KVR Audio

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:57 am

platinumears wrote: .. maybe Logic does this better than Cubase (?) but it all seems MUCH more complicated and fussy and intimidating than a simple scroll with a mouse wheel, or a mouse wheel & modifier key combination.

Yes, indeed, Logic does it MUCH better than Cubase.
My numeric keys are assigned to my screensets, so all it requires to switch between them is pressing those numbers. Whenever I change them, I don't have to save them as they will just stay like that (unless I lock them). Mind you, this is by now pretty much similar in Cubase, but screensets still make way less of a sense as, for instance, linked editors and mixers are just the most bugridden thing ever.

Oh btw, don't get me wrong, I find Tracktion to be quite appealing (and refreshing too), but the mixer just doesn't seem to make it for me.

IIRs · Post by **IIRs** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:00 am

Where's any busses on this one? And yes, that's not a trick question.

"Lp Grp", "Drums" and "Gnort Grp" are all sub-groups. There are more at the bottom of the screen. I will often buss my mixes down to a handful of stems which I like to put at the bottom of the arrangement for quick re-balancing. These stems can be easily frozen or rendered if I need to. Furthermore, any track can be used to display any automation curve for any parameter (it does not have to be a filter on the same track) so the concept of seperate automation lanes becomes redundant: Tracktion manges to simplify the paradigm, while providing more fexibility to have automation displayed exactly where it is most useful.

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:02 am

Sascha Franck wrote:Where's any busses on this one? And yes, that's not a trick question.

Although this isn't necessarily the way I'd arrange mine, it's clear to me that "Drums" is a submix, "Gnort Grp" is a submix, "Flute Grp" is a submix, and it's looking like there could theoretically be a "Strings Mix" by scrolling down a bit, though he may not necessarily have added one.

[edit: posted at the same time as the above.

]

Greg

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:10 am

OK, I wasn't clear enough - I was talking more about FX busses.
Can you send like a portion of a signal to an FX bus? I guess it must be possible - and if so, what would that look like? Just like the Grp tracks? And where could you see the sends to those busses?

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:13 am

I'm about to go to bed, should have hours ago, so no screen shots.

If you're familiar with the way Elevayta does certain plug-ins, it's a similar idea. The sending track(s) has a 'send' filter (and you can send from any point in the chain of effects) and the sub-mix track has a receive filter which automatically updates its name to reflect the name you give the send filter.

The return filter can also be at any point in the chain of the track it resides in.

IIRs · Post by **IIRs** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:29 am

Sascha Franck wrote: Can you send like a portion of a signal to an FX bus? I guess it must be possible - and if so, what would that look like? Just like the Grp tracks? And where could you see the sends to those busses?

Yes. The sends appear as filters, which you position pre or post-fader as you require. The return is another filter with the same name, which is usually inserted on a blank track like the sub-groups.. and can therefore feed a chain of FX as easily as a single plug.

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:29 am

Lunch Money wrote:The sending track(s) has a 'send' filter (and you can send from any point in the chain of effects)

The return filter can also be at any point in the chain of the track it resides in.

Now, THAT's pretty damn cool!
This is really something I'd often wish for when fooling around with soundscapings.
Maybe it's indeed time for the T2 demo the next days (T1/NFR didn't make it for me for a whole number of reasons).

IIRs · Post by **IIRs** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:34 am

Sascha Franck wrote:OK, I wasn't clear enough - I was talking more about FX busses.
Can you send like a portion of a signal to an FX bus? I guess it must be possible - and if so, what would that look like? Just like the Grp tracks? And where could you see the sends to those busses?

I should probably also point out that, if you follow a few simple rules regarding parallel routings, aux sends in Tracktion will have full PDC.. can Logic do that yet?

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:44 am

platinumears wrote: I should probably also point out that, if you follow a few simple rules regarding parallel routings, aux sends in Tracktion will have full PDC.. can Logic do that yet?

