Visibility of inputs (audio and MIDI)

[pljones]

Okay, I'm splitting this from the PR5 thread as it's possibly not 1.0 material.

I just realised I can't remember where incoming Audio routes to by default in LUNA. Looking at the default project, I'd have no idea where to plug in a wah and an amp/cab sim so my DI'd guitar sounded cool... (not that I have a DI'd guitar but you get my drift...)

It's the same as with live MIDI in: it's not clear which rack is going to be used. At least I've learnt how this one works, now... (Until it changes..! )

This goes back to my old "flexible routing" desire. I want to see where signals are entering the system and where they then route to...

So...

Audio.

Have an "audio in" (built-in) plug in. The first stereo pair drops down the rack, the others need to be connected (as with a multi-out VSTi). Note that the stereo pairs used are only the ones configured in the ASIO setup.

Have an audio "record" plug in. It's stereo only and it just catches what's coming down the rack from above. It will create a new audio part - but only whilst recording, and you throw away the recording unless you name it. This way it's clear exactly where in the signal path you're recording. You can put a de-esser and compressor in the path before a voice recording, for example or a limiter before a miked up drumkit, etc. The "record" plug in would allow the output target for the recorded part to be specified (and have a "new rack" as an option?).

MIDI.

MIDI is similar. It's also multi-channel.

Have a "MIDI In" plug in. You pick the MIDI Channel that drops down the rack; the other 15 channels can be routed to other targets (like with MIDI Out VSTs; eh, that's right, yes? Oh...).

Have a "MIDI Record" plug in. It records only a single channel and just catches what's coming down the rack. (Parts and Racks are single channel, right? If not, this might need refining). It will create a new sequence part - but only whilst recording, and you throw away the recording unless you name it. The "record" plug in would allow the output target for the recorded part to be specified (and have a "new rack" as an option?). With this set up, you can record a multi-timbral performance to separate parts and have them all route through one multi-timbral VSTi both during the performance (by specifying the record rack output target) and on playback (by specifying the recorded Part target). It requires that record not affect the Channel (by default: obviously if you then set the recorded Part's channel, the events should have their channel over-written).


You can imagine all that virtual cabling, can't you..?

[Drenholm]

Those do sound quite good and with the right implementation, they could make the Rack system better still. Of course, it's all up to the main man!

[pljones]

Oh, and if you're not doing any recording, you don't need to worry about the plugins. If you're only worried about live playing, you don't need to worry about the "record" plugins.

That said, I don't really like it: it doesn't fit with Jo's goal of simplicity. It takes four plugins to work... And the MIDI side is a cabling nightmare. I'm floating this more to raise the "problem" than as a viable final solution..!

[muzycian]

That's a nice technical scheme!

Atoh, it indeed may be a bit too technical for the musician, who wants to concentrate on the music, not the technics.

I'll let this cook for a while...

[Drenholm]

I'm not saying its optimal, but what about something like "record arm" buttons for Racks, which will cause the input audio to pass through them?

The idea of a "record audio" plugin is quite interesting, as this would allow you to monitor the audio with certain effects without commiting them to disc, i.e. plugin A, plugin B, record, plugin C, audio out

Anyway, too many cooks . . .