MixControl Pro Discontinued, V2 TBA.

[nilhartman]

Being a long time Duende's Channel Strip user (still using the DSP version as I had to sell my Native license...) I'm looking for some native alternative. So I'm quite curious to see what will be MCP2.

I can't agree more with the "keep it simple" advice.

If you release a CS with :
- a clear layout
- great EQ curves and nice interactions between those curves
- great interactions between the EQ/filters and the dynamic section
then you'll have a great CS.

Keep it simple, make it sound awesome with a clear and great GUI and I'll buy it

[Compyfox]

Most obvious FR ever:
Keep the interface design. Loving it, it's clean and straight forward and it just works in every darn host (no matter which skin).

Else, make it skinable (again) and offer a classic skin design.

[Ah Xoc Kin]

Another vote to keep it simple:


You could include a more complex layout, as an option.

I briefly compared MixControl Pro and Grand Channel a few minutes ago. At first I tried eq., compression and saturation. I preferred Grand Channel's sound and ended up just comparing the eq. The low cut near 50 Hz was OK, but the shelving boost did not sound as good. I tried other equalizers (e.g., Trident, Maag EQ4) and also preferred them in terms of this boost. I then did the same comparison with URS Strip Pro as well as Channel G.
I used the normal and HQ modes in MixControl.

Instead of adding features my suggestion would be to make the current sounds "sweeter" in terms of eq. and saturation as well. I tried URS Saturation and Wave Arts Tube Saturation for this comparison.

I also tried a few compressors and limiters.

IMHO the features are great already. Considering the historical sale prices this plugin represents a huge value for the money. A relatively cheap "Swiss Army Knife" for audio.
My suggestion would be to improve the sound quality (keeping a low CPU usage) of the existing features.

I gladly bought it and then donated. The Spectrum Analyzer is very useful and allows me to not launch Nugen Visualizer. I get pretty much all the basic features I need in a single plugin. That being said, I use alternative plugins 99% of the time, and MixControl gets very little use from me. Hopefully this will change with version 2

[Agreed]

Disagreements over the acceptable complexity of a channel strip are fine, but don't jump on me over it, my initial suggestions were more straightforward things and then he said anything goes - so I put up a dream list. I'm not going to apologize and I think it's a little bit absurd to be specifically called out for responding to that kind of request in the spirit in which it was asked.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion as to what would make it a better plugin, nobody should be specifically attacked for responding to a request for comprehensive-as-you-like possible feature additions. That's not especially cool.

Not that I feel there's any reason I should have to defend myself, but I do want to point out again that my primary suggestions, before he basically said "taking all comers, any features you'd like, feel free to suggest" was basically to just take what's already there and make it better, as the guy above this post says. The framework of the tool is already in place, and it is sort of the "beginnings" of a really, really nice plugin, but the specific features could be fleshed out more to improve it and get it used more for all it can do (as appropriate) rather than some of what it can do because it lags in some areas compared to competition. Saturation, I think, is the area I personally would like to see it really improved, because that contributes so much to the character of a mix especially when using it as channel-strip inserts. A couple more EQ bands wouldn't hurt, and perhaps some EQ modes on a per-band basis that offer harmonics/subharmonics with minimal aliasing; that'd go a long way toward making the EQ itself stand out. It's functional right now but not particularly special, and if it were taken as-is and made modular I would not use the EQ module because I have much better options for that particular function.

For me the biggest thing is that it's already got a good workflow to it, the features are already nice, just not best-in-class. And before any of the more fanciful suggestions are implemented I'd want a root overhaul of the features it has now. But after that, there are some things I'd like his new developer, whoever that turns out to be, to have in mind. It could easily be modular to a degree, so that you never need to see the offending complexity unless you want to.

Voxengo does a bang-up job keeping most of its complexity obfuscated from the user in VoxFormer, but it lets you peel back the curtain and do some extremely sophisticated stuff that works very well without disrupting its excellent workflow. I'd think more along the lines of that than along the lines of, say, T-Racks 3 Deluxe, which isn't a channel strip but a rack-like suite.

[Ah Xoc Kin]

I agree Agreed

I've enjoyed your posts for years. I used to post regularly at Harmony Central.
Perhaps a feasible approach would be like the ones used with the following plugins:
CL1/CL1MS/CL1MSXL
DC8C/DC8Csc (in addition this has Easy and Expert modes)
Various plugins with "mix" and "master" versions, such as Elysia Alpha, PSP Neon and NobleQ, URS Control Strip Pro, etc.)

That way the added features do not interfere with the workflow which, as you mentioned, is excellent.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

'agreed', i think you might be taking it as more than it was

i don't think anyone was denying you your right to your opinion, nor really ragging on you...just disagreeing

and i still disagree, but it's all good right ??

[Agreed]

and i still disagree, but it's all good right ??

Sure, we're fine, I don't think anyone's "not fine" And I'm not any more arsed over it than is sufficient to respond - but Compy did say this, and it's rather, erm, harsh, considering the guy who owns MixControl Pro and will be seeing to the product's continuance was asking us to "think big," so to speak; I only offered a list of features I'd personally find quite useful, after I had previously (and prior to the guy saying, paraphrasing, "anything you can think of, I'm listening!") offered much more measured, normal suggestions. Quote in question:

Screw all the Multiband stuff with sidechain and the likes - focus(!!!) on keeping this thing simple. It's a channel strip, not "Alloy" or "Ozone" (aimed at Agreed).

