Quote:
Originally Posted by seaneldon  I don't understand the frustration here...how much stuff are you putting in between one side and the center? The whole mix? If so, I think you've got other problems that this box wouldn't solve anyway. |
Yeah, I guess there's no point in panning anything 50 or 75% along with the other choices.
Sorry, but the panning is limited. It was a poor design choice, IMHO.
Quote:
|
No, it's not to keep the cost down. It's done this way because we wanted 5-20 to be digitally assigned, save real estate, and we wanted something where we could happily USE THE COMPUTER.
|
If it meant fully sweepable panning, I'd rather have the MM take up more space, even if it might be 4RU or even 5 instead of 3.
Quote:
|
Sorry if I'm coming off as a bit harsh...I just don't understand folks who immediately shoot something down that they've never used, or even been in a room with.
|
All it took was reading the feature set to know that the panning wasn't what it should be for me. No need to be in the room with the thing. I'm sure it sounds great. If the panning gets a redesign, even such that there are added positions for 8 and 4 o'clock, I'll be much more interested.
I'm sure a great deal of hard work went in the MM and I don't mean to diminish the value of the effort, but expecting everyone to be happy with its shortcomings - and suggesting that we should adopt another method of mixing to accommodate them - is unrealistic.