Bah! 7.1 can - but as I'm still on PC...

braj · Post by **braj** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:32 pm

platinumears wrote: .. maybe Logic does this better than Cubase (?) but it all seems MUCH more complicated and fussy and intimidating than a simple scroll with a mouse wheel, or a mouse wheel & modifier key combination.

Logic has excellent default screensets that are all a number key away, and IMO are at least as useful as T's view shortcuts. I honestly don't prefer one app over the other, they both are great and both have their quirks. I'm going with Tracktion because it's cross platform and relatively easy to deal with, but I am losing out on features I just have to trust will eventually arrive in T

(not waiting for a mixer, don't worry

)

But the idea that one way of working is better than another in all situations for all people (mixer vs no mixer) is narrow-minded IMO. I love Logic's mixer, it's always a button away for me, I can see the mixer and the arrangement in the same window and really enjoy working with it. I definitely like it better than mixing in Tracktion. But that's just me.

pHz · Post by **pHz** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:43 pm

maybe one other thing to bear in mind when looking at those tiny faders in the tracktion screenshots if youre now thinking 'HOW THE HELL DO YOU USE THOSE ?!?' ...

slainte

rob

braj · Post by **braj** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:29 pm

pHz wrote:maybe one other thing to bear in mind when looking at those tiny faders in the tracktion screenshots if youre now thinking 'HOW THE HELL DO YOU USE THOSE ?!?' ...

slainte rob

Yeah, but you have no visual clue. And platinumears point of automation curves and volume sliders being grouped gets diluted when the sliders are so small. Also, it can be a bit wonky selecting the volume, sometimes it selects the pan instead. It's just a bit awkward. That's why I want to use a control surface.

I have no real issues with mixing in T, I'm just offering my perspective. Since I usually have under 20 tracks, it's not that big of a deal. Sascha uses many more, and depending on what you do I think different tools may work better for you than Tracktion (or any mixerless DAW).

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:40 pm

Using a control surface is a different argument altogether, and I'm sure it'll be great for you.

However, surely you're not suggesting that you need to be able to clearly see the line on the volume filter in order to mix properly? The line is completely relative to the source material and therefore gives you NO information of any relevance!!!

As for picking the volume/pan... doesn't the cursor changing shape help at all?

braj · Post by **braj** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:59 pm

Lunch Money wrote:Using a control surface is a different argument altogether, and I'm sure it'll be great for you.

However, surely you're not suggesting that you need to be able to clearly see the line on the volume filter in order to mix properly? The line is completely relative to the source material and therefore gives you NO information of any relevance!!!

As for picking the volume/pan... doesn't the cursor changing shape help at all?

Let's see, the line is there for a reason, what could it be? Hmm...

Let's see, I set my gain on audio clips, my volume on soft synths etc to be relative to the throw of the volume mixer controls. I do think it's relevant information for me to 'see' so I know what my arrangement is doing. Surely you aren't making excuses for Tracktion just because it's your tool of choice? Nah, you wouldn't do that

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:01 pm

No. I'm honestly not. To me, the lines of the meter have absolutely nothing to do with the mix. Frankly, it actually boggles my mind that you would need to see the fader 'line', regardless of sequencer. Why would it matter? You listen to the song and say, "Hmm... seems as though the strings are sitting a bit loud." How can seeing Logic's full-sized faders help you hear a mix better?

What happened to your EARS, man???

You don't mix with your eyes!!!!! Honestly, I'm literally baffled at the concept of needing to "see" the fader in order to know where the instrument is sitting in your mix.

I may be talkative, verbose... I may get into debates... but I'm always honest, and I've always admitted when somebody's called me out on something I may not have even been aware of. And I can tell you with absolute certainty that if Tracktion didn't exist and I was using ANY other sequencer, I would still mix according to what my ears tell me.

Oh, and...

What's the point of mixers in software sequencers?