FL Studio 6 Mixer...

[Hink]

bouncing to .wav has always been a lifesaving technique when CPU is short... Freeze is the same thing wihtout all the hassle, so what's wrong with it?

because for every track you freeze you have to wait for it to freeze the track to open the project back up. As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong) it takes the same as it does to render each track in real time (if you have 5, 5 minute waves then )...when you render you can keep the wave on disc and it wont take all that time to load...

[Jaeson Merrill]

of course I now think you we're being sarcastic, kinda ironic..me not seeing the sarcasm..

yeah it was sarcasm of course, sorry

gol always says "if someone asked for it i would do it"

and ppl are asking for it all the time!!!

hehe



including me..

you can find out by searching my posts and finding the one on freezing, my little idea of how it COULD be done

[Jaeson Merrill]

bouncing to .wav has always been a lifesaving technique when CPU is short... Freeze is the same thing wihtout all the hassle, so what's wrong with it?

because for every track you freeze you have to wait for it to freeze the track to open the project back up. As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong) it takes the same as it does to render each track in real time (if you have 5, 5 minute waves then )...when you render you can keep the wave on disc and it wont take all that time to load...

It wouldnt be a realtime bounce, it would be an offline bounce, using 100 percent of the cpu, and going rather quick.

Samplitudes freeze is the best out there, and it goes nice and quick.

If you had 5 tracks, that took 20 percent cpu each, and were 5 minutes long, THEN it would take 5 minutes to freeze them.

am i getting through?>

or am i as confusing as i am normally???



how are ya hinkmeister?

[Jaeson Merrill]

or for instance, if you had 1 track that you wanted to freeze, that took 20 percent of the cpu, and it was 5 minutes long, it would take.. 1 minute..

[Jaeson Merrill]

what hink says is correct, with MOST correctly written synths, if you turn them off, they will not generate anything, and not take up CPU.

however.

If you use alot of samples, as i do (BFD, sf2, gig, etc) if you bounce down a track, turning off the generator will NOT free RAM resources.

therefore you have to remove the generator.

then you lose the patch you were working on.

freeze remembers all the previous settings, thats a big difference.

it would be nice if there was some way for FL to automatically save *.fst files for "frozen" tracks...

and then keep a place holder there...

also, one thing that would really help, in order to freeze multiple generator tracks, is to bounce to seperate audio tracks, instead of one combined (all the generators in one tyrack) one.

theres alot that COULD be implemented...

but FL really has the ability already, it just needs an easy macro with a simple menu to organize it all..

freeze -> which generators -> bounce to multiple tracks with or without applying effects from mixer -> assign those tracks to the same mixer channel the generator was on -> save *.fst's of frozen generators and put them in a folder called "frozen" or some sort of placeholder -> remove generators..

there could be different ways to go about it..

you could freeze generators (which i think is the better move) or even freeze mixer tracks.

it just needs a macro
..

[DavenH]

bouncing to .wav has always been a lifesaving technique when CPU is short... Freeze is the same thing wihtout all the hassle, so what's wrong with it?

because for every track you freeze you have to wait for it to freeze the track to open the project back up. As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong) it takes the same as it does to render each track in real time (if you have 5, 5 minute waves then )...when you render you can keep the wave on disc and it wont take all that time to load...

Surely it can save the frozen bits to .wav files? Size is really no issue this day and age, considering when romplers are xx GB

[GypsyJazz]

.............I despise app programs which use vertical text.

Hehehe....I guess the ability to read vertical text is
a bit like the ability to curl your tongue.
Not everybody can do it.

[Shane Sanders]

Mark said that, not me GypsyJazz.

[Carbonboy]

I despise app programs which use vertical text. If they need that, there's definetly problem with the way it works. Or can you switch the whole mixer vertical?

To me it is good to see and hear different channels and how they are EQ'd. [deleted]...Anyway, doesn't matter, not going to use that Fruity mixer anyway

You despise applications that use vertical text, this is nonsense (it's done for a very good reason, screen space). The result is a compact and much more efficient work-space. There is no doubt that you can work much faster in the FL Studio mixer than the bloated mixers you find in other applications.

You can colour-code the channels in FL Studio if you need extra cues, but surely you know that after working with a track *you* built that you will know what track is what. And indeed reading the labels on-edge isn't a problem.

About the EQ, it's clear you are not going to or nor have used it. If you look at the EQ section of the mixer and change tracks you see the sliders jump, as the same UI space (track properties it's called) is used for the next track. This gives a much more accurate impression (flicking back and forth) of the differences between track settings. Indeed this is a tchnique used by Astronomers looking for small changes in star-fields, medical researchers etc, flicking between two images and looking for movement....that's a brilliant design.

Carb.

[jouni]

You despise applications that use vertical text, this is nonsense (it's done for a very good reason, screen space). The result is a compact and much more efficient work-space. There is no doubt that you can work much faster in the FL Studio mixer than the bloated mixers you find in other applications.

Clicking back and forth... you know I'm one of those guys who prefer Windows taskbar at the top of the screen to - for less mouse movement and faster workflow. But anyway.. your words are wasted as I never have liked vertical text. Written and printed form it works - not in screen as the letters are completely f**ked up.

You can colour-code the channels in FL Studio if you need extra cues, but surely you know that after working with a track *you* built that you will know what track is what.

And clearly when returing back to old song that's not going to help you at all. Color coding is good - I do that too.

About the EQ, it's clear you are not going to or nor have used it. If you look at the EQ section of the mixer and change tracks you see the sliders jump

I know how to use EQ better than many people on this forum - I dont claim to be expert, but nonsense to say I wouldn't have used or never use EQ.

accurate impression (flicking back and forth) of the differences between track settings. Indeed this is a tchnique used by Astronomers looking for small changes in star-fields,

..and 99.9% time those are different anyway if you want to get good mix - so why to bother with such features? they are same or they are not. I prefer to see them side by side and quick access to the parameters without extra point-and-select trouble first.

[Hink]

I know how to use EQ better than many people on this forum - I dont claim to be expert, but nonsense to say I wouldn't have used or never use EQ.

I think you misunderstood carbonboy, he meant you hadn't tried the FL eqs....

[seldom]

Clicking back and forth... you know I'm one of those guys who prefer Windows taskbar at the top of the screen to - for less mouse movement and faster workflow. But anyway.. your words are wasted as I never have liked vertical text. Written and printed form it works - not in screen as the letters are completely f**ked up.

um, i'd have thought that your words are wasted as well really... what with you never intending to use FL, why get involved in a discussion about it? i guess that obvious enjoyment you get in attempting to present all the ways you do things as being superior to the ways other people do them is reward enough. but that's as dry grass in a fire.

what i really want to know is, what kind of bizarre resolution or variety of anomalous screen are you using that makes text written vertically look any different from text written horizontally? are your pixels really that far from being square?

[GypsyJazz]

Mark said that, not me GypsyJazz.

oops sorry Shane.

I left your quote in my reply.

I've edited it out now..................

[GypsyJazz]

... you know I'm one of those guys who prefer Windows taskbar at the top of the screen to - for less mouse movement and faster workflow.

hehehehe I prefer it on the bottom for the same reason......

not in screen as the letters are completely f**ked up.

They're not "f**ked up" on my screen.Maybe you have a problem with graphics display or resolution?

[Jaeson Merrill]

wow, vertical letters, you need to bend your neck? strange.. how close are you to the screen, what resolution do you have? 342 X 160?