Why Do DAWs Like Studio One Have Only One Main Mixer ?

[THE INTRANCER]

It's just occurred to me, but this is a rather strange anomaly in software. For instance in the current version of Studio One, you have one Console Mixer, why can't I have multiple instances and be able to switch between them. For example, having multiple mixers as you do in the real world that you could mix between ? In the old days when I had Reason, I could create multiple mixers and sub mix between them and send the output directly to the main output vie the Rack. Of course when I talk about one main mixer, that would essentially include that of the SSL Mixer which was first exclusively introduced in Propellerheads Record.

For many like folks like bones, the need to have more than one probably isn't a necessity within the DAW software, but I can genuinely express some frustration with having to mix and manage tracks when you start getting beyond 80 to 150+. The only recourse is to create a completely blank song again from scratch and overdub. Whilst that may be a necessity to do when you come to killing the CPU, the point in which you come to get to that point, can be a tedious one with trying to find any particular track. Whilst folder tracks can help manage the tracks you create, it's not exactly an elegant solution when you really get down and dirty. Still lots of scrolling, navigating back and forth, up and down the track.

If you had multiple console mixers in Studio One, not only could one more easily manage large tracks, you could for instance open the doors to sub routing in a parallel / serialised way. Off loading CPU load of insert and send effects and the visual aspects to specific mixers. Not only would this benefit both internal mixing but also external mixers connected to the DAW, with external hardware like synthesizers...

One of the glaring aspects with this in Studio One for example is the 'Scratch Pad' sequencer, in why having more than One Console mixer would simplify the production aspects in creating music... All this sounds like a feature request for Studio One.. but I thought I'd leave it open to all DAWs and your views on it, whether you use Studio One or not..

Simply being able to select the tracks and assign them to Mixer A, B ,C, D ect... A Sub Mix Mixer for video tracks ect... is another instance I can think of.

[BONES]

What? Who in the real world has multiple mixers they can switch between? Anyway, the answer to your question is groups, which work like sub-mixers in a real studio -



Of course, the reason this isn't a problem for me is that I am well used to working within the limitations of my equipment. A Korg M1, for example, only had 8 sequencer tracks so I learned how to finish a song with 9 tracks (I still had a separate drum machine). With Orion, once I got past a dozen or so tracks, I'd need to start scrolling in the mixer, which made it hard to work with, so I made sure I never had to scroll and that I could see my whole mix and arrangement in one window. What I'm saying is that when I come up against a limitation, I find a way to work within it, rather than look for ways to get around it.

Necessity being the mother of invention, you make what you have work. So rather than complain when your DAW runs out of CPU, why not look for ways to ensure that never happens, like consolidating and reducing the number of parts you have going as you work? Because the reality is that using 150 tracks is a choice, not a necessity, in exactly the same way that my choosing to use the fewest number of tracks possible is a choice, not a necessity, for me.

Here are a few things I'd do:

- instead of using multiple instances of a synth in different parts of the arrangement, just use one and insert program change messages to change the patch for each part. It's super easy these days when most decent VSTi have a raft of on board effects. I often do that back and forth between verses and choruses.

- instead of having your drums and loops as audio tracks, consolidate them into a drum instrument like Battery or Groove Agent. I particularly like doing this because you can still have separate mixer channels but it consolidates all your programming into one sequencer channel, which makes drum programming easier.

- you can also do a similar thing with other sources using a sample player like HALion or even something simple like Zampler. That's usually how I do all the little snippets of movie dialogue we put in our songs. In your song The Cryptophium Strain, for example, I'd have stuck those guitar parts into Battery with the drums.

[THE INTRANCER]

What? Who in the real world has multiple mixers they can switch between? Anyway, the answer to your question is groups, which work like sub-mixers in a real studio -

Nope, that's not what, I'm suggesting..I'm talking about seeing and managing multiple mixers, for example through a visual node connected way and vie a tab selection way and that of which they can be undocked so you can have multiple mixers stacked side to side or vertically on another screen. In Studio One, you can set up groups of channels using Folder Tracks and also assign a master fader, a VCA for them all already not to dissimilar to what was shown in that Cubase video you posted. My idea is rather quite different.

Side note, my eyes are hurting from reading text on screen... with having a flu virus over the past few days...been pretty much bed bound.

[BONES]

The result will be the same, you just have to adjust to the workflow, not try to fight against it. Or you could use Energy XT, it's modular set-up should allow you as many mixers as you like.

[THE INTRANCER]

The point of this thread was really asking a question for the community here to answer, and I gave some examples of why I thought that would be useful. It really isn't about my inability to use any software of the means to make to make music with, because I've worked with software far more primitive than anything we have today... Octamed / Soundtracks for instance in the 1990's. In essence it's continuation from the concept I drew up from the big Studio One thread with multiple drum sequencers contained, viewable and managed. Essentially, I'm looking at how DAWs can develop and be more practical and streamlined.

[BertKoor]

You ask the community about features only the DAW makers can implement?
Futule rant if you ask me

[THE INTRANCER]

You ask the community about features only the DAW makers can implement?
Futule rant if you ask me

Not really, it's us 'the user' they market DAWs to and funds their business, and understanding the needs of it's users is of key importance, not just now but into the future as well.

