MUX: Remote controll of the process button

Official support for: mutools.com
44100hz
KVRer
3 posts since 16 Dec, 2003

Post Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:41 am

From Cubase, I see that I can remote-control the metaparameters of the modules inside a MUX patch. Is it possible to remote control the "process off/on" button of a specific module, for example the Stereo Splitter?
I couldn't find a way to map it to a metaparemeter.
Thanks
X:

mutools
KVRAF
9543 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe

Re: MUX: Remote controll of the process button

Post Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:04 am

No that On/Off switch is not automatable. But you could setup a bypass using a balancer module and automate the balance.

User avatar
pljones
KVRAF
6279 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK

Re: MUX: Remote controll of the process button

Post Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:25 am

Interestingly, the Mixer Strip module has a mute button that can be automated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mOXwoZu4Wk
(the "after movie" frame on youtube makes me want to just use the version on my local server...)

That may feel more intuitive in some circumstances.

44100hz
KVRer
3 posts since 16 Dec, 2003

Re: MUX: Remote controll of the process button

Post Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:22 am

mutools wrote:No that On/Off switch is not automatable. But you could setup a bypass using a balancer module and automate the balance.
Thanks for the tip, will try this; please consider this feature as a simple addition to the next MUX development cycle :)

mutools
KVRAF
9543 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe

Re: MUX: Remote controll of the process button

Post Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:35 am

The On/Off switch is like a power outlet and not meant to be automated. It would be like plugging in and out your TV several times per second. That's not the goal. If you want to automate a mute or bypass, that's possible using the ways indicated above.

User avatar
pljones
KVRAF
6279 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK

Re: MUX: Remote controll of the process button

Post Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:54 am

Quick question on this. Does "Mute" actually just set Gain to -oo? (That is, does any optimisation happen - similarly, if the pan/width are default?) If it's still running most of the processing, then the simpler control the better. "Send" looks like it probably does less processing than either of the "Balancer" modules (input -> send out with the send level automated; there's no cross-fade processing).

mutools
KVRAF
9543 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe

Re: MUX: Remote controll of the process button

Post Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:25 pm

pljones wrote:Quick question on this. Does "Mute" actually just set Gain to -oo?
Euh yes that's mathematical equivalent.
That is, does any optimisation happen - similarly, if the pan/width are default?
Yes that shoud be in most cases.
"Send" looks like it probably does less processing than either of the "Balancer" modules (input -> send out with the send level automated; there's no cross-fade processing).
Not sure if i fully understand. Are you saying there is an issue somewhere?

User avatar
pljones
KVRAF
6279 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK

Re: MUX: Remote controll of the process button

Post Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:14 pm

No issue. A very simple question. Is there any benefit in picking a simple module over a more complex module in terms of performance. The comparison I gave was between a module (Mixer Strip) with four controls - mute, gain, pan, width - and one (Send) with just one control - send gain. The Audio Balancer module also has four controls but one of them is a curve selection, which is likely to mean further computation.

The comparison is between "If (a == 1) { return n; } else { return n * a; }" and "return n * a;". In the former case, an optimisation is performed dependent on the parameter "a". In the latter case, the maths is performed regardless of "a". (Ignoring subsequent lower level optimisation that certainly happen in that example, of course. I don't know how much of the audio processing maths would be that trivial.)

Clearly, where a large number of modules are being used, the lowest CPU usage per module is desirable. (My main use is in highly complex MUXes of which I then use around 70 copies concurrently.)

mutools
KVRAF
9543 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe

Re: MUX: Remote controll of the process button

Post Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:04 pm

pljones wrote:No issue. A very simple question. Is there any benefit in picking a simple module over a more complex module in terms of performance.
Generally a more complex module uses more cpu indeed.
The comparison is between "If (a == 1) { return n; } else { return n * a; }" and "return n * a;". In the former case, an optimisation is performed
But you add an IF statement which can be costly, dependent on where it is used. Optimizing is a special art and also very CPU architecture dependent, even within the Intel range. So an optimization on system A might be bad on system B.

Anyway, MuLab and MUX try to avoid redundant computations.

Return to “MUTOOLS”