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

[DJ Warmonger]

but I can genuinely express some frustration with having to mix and manage tracks when you start getting beyond 80 to 150+

Make simpler projects then?

you just have to adjust to the workflow, not try to fight against it

Sound advice.

With 50+ tracks and groups it already becomes a mess to me. That's why I always start from scratch, bounce finished tracks to audio and delete unused ones.

[dellboy]

but I can genuinely express some frustration with having to mix and manage tracks when you start getting beyond 80 to 150+

Make simpler projects then?

you just have to adjust to the workflow, not try to fight against it

Sound advice.

With 50+ tracks and groups it already becomes a mess to me. That's why I always start from scratch, bounce finished tracks to audio and delete unused ones.

The problem is that Apple boasted that the new Mac Pro and Logic can handle 1000 audio tracks and 1000 instruments and a thousand auxillary strips tracks at once without missing a beat.

So whats the point of having that horsepower available aand then not having the ability to actually use it if you want ?

A DAW should have a simple way to view all those tracks.

Perhaps it could be as easy as repeatedly hitting a key to cycle through 50 tracks at a time rather than scrolling ?

[LawrenceF]

The key to managing large track counts in Studio One is using track and channel scenes. There's really no point to always looking at 150+ tracks and channels if (for example) you're only currently working on the strings or whatever else at a particular moment in time.

All of that is key bindable so you can easily switch between multiple different views of tracks and channels on the fly, and also quickly show and hide any child channels from group busses.

[Mushy Mushy]

Just organise your projects better. My current track has over 160 tracks and counting and submixers never occured to me.

Obviously only a handful play simultaneously so group these together. The continuous ones (drums, bass, percussion, etc) can be grouped at the top, Excel freeze pane style (Cubase).

Oh and before anybody comments, sure I could halve the number of tracks but that would involve even more automation, and I already have enough of that.

[vurt]

160 tracks

[THE INTRANCER]

The trouble with 'Folder Tracks' when you get to a certain point, is that find is that you always end up josseling the tracks across the mixer and losing track of where you are, pushing your track up and down with whatever you have within the folder track, so it doesn't make things much easier in practice. The grouping feature they tried to implement in Studio One 4.5 was buggy from the outset, but beyond that, it's ostensibly fiddly and fuggly with tiny little dots to click on. I remember when they demonstrated it on the Presonus live stream. My reaction began with an F and ended with and F, and as much as they tried to promote it, nobody on the chat stream shared their enthusiasm for it as I remember. But I can pretty much predict that if they had implemented what I've been suggesting in my last few posts that the response would have been far more positive.

The thing is that being able to add additional mixers would not only provide more flexibility, you wouldn't ever need to change, open or close, shuffle things across when they have been setup. Being able to rename and see in full exactly what section of the mix relates to what section of the track.

With a Mixer Node setup, you can monitor the the pre-mid and end chain of any mix visually without needing to reopen the console. You could simply open the mixer within the node network, which would provide a faster and more flexible way to do things and at a glance. Dragging and dropping visualisers for monitoring, being able to compare the mixing Song Page with the Mastering page right within the Song Page is another instance where you can compare the differences. For example if you had the choice of 5 Master Mixers with different settings, you could then link the main mix to them, all of which could have different settings or plugins. Having more mixers would also allow you to send, your inserts and sends into another mixer's insert effects and send effects, that are linked to either external hardware or simply to that of the effects that lay within the software. On the hardware front this also, has benefits when doing live onstage productions in conjunction with the FOH at live concerts. It gives you more options in essence as a producer, and I know from my own long experience from building lavishly and highly complex combinator systems with Props Reason that more mixers, saves time and hassle when being restricted to just one. Mixer Snapshots... ( also long time requested feature ) the whole shebang could be integrated into this..

*And just to add, how about using a Mixer a sub automation mixer for tracks so you never need to change the main master console you wish to use...

[Mushy Mushy]

160 tracks

As I said I could cut that number down but the modern DAW allows such luxuries. For example, I have 4 kick tracks: standard, reversed, filtered, otherwise effected. Sure this could all be automated but you have to be absolutely pin-point accurate with the automation to ensure the main kick isn't affected. Again, I reiterate this is obviously possible but it's just so easily to duplicate the track and do what you want knowing the main track will be absolutely perfect.

[AdvancedFollower]

The key to managing large track counts in Studio One is using track and channel scenes. There's really no point to always looking at 150+ tracks and channels if (for example) you're only currently working on the strings or whatever else at a particular moment in time.

All of that is key bindable so you can easily switch between multiple different views of tracks and channels on the fly, and also quickly show and hide any child channels from group busses.

