I think I saw a tumbleweed pass through here...

When I'm consigned to Pro Tools hell I tend to work in the edit window. Fortunately most of the time I get to work in Sony Vegas which, unlike Pro Tools, has efficient and intelligently designed editing behavior.
 
When I'm consigned to Pro Tools hell I tend to work in the edit window. Fortunately most of the time I get to work in Sony Vegas which, unlike Pro Tools, has efficient and intelligently designed editing behavior.

I heard an Ableton guy say that about Logic.
And a Reaper guy say that about Cubase.
And a etc. ;)
 
They're probably right. I don't know about Ableton or Cubase, but Reaper is definitely far easier than the 2004 version of Logic (Silver for PC) I used to have.

I've heard several experienced people say what I said, that Vegas had great editing behavior. That's significant since Vegas isn't that common.

Funny thing is, Vegas didn't have a dedicated mix window in older versions. Well, it had a window, but it just had the main fader and any effects or submix bus faders, so you did everything from the "edit window". That probably explains why I use the edit window in PT.
 
So let's start a discussion!

Mix window vs edit window.

I'm edit window masterrace.
Convince me otherwise!

Dual screen FTW! But if I had to pick one.......it depends? I find automation easier in the edit window, and obviously the edit window is necessary for errrr editing? :P But for the rest of the time I tend to stay in the mix window if there's only one screen - you can see everything you need to track wise and it's far easier to change stuff (in my opinion).
 
Dual screen FTW!
+1

I didn't get this conversation the first time around, and still don't.

The edit window is for editing - the mix window is for mixing.

Sure, you can bolt a lot of the mix window functions on to the side of the edit window, but I still don't get why there'd ever be a reason to pick a favourite or choose between then.

Even on a single screen setup, I don't get it. I'd still rather keep the edit window free of clutter and tab to the mix window when I want to.
I used to just full screen them both and flick between them as needed.

If you get all the functionality you need in the edit window, then fine. Obviously everyone's preferences are different.
I prefer to get as much real estate as possible in the edit window without a load of clutter bolted on, and have a separate, well formatted, familiar mix window for plugin/routing management, pan, volume etc, whether on dual or single screen.
 
It's not pedantry, it's an approach. The point is I use one window because I'm doing one thing. Since that one thing, mixing, includes editing I need the editing functions while I mix, at least until it's nearly done when I could switch to the mix window. It would be inefficient to switch to the mix window just to move a fader and then back to the edit window.
 
It's not pedantry, it's an approach. The point is I use one window because I'm doing one thing. Since that one thing, mixing, includes editing I need the editing functions while I mix, at least until it's nearly done when I could switch to the mix window. It would be inefficient to switch to the mix window just to move a fader and then back to the edit window.

Nah, it's pedantry. You're that guy.
I'm sorry it's news to you, all the same.
 
Nah, it's pedantry. You're that guy.
I'm sorry it's news to you, all the same.

The division between editing and mixing is arbitrary and subjective. I don't find much useful distinction so I don't need a distinct window for each. "Editing is mixing" is just my approach, not some rule I'm trying to impose on the world. If that makes me a pedant then so be it.
 
Either way...

Maybe I'm too "new school" for the mix window. I remember doing a mix on a Mackie Onyx console with no screen. Damn near wanted to kill myself by the end. Mixing in the mix window is like that to me: I feel like I have no control over where I am or visual cues for automation.
 
I've heard several experienced people say what I said, that Vegas had great editing behavior. That's significant since Vegas isn't that common.

I would be one of those people. I use Vegas and enjoy working with it because of its editing behaviour. It does things the way I would expect them to be done. It's also why I like Reaper. In fact there are many similarities between the two.
 
Editing is mixing.

This is actually a very good point. I think the old analog guys need the mix window because of the familiarity factor. I know I did. Nothing wrong with that. But these days I prefer not having to toggle between both screens, stretch or minimize windows when I'm focused in an edit mode. And, for sure, much of (my) tracking, mixing and editing activity is done simultaneously.
 
Back
Top