Screw what you think would be good, focus!!!, and if you don't get it already, I'm talking to you, pal.

I didn't call his mother anything rude, just sticking up for my suggestions and explaining them further. We're all entitled to that and I think it's at best unproductive and a little uncalled for to call out others' feature suggestions when that's exactly what the person overseeing development has asked for.

[Compyfox]

The thing is, MixControl was and still is a channel strip, not an all purpose tool like Alloy or Ozone, Agreed. You are free to post comments, but this is taking the original concept just too far.

If it would be a a different product, or a whole suite, maybe. But then again, there are other developers who did that already. So why change something that worked so far, but only needs finetuning?


Same goes for Ah Xoc Kin:
Why compare it with analog type plugins? MixControl never made a deal out of it that it's a "digital" type tool. And personally, I'm sick of constantly seeing "this has to be more analog type" and "that has to be more analog type". I can agree on certain things like the compression modes (at least the response and interaction with the source material), but not for EQ. I want more usable/surgical EQs, for everything else I do have tons of analog type alternatives on my HDD already - and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one (Variety of Sound comes to mind especially).



The biggest fear I have with v2 is, that it won't be anything at all like MixControl Pro 1. Meaning: different GUI, different compressors/saturators/EQ, different concept alltogether. I got MixControl just for that purpose (simple yet effective channel strip) and I don't want to see it vanish into thin air while the old version is not usable anymore (which can happen with certain host updates).

This is why I said: keep it simple, and stick to the original concept.



So yes, my post was harsh - and it was adjusted. Especially if you say you like this and that tool, but you want to turn MixControl into the same. Sorry, but this is just the wrong way to do IMO.

Like it or not - just FR's have two sides of the medal.

[Agreed]

Well, he doesn't have access to the code itself, so the new product is going to be a new product. There's going to be some reinventing of the wheel going on. Which, incidentally, is a nice time to get in anything new you consider important.

My qualm is that it's his prerogative to judge which feature requests are sensible to put in - not ours. I am absolutely okay with your feature request that it be kept simple, just don't go so far out of your way to step on my toes saying it, amigo, we've got no beef at all and perhaps you'd think it needlessly polite or perhaps not but I would never, if our situations were reversed, specifically finger you as "person-with-bad-ideas" the way you did me. You could just as easily have put in your feature requests, and several people definitely agree with you. Hell, before any of the fancier stuff gets made? *I* agree with you. But after that it's, again, the prerogative of the developer (or his boss, as it were) as to what features make it in, not a forum pit-fight with no real stakes but silly argument instead of just genial discussion.

[Compyfox]

Not in the mood for beef for breakfast this moning...


In the end it's like you said: the ultimate judge is Reason himself. I just don't want to see MixControl turn away from what it initially was. So even if it's coded from scratch (which will be the case), please stick to the original concept and all users will be happy monkeys.

In the meantime, I try to make the best out of MCP1 - until it fails for me.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

i think there is obviously a difference in how people use this, but it is clearly more a channel strip than a mastering/finaliser suite...

it works great on the stereo out but i tend to use it on channels, and as many as is necessary...for this, the footprint in both gui and memory terms should be as light as possible

i also think it's worth bearing in mind that many will end up getting it for free and others at a great value price...i'm not sure we can ask so much without compromising their profit margin and giving everyone headaches with the laundry list of bugs

[rlahalla]

Didn't even see the past few bits, I've been pretty sick lately and haven't gotten online as much. Users can also e-mail me to get their suggestions in.

As far as the current conversation goes, I'm redesigning it based on the current software, but I'm going to be taking into consideration a number of main factors:

1. Making the sound quality better
2. Ensuring a very easy workflow
3. Refining the current features
4. Adding additional features

It might be a process like I'm doing with Wave Designer, where I create the current version and release it to users to make sure they're happy with it and then adding/refining features and sound quality over a few months and constantly checking with users to make sure they're happy with it. So, in the end, no worries - I'm sure it will end up really good.

[jethrobull]

Excellent idea! Hope your well soon.

[Ah Xoc Kin]

...Same goes for Ah Xoc Kin:
Why compare it with analog type plugins? MixControl never made a deal out of it that it's a "digital" type tool. And personally, I'm sick of constantly seeing "this has to be more analog type" and "that has to be more analog type". I can agree on certain things like the compression modes (at least the response and interaction with the source material), but not for EQ. I want more usable/surgical EQs, for everything else I do have tons of analog type alternatives on my HDD already - and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one (Variety of Sound comes to mind especially)...

Just so you know, I couldn't care less about analog, digital, tubes, transistors, etc. I gave the Grand Channel example since I currently use that one. To me it's digital, regardless of whatever analog gear it is supposed to emulate. I just like its workflow and sound. Any plugin is digital, regardless of the marketing. If it sounds good and facilitates the workflow I'll use it.

I can see the benefit of having a more robust/surgical eq. section.

[AstralExistence]

Most obvious FR ever:
Keep the interface design. Loving it, it's clean and straight forward and it just works in every darn host (no matter which skin).

Else, make it skinable (again) and offer a classic skin design.

i actually don't like the skin of mixcontrol.