Hypna, great reply. Very constructive, this is what I mean by 'discussion'
Now for the issues you raise:
First of all I am sure that this would be a major rewrite of some internal parts of Orion. I don't see it happen right away (or ever) but I'm posting the suggestion so Rich can see what he can do with it. If he likes (some of) it then he will take care of what is involved.
As for the layout, skinning could stay as it is with just small adjustments around the send-area on the mixer strips. I envision it looking this way: like the current mixerstrip but with the current sends removed and that space together with the current 2 sends replaced with some sort of scrolling area that holds the (unlimited) inserts. This is how just about 70% of the other recording software handles it (with a scrolling area that is).
I kept my suggestion to the bare minimum needed to get it working. When this would be implemented there are other things that could leverage this system in relation to workflow.
Everything I suggest here is, in one form or another, already being done by the competition. As I see it this isn't happening anyway in Orion but just wanted to throw it out there.
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/SendsModerators: Christophe, Mark Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/SendsOk, a bit clearer now... I think.
I think removing Sends completelly out of the picture raises even more issues than solutions. First issue is backward compatibility. For instance, I use more sends than inserts and busses combined. Replacing sends with inserts just won't do for me, or the others I reckon, and opening any song made prior to this change... I think it could bring some pretty unexpected behaviors, all which falls onto Rich to solve for every one of us. And not all effects have Dry/Wet controls, thus aren't usable as insert effects. Furthermore, there's an overlook issue. The size of the scrollable area would be dependant on the size of the mixer. Small mixer (such as all Bones' mixers) will make this area too small to manage, and even more to have an overlook of what's going on in there if you have too many effects at once. Frankly, I'm not in favor of not being able to see everything in front of me, which IMO is one the strongest points in the entire Orion's workflow. This discussion here is to determine the solution to 3 requests that have risen countless of times over the years, and those are: 1. more sends; 2. more inserts and 3. more busses. The starting question here that I think needs to be determined is "how much more". Last edited by HYPNAGOGIA on Sat May 15, 2010 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SoundCloud ::: Facebook
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/Sends
They are not being replaced, in my suggestion sends are 'implemented' by using inserts. The result will be the same both for routing as for controllability.
I think this can be catered for, as I already stated in my initial suggestion
Not sure what you are getting at here.
I didn't overlook that issue but I get your point. However, that would mean that the available screen space will always be the limiting factor for how far Orion can develop. As bones like to say (many times over); just get a bigger screen (mind you, that is not how I see it, I like innovative solutions in this area). Maybe there should be a minimum width for the mixer-strips to make this working (I can already hear bones going mental over this ).
The way I see it the DAW-software should cater for the workflow of the user, not the other way around. I don't specifically need more sends, inserts and busses in Orion as (like bones always points out) you CAN do it all in Orion NOW by using a few workarounds. However, for me these workarounds are seriously fighting my workflow to the point that I just can't use Orion for what I like to do in it.
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/SendsThat's ridiculous. Any application should facilitate results and have some degree of flexibility as to how you achieve them. What distinguishes one application from another is mostly workflow, as they all get to the same result in the end. Orion facilitates exactly the kind of workflow I need and fits a way of working I have developed over almost 30 years, which is why I use it.
In that situation you would be better off using a MultiFX container in an Insert slot to give you wet/dry control of an effect. I have done this several times when we have needed to ramp up/down a distortion effects. I think you have illustrated the real crux of the matter - nobody spends 5 seconds thinking about the best way to solve a problem, they just grab another slot and throw it away on whatever tiny problem they come across. I treat my sends, inserts and busses as very precious resources and I try to use them as sparingly as possible.
Neither of those things are workarounds, they are solutions to a problem. At the end of the day, absolutely everything is a workaround. Whenever you EQ a sound, it is working around the fact that it doesn't work perfectly. The entire production process is a series of workarounds and compromises and FX containers are no worse than any other solution, and can often be a much better one. Same with a sub-mixer.
Except that the concept was explained in the first post, the other 6-odd pages are what we call discussion.
So come up with one. What Rich is currently looking at doing will remove the ability to assign a channel to a bus and the Master at once, which will mean that every song we have finished in the last 5 years will no longer work, because every kick drum we use goes through a bus and the Master. Solve that problem, as well as a way to provide more sends and inserts without adding anything to the Master Section and we'll be all ears.
How would that allow multiple bus assignments? The other question would be how do you share sends across multiple channels, which is what they are for? It seems that it would be quite inefficient for that.
That's because it is probably more work for him.
The problem with that idea is that it is not flexible. You have to know before you start a project how complex it is likely to get and live with that decision for the duration. 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/Sendsnot hardly. Expanding to a more complex mixer presents no problems. It's only moving backwards that does, and in that case the unassigned fx get put in brackets.
edit: However, it looks like it may be possible to solve things without doing that. It was just a thought I put out on the board. Last edited by Icaro on Sat May 15, 2010 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/Sends
Almost nobody here (including you) 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. If you don't put an effect into the send-FX channel, and set the send level to 100% you actually have a buss like the other busses. Look at it this way: by dropping the current buss-setup and replacing it with four additional sends instead you get 8 sends or 8 busses (just set all the sends to 100%), or a combination of sends and busses always counting up to 8 max. So this actually gives more flexibility already without adding any more strips to the master section. But you need room for the additional four send knobs. To have it be completely flexible the send should be able to be set pre-fader, post-fader/pre-FX and post-FX. My suggestion goes one step further by combining this possibility with integration to the inserts and flexible send/buss creation in the master section.