Yeah I had completely forgotten about Scenes in Studio One, because my track count never gets so large that I have needed this feature. But that's definitely another useful feature if you work with lots of tracks.

[DJ Warmonger]

The problem is that Apple boasted that the new Mac Pro and Logic can handle 1000 audio tracks and 1000 instruments and a thousand auxillary strips tracks at once without missing a beat.
So whats the point of having that horsepower available aand then not having the ability to actually use it if you want ?

Nope, the problem is you. You want more tracks and instruments just for the sake of a number. But that's not actually what one needs to make music.

[Mushy Mushy]

The trouble with 'Folder Tracks' when you get to a certain point, is that find is that you always end up josseling the tracks across the mixer and losing track of where you are, pushing your track up and down with whatever you have within the folder track, so it doesn't make things much easier in practice. The grouping feature they tried to implement in Studio One 4.5 was buggy from the outset, but beyond that, it's ostensibly fiddly and fuggly with tiny little dots to click on. I remember when they demonstrated it on the Presonus live stream. My reaction began with an F and ended with and F, and as much as they tried to promote it, nobody on the chat stream shared their enthusiasm for it as I remember. But I can pretty much predict that if they had implemented what I've been suggesting in my last few posts that the response would have been far more positive.

The thing is that being able to add additional mixers would not only provide more flexibility, you wouldn't ever need to change, open or close, shuffle things across when they have been setup. Being able to rename and see in full exactly what section of the mix relates to what section of the track.

With a Mixer Node setup, you can monitor the the pre-mid and end chain of any mix visually without needing to reopen the console. You could simply open the mixer within the node network, which would provide a faster and more flexible way to do things and at a glance. Dragging and dropping visualisers for monitoring, being able to compare the mixing Song Page with the Mastering page right within the Song Page is another instance where you can compare the differences. For example if you had the choice of 5 Master Mixers with different settings, you could then link the main mix to them, all of which could have different settings or plugins. Having more mixers would also allow you to send, your inserts and sends into another mixer's insert effects and send effects, that are linked to either external hardware or simply to that of the effects that lay within the software. On the hardware front this also, has benefits when doing live onstage productions in conjunction with the FOH at live concerts. It gives you more options in essence as a producer, and I know from my own long experience from building lavishly and highly complex combinator systems with Props Reason that more mixers, saves time and hassle when being restricted to just one. Mixer Snapshots... ( also long time requested feature ) the whole shebang could be integrated into this..

Use more multi-timbral instruments and their inbuilt mixers?

[THE INTRANCER]

*Double post from previous updated edited post.

[perfumer]

160 tracks

As I said I could cut that number down but the modern DAW allows such luxuries. For example, I have 4 kick tracks: standard, reversed, filtered, otherwise effected. Sure this could all be automated but you have to be absolutely pin-point accurate with the automation to ensure the main kick isn't affected. Again, I reiterate this is obviously possible but it's just so easily to duplicate the track and do what you want knowing the main track will be absolutely perfect.

So you're mixing with synths and effects playing in realtime and being automated? Why not render and then mix the wave files?

[Mushy Mushy]

160 tracks

As I said I could cut that number down but the modern DAW allows such luxuries. For example, I have 4 kick tracks: standard, reversed, filtered, otherwise effected. Sure this could all be automated but you have to be absolutely pin-point accurate with the automation to ensure the main kick isn't affected. Again, I reiterate this is obviously possible but it's just so easily to duplicate the track and do what you want knowing the main track will be absolutely perfect.

So you're mixing with synths and effects playing in realtime and being automated? Why not render and then mix the wave files?

I don't see the benefit. X many wav files is still X many VST tracks. My articulation makes at no sense, sorry. What I'm saying is there's no difference between mixing 100 instruments vs 100 audio tracks.

I should point out a significant percentage of these tracks are frozen, essentially making them audio files anyway.

[LawrenceF]

Just organise your projects better. My current track has over 160 tracks and counting and submixers never occured to me.

I agree, you only need to manage relative visibility which is easy enough. For me, mmv as usual, to each his own and all that, that other stuff would just add unnecessary complexity. Honestly, you can even just use VCA groups to hide tons of related tracks and channels and just present them on the VCA fader. Sub-mixes if any go to group busses, as usual.

The key to channel order arrangement with instrument tracks and channels is the Channel assignment field in the inspector. If you make that 1-to-1 for multi-out VI's everything always stays in place. It's really all about intimately knowing your tools and as you suggested above, organizing your thoughts and projects better.

[Elektronisch]

I still dont understand the reason why you need multiple mixers? at least you dont explain in a clear way? except complain for not being able to create group/buses (which is possible to do in FL Studio) which has what connection of having multiple mixers?

i really dont understand. Why you need multiple mixers? whats the point of that?