Richard wrote:It seems the days of the big recording mixers are over, and the outboard gear manufacturers focus on mixers for live/stage performances, mostly.
Richard wrote:you'll have to try... did you get my email?
Oops, found out that there was still an old email in my profile. That mailbox doesn't work anymore. I changed it so now there is a valid email there. So please resend to that address.
I've been thinking some more about the "freely assignable aux" idea.
If there's an infinite number of aux channels, I think it would be better to drop busses entirely, as they may just cause confusion when accessing the same channels as the sends. The sends would also provide better overview when given a proper name. After all the busses would be no more than a send without a knob, so if sends=busses, there's hardly a reason to keep them.
Richard wrote:I've been thinking some more about the "freely assignable aux" idea.
If there's an infinite number of aux channels, I think it would be better to drop busses entirely, as they may just cause confusion when accessing the same channels as the sends. The sends would also provide better overview when given a proper name. After all the busses would be no more than a send without a knob, so if sends=busses, there's hardly a reason to keep them.
Richard wrote:If there's an infinite number of aux channels, I think it would be better to drop busses entirely, as they may just cause confusion when accessing the same channels as the sends. The sends would also provide better overview when given a proper name. After all the busses would be no more than a send without a knob, so if sends=busses, there's hardly a reason to keep them.
I disagree. What are you going to do, put in 8 send knobs? If you drop busses you will pretty much have to do that and 8 knobs with labels are going to take up a lot of room on the Mixer, where 4 knobs with labels and four tiny readouts fit into the Mixer we have now. The arguments against sends and busses also work against making such a change and in a situation like that, the status quo should always prevail, I reckon. In fact, retraining everyone to use sends to replace busses will cause more confusion for more people than being able to assign a channel to the same aux channel from a send or a bus assignment.
Dell G7 (Hexa-Core i7)|Cubase Pro 10||Analog Keys|Ultranova|MicroMonsta|Uno|Skulpt|Craft Synth 2.0| novakill.com
Looks like this topic really grew over the week…too much stuff to read. I will just reply to the comments at me
bones wrote:
suneel wrote:- the sub mixer must be exactly like the mixer strip and not like a drum-rack-dustbin or that ugly thing you illustrated on the pic. Any deviation from that will disrupt orions workflow and make it incompatible to how we have been using orion for over a decade.
Quite the opposite - it will work exactly as DrumRack has always worked. The only real difference will be that it will load instruments instead of samples. In terms of workflow, it is a perfect fit.
well I don’t want it to look as a drum rack, I want it to look like a mixer strip. The mixer oriented approach of orions has been its strength, any departure from that it going to be a different workflow from the way users have been using orion.
bones wrote:
You want to add sub-mixes fine, then make it look exactly like a mixer and not drum rack. IMO such solutions presented are very crude and will only act as speed breakers from the way orion works and spoil the reputation of Orion.
Why? All we'll end up with is something that may as well be the main Mixer. How will anyone be able to tell what is going where if you have 5 mixer windows all the same?
that should be easy. well for simple starters you could have different colors DING!! Then you could name your sub-mixer window on top with some human readable text. But if you want to argue that’s too many windows and confusion etc etc, sorry I simply don’t buy that lame excuse, because by default you have so many windows floating around of different vsts/fx anyways. And if you want to clear the clutter up might as well start at the bottom from scratch, or just ignore it as it has been done. At any time you pull up the main mixer and goto the sub mixer. You only have an additional click at the comfort of better grouping management
bones wrote:Do you have trouble using DrumRack? Does it somehow do your head in because it is arranged in rows rather than columns? Of course not, you are simply being a luddite.
Well your solution is hardly a revolution to call me a luddite, far from it, it’s a crude concept to replace mixer UI with a drum rack UI, just because you personally happen to like it. I could ask you the same if you have some difficulty working with mixer strips and if the vertical strips create a sort of vertigo effect to prefer the drum rack approach.
bones wrote:
the synth must be connected to the mixer and must be visible as a mixer strip all times. you cant have one synth in the main mixer and another in the drum-bin.
