MuTools

Taron · Post by **Taron** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:20 pm

Maybe I shouldn't respond first, but I'm pretty sure that the original issue still remains, and it will probably take a bit more. It's about being able to isolate the pure send effect, while the racks that send signals to it still play into it, but don't into the master.

Forgive me, if I'm shamefully wrong there, but I know that I'd be happy to have that in order to carefully design effects.

LYTZ · Post by **LYTZ** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:39 pm

mutools wrote:Pls check out the new M6.4.21 test version and let me know if that works fine for you.
That new M6.4.21 test version can be found here: http://www.mutools.com/forsythia

Perfect! Works *exactly* as intended and discussed.

Thanks a lot!

LYTZ · Post by **LYTZ** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:55 pm

Taron wrote:Maybe I shouldn't respond first, but I'm pretty sure that the original issue still remains, and it will probably take a bit more. It's about being able to isolate the pure send effect, while the racks that send signals to it still play into it, but don't into the master.

Forgive me, if I'm shamefully wrong there, but I know that I'd be happy to have that in order to carefully design effects.

I hear you, but this is really more special than the other thing was.
Some Daws can do that, some can not.
This comes down how the internal send routing is coded in the first place.
Like I said would that be more of a nice good-to-have, but not an essential thing.

With this now working you could add - "Ability to create subgroups" to the Mutools feature list.
Thats how essential that is.

Maybe I do a video when I have a bit more time on my hands to show the power of this.

Best,

tL.

LYTZ · Post by **LYTZ** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:57 pm

Taron wrote:Maybe I shouldn't respond first, but I'm pretty sure that the original issue still remains, and it will probably take a bit more. It's about being able to isolate the pure send effect, while the racks that send signals to it still play into it, but don't into the master.

Forgive me, if I'm shamefully wrong there, but I know that I'd be happy to have that in order to carefully design effects.

I hear you, but this is really more special than the other thing was.
Some Daws can do that, some can not.
This comes down how the internal send routing is coded in the first place.
Like I said would that be more of a nice good-to-have, but not an essential thing.

With the thing that I meant now working, you could easily add - "Ability to create subgroups" to the
MuLab feature list. Thats how essential that is.

Maybe I do a video when I have a bit more time on my hands to show the power of this.

Best,

tL.

Taron · Post by **Taron** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:49 pm

I'm happy for Jo, that's for sure!

"all it would take", really, is if a rack could check "send to" racks for their solo state, while the rack itself has not been switched to solo, yet, and then tie (to the solo state of the send rack) a mute to it's master output. But it's easy for any outsider to say such things, of course, and I know that by heart.

But I'm glad to have such a good handle on what's essential and what not, tL, that's very helpful!

I'm too easily content with anything that enables me to do what I want and more to make such judgements.

LYTZ · Post by **LYTZ** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:34 pm

@Taron: thanks for your input anyways. All good in the wood.

LYTZ · Post by **LYTZ** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:39 pm

(deleted)

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 5:31 am

Taron wrote:Maybe I shouldn't respond first, but I'm pretty sure that the original issue still remains, and it will probably take a bit more. It's about being able to isolate the pure send effect, while the racks that send signals to it still play into it, but don't into the master.

I don't get it. Isn't that what the example project is demonstrating? Open the example project and solo the reverb rack, you'll hear reverb only.

Taron · Post by **Taron** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 5:52 am

Oh man... what it does here, assuming it does that on every machine, is that you do get reverb only, if you mute the drum rack of your example. But if you solo the Bus, it does not work, drums still playing. There is however this very clever visual clue that it could be smarter, ghosting the [M] of a rack, which looks really promising, but does nothing, acoustically. (?)

I think, if it does work/when it starts working, this could be absolutely perfect!

I should add that I honestly and firmly think this is the opposite of what one would want! Thinking of the logical and intuitive use of it.
- If you do your mix and you want to just mute a rack, you want it to be quiet, just like you've always had it.
- If you want to solo the "bus", that's when you want to hear the effect only, with the sending racks still supplying sound, but only to the effect.

So, right now it is in fact worse! I absolutely do not care what lT says, this is truly wrong.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:06 am

Oh sorry, i see what you mean. I was confused as i did the example with M6.4.20, but now behavior has changed in M6.4.21. Mmm, that needs some thinking.

Taron · Post by **Taron** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:06 am

Phewww! Thank goodness!

Hanging in there!

pljones · Post by **pljones** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:19 am

Taron wrote:- If you want to solo the "bus", that's when you want to hear the effect only, with the sending racks still supplying sound, but only to the effect.

I think this is the point of difference. You can use bussing in two ways - one as a send bus (with the sources having additional "clean" outs not via the send) and one as a grouping bus (where the sources' only output is through the grouping bus).

You're after the first case (and I want this to keep working as I use it already).

LYTZ is after the second case (and I'd like this as it would make a lot of things easier).

As I note above, there's a point of differentiation in the routing set up: in the first case, the source has two paths to the audio outs but in the second only one. However, I would not suggest that as a good basis for making the [M] buttons change behaviour (as MuLab allows much more complex routing where other cases could easily exist). It might cover most cases, though...

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:32 am

Yes i agree with this pljones' analysis. I also agree with Taron and pljones that how it is in M6.4.21 is not ok. Working on a new strategy. Stay tuned, should be here around noon.

Taron · Post by **Taron** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:52 am

Ah, thanks, pljones! That clears things up dramatically to me! Yeah, so he (tL) was literally after grouping! Almost like having a "sub mixer" going, then. That makes a lot of sense and sounds like precisely what Jo was planning on doing, too.
Curious enough, those are two valid things that have nothing to do with each other, but both are highly desirable for exhaustively excellent mixing!

How exciting to think that both may come!

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:55 am

Pls check out the new M6.4.22: http://www.mutools.com/forsythia/

Ok like this in all cases?

MuTools

KVR Audio

Bus Behaviour. Solo Defeat anyone?