Suggestion for routing.

[djsubject]

how would you cut some bass from a high hat if it was coming through the same output as your kick drum?

Inside the rack... ya know?

Like, INSIDE of it...

Which is why they exist in the first place.



You take your individual kick drum output, and you EQ it before sending it out of the rack.

I mean...

INSIDE the rack.

You see?



I didn't say that multi-out VSTi weren't useful, what I said was that I don't understand the need to link it up to a bunch of stuff OUTSIDE the rack. Actual physical FX sends are a good example, so now I can see one reason for it. But a lot of the time, you can accomplish what needs to be accomplished from...

INSIDE the rack.

Greg

PDC

& my dsp plugs need lots of it

Subz

[bernhardtjeff]

how would you cut some bass from a high hat if it was coming through the same output as your kick drum?

yeah, like lunch money said, inside the rack. you put an eq between the output from your hi hat in battery or whatever and the rack output on the far right. i didn't discover this at first, either.

racks are one of the things i really love about trackion. it's almost like having a little version of audiomulch inside. you can make some pretty crazy setups. with drums alone, it's cool, but even with other stuff. i've set it up so when i play trombone through with a delay, the delay comes back auto-wahed and pitch shifted up a couple octaves. to do that in sonar or something would be quite a bit more time consuming... a couple different aux buses, have to fiddle with a bunch of levels.

[djsubject]

racks are fab!!

but if you have more than 1 vst in there there is no PDC (plugin delay compensation)

not realy a big problem unless you have a powercore or a uad-1 or use the fx on the emu-1820m (witch i have all 3 of)

but for all you lucky non pdc needing peeps LM's way is lots of fun

Subz

[Lunch Money]

Fair enough, Subz. It's just the way you worded it made it seem like it would be strange to want to do all that fancy stuff within the rack.

[djsubject]

Fair enough, Subz. It's just the way you worded it made it seem like it would be strange to want to do all that fancy stuff within the rack.

to be honest LM i did miss understand your post

i thought you was just sending every thing through the one output

so i did deserve to be put in my place



Subz

[IIRs]

but if you have more than 1 vst in there there is no PDC (plugin delay compensation)

PDC can work for a rack as a whole, so if you take care to keep every output from the multi-out plug delayed by the same amount it should work ok.

What this means in practise is: instead of adding one EQ to just the hats output and routing all the rest to the rack outs, add an EQ to every output of the plug.. or alternatively, use your delay compensator plug for outs that need no EQ. (You could have a single PDC delay plug connected to the outputs, to which you connect any plug-in outs that need no processing)

[zOap]

Well, I didn't say I hate racks, I don't. I love em. But as mentioned before, having track output available as inputs in rack would make it more intuitive, for an example for key inputs. Not having to copy the rack to another track and then choosing where the input comes from.

I could even settle with you if there was made a plug which made up a new rack input, so not all track outputs were routed to rack inputs. But the best solution would be to have the choise of making a rack input of the any of the track outputs available.

I see your point, but I'm not sure if you unserstand what I'm trying to tell you. Go buy yourself a "real" rack, put in some patchfields and splitters and adders, play with them and you will guaranteed see what I mean.

[IIRs]

splitting and adding are both possible.. I don't understand the problem

[Lunch Money]

My only problem, and what I THINK I'm seeing in zOap's point is this: (perhaps someone can clear it up for me!)

* when I have a new rack, I see 2 inputs. Easy enough, they're "left" and "right" from my track.

* I add 3 more 'inputs'.

* what's the signal that's coming from the new inputs?? And how do I assign them?? Then when I add new outputs... what are they outputting to?? I don't get it!

<laff>

That's why so far it only seems to work by copying instances of the rack across several tracks, OR by just doing what I do right now-- all the routing WITHIN the track. But the rack COULD be so much more if ins and outs were more intuitively assignable. I don't know that I PERSONALLY would ever use the functionality, but at least I would understand it should the need ever arise.

You make a new input, the dialogue asks, "What is the new input's name?" and I respond, "Track 3 left channel". Then it asks, "Where is the source of this signal?" and I pick Track 3, and click a radio box that says "left channel only" instead of my other options ("right channel only", "summed to mono", or whatever).

