Idea to Add Complexity Without More Busses/Inserts/Sends

[bones]

OK, the other discussion is a little long and out of control, so I will start a new one. What do you guys think of this for a solution to the issues around the number of busses, sends and inserts? Instead of making the mixer and master section ever more complex, how about creating a sub-mixer to add flexiblity instead? Here is a simple, quick mock-up to illustrate what I mean:



As you can see, it is quite small and could easily accommodate more sends and inserts, this is just a quick mock-up to give you some idea of what I am talking about. Think of it as working like DrumRack; you add it to your project and it creates a stereo strip in the main mixer, like any instrument would. Then you add instruments to it in exactly the same way you add insert effects. i.e. a right-click menu where you can select an existing instrument or load a new one into each slot. You can add and remove channels from it, just like DrumRack, and you can use as many of them as you like in a project.

I see several advantages to working in this way. First, it could modularise your workflow and keep the size of the main mixer more under control. Imagine a Mixer that was just 4 or 5 strips, each pointing to a sub-mixer, one for drums, one for bass, another for pads, etc. No more scrolling the Mixer across to find the channel you need. If you could save presets for sub-mixers, you could also quickly load up an ensemble of, say, your favourite combination of drums from DrumRack, Tomcat and EKS-9, all in one convenient sub-mixer, with the appropriate effects already in place.

The big advantage though, is that you only need to add complexity when you need to, so you are not forced to work with a more cluttered and ever-harder to decipher Mixer and Master Section all the time.

OK, there are also disadvantages when compared to busses but there will still be 4 busses when you need them. Sub-mixers would just be another tool to relieve the pressure on those 4 busses.

So, whaadya reckon, does this solve all your problems? I can't see any real downsides myself and, unlike more busses, I can see some uses for this in my own workflow.

[Dungeon Studio]

That's not a bad idea either Bones. A godsend for DR and Sampler kits with x4 or x16 outs. As that's my biggest bane starting a song is they become the dominant view on the mixer. All subsequent instruments tend to become 'that stuff on the right'. And for me and my weird music, the sampler or DR is usually just motivational lo-fi noises and loops to get me going anyways. So don't really need to EQ each channel or send to Busses and all that. If I add a Jamstix kit after - now that I like to focus on. And that's when I get into the scroll bar on the mixer and/or having to drag channels around to see and compare to. Nice OP can do it, but a bit of a PITA as well.

Me like!

[suneel]

Instead of making the mixer and master section ever more complex, how about creating a sub-mixer to add flexiblity instead?

ok your talking about mixer-grouping, which not the same as buses. But i can see using this all the time. Mixer-groups are something that are very useful and would relive the pressure off buses too. But the mixer group holder should hold variable entries and not fixed 4 entries like the other holders. The mixer group holder itself should have the same properties like that of any other default mixer strip, ie sends, inserts that are applied to the final signal from all the individual entries inside it. not a bad idea.

[Dungeon Studio]

I think it does there Suneel - two inserts per channel, two mixable sends per. For small nutty stuff like a Synsonics kit on a x4 DR, To making a 'custom kit' like Bones says - EKS9, Tomcat, StompBud, SynToms. I'd say it's more than plenty. For background stuff and augmentation insturments, that's pretty darn cool. And it would show up as a 'SM' on the mixer strip, which could have a further 2 inserts on the overall mix, plus 4 more sends, plus being sent to a bus channel for 4 more inserts. Sounds like 6 sends and 8 inserts to me!

Then again, I'm quilty for haven't ever used MultiFx yet. :shame:

[bones]

I've only used it once, when I needed to have a distortion increase and it didn't have a wet/dry parameter, so I used the XY pad in the MultiFX to ramp it up. I can't imagine ever using it because I needed more effects.

ok your talking about mixer-grouping, which not the same as buses.

If you are not going to read the whole pitch, please don't bother replying. You are just wasting space on things that were covered in the original post.

[suneel]

ok your talking about mixer-grouping, which not the same as buses.

If you are not going to read the whole pitch, please don't bother replying. You are just wasting space on things that were covered in the original post.

no need to overact like a school girl. i read your grand idea, no need to get cocky, there is no nobel prize award to be won.

