u/thecommexokid

When controlling levels at an audio console, is there a way to assign a fader to a group of channels that will control them in a highest-takes-precedence manner?

Suppose I currently have Alex on channel 1 at -10 dB, and the rest of the cast on channels 2-12 at -inf.

Can I assign channels 1-12 to a fader in such a way that if I raise that fader to -20 dB, it leaves Alex alone but raises everybody else to -20 dB? And then if I lower the channel 1 fader to -inf, Alex lowers to -20 dB to match the group?

I don't even know what that would be called. It's not how a DCA works, because a DCA would raise everybody the same factor to keep the relative mix between them the same. I know less about groups but I don't think they work the way I describe either.

I'm interested in this type of behavior because I have a song with a structure like so:

> Alex: Long line of dialog > > Alex: Long line continues
> Everybody else except Alex: Sings background vocals underneath Alex > > Bri: Long line of dialog > > Bri: Long line continues
> Everybody else except Bri: Sings background vocals underneath Bri > > Chris: Long solo line > > Chris: Long line continues
> Everybody else except Chris: Sings background vocals underneath Chris

(etc.)

I want an easy way to bring the "everybody else" in and out each time without needing to throw 11 individual faders, but also without it adjusting the level of the current soloist who's already up.

I can make a bajillion different scenes in TheatreMix for each different "ensemble minus one soloist" group, but that feels silly when the whole song would fit in one scene otherwise.

On a 1-sphere, I can choose a function f(θ) = cos(2θ) and an angle 180° such that the two-point correlation function (normalized by the variance) ξ(180°)/ξ(0°) attains its maximum possible value of 1. Likewise, I could choose 90° and attain maximal anticorrelation of -1.

On a 2-sphere, my totally uninformed intuition is that it’s not possible to do this. (That is, to find a function and a nonzero angle such that the normalized two-point correlation actually attains 1 or -1.)

Certainly perfect anticorrelation seems obviously impossible, just by contemplating equilateral triangles of points on the sphere; the 3 pairs can’t all be perfectly anticorrelated pairwise. It’s less immediately obvious to me that perfect correlation is a problem but I suspect the maximum possible correlation and maximum possible anticorrelation ought to be symmetric.

So: If I’m correct that ±1 are not attainable, what is the highest normalized correlation/anticorrelation that is actually realizable? What is an example function and angle that attains it?

I’m restricting my consideration to continuous functions but I’m curious to know if that even matters to this question.

This post is about N>!umeric!< C>!ores!<; don't read further if you don't know what those are and the rules of how to calculate them.

>!Somewhere in the game, which I won't be more specific about to avoid limiting the audience of this post even further, I need to compute the numeric core of the sequence (4 1 20 5).!<

>!The rules state "assign each a different color, resulting in a valid mathematical equation that produces the smallest whole number possible. The first number should always be assigned teal to begin with a positive".!<

>!It is obvious from the surrounding context that the game's intended solution is +20 /5 -1 *4 = 12.!<

>!But why is +5 /4 -1 *20 = 5 not valid? It starts with +, it uses each operation once, it produces a whole number. What rule does it violate that it shouldn't count as the correct solution?!<

Sorry I really can’t say much; I just have this line in my head that I quote constantly but don’t remember what it is from.

I think it came at the end of a long incoherent/incomprehensible rant. It was said in a defeated, pleading tone with a southern twang (“hwhy”).

Part of me is certain it was from something animated; another part thinks it could have easily been from said by the Dean or Troy *Community*, or been from a *Make Some Noise* clip on Dropout.

Familiar to anyone? I know it’s not a lot to go on…

I have a line segment fixed in place, and a circle of a fixed diameter. I want to constrain the two endpoints of the line segment to be coincident to the circle. There are two possible solutions to this set of constraints, as seen in the drawing -- one where the circle's center lies above the line segment, and one where the circle's center lies beneath it.

https://preview.redd.it/xsrazhk03f0h1.png?width=1298&format=png&auto=webp&s=57230ae195e39c9bfb318172a51bdb10b34147a5

When I apply the coincident constraints, Fusion seems to just pick one of the two solutions. Is there any way I can control in advance which solution Fusion is going to pick, or at least say "no, the other one" if Fusion doesn't pick the one I wanted?

Similar question for applying constraints to components rather than sketches, in case the answer is different for 3d than it is for 2d. In this case rather than constrain a circle to two points, I'm constraining a cylinder to two edges:

https://preview.redd.it/w9ke13zx3f0h1.png?width=878&format=png&auto=webp&s=e97a4cb5f8e33624fdedd40c1c3513b06cad5daf