who wants one of thease in Tracktion

[dealwithit]

...however, I don't think that people's sense of comfort should be catered to in order to gain these theoretical hordes of customers that some people seem to think would flock to T but for the lack of a 'pseudo-hardware' mixer.

You would begrudge those theoretical flocks their comfort? If it's comfortable to those who've used and use hardware mixers, it's comfortable to a wide-ranging group of millions of people. Why should they give up a paradigm that has been developed through decades of audio mixing? Why re-learn what they already know? Comfort is not overrated.

Greg, have you ever mixed live audio? Just curious...

[Lunch Money]

On a large scale? Like for a concert? No. But that's a red herring and hidden ad-hominem. In other words, it doesn't bring anything to the plate. When you're mixing live audio, you're using a hardware mixer, which is fine. I'm not against those. My point, which can't be denied, really, is that if you're mixing with a mouse in cubase, you're controlling 1 parameter at a time, 2 at best. Same with Tracktion. No amount of loving a real hardware mixer is going to change the way software and a mouse operate.

I'm not begrudging people their comfort. I'm saying if that's where their comfort lies, they should go use Cubase and quit asking for a mixer here. I suppose I could be more 'diplomatic' about how I word that, but I'm starting to realize in life that it's better just to get to the point.

I really honestly boggle that people claim to love Tracktion and yet still want a mixer. To me, a HUGE part of the "Tracktion way" is the per-track rather than per-hardware-mixer-channel way of looking at things. I really do think that the two are mutually exclusive. And if you don't like the way Tracktion's already doing it, you might as well be using another sequencer. <shrug>

That's just one man's perspective, of course.

Greg

[mandolarian]

Or they should just cough up for a C4. It's the least they can do for Mackie. Plus they can control 32 simultaneous parameters with one hand. The mutants.

[IIRs]

I used to mix live bands for a living. I always used an analogue mixer with one knob per function*. Would I consider mixing a live gig with a virtual mixer and a mouse? I don't bloody think so!

*and usually at least one channel down

[dealwithit]

On a large scale? Like for a concert? No. But that's a red herring and hidden ad-hominem. In other words, it doesn't bring anything to the plate. When you're mixing live audio, you're using a hardware mixer, which is fine. I'm not against those. My point, which can't be denied, really, is that if you're mixing with a mouse in cubase, you're controlling 1 parameter at a time, 2 at best. Same with Tracktion. No amount of loving a real hardware mixer is going to change the way software and a mouse operate.

I'm not begrudging people their comfort. I'm saying if that's where their comfort lies, they should go use Cubase and quit asking for a mixer here. I suppose I could be more 'diplomatic' about how I word that, but I'm starting to realize in life that it's better just to get to the point.

I really honestly boggle that people claim to love Tracktion and yet still want a mixer. To me, a HUGE part of the "Tracktion way" is the per-track rather than per-hardware-mixer-channel way of looking at things. I really do think that the two are mutually exclusive. And if you don't like the way Tracktion's already doing it, you might as well be using another sequencer. <shrug>

That's just one man's perspective, of course.

Greg

It wasn't meant as ad-hominem, I was honestly curious. My comfort with hardware mixers comes from mixing live audio. Would I consider mixing live with software? It's possible. Major adjustments are made during soundcheck. Minor one's could be made live, but I'd obviously prefer hardware. The point about controlling multiple parameters wasn't being argued.

I continue to use T because of its' workflow, and the linearity of its' layout. It encourages experimentation, which I do love. But when I add multiple filters, the Vol/Pan filter becomes very small (especially with alot of tracks displayed), requiring me to reach down to manipulate the larger controls at the bottom. This stifles workflow (for me, at least) so that mixing in T is just plain uncomfortable. Being familiar with Cubase I know there's a better way (for me). But that doesn't mean that T doesn't have a place in my heart. I just feel that a mixer would improve T, and those that didn't want to use it wouldn't have to.

I can understand that users don't want to change the way T operates though, and I can respect that, and continue to mix in Cubase.

[Lunch Money]

I know that the small filter can be a -touch- trickier to get a hold of (and I'd also like to see lockable filter sizes), however, consider:

- At mix time, you don't need to see screen-wide waveforms. You should be using your ears at best, with metering when needed. For a live application, you won't need to see the waveform at all, really. Hence, you just enlarge the filter area to make your filter the right size

- If you're using THAT many filters, perhaps a simple submix will solve your problem. Add your filters to "Guitar 2" track, but rout "Guitar 2" to "Guitar 2 adjustments" and use a normal-sized filter in there.