It WOULD completely screw up the left-to-right paradigm, though. You could imagine (but not see... god forbid that the filters area becomes a Reason patch-bay!!) that virtual cables go directly from the end of track 3 to the middle of Track 10, where my rack is residing in its place AFTER a compressor and some other crap). Then it could jump out of the rack and shoot down to Track 10, where I have another rack for further processing.

The thing is-- it would become VERY convoluted VERY quickly, and I'm not sure that it'd be the most efficient or effective way to work. But then at least I'd understand the function of my new inputs (in particular) and outputs (the outputs I can already deal with the way they are, mind you).

Greg

[valley]

I see your point, but I'm not sure if you unserstand what I'm trying to tell you. Go buy yourself a "real" rack, put in some patchfields and splitters and adders, play with them and you will guaranteed see what I mean.

I'm not sure I will. The only thing that I can do with a real rack that I can't do with Tracktion is feedback loops, and given the nature of VST buffers, feedback loops aren't actually all that useful inside a VST environment.

If I want to convert audio to MIDI, or vice versa, I can do this. If I want to split audio across a number of tracks, merge them together, create parallel routings and effects chains, I can do all of that.

Racks may be a little counterintuitive, but they don't lack for utility.

[IIRs]

You make a new input, the dialogue asks, "What is the new input's name?" and I respond, "Track 3 left channel". Then it asks, "Where is the source of this signal?" and I pick Track 3, and click a radio box that says "left channel only" instead of my other options ("right channel only", "summed to mono", or whatever).

Then you need another dialogue saying "where in the signal chain would you like the signal tapped?" (eg: pre/post fade aux sends) and a whole other set for each output, along with warnings when you try to set up feedback loops by accident.. isn't it easier to just copy your rack filter and tweak the right parameters?

[zOap]

I don't know what your reluctance is caused by, but I am positive that the routing table could be solved better. I like many of the things that excsists, like the fact that you can follow the audio chain from midi to output just by following the timeline. This is a longwaited solution for me.

"Splitting and adding are both possible. I don't understand the problem"
I didn't say it wasn't possible. I say it isn't good enough and not intuitive enough. Like with the key input. First you have to make a rack out of the compressor/whatever. Then you have to copy it to the track you want as key input. Then you'd have to change the "input goes to" to the key input on that track. It seems like alot of work for so little.

Btw, none of you have commented on my opinion on key inputs.

I think, we all want the best for tracktion, but we need to look up once in a while and check if we're on the right track(tion:)). I believe it could be better with just these small changes.

Btw, I would also like to have more options with the cursor(not the playhead). Like playhead to cursor when over clips/regions(with a mod key).

[IIRs]

I say it isn't good enough and not intuitive enough. Like with the key input. First you have to make a rack out of the compressor/whatever. Then you have to copy it to the track you want as key input. Then you'd have to change the "input goes to" to the key input on that track. It seems like alot of work for so little.

If you say so. It seems to me that your suggestion would be less intuitive however, and also less flexible.

[zOap]

I say it isn't good enough and not intuitive enough. Like with the key input. First you have to make a rack out of the compressor/whatever. Then you have to copy it to the track you want as key input. Then you'd have to change the "input goes to" to the key input on that track. It seems like alot of work for so little.

If you say so. It seems to me that your suggestion would be less intuitive however, and also less flexible.

How can it be less flexible to add more inputs and outputs??

[zOap]

OK, I know this might be on the side of this topic, but as many of you may know about, there are some solutions for sharing vst and dsp on several computers. I find Teleport from FX-Max to be the best so far, giving you the option to not have any hosts installed on the slave machines, only the server and the vsti's themselves. But there isn't a good option for sharing between platforms, eg win and osx, allthough I have succesfully installed and ported the Teleport on Debian.

This is far fetch, I know, but making such a host/server/slave to interact between mac and win for tracktion would be awsome. Since Tracktion is so affordable it would make a very nice addition to add even more dsp power with several machines without having to run it through mtc mmc.

OK OK, just dreaming, but that's allowed, isn't it?:)