MuTools

ontrackp · Post by **ontrackp** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:38 am

Hey MuLab users --

I'm seeking advice on mixing. What's the preferred method for automating faders in the mixing desk / racks area? It seems like there are several options but I am wondering if there is a recommended method by any MuLab users? It can be a little confusing. For instance, if I have a track selected, start playing, go into record and move the fader it sometimes adds an automation subtrack for gain, other times it just seems to record the gain onto the original track. If I try to do this and make a second pass to correct my mix it does not simply overwrite and there seem to be no equivalents to the traditional latch and touch automation modes. Would it be better to create MIDI Volume automation tracks? Can moving the faders on screen create midi data? Ideally I would like to just grab faders and move them according to my mix requirements.

I appreciate all the open aspects of MuLab, the sound designing in MUX is awesome and it's been interesting to use, but I feel it would be useful to have a more traditional mixing environment.

Any advice is greatly appreciated!

Thanks.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:10 pm

ontrackp wrote:What's the preferred method for automating faders in the mixing desk / racks area?

You mean realtime recording or drawing automation?
Realtime recording is just as simple as hitting record and slide the fader.
To draw parameter automation, first make an automation track by drag-dropping a parameter on the [+] track button, then draw the automation envelop in a new part on that track.

It can be a little confusing. For instance, if I have a track selected, start playing, go into record and move the fader it sometimes adds an automation subtrack for gain, other times it just seems to record the gain onto the original track.

Can you pls elaborate on what you mean with "sometimes"?

ontrackp · Post by **ontrackp** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:22 pm

Thanks for the reply. For realtime recording, I have had inconsistent results. If I have a track selected, then start playing, hit record and start moving the fader it has sometimes just written the fader move to the track, and shows up in the lower part of the edit window as gain data, but other times it creates an automation sub-track with Gain data. It's possible that as a new user I have done something wrong, or there is a rule in the program about this, so I will play with this a little more to see if there is a pattern to my problem or if I'm just pushing the wrong buttons!

I've also found that if there is already fader info written into the track, it does not seem to want to over-write it. As I try moving the fader on the second record pass, it struggles with trying to do the previous moves while I'm trying to re-write the automation. Perhaps it's necessary to delete the first pass?

I understand how drawing the automation will work, but that process is not as organic to me as grabbing faders and moving them while trying to fine tune a mix.

Thanks again for the prompt support -- I really like the program and appreciate the different approach, but as I said before if there was an option for a more traditional mixing environment with over-write, touch and latch controls I would welcome that.

bibz1st · Post by **bibz1st** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:30 pm

I think whats happening is, if you select a "rack" without that rack having a "track" associated with it first then it will create that new track with the fader data, else if there is already an associated "track" it will add an automation subtrack.
As for the overwriting bit, over to Jo

ontrackp · Post by **ontrackp** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:42 pm

Thanks but all of the racks I have tracks associated with them. I've tried this by first selecting the track and then going into record, and alternately selecting the rack before going into record. I've only encountered this when I'm trying to write fader moves onto an existing part, and all the parts are available both as tracks in the compose window as well as racks in the mixing area.

I will test this a little more to see if I can find a pattern.

Thanks for the advice though!

bibz1st · Post by **bibz1st** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:53 pm

Dam, thought I had it there

ontrackp · Post by **ontrackp** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:12 pm

Sorry dude.... I wish that was the answer!

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:32 pm

I can't repeat the inconsistent placement of a recorded parameter. If you have a concrete step by step pls let me know. About parameter automation punch in-out: Indeed something which can be improved. But until then: Yes best to cut out the part that you wish to overwrite and record the new take there. About the double system (recording = parameter even sequence / manual drawing = breakpoint envelope): Also this will be improved in a future update, will try to make a unified system based on the breakpoint envelopes as these are the most powerful and flexible of the two.

ontrackp · Post by **ontrackp** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:36 pm

Do you think that recording midi volume is a better technique for mixing than parameter automation of gain? I guess my question is could changing the gain parameter on MUX instruments lead to any kind of sound issues in the instruments as opposed to changing midi volume?

Thanks again.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:54 pm

ontrackp wrote:Do you think that recording midi volume is a better technique for mixing than parameter automation of gain?

No.

could changing the gain parameter on MUX instruments lead to any kind of sound issues in the instruments as opposed to changing midi volume?

Euh, no, but i'm not sure if i understand your question.

But it makes me think about what you wrote before about recording volume faders: Maybe you sometimes recorded a rack volume fader, other times maybe some volume control on a MUX front panel. These are different module parameters and that's why they'll end up at different tracks.

ontrackp · Post by **ontrackp** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:15 pm

I think that's the answer. The rack fader could be fighting with the gain control on a mux front panel.

The point of my other question is that I'm accustomed to having an entirely separate layer of control over mix levels. The gain of an instrument is set so that it comes into a channel strip at the optimal level. For instance if the instrument is ahead of a compressor on a rack, but I'm changing its volume in the mix by moving the instrument gain which affects it's audio output, that will affect how hard it's hitting the compressor and change the sound. If the volume in the mix is changed with the rack fader only, but not affecting the MUX instrument, then the sound of the instrument will stay consistent as it hits the compressor. Therefore I would want to mix using only fader automation, and not try to control individual instrument parameters during the mixing process. Does that make more sense?

Thanks.

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:36 pm

Sure. And you can do so by only automating the rack volume. Right?

ontrackp · Post by **ontrackp** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:55 pm

Yes. I think I understand better now. I have to be careful that I only automate the rack volume and not the MUX synth parameters during the mixing stage.

MuTools

KVR Audio

Mixing Question