suneel wrote:Your idea is essentially a mixer-group holder which is nothing revolutionary or path breaking or original. Its an old idea and used in other daws too.
Of course it's not original, it's what people have been doing in real studios for decades when they run out of mixer channels. It's hardly surprising that other software applications have picked up on the paradigm.
It doesn't still replace the need for more buses/sends/inserts
Why doesn't it?
btw if you cant handle criticism then i suggest you don't post your ideas and save space on things.
What criticism? All you did was ask questions and make suggestions that were already covered and/or answered in the original post. Then you had to make it look like you knew all about it already by giving it a different, and largely inappropriate, name that will just make discussion more confusing than it needs to be.
If you want to be critical, that's exactly what we need, you just need to be constructive.
crimsonwarlock wrote:2. I see one technical problem, as I think you made this in SE
I haven't made it at all, it's just a graphic. I don't think SE could handle loading of VSTs. You can embed them in projects but that's about it.
I really like the idea of a sub-mixer having it's own send-effects like in your mock-up. When it's native it would be great if the sends have a switch to choose between routing to the sub-mixer sends or routing to the main-mixer sends.
The problem there might be feedback loops, as the Sub-Mixer will also have a strip in the main Mixer, so you could be feeding the same signal into itself, sort of. It may or may not be an issue.
I see the advantage as being that you can stack the sends, because the overall sub-mix could be routed through the "main" sends via the Sub-Mixer's strip in the main channel. i.e. It solves another issue that has come up before, by offering similar functionality to sends for busses. That's what I like about this solution - by not being just more busses, it actually offers more.
Dungeon Studio wrote:And Bones - would this design of yours be like DR? In that more slots could be added for synths and whatever? Up to 8 or 16? Probably most PC's wouldn't be able to handle it. But if someone like Suneel can handle 36 synths now - it could work?
That's my idea but Peter would have a better idea about programming and he seems to think it might be hard to implement. I figured it would not be, as it is exactly what both the main Mixer and DrumRack do now. I thought the tricky bit might be allowing instruments to move from the Main Mixer to a Sub-Mixer and back again. If that can't be done, this idea could still be useful, it would just require a bit more planning to get the most out of.