Correct. We sorted that out two pages ago, if you had bothered to read the thread.
the thread is a lot of crap and my time is short, if have a point please make it.
bones wrote:
both methods of access must be uniform.
Why? I see no practical reason to choose one over the other at all. It's really just convention because that's how hardware mixers usually
its surprising I need to explain to a long term orion user. It will tell you why because the mixer has been the center piece of orion and the access method has been established over the last decade to be the norm. you cant just take a different approach because you want the synths to fit in a drum rack and throw the old one out. The sub-mixer it is essentially a type of mixer and must be close to the main mixer. Why is the master mixer same like the main mixer? Why is it not squeezed into an Fx holder or like a drum rack? Why do you not feel clutter with different windows over each other?
bones wrote:
the access method should be uniform like the mixer. the UI component placement should be as similar as possible to enable smooth transition from main mixer to sub mixer.
Why? I've never read any rules about that and if every instrument is laid out differently, I don't see why this one particular thing needs to be any different.
why are we talking about how the instrument is laid out?? I am talking about accessing the instrument thru the standard mixer strip.
bones wrote:
any other way IMO would be a PITA to work with.
Again, why? You are pretty good at saying "what" and lousy with "why", which is the part that really matters.
they are pretty clear and self explanatory, and if you don’t understand them, periodically asking ‘why’ again doesn’t make my replies invalid.
Richard wrote:After all the busses would be no more than a send without a knob, so if sends=busses, there's hardly a reason to keep them.
I couldn't have said it better myself..... oh wait...
crimsonwarlock wrote:Almost nobody here seems to realize that sends and busses are actually one and the same thing. The only difference in Orion is that a buss is a send without a level-control (i.e. it's a send that's always set to 100%). A 'send' actually sends a signal into a 'buss' that is holding the send-FX.
Last edited by crimsonwarlock on Mon May 17, 2010 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Maybe, but consider that currently, assigning a channel to all 4 busses at once and additionally using all 4 sends in that channel makes no sense whatsoever.
With freely assignable aux channels, any instrument group only takes a single slot, and you can have any number of instrument groups. So I think we could get away with 6 free slots per channel.
Richard wrote:One way could be to simply set the number of mixer inserts to 4, busses and sends to 8, and let the user specify the number of visible inserts and sends in the Preferences.
i think in the long run you could have something like this so that the strip is customized for each users preference. And like we talked before, D2D might be helpful in that regard and also for skinning.
Richard wrote:Maybe, but consider that currently, assigning a channel to all 4 busses at once and additionally using all 4 sends in that channel makes no sense whatsoever.
With freely assignable aux channels, any instrument group only takes a single slot, and you can have any number of instrument groups. So I think we could get away with 6 free slots per channel.
I totally agree with this. That was the point I was trying to make a while back; if you have a flexible setup this way (with this example of 6 slots) then a channel can feed into 6 busses OR 6 sends OR any combination of busses and sends up to 6 total. Seems VERY flexible to me.
HYPNAGOGIA wrote:If Suneels needs to have 36 synths that make all sorts of sounds, from blips to sweeps, tools aren't stopping him to do that.
er where did i say anything about no being able to create a sort of sound? Just to be clear i donot have a problem crafting sounds out of orion. But yes orion32 cant do more than 1.3gb to 1.4gb, so there are one of 2 projects where i have left it at that.
Suneel, that really wasn't a critique to the way you use Orion or what you use 36 synths for. Would it satisfy you if I say it's an example for a really large project and just leave it at that?
Last edited by HYPNAGOGIA on Mon May 17, 2010 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
well its a strange example because if you look into my sfs's over the last year, they load up to 1.2-1.3gb, which by your definition are large. And that hasn't stopped me from using Orion, i fact its getting me closer to my goals. But what drew me into the topic was the idea of grouping, so that one could group a bunch of synths and replace it with a single strip on the mixer, making it easier when dealing with a sizable number of synths.
i donot know what concepts from here are gonna affect whats to come in V8, but i will just put what i would prefer
1. some way to 'group synths' so that main mixer length is shorter. 2. 6 buses 3. 6 sends. 4. inserts are fine, but the multifx holder must be fully automatable