment why, is what sounds appropriate to me. – The Pellmeister Dec 13 '10 at 9:17
  • If a post is flagged for moderator attention, only Robert will see it for the moment. And what I saw on other beta sites in the past, is that he didn't have time to take care of everything. Even in a normal situation with moderators around and users with enough reputation, it's more often a better way to close the post (so that the user gets a reference to eg. blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective) and learn them to create better questions than that we do the homework for him, furthermore the better wording might not be what the user intended. – Tamara Wijsman Dec 13 '10 at 11:46
  • As for the comment, I already agreed with that and it's by human error that I didn't leave one. A question that is edited to avoid being closed or a question that could be closed should indeed be accompanied with a comment, that helps the user towards creating better questions and to get answers to his questions... – Tamara Wijsman Dec 13 '10 at 11:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .