To Jo: Simplifying event/audio workflow within mixer strips

[Drenholm]

That all sounds simple and functional enough to me - great stuff - but you should wait and see what the educated minds of the forum think!

[pljones]

Well, the default should be to "widen" the rack to the maximum number of audio channels. (If I've a four-out synth and an 8-out soundcard and the rack has only the synth and soundcard in it, there's no problem).

Some indicator should show when the audio path gets broken because there's nowhere to route. As most plugins are only two ins, this will happen most of the time, of course (if the synth has more than 2 outs). To solve the broken audio path, the context menu you suggest, Jo, sounds like a good option.

Indeed, it should be possible to use the context menu to alter the "default" routing, so the menu should be tied to the rack slot, not the "broken path" indicator. (I might want to route a 2-out synth to outs 3&4 of my 4-out soundcard.) Targets should not be restricted to the same rack.

[DaveL60]

Is there any way for a host to know how many outputs of a multi-output VSTi are actually in use? Or even detect that the VSTi is capable of multiple outs? I know with ProteusX, you can route everything to one (stereo) output, or you can route different voices to different output (I forget the max). I suspect that usually if you're using multiple outs, it's to use different processing on different voices. So, you really wind up needing another rack per voice. Maybe a good approach would be to have a special type of strip/rack for multi-out VSTis that has a common first slot and 1 to n groups of processing slots, somthing like this (clickable image):



That way all of the processing associated with the outputs of that instrument are consolidated in a single rack. If the host can autodetect the number of outputs, the strip could default to creating the processing groups from 1 to n, maybe with slots associated with unused outputs in some sort of inactive mode? Maybe I'm dreaming, since I don't know anything about host to VSTi interfacing.

And, of course, this causes all kinds of problems if you start with a single-out VSTi and later decide to swap it for a multi-out type.

DaveL

[muzycian]

A host can indeed detect the number of outputs.

But your suggested approach is not evident, nor technically nor gui-wise.

I think that spreading multiple outs of a VSTI over different racks still remains the way to go.

In fact, it's the same as now, where you spread the multiple outs of a VSTI over different mixer strips, and that works fine, right?

[DaveL60]

But your suggested approach is not evident, nor technically nor gui-wise.

Ummm, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "evident".

In fact, it's the same as now, where you spread the multiple outs of a VSTI over different mixer strips, and that works fine, right?

Since I've mostly played with LUNA Free, I honestly don't know. I've dabbled just a bit with CMusic, but haven't explored that feature -- at this point I'm not yet using multi-out VSTis very much.

So I was thinking of it mostly in an engineering / signal routing context, responding to your question:

If we're going to plugin synths directly in the "Racks", then how to handle synths with multiple outs?

Which certainly didn't sound like you felt you have a working solution...

DaveL

[Drenholm]

Having the first two outputs "flow through" the rack as normal, with the menu to send any additional ones wherever the user desires, seems intuitive to me. Is that what you mean, Jo?

[pljones]

Having the first two outputs "flow through" the rack as normal, with the menu to send any additional ones wherever the user desires, seems intuitive to me. Is that what you mean, Jo?

My issue with this is restricting the rack width to two channels when it's not necessary. If you substitute "minimum plugin channel width" for "two", I'm happy .

[muzycian]

But your suggested approach is not evident, nor technically nor gui-wise.

Ummm, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "evident".

Euh, evident = +- straightforward

If we're going to plugin synths directly in the "Racks", then how to handle synths with multiple outs?

Which certainly didn't sound like you felt you have a working solution...

True, but very soon after i posted that, i got & posted the idea of the context menu with "Connect Alternative Outputs"

[muzycian]

Having the first two outputs "flow through" the rack as normal, with the menu to send any additional ones wherever the user desires, seems intuitive to me. Is that what you mean, Jo?

Yes

Note however that a Rack is not necessarily stereo.
It depends on which signal you input, and which plugs are plugged in.

And to elaborate on this channeling topic cfr pljones posts.

LUNA will look at the main output of a VSTI. Most of the time this is a stereo out. But IF the main out is a four-channel output, then the Rack will process the full 4-channel signal.

Of course, for example, if then a plugin with only stereo input follows, then the 4-channel signal is first converted to a stereo signal.

In fact, LUNA's audio signals are very flexible, and the channelling is automatically adapted wherever necessary. The only current limit that restricts it from being a 100% multi-channel / surround host is that the panners in the mixer strips (later Racks) are still stereo. Real surround panning is a specialized thing. And LUNA is not yet there. But you do benefit already from being saved from mono/stereo issues, all that flexibility is already there

[muzycian]

The only current limit that restricts it from being a 100% multi-channel / surround host is that the panners in the mixer strips (later Racks) are still stereo.

In LUNA PR5, when a multi-channel signal (i.e. more than 2 channels) passes the racks' stereo panner, it will just pass thru, thus the stereo panner will not touch the signal.

Of course, the rack's volume slider will be applied! It's just the stereo panner that is ignored in that situation.

This way, you can use LUNA as a real surround host, and plug in a real surround panner or other surround plugins where you want them

By the way: Any surround users here?

[Drenholm]

Still sounding good! Do you think we'll see PR5 this side of Christmas?

[muzycian]

Hopefully yes. The new Rack system is technically not simple though, pfew.

[Drenholm]

Well, as they say, you can't rush perfection! Best of luck.

[> DiGiT <]

jo would you ever hire someone to help code this beast?

[muzycian]

Yeah, theoretically, that should be great.

But practically having two or more people code on the same project is a project on itself!

And currently i'm still slowed down by the essential renovation works on my house (where i do work together with others (if they're available!)).

Once i can move my computer to there, things will speed up again.

Thanks for the good hint!