Absolutely right - radio presenters really are just opeining and closing channels. The input levels are pretty much correct for jingles, feeds, phones, music etc. The processing takes care of any minor unevenness. The biggest risk is leaving a fader that should be closed nudged open - the processing will give it quite a boost.

Christopher England <(Address removed)> said:

al wright <(Address removed)> said:

If you were
brought up by the BBC (and most people in radio were) then "pull down to
open" is sensible and intuitive. It works just fine for radio where
input levels are basically all consistent and you are concentrating on
which source is going out and when.

Didn't they also have (and still have under certain conditions like OBs,
etc) a 'man behind the glass' actually dealing with all the levels
anyway, so all the presenter/DJs were in effect doing was, as you say,
source selection and mixing?

I've never been sold on which orientation is the more sensible and
intuitive, and to me I'd guess it's whatever orientation one originally
trained on becomes second nature. The beauty of the early digital desks
was that you could tell them which orientation you wanted, which gave
the best of both worlds.

I remember being told that the original BBC desks were designed so that
should an operator lunge forward from a heart attack he wouldn't open up
sources that might interfere with the output. Or maybe it was so that
the big heavy running orders and scripts wouldn't inch the faders

To me, in lots of ways the current orientation makes more sense as it
sort of mimics an orchestra conductor's cues for instruments and the
'volume' they are played at.

But, I guess neither orientation is truly 'wrong' any more than which
side of the road we drive on - as long as everybody is doing the same!