KVR Audio

el-bo (formerly ebow) · Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:46 pm

isn't it a bit too heavy to be used in this 'console' manner ??

rlahalla · Post by **rlahalla** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:14 pm

Compyfox wrote:I think Agreed is aiming at using MixControl as actual console type channel strip. And here, a reference level is(!) essential. On top of having a properly calibrated VU (reference level, 300ms rise/fall, I will be picky on that topic!) - and in spirit of MixControl - as vertical bargraph rather than needle.

Yeah, I was wondering if the reference was to plug-ins such as the Satson plug-in everyone was talking about for a time. Yeah, I think that might be a cool feature to have, as long as it can be done tastefully. I personally didn't hear any difference with most of them, but I guess it depends on the material you're processing.

Agreed · Post by **Agreed** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:18 pm

el-bo (formerly ebow) wrote:isn't it a bit too heavy to be used in this 'console' manner ??

Well, the thing is it's going to be "from the ground up" - any recapturing of current features will need all new code anyway, so if the idea of it is outlined in advance, all that can be taken into account and it can be optimized accordingly. Though I haven't found it to be especially difficult to use in this manner, myself, just a lot of manual adjustments, but I'm running a 2600K at 4.7GHz and I don't work with huge projects.

rlahalla · Post by **rlahalla** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:44 pm

Agreed wrote:
el-bo (formerly ebow) wrote:isn't it a bit too heavy to be used in this 'console' manner ??
Well, the thing is it's going to be "from the ground up" - any recapturing of current features will need all new code anyway, so if the idea of it is outlined in advance, all that can be taken into account and it can be optimized accordingly. Though I haven't found it to be especially difficult to use in this manner, myself, just a lot of manual adjustments, but I'm running a 2600K at 4.7GHz and I don't work with huge projects.

Yeah, the whole thing is going to be ground up at this point, so we can indeed try different things as we go and see how they work. Once serious development starts up, I'll be attempting to bring these things up as I go and hopefully we'll be able to maintain a CPU efficient, easy to use product once again

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:34 am

The good thing with MCP was, that you didn't need to run everything(!), which could save you on CPU usage. But it was a CPU hog - even on my i7 920 at 2,7Ghz (stock). So optimizing the code would be great to cut down on CPU usage.

Regarding the reference level:
Well, let's say you have a reference level of -18dBFS (for the saturation stages especially) but you mix hotter at say: -9dBFS. If the saturation is on, it's more apparent of course. Such reference levels and saturation stages that are locked to it, are meant to be used subtle.

In case of console type plugins like the recent rage, it's all about the ideal saturation point around the reference level - meaning "subtle" if it's set to 0, but the leveled in signal is -18dBFS = 0VU. So it's barely noticable. It's stronger if you overdrive the channel on purpose, or turn up the saturation stage of course. This is the whole trick.

If you really think about implementing more saturation modes, and a group mode for "linking" certain features of MCP together with more instances (the main saturation state comes to mind!)... then it screams for such usage: console type.

You don't even have to offer crosstalk schemes or something like that - saturation alone will work wonders already and digital consoles were made to trim down on crosstalk (below the listeners range). So there you have it.

Another feature I'd like to see however would be (again, SKnote is the forerunner) an offline high oversampling mode, while you can use low oversampling (if none at all) in realtime. This will cut the CPU usage drastically once again, while you won't miss out on the sound on rendering or freezing channels.

I think there's finally a back pannel due for MCP2.

rlahalla · Post by **rlahalla** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:21 pm

I'm definitely taking in all these feature requests and suggestions, so keep em coming

Trakstar · Post by **Trakstar** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:42 am

rlahalla wrote:I'm definitely taking in all these feature requests and suggestions, so keep em coming

Me too

rlahalla · Post by **rlahalla** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:54 pm

Trakstar wrote:
rlahalla wrote:I'm definitely taking in all these feature requests and suggestions, so keep em coming
Me too

Trakstar · Post by **Trakstar** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:52 pm

rlahalla wrote:
Trakstar wrote:
rlahalla wrote:I'm definitely taking in all these feature requests and suggestions, so keep em coming
Me too

they say if its not broke dont fix it, but this is a bit different situation so I would love to see a console section like such as waves 1 on it but I suppose thats wishful thinking. one word, CHARACTER AND TRANSPARENCY,well thats two then

rlahalla · Post by **rlahalla** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:38 pm

Trakstar wrote:
rlahalla wrote:
Trakstar wrote:
rlahalla wrote:I'm definitely taking in all these feature requests and suggestions, so keep em coming
Me too

they say if its not broke dont fix it, but this is a bit different situation so I would love to see a console section like such as waves 1 on it but I suppose thats wishful thinking. one word, CHARACTER AND TRANSPARENCY,well thats two then

Well, I'm going to update the MixControl Pro page with a similar format as the Wave Designer page, with feature requests on the right sidebar and current designs and product information shortly, and then we can start weeding through all the feature requests and see what is and is not viable

sinkmusic · Post by **sinkmusic** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:48 pm

To me the strong features of MixControl are :
- the eQ

- The low cpu use
- the modular routing
- the global AND per module presets
- the LimeFlavour GUI

What i could expect from a V2 :
- and expander (downward/upward)
- a better limiter
- a couple more dots on the eq, maybe

Thank you for keeping it alive, Rlahalla

rlahalla · Post by **rlahalla** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:20 pm

sinkmusic wrote:What i could expect from a V2 :
- and expander (downward/upward)
- a better limiter
- a couple more dots on the eq, maybe

Thank you for keeping it alive, Rlahalla

Those seem reasonable, I'll add them to the list

Thanks sink!

sinkmusic · Post by **sinkmusic** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:16 pm

rlahalla wrote:
sinkmusic wrote:What i could expect from a V2 :
- and expander (downward/upward)
- a better limiter
- a couple more dots on the eq, maybe

Thank you for keeping it alive, Rlahalla
Those seem reasonable, I'll add them to the list Thanks sink!

Great !
You're welcome

Resonator63 · Post by **Resonator63** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 7:23 pm

+1 for the expander.

That would be great

rlahalla · Post by **rlahalla** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:35 pm

Resonator63 wrote:+1 for the expander.

That would be great

Yep, expander would be something high on the list to include

MixControl Pro Discontinued, V2 TBA.