FR: SNAPSHOTS!

[Lunch Money]

Another problem with the mini-mixer-window-thing, though-- a lot of times doing a mix, it's not just the pan and level that you need to fix. You might listen and say to yourself, "Shoot, too much reverb on the lead vocal."

Wouldn't you rather have it all in one place... say... attached to the right of the corresponding track?

[nuisance sonore]

Another problem with the mini-mixer-window-thing, though-- a lot of times doing a mix, it's not just the pan and level that you need to fix. You might listen and say to yourself, "Shoot, too much reverb on the lead vocal."

Wouldn't you rather have it all in one place... say... attached to the right of the corresponding track?

What a novel idea.


[edit] Yes, this would revolutionize the audio world.

[braj]

Another problem with the mini-mixer-window-thing, though-- a lot of times doing a mix, it's not just the pan and level that you need to fix. You might listen and say to yourself, "Shoot, too much reverb on the lead vocal."

Wouldn't you rather have it all in one place... say... attached to the right of the corresponding track?

If you read my original idea, this would be included.

[willowhaus]

Possibly - notice that in the track view they resize themselves. Would wreak havoc on labeling, though.

[Lunch Money]

Your labels are to the left of the track. Or did I simply not understand what you meant?

Braj-- that was 6 friggin' pages ago. You expect me to remember your original post anymore? <laff>

[IIRs]

Another problem with the mini-mixer-window-thing, though-- a lot of times doing a mix, it's not just the pan and level that you need to fix. You might listen and say to yourself, "Shoot, too much reverb on the lead vocal."

Wouldn't you rather have it all in one place... say... attached to the right of the corresponding track?

My mixer-map idea would allow you to include a few important parameters from a reverb plug if you wanted.. it would also make my Nord Modular* patches integrate better.

* ok, MICRO-Modular

[Lunch Money]

The mixer-map thing is beyond me. It could very well be a good idea, but it's striking me more as useful for hardware interfaces than for software-based mixing. I could be wrong, I have to admit I kind of zoned out when you were explaining it.

Braj-- just had a look at the original post again. But that brings me back to one of the earlier basic questions-- how would things stay manageable in the space alotted? I'm afraid having "too much" ability to assign a bevy of filters would create even more clutter and that 'extra layer' that I keep referring to. Why present the same thing you already have, but in a different (smaller) space?

I wonder if people just aren't latching on to the fact that you can re-order and resize your tracks. For the re-ordering, the 'snapshot' feature that Braj alluded to would make different 'combinations' or subsets possible.

Greg

[multree]

well how about a Betabugsmixer

you would have several sender plugs.... inserted in every channel and one big mixing console with slots for send effects which would tell the host how much latency they have so there would be pdc in the plug or summat.....

have no clue if it's possible or not and I for one love the tracktion way of mixing but it's an idea to ruin ideas innit?

[multree]

oh I just noticed FR is a feature request sorry

[willowhaus]

Lunch - If there's too much 'verb on the vocal, then you go to the track & fix it. Having access to several level & pan controls simultaneously, though, is very useful. It's what mixing is really all about.

Sure, it'd be nice to have FX too, but then you're getting back to the channel strip design. EEEK!

[semiquaver]

I think a "controller view" that shows you faders for all you mapped controllers with labels would be useful.

[IIRs]

Having access to several level & pan controls simultaneously, though, is very useful.

We already have that!!

[willowhaus]

Having access to several level & pan controls simultaneously, though, is very useful.

We already have that!!

'Scuse me?

[djsubject]

well how about a Betabugsmixer

you would have several sender plugs.... inserted in every channel and one big mixing console with slots for send effects which would tell the host how much latency they have so there would be pdc in the plug or summat.....

have no clue if it's possible or not and I for one love the tracktion way of mixing but it's an idea to ruin ideas innit?

if it has solo's & dosent use hardly any cpu then i think its worth a bug

[haydxn]

well it's possible for me to make a separate window that would float on top of T2, being a 'mixer' via MCU loopback to control T2. that wouldn't be too tricky to do, but i'm not sure that it would be particularly worth my while doing - for a start i don't think it would be possible to have metering on it.. but yeah i don't think it's worth the hassle. plus i couldn't give a rat's spare leg for having such a ridiculously extraneous feature as a mixer view. it's just so unnecessary and outdated. i entirely fail to see the point in its inclusion.