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. It doesn't still replace the need for more buses/sends/inserts, but has other merits. btw if you cant handle criticism then i suggest you don't post your ideas and save space on things.

[Dungeon Studio]

But it is in a way MORE busses and/or effects on the current busses.
If I'm understanding this correct - even if one loads a EKS-9, TomCat, DR, whatever to this, it's stereo mixer strip beside the synths and all will behave like a 'bus'. Overall volume, pan, 2 inserts, 4 sends, EQ.
So one comp could cover 4 instruments right there and/or saturator or whatever.

Am I reading this right Bones? (And I read everything as best I could, I promise! )

[crimsonwarlock]

What do you guys think of this for a solution to the issues around the number of busses, sends and inserts? Instead of making the mixer and master section ever more complex, how about creating a sub-mixer to add flexiblity instead?

First off I think it's a good idea As I said in the other discussion, for me bussing is mostly about sub-mixing

A few things to think about though:

1. As others have said it needs more channels to be useful. I don't think it needs to dynamically scale as that would be more work to create. Maybe simply have a few versions like 4, 8 and 12 channel version and you simply load up what you need.

2. I see one technical problem, as I think you made this in SE; sub-mixers would be mostly useful with multi-out instruments (I'm thinking 'drums' again here) and I don't know if SE can handle loading one multi-out plugin into several channels. However, if this is just a mock-up/proof of concept to propose to Rich for native development then this is a moot point. Or maybe this IS possible in SE?

If it is going to be natively developed by Rich then I would suggest mix-folders instead, as that is the most elegant and clutter-free implementation of sub-mixers. But doing it the way you propose here would probably be closer to the 'virtual studio' paradigm that Orion adheres to. So it might appeal to a larger part of the userbase. I'm fine with it either way

Also a suggestion, in case this is going to be developed natively: 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.

[crimsonwarlock]

Am I reading this right Bones? (And I read everything as best I could, I promise! )

As I see it: Yes! With a sub-mixer like this every channel on the main mixer can actually act as a bus (for the sub-mixer). I think it's an elegant solution to (in a way) create unlimited mix-busses without actually creating more busses on the master-unit.

[Dungeon Studio]

I definately agree too. If this can all go 'according to Hoyle'. But as Suneel pointed out, this multithreading business and such might not make it as easy as Bones made it look. But by far a much better solution than bridging/sharing. And don't see this anymore difficult than MultiFx is now - just adding synth's into the 'holder' along with the effects really. Throw in a X/Y pad - boom, vector synthesis.

I think you got it Bones! If we're reading this right? Even if Rich reads it right, programming maybe a different story? But if it's not too difficult, I'd say do it! :respect:

[crimsonwarlock]

If this is developed natively it could well be a distinguishing feature for Orion



But when it is in Orion beware of people pointing out that mix-folders would be a much better way to do the same thing

[Dungeon Studio]

So many ways to skin a cat with OP. For all the weird wild stuff I've done - never used MultiFX yet either. Though I'm sure many might think I do. I don't think I'd be any better or worse if I did. And same with Bones idea here. I think it is a smart alternative that could open up a lot of floodgates. But is it something that 'has to be used', no.

Just give Bones and I and whoever more fuel to kick whoevers arse that complain they can't get enough groups and effects in OP8 or 9.

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?

[HYPNAGOGIA]

As I understood that, yes, like DR, but you can have as many sub-mixers as you want.

[Icaro]

ok, at the risk of sounding like an idiot............ so this submixer gets created just like you would an intstrument? I.E. - creating a submixer creates a ch. on the mixer section, but instead of an instrument, you get the submixer? If I understand that correctly, than I say absolutely yes, yes, and yes! I think it solves everything.

But....... I could be misunderstanding the concept. I have to admit Bones, the mock up looked confusing to me, so I skipped over the idea before. Especially cuase it was lost in a thread with a bunch of really long posts. So, it got lost as another part to these James Bondesque ideas that some people suggested.

[matthy]

it sounds good however indeed about the mockup i see insert 1 and insert 2 however i see 8 insert bars. what is the deal with that? because the idea of the busses what to set one particular effect on all the instruments at the busses at the same time (like put them all in a compressor) rigth?