- Alternatively, wrap the filters in a rack. I wouldn't do this either, but it's an option.

- People sometimes forget that you don't actually need pinpoint precision and eagle-vision to manipulate even a shrunken filter. Just hover over the wee little shrunken filter and without any effort expended, you'll see it alternate between the up/down and the left/right cursor. That's all you need. You don't need to zero in on the actual line. Then, once your up/down cursor appears, click, and you will see a FULL-sized slider appear! We're so accustomed to it that we forget it happens, but there it is! A full-sized slider to manipulate.

In other words, the filter size is just an illusion because you're not really manipulating the filter itself, but the slider that appears.

Greg

[IIRs]

Major adjustments are made during soundcheck. Minor one's could be made live,

What if a vocal mic feeds back during the set? Lets say you have 5 vocal mics on stage, and you don't know which one is currently ringing at 3K, or whether it is feeding back through the monitors or the front stacks.. you're seriously going to work through all those possibilities one at a time with a mouse??!? Cos while you do that the audience will be sticking their fingers in their ears, and wondering why there's a moron behind the desk

[lharless]

i don't think anyone is trying to mix live sound with a mouse.

i've mixed live sound for well more than 15 years. i am one of those old mackie freaks from WAY back. i've known mackie for many years. i've known live sound for many years. i've known analog recording for many years, only recently getting on the digital "bus", if you will. the mixer just makes sense to me, personally, so in keeping with being up front with people, i must also voice my feelings about the need for this mixer feature. it's a "second nature" type of thing for most people. perhaps there are more in this forum that don't agree with that, but i guarantee that worldwide, there are more that want a mixer than not.

while lunch's "efficiency of movement" argument for not changing the mixer, purely because you're "already having to control something with the mouse anyway" is viable as well. ...but. in the world, as an engineer, side stage, with a mixer, you can only do two things at once. i've never had three hands. automation in a live mixer would be a god send, but rarely if ever used purely because of the variables from night to night. butt hat's not what we're talking about. we're talking about having a hardware emulation mixer, or AT LEAST a set of on screen faders that are arranged in the same paradigm that a mixers sees on it's surface. flip them over, do something there. it may not have to have the "filter" type look to it, but it could be just a simple row of faders with some little boxes like wavelab that you could add and subtract filters and move them around at will. and while you're in the mixer tab, theres no need for the waveform view at that time, so use that space for the filters gui to open up, perhaps two, three at a time. i know when im adjusting a Waves LinMB parameter in conjunction with some other plugs, theres a need to be able to see both plugs at the same time. currently, we can only see one at a time in T. that's another discussion though....lol. but the ideas that could be implemented in T with the mixer tab are only for the better. and with the new development team there to help jules, it's not going to be a terrible draw from the features that others want. they'd merely have to hire one or two people for this, and then scale that back to one person if not handing off the maintenance of the code to the existing team, once the main coding is done...

i don't really see what the problem is with a mixer TAB. not an in your face mixer thingy that floats and gets in the way. it's a mixer tab that sits out of the way, with a wholely familiar look for those that have been using mackie products for 15 plus years and that aregetting the product with their mixers as the recording software that is marketed as a total recording solution.

as is right now, i have a hard time getting a client to want to use it. they look at it and shrug it off and go right for the cubase. at my part time job at the music store, when im trying to sell a mackie mixer with tracktion, people are not interested in tracktion once they see it. they also shrugh it off. IT LOOKS WEIRD TO PEOPLE. i don't think you guys are getting this. most folks want familiarity in their simple apps.

this is not an underground software any longer. this software is now distributed worldwide with mackie live mixers. why would you want the people buying this product to mix and record live music, to have to get used to something that looks more like an app that comes with a soundblaster card from back in the 90's than a product that comes with a high-end firewire audio interface from the new millenium?

...gahhh!!!

this gets me so frustrated when im getting cock blocked from something that would most DEFINITELY change the way people look at tracktion and would most definitely make this applicaton the leading app in the world. this app could overtake cubase in sales if it had a mixer. its so efficient on the cpu, it's ability to move the filters around at will is alone the best feature by far in an audio app, outside of wavelab..

im getting the feeling that this app will never move forward. it looks like the app is high centered in a mud bog with folks only wanting to make a few minor changes in functionality without moving forward with other features that would establish it as an app that allof the people that are getting it with their mixers would een want to use. right now, ill bet if you asked all fo the mackie onyx users if they're using tracktion, they'd tell you no.

that's my rant. ill have more for you as this develops. guaranteed.

[AD80]

Thats one hell of a rant man, but I still dont see how adding a mixer is making Tracktion move "forward". To me it seems like a HUGE step wayyyyy backwards in time to the caveman days. And Cubase also has folder tracks, ghost clips (I think), MPEX Timestretch, destructive wave editing, and count-in in loop mode. So if we're trying to compete with Cubase feature wise, why not start with those things.

[lharless]

sorry about all of the grammar screw ups. im starting to look like ron with my spelling, lol.
--

good initial effort mackie.. you sold a few mixers off of tracktion. nice ads. very misleading. it comes down to me, the salesman, to clear up the confusion of the difference in a mixer and a control surface. im forever saying these words to customers: "im sorry that you're not happy with your mackie mixer. i'd be happy to set up a store credit for you, if you want to return the mixer". do you want to change this? if so, let's talk. i hold the golden key to your being able to sell more of these things. im on the street with them everyday. i see the user daily. i am a user. i own an onyx. i have tracktion. i don't use it anymore though. i'd like to use it. let's talk. pm me.

anyway.. im out for a few days, unless somebody says something stupid.

love y'all!

[lharless]

Thats one hell of a rant man, but I still dont see how adding a mixer is making Tracktion move "forward". To me it seems like a HUGE step wayyyyy backwards in time to the caveman days. And Cubase also has folder tracks, ghost clips (I think), MPEX Timestretch, destructive wave editing, and count-in in loop mode. So if we're trying to compete with Cubase feature wise, why not start with those things.

just like i was saying. some people just don't get it. but there are more out there, worldwide, that do get it, than are on this forum, not getting it.

having a "mixer" doesn't neccessarily mean it has to emulate hardware. it can be vector graphics laid out in a simple fashion, with low cpu useage, low impact (tabbed) globally on the look and certainly not in your face, for those that don't even want it.

i know this is probably me against the rest of you, but i have voiced my opinions and i feel confident about everything i have said. and i have confidence that im not the only one feeling this way.

gahhh! i need to get out of this forum lest i burst a vessel. ill look back in later. it's too early in the morning for me to be feeling upset, lol.

i love you all. im only trying to improve something that i am very much in love with. tracktion.

[lharless]

[bastien]

I just thought of one advantage to having a separate mixer page - the screen is wider than it is tall.

I can imagine a new tab with the tracks laid out as vertical strips, inputs at the top, followed by all the filters pointing downward until we finally get to the mute/solo outputs at the bottom.

Of course, the other thing to keep it looking like a mixer would be to have some kind of 'fix filter height', I guess this could be a right-click option on each filter, perhaps with three preset options (this would also tidy things up in the track display).

As I say, the only advantage I can see is that there's more screen width per track, and therefore less scrolling (or pressing F8 and having stuff squeeze right down to about five pixels high). But honestly, if people want it, how much hassle would such a thing be to implement? And how hard would it be for anyone who doesn't want it to ignore it?

[flanneljammies]

having a "mixer" doesn't neccessarily mean it has to emulate hardware. it can be vector graphics laid out in a simple fashion, with low cpu useage, low impact...

That's exactly what we have now with the filter section -- an infinitely configurable mixer that doesn't emulate hardware.
no emulation? check
vector graphics? check
simple? check
low cpu? check
low impact? check

[flanneljammies]

it's a "second nature" type of thing for most people.

No it's second nature for old-timers who have grown up using hardware. There's a whole new breed who have never used it AND people like me who hated every hardware-emulating software I ever tried UNTIL I found Tracktion. IT'S NOT HARDWARE. IT SHOULDN'T TRY TO BE HARDWARE. Sure if it was some option hidden away that I never had to think about, fine. But if it takes one minute of development time away from truly useful enhancements and bug fixes -- NO WAY. If YOU want to use Tracktion and HAVE to have software mixer (and can't be arsed to set up metered subgroups or a rack), use one of the many VST plugins.