MUX solved my Freeze Problem in Live 8!

[riley4reason]

In Live 8 you can't chain up VSTs or VSTis feeding midi to each other and then Freeze the track. You have to disconnect all tracks connected to the track you want to freeze. But with MUX, you route anyway you want,(inside MUX) and since it's all on one track...freeze, flatten it and it works perfect!

Wooot! Riley

[> DiGiT <]

aint mux grand?

[riley4reason]

Mux is splendid..indeed!

[MuTools]

To all: To help the MUX grow (many inspiring ideas on the wishlist!!) please spread the word around to your friends and social networks so more people get involved!!

[Satch1]

I've recently been getting into MUX... very nice indeed. The thing I'm hoping for the most though is automatic delay compensation for vst's, so I'm wondering if that's already on the wishlist? I like to use linear phase EQ a lot when I'm doing parallel processing, but I can't do that in MUX at the moment without latency. Also the latency on my Virus TI is quite large compared to using it outside of MUX. I hope you believe this to be as important as I do and hopefully it's already in your plans. I think I'd use MUX on every channel in my DAW if this was implemented. Anyway thanks for what is already a marvelous piece of software, but I'm looking forward to seeing how you develop it aswell.

Best regards

Satch

[riley4reason]

I've recently been getting into MUX... very nice indeed. The thing I'm hoping for the most though is automatic delay compensation for vst's, so I'm wondering if that's already on the wishlist? I like to use linear phase EQ a lot when I'm doing parallel processing, but I can't do that in MUX at the moment without latency. Also the latency on my Virus TI is quite large compared to using it outside of MUX. I hope you believe this to be as important as I do and hopefully it's already in your plans. I think I'd use MUX on every channel in my DAW if this was implemented. Anyway thanks for what is already a marvelous piece of software, but I'm looking forward to seeing how you develop it aswell.

Best regards

Satch

Hi Satch,
What kind of sound card are you using?

[Satch1]

Hi mate, it's a Mackie Onyx 400F. Do you not experience these problems?

[riley4reason]

Hi mate, it's a Mackie Onyx 400F. Do you not experience these problems?

No I don't. But I use a RME UC and my PC is loaded to the hilt.

Have you tried lower buffer settings?
Riley

[Satch1]

So if you split the audio input in two, in MUX, then add a linear phase eq to one of them, or any latency inducing plugin, the latency is compensated for, and both signals play in perfect sync? That's what happens to me in Reaper outside of MUX but not inside. MUX is definitely not compensating for latency like Reaper does. My buffer settings are not the problem. Anyway, I do appreciate you putting the effort in to try and help me, thanks.

[Trancit]

So if you split the audio input in two, in MUX, then add a linear phase eq to one of them, or any latency inducing plugin, the latency is compensated for, and both signals play in perfect sync? That's what happens to me in Reaper outside of MUX but not inside. MUX is definitely not compensating for latency like Reaper does. My buffer settings are not the problem. Anyway, I do appreciate you putting the effort in to try and help me, thanks.

You can easily compensate manually in this situation by using the pure delay module...

But honestely... I cannot imagine, why you would need a linear phase EQ in parralel processing...

For me, I never found myself recognizing a noticeable difference in sound except mastering very difficult stuff by comparing a "normal" EQ with an linear phase one...

Would like to hear an example, why you would need a linear phase EQ in this situation...

[Satch1]

You can easily compensate manually in this situation by using the pure delay module...

Yes that would sync up the audio within MUX, but MUX doesn't report the latency to the host DAW, so I would then have to manually compensate for that too... which of course is possible, but I would much prefer not to have to do that. It's certainly a workflow killer, and probably why most DAW's have auto delay compensation.

But honestely... I cannot imagine, why you would need a linear phase EQ in parralel processing...

For me, I never found myself recognizing a noticeable difference in sound except mastering very difficult stuff by comparing a "normal" EQ with an linear phase one...

Would like to hear an example, why you would need a linear phase EQ in this situation...

I like to experiment with parallel compression and distortion on my drums, and sometimes after processing the parallel channel I find it beneficial to eq it. Maybe there is unwanted frequencies in the bass end or the high's have become a bit harsh, but the mids sound nice, for example. If I now eq it to how I like it with a non linear phase eq, my drums can lose definition when the two channels are blended, due to the phase shifting caused by the eq. But using a linear phase eq can help to maintain the punch of the drums. Of course this isn't always the case, so I just experiment to find out what works best for any given situation. It's nice to have the flexibility, which is why I would love it if MUX had auto delay compensation.