[InsertNameHere]

Cubase has 3 different mixers you can customize and put on any screen. I always use at least two in my workflow.

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques ... cts-cubase

Note this is a very old article, Cubase mixer windows are a lot more manageable now, but the idea of having 3 mixer windows opened at once is explained.

Edit. Found a better link https://www.admiralbumblebee.com/music/ ... ubase.html

[dellboy]

Sounds like a good idea, after all its the DAW makers who have provided the ability to have hundreds of tracks, and this could be a way to implement it.

Personally I have no need for this as I rarely go above a dozen tracks, but for those who have a need to use hundreds of tracks it seems a must.

So what you are suggesting is to be able to assign a name and a mixer to a group of say 20 tracks and then save it to a PC key - say an F key like F1 - F2 etc. And then hitting a key would bring up those 20 tracks complete with mixer ?

I am surprised that this is not already available.

[perfumer]

And then people will moan that so many mixers are hard to manage.

There are workarounds - groups were mentioned.

In Reaper you can make several subprojects (with the same main settings), work on them, then import them into your 'main' project. Then there's visibility settings - you can select which tracks will be visible in the mixer and which will be hidden, etc. All this is easily manageable, because you can put any number or type of tracks you want in a folder, then hide/show the folder in the mixer as you wish - via a single click in the Track Manager.

[THE INTRANCER]

Sounds like a good idea, after all its the DAW makers who have provided the ability to have hundreds of tracks, and this could be a way to implement it.

Personally I have no need for this as I rarely go above a dozen tracks, but for those who have a need to use hundreds of tracks it seems a must.

So what you are suggesting is to be able to assign a name and a mixer to a group of say 20 tracks and then save it to a PC key - say an F key like F1 - F2 etc. And then hitting a key would bring up those 20 tracks complete with mixer ?

I am surprised that this is not already available.

Yes, that for instance could be set to a 'Macro' in Studio One, or indeed just do everything in one go in setting up a Macro to create 20 mixer channels in a separate Console Mixer with a key assigned. By default it could be set up like the way which Multi Instruments are combined in the node container and can be opened, so in essence, you could have as many mixers as required that can be opened and routed to, across and down.

This would also open the door to more create and flexible mixing beyond that of just generally adding more channels. Right now other than with the Browser, you can't for example snap and drag tabs like in which you can in Photoshop so modification of the GUI would be needed to have tabs created above the existing mixing console that one could select from so they could pop up, but if the principal of tabbed instruments work already in windows, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that this could be done I don't think.

The ability to manage tracks, tracks which have CPU heavy plugins on them, being able to isolate them without having manually track them down from one big huge one would save a lot of frustration for big projects and in general mixer template creation. For example, if one opens the mixer nodes, one would be able to not only expand the audio channels that lay within expand the viewable midi and audio channels simultaneously or individually as well.

[dellboy]

There are workarounds - groups were mentioned.

I watched the video about groups and all it did was group sections of tracks with one fader which pulled down the volume for that group.

This would mean organizing all the tracks into groups as you compose which would require being ------ organized. Not a bad idea but maybe not how some like to work. (this assumes that I understood correctly).

Multiple mixers would allow individual tracks to be adjusted and no necesitty to be organized into groups.

[Whywhy]

Me, I would ask, why Studio one doesn't have velocity note off or release velocity?
It annoys me more than having multiple mixers

[AdvancedFollower]

Don't really see the need for multiple mixers personally. You already have groups, Folder Tracks, buses, VCA's etc. I really like how folder tracks can be linked to buses, which makes organizing your projects much easier. I always create folder tracks like Bass, Drums, Leads, Strings/Pads etc., color-code them and link them to buses in the mixer. There's an option to color the entire mixer channel rather than just a tiny strip at the bottom, which makes it even clearer. For example, I always make drum channels red, bass green and so on.

I agree with the above, Studio One v5 should really focus on the MIDI as there are some glaring omissions like note off velocity, poly aftertouch etc.

[dellboy]

Don't really see the need for multiple mixers personally. You already have groups, Folder Tracks, buses, VCA's etc. I really like how folder tracks can be linked to buses, which makes organizing your projects much easier. I always create folder tracks like Bass, Drums, Leads, Strings/Pads etc., color-code them and link them to buses in the mixer. There's an option to color the entire mixer channel rather than just a tiny strip at the bottom, which makes it even clearer. For example, I always make drum channels red, bass green and so on.

I agree with the above, Studio One v5 should really focus on the MIDI as there are some glaring omissions like note off velocity, poly aftertouch etc.

Here is the strange thing. I have been playing around with DAWs since Cubase on the Atari, and I have still not explored folder tracks - buses - groups etc.

The reason being is the I have never needed them because my songs rarely go over a dozen tracks.

Like all things they may be easy to understand if one puts effort into learning them.

Which makes me wonder why the OP has requested multiple mixers if what is available already does the job ?

As soon as he mentioned the idea it clicked in my brain whereas the other methods do not.

Could he be onto a simple way to achieve a difficult task ?