I suggested that if you MIDI-link one instrument to another, its channels and playlist track would disappear and go through the master instrument, but the idea didn't get too much love.
But I think we should first finish the busses+sends, to not clutter the thread with too many semi-related ideas. There's still different embodiments of the "assignable send/bus" idea- my current favorites are either 6 assignable aux slots and no bus slots, or 4 assignable aux slots and one bus slot. Both would feature unlimited sends+busses, but work a bit differently.
With 6 free aux slots you would have more freedom, but possibly at the expense of workflow, as you need to set the slots pre-fader if you want to use them as busses. Sends in Orion are currently post-fader and as a default, it seems superior to me. To use sends as busses, you furthermore need to set the channel volume to zero.
On the other hand, 4 free aux slots and one bus slot would be similar to the very first proposals made in this thread: Just make the M,1,2,3,4 one dropdown menu with infinite busses. But with the difference that you get infinite sends on top, as the sends are no longer fixed but could be routed to any aux channel.
The third implementation is the one last discussed which is 4 aux slots and 5 bus slots. What I dislike about it, however, is that you can't see the bus name, e.g. "36synths" Not without making the skin really big, that is. And why even route a channel to both master and bus? That's the equivalent of a post-fader send anyways, with less flexibility.
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/SendsModerators: Christophe, Mark Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/SendsAdmin - Synapse Audio Software
Twitter - www.twitter.com/SynapseAudio Facebook - www.facebook.com/SynapseAudioOfficial
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/Sends
Isn't that the same situation as we have it now? The bus buttons at the bottom of the channel mixer are just using a number M,1,2,3,4 even if you rename bus 1 to "drums" You could show the full text name of the bus (if it has been renamed) together with its number in the dropdown list. Last edited by T-Breaks on Mon May 17, 2010 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/Sends
Yes, that would be much better. Both sends and bus groups should be visible on the mixer, certainly noone can remember where bus #15 goes. Bones has made a great mockup that does exactly what you suggest (for sends, but can be used for busses too). The problem with parallel busses is just that they don't make any sense - why would you ever route to two busses simultaneously when you have no 'wet' control? I can't think of any application for this. Admin - Synapse Audio Software
Twitter - www.twitter.com/SynapseAudio Facebook - www.facebook.com/SynapseAudioOfficial
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/Sends
I guess using parallel busses is a way to overcome the limitation of only 4 sends. Example: send the drums to the master and in parallel to bus 1 which has some extreme compressor settings --> parallel or "NY compression" on the drums. The dry/wet level control (or rather wet level) is then done using the level on bus 1. Off course the same thing could be done using a send bus. I think the request to keep parallel busses was to keep things backward compaible.. Maybe BONES can explain.. Last edited by T-Breaks on Mon May 17, 2010 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/SendsYes that's what Bones used it for afair, overcoming the 4 send limit.
But with infinite sends+busses it won't be necessary anymore Admin - Synapse Audio Software
Twitter - www.twitter.com/SynapseAudio Facebook - www.facebook.com/SynapseAudioOfficial
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/SendsNo, I have never used all four sends in my life. It's mostly that sends and busses make you think differently. I doubt it would ever have occurred to me to use a send instead of a bus to process my kicks - the bus gave me an obvious avenue to explore, where I wouldn't have thought to waste a Send on a single channel. OTOH, if everything is an Aux, it opens your mind to all kinds of possibilities. Again though, if everything was a send, with no bus selectors, it would require more effort to use a send as a bus, as you have pointed out.
And I say Sub-Mixer. The problem with track folders is that they make the Mixer bigger, by adding the group channel. So if you want to see everything at once, and you should, it makes life harder, not easier. e.g. If you think of DrumRack as a sub-mixer for drums, which is essentially what it is, it is much easier to get it all happening in the mix if you can adjust parameters on both the Mixer and the DrumRack at the same time, with their windows side-by-side or one under the other or something. If you have to close one to see the other, it becomes much harder to do. Yes, I realise that the track folder's strip will be right next to the other strips, but what if you want to tweak the EQ on the bassline to make room for the kick or something like that? You'd have to constantly close and re-expand the folder until you got it all working right. It would be kind of like having part of your mixer in a drawer under the main mixer, where you couldn't reach the main mixer while the drawer was open. So you'd work on one thing, then close the drawer to work on another thing, then re-open the drawer, etc, etc, etc. OTOH, if you had a sub-mixer in a rack next to the big mixer, you could adjust anything at any time without any hassles. Dell G7 (Hexa-Core i7)|Cubase Pro 10||Analog Keys|Ultranova|MicroMonsta|Uno|Skulpt|Craft Synth 2.0|
novakill.com
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/SendsI think both a sub-mixer and track-folders have their strong and weak points. For me they do the same thing so I'm not favoring one over the other. It's down to how you like to work and for me I could work with both solutions.
The same thing can be accomplished with a buss, however that solution means that 1. your buss is somewhere else then your subordinate mixer strips (both a sub-mixer and track-folders brings those together) and 2. all the strips of the sub-group stay visible on the main mixer, making your mixer grow (think of large projects), again something that is solved by a sub-mixer by moving those strips to another mixer and by track-folders by having the option to collapse them on the main mixer. For me track-folders are the elegant solution BUT a sub-mixer goes more with Orion's virtual studio paradigm and is probably closer to most user's current workflow (where bones is coming from).
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/SendsIt doesn't really matter, we're not getting either. I think the way Rich is taking it is probably not the best solution but it is certainly very workable and definitely simple for everyone.
Dell G7 (Hexa-Core i7)|Cubase Pro 10||Analog Keys|Ultranova|MicroMonsta|Uno|Skulpt|Craft Synth 2.0|
novakill.com
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/SendsThis was actually my idea but I deleted the thread :/!....
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/SendsWhat was? There are about a million ideas in this thread.
Dell G7 (Hexa-Core i7)|Cubase Pro 10||Analog Keys|Ultranova|MicroMonsta|Uno|Skulpt|Craft Synth 2.0|
novakill.com
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/SendsDoes it matter either way? We'll get what we'll get and it'll be Rich's take.
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 177 guests |
© 2017 Synapse Audio Software. All Rights Reserved. |