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/Sends
Most of this can be done in Orion 7.6 including setting sends post-fader/pre-fader, so going from 4+4 to 8 sends has virtually no benefit. FWIW that may be the reason I'll never need more than the current version (personally), as far as the routing is concerned!
Completely irrelevant. Big sequencers have a staff view, does Orion need one because of it? If it takes me 20 clicks to do something in a different sequencer, should I clone that when it takes only one click in Orion, just to make the transition easier for idiots who're used to it? I'm looking for the best solution, not to clone this or that host. All that counts for me is arguments and I do listen to them.
Fortunately there is. There have been several proposals (some on the beta forum, maybe they could be reposted here) which keep the mixer at its current size and add 8 sends, 4 inserts and 8 or unlimited busses. And not to forget the low-cut switch So we'll have 8 or unlimited busses and on top the ability to route from 5 slots, which currently are fixed to M,1,2,3,4, but we simply make that flexible. So you could even route to busses 5,7,16 at the same time if you wanted to. What's also brilliant about this solution is that this takes a single click and no complex setup. You don't have to go into preferences to specify a certain number of busses, mess with different skins, or specifically add/remove busses, it'll be completely adaptive and instant. Admin - Synapse Audio Software
Twitter - www.twitter.com/SynapseAudio Facebook - www.facebook.com/SynapseAudioOfficial
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/Sends
I agree with what you say here. I myself don't need more busses and/or sends. I use mainly 2 sends (one for global reverb and one for global delay) and in most cases just one buss to hold my drums sub-mix and sometimes a second if I have additional percussion. My main shortcoming is with inserts as I always have found the FX-container a kludge (but it is brilliant to build a combined effect). I'm just making suggestions as to how requests from other users could be implemented. I like the sub-mixer solution proposed by bones. There are a few VST-mixers around and I always have thought that it would be handy if we could use those in Orion, IF we had the possibility to actually route it inside Orion. Bones's suggestion was/is going in that direction for me. I don't specifically NEED sub-mixers but I could make great use of them one way or another. Having something available can be great for inspiration. However, you said you don't like the sub-mixer idea so I proposed a few other ways to get that sort of functionality.
Great to hear what IS actually coming. I'm really looking forward to see if Orion can drag me back in the same way as it did long ago.
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/Sends
I think the way Bones intended it makes it too complex for basic needs but at the same time too basic for complex needs. To be really useful, it would have to be a fully featured instrument shell with performance options. But even then it can't be as powerful as templates.
Yes exactly. A related problem is that users usually don't share combined FX Setups, to my knowledge- either for the reason you mention or because they're too individual or because they use specific VST plugins. An instrument shell might suffer a similar fate.
That would be great! I'm confident it will. Admin - Synapse Audio Software
Twitter - www.twitter.com/SynapseAudio Facebook - www.facebook.com/SynapseAudioOfficial
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/Sends
What's this crazy talk about "8 sends, 4 inserts and 8 or unlimited busses." Well, that's just bloody brilliant in my not so humble opinion!
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/SendsHere's one possible embodiment of the idea from Hypna, which requires even less space than the current mixer.
This example channel would be routed to Master and Bus #8 simultaneously. The same channel can still be routed to three further destinations. As you can see the idea is not only much more flexible than the current system, it also fully preserves backwards compatibility. Admin - Synapse Audio Software
Twitter - www.twitter.com/SynapseAudio Facebook - www.facebook.com/SynapseAudioOfficial
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/Sends
The idea is derivative, not entirely my own. You give me too much credit, sir SoundCloud ::: Facebook
Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/Sends
No, you are overthinking it. It would only need to affect the audio path. The Sub-Mixer would not appear in the Playlist and every instrument would present in the Playlist in exactly the same way, whether it was assigned to a Sub-Mixer or not, so all your MIDI and automation and everything else would continue to work in exactly the same way it does now. All your performance options would be the same for every instrument. In the end it would really be no different to assigning a channel to a bus. If I wanted something that was completely separate, I'd just load up eXT as a VST or VSTi and be done with it.
In fact it was introone's idea, probably the first and only useful one he will ever have. You just regurgitated it a week later.
Why? If you can have unlimited busses, why would you need any extra sends or inserts? That suggestion is massive overkill and you'd end up with a Master Section this big - http://www.novakill.com/stuff/BigFatMaster.jpg I simply cannot see how having to put up with a Master Section like that all the time would be worth the one time in a thousand that you would actually use it all. OTOH, if you don't add any extra sends [or inserts], the Mixer will not have to change at all and the Master Section will actually be almost half the size it is now, and it will only need to grow as you add more busses when you need them. SO not only will you gain incredible complexity when you need it, you will also be granted greater simplicity when you don't need any more. It is close to the perfect solution but as soon as you start to add extra sends and inserts, you lose half the advantage it offers. Last edited by bones on Sun May 16, 2010 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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/Sends
That is how I see it as well. A sub-mixer is about audio routing, nothing more nothing less.
That is what I'm afraid of as well. Stacking large amounts of everything onto the screen. You should only have stuff on your screen that you are actually using. Like in most other hosts, a buss/send should be created as you need them, same as you create a mixer-strip on the main mixer when you add an instrument. However, as that functionality is already in the main mixer I think it will be implemented (somehow) in that same idea. I still think that combining the sends and busses into one system (as they are in fact the same thing) would be the best solution. You can leave out the buss-buttons on the mixer strip and have a dropdown menu on the send-knobs to link a send to a 'buss'.
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 441 guests |
© 2017 Synapse Audio Software. All Rights Reserved. |