axe edit question

Cube said:
... but this would be a nice and handy feature! - Also for the outputs ...
Click to expand...
Why? How would it be handy?

An input, or output, by any other name, remains an input, or output, in function and purpose. Why rename something from its actual name that describes its function?

When programming we’re not stuck with particular names when we give variables and routines names, we can call them whatever we want. If we don’t use descriptive names then later we can’t remember what the code is doing unless we add all sorts of comments to explain what is occurring. It’s a nightmare trying to figure out what is going on when names are random or arbitrary, and obfuscation is one way people try to protect programs. Inexperienced programmers often fail to use mnemonic names and then nobody else can understand what their code does, and they’ll hear about it in meetings later. Imagine trying to understand a preset that has all its blocks renamed to jabberwocky a few years after having created it, it’d be the same problem.
 
Greg Ferguson said:
Why? How would it be handy?
Click to expand...
Axe IIIs are used here only in studio environments aside several other hardware components and audio interfaces beneath the Axe. Renaming ins and outs would be handy to administrate specific studio setups quicker using 1:1 naming in the production DAWs, audio interfaces and other hardware components. Actually we use a database i. e. for studio knowledge management (incl. complex wirings and other informations). A common naming structure would be helpful to reduce administration efforts (specially when new and unexperienced techs are reporting for duty). This is of course not urgent but it would be a nice feature.
 
I would like this feature so when you have a whole band plugged in you could tell in a quick look
whos on guitar and mike and synth. input and output labeling would really help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom