Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are rotary mixers better?

djmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#61

Post by OptionOfT »

nikau wrote: post #60
OptionOfT wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BMW is a good example. They started putting in that horrendous double wide screen/touch screen removing all buttons (the radio 1-8 shortcuts), temperature, heated seats, fan speed etc onto the screen. This of course has made their dash design a lot cheaper. The only things remaining are: Volume (which can be pressed for on/off/play/pause), previous, next, park-anywhere-button, front and rear windshield defroster. One…

Is that volume behaviour intentional, or just crappy sampling rate of the encoder?

Good question. Either way it works. Imagine adjusting the volume and going over a bump.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#63

Post by DidYaWipe »

scott01 wrote: post #58
DidYaWipe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respect your analysis, certainly. And it's undeniable that knobs are more compact; and if their function has been refined over the years, good. I do have an idea for a different control that doesn't imply the need to roll the cursor around in a circle and yet doesn't take up any more space than a knob. Let's see, going through the audio apps I've relied on the most... Back in the day it was Sound Forge. Loved its c…

You have quite a history with audio apps :) Mine was a bit different, something like: FL Studio -> Cubase -> Ableton Live -> Renoise -> Reaper. As for DAW recommendation, it actually depends on your goals. I don't know much about Logic, as I only tried it briefly like 5 years ago, and didn't stick with it for no particular reason. People love it for music production, not many use it for sound design. I personally lov…

Cool, thanks! I have heard good things (and the UI quibbles) about Reaper, and yes the price is right.

Studio One sounds interesting for the songwriting features. I'm trying to learn trumpet, and I find it useful to be able to put notes on a staff and play them back and print them out for practice.

Thanks for your observations.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#64

Post by exitb »

OptionOfT wrote: post #61
nikau wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that volume behaviour intentional, or just crappy sampling rate of the encoder?

Good question. Either way it works. Imagine adjusting the volume and going over a bump.

Does it work the same way when turning the volume down?

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#65

Post by emptiestplace »

nikau wrote: post #60
OptionOfT wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BMW is a good example. They started putting in that horrendous double wide screen/touch screen removing all buttons (the radio 1-8 shortcuts), temperature, heated seats, fan speed etc onto the screen. This of course has made their dash design a lot cheaper. The only things remaining are: Volume (which can be pressed for on/off/play/pause), previous, next, park-anywhere-button, front and rear windshield defroster. One…

Is that volume behaviour intentional, or just crappy sampling rate of the encoder?

BMW actually seems to be quite intentional with details like this. For those who appreciate thoughtful human-centered design, it quickly becomes clear that many of their choices reflect unusually meticulous work and attention to detail. But I wonder if this is shifting, as fewer people seem to understand the difference.

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#67

Post by gsck »

DidYaWipe wrote: post #10

Not in a computer UI. It's depressing that audio software still widely subjects users to this skeuomorphic failure, trying to do everything with on-screen "knobs." Ugh.

Gets even better with a touch screen and trying to rotate the virtual knobs. It just doesnt work.

Piece of software I use frequently has most of the important programming and setup done through touch screen and relatively little through its command line which prior version used more off, the touch screen rotary encoders are just confusing and I can never seem to get it to the right value

Re: Are rotary mixers better?

#68

Post by WJW »

echoangle wrote: post #43
WJW wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could have at least three types of linear mixers: - One where some type of spoon goes back and forth. This would probably just be worse than a rotary mixer though. - One where the entire "basin" oscillates back and forth like a seesaw, like the machines they have at the blood bank to make sure the blood mixes well with the anticoagulant in the bag(s). - One where the basin is airtight and vibrated up and down vig…

I think the third point (vibrating a container to mix different dry particles) is actually the worst way to do it. If the particles have different sizes (or densities technically, I think), they will separate when vibrated, not mix together. If you ever tried to mix Cereals by shaking, you know what I mean. The proper technique is turning over the container continuously to mix the different layers, like in a cement m…

I was thinking more about "tossing a salad" type vibrations that get high enough to completely get all the particles airborne, possibly with some sort of mechanical structure above the mixture interfering with the mixing. If you just vibrate everything in-place then all the smaller particles will obviously just fall to the bottom.

I got curious and found https://making.com/equipment/high-frequency-vibratory-mixer, but that is for liquids and not for solids.

Post reply on HN