BR: Submix routing logic is wrong => feedback loop

[astey]

I'm going to have to think on this a bit more. We need to be very careful about breaking existing functionality. There are many people that would be very angry if we changed the routing algorithms internally and suddenly all their tracks are being sent to different places.

Thanks for considering it!


From a user perspective I would vote for one of the following implementations for the improved submixes:

1. Newly created submixes will follow the new principles in new projects as well as old projects.
   Opening projects from previous versions doesn't alter existing submixes, so its behavior stays the same. This means the legacy code would remain in Waveform, unfortunately.
   
   -> 100% Compliance for all existing projects.

   ---

2. Get rid of the old submix code and run a script while opening a project of previous WF versions.
   The script checks, if a track is contained by a submix. If so, the script changes the track output "default" to its parent submix.
   
   -> This will be satisfying for all users, who were using submixes as intentioned.
   -/-> only a minority of users will be affected, who exploited the bug you mentioned. However, as soon as you fix mentioned bug, they are going to be affected in the same way.

   If you select a track inside a submix and view its Track Destination property you'll see it's disabled. So it's probably a bug that its doing something at all.

   ---

3. Get rid of the old submix code and run a script, if an old project is loaded.
   - The script changes track outputs from "default" to its parent submix.
   - If a track output (within a submix) wasn't set to "default", the script will duplicate this track. The output of the duplicate will be routed to its parent submix. Original track stays untouched.
   
   -> Compliance to all existing projects. All users can use their projects as before, even if they were using forbidden/buggy routings in the past.

Cheers

[Kott]

I'm going to have to think on this a bit more. We need to be very careful about breaking existing functionality. There are many people that would be very angry if we changed the routing algorithms internally and suddenly all their tracks are being sent to different places.

Are you really gonna play with routing logic before fixing blocking bugs? like this fore example: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=542522

[astey]

I'm going to have to think on this a bit more. We need to be very careful about breaking existing functionality. There are many people that would be very angry if we changed the routing algorithms internally and suddenly all their tracks are being sent to different places.

Are you really gonna play with routing logic before fixing blocking bugs? like this fore example: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=542522

Im on windows and having fps performance issues too. I think both issues fps and routing need to be addressed. There are other people having issues with submixes as well (example: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=545350). This request tackles feedback loops caused by the submix architecture. So this change is bug related mostly.

[fromwithin]

I'm of the opinion that a submix is correct the way it is in Waveform. A submix shouldn't should be completely self-contained. The clue is in the name. The mix is a subset of the main mix. In analogue terms, it's like routing instruments into a completely separate mixer and then routing the output of that mixer into the main mixer. It makes no sense whatsoever to be able to pipe a track that is inside a submix directly to a track outside of the submix.

Other DAWs having copied a flawed paradigm is not a good reason for Waveform to give itself such a flaw.

On a related note, after all these years I still don't understand after the difference between a Folder Track and a Submix.

[astey]

I'm of the opinion that a submix is correct the way it is in Waveform. A submix shouldn't be completely self-contained. The clue is in the name. The mix is a subset of the main mix. In analogue terms, it's like routing instruments into a completely separate mixer and then routing the output of that mixer into the main mixer. It makes no sense whatsoever to be able to pipe a track that is inside a submix directly to a track outside of the submix.

Other DAWs having copied a flawed paradigm is not a good reason for Waveform to give itself such a flaw.

On a related note, after all these years I still don't understand after the difference between a Folder Track and a Submix.

A submix shouldn't be completely self-contained

Right now you aren't allowed to redirect tracks in any way. So its pretty much completely self-contained in its current state.

Other DAWs having copied a flawed paradigm is not a good reason for Waveform to give itself such a flaw.

So you rather stick to its original intention on analog desks, than improve & free functionality in the digital world?
If you are used to work with submixes in the original way, you will be able to continue this workflow 100%.
I'm curious why you would be against this enhancement/flexibility?

On a related note, after all these years I still don't understand after the difference between a Folder Track and a Submix.

Common features

• Visual aid by collapsing multiple tracks to free up space on your screen
• editing multiple clips at once by header

Differences:

Folder:

• VCA Fader
• Possibility to route multiple tracks to a track destination of your choice outside of the folder by one click.
• Freedom of independent track routings.

its basically a track mask with a VCA fader.

Submix:

• Locked internal routings. All tracks must route to submix master
• Submix has a normal bus volume fader
• Allows plugins on the submix master track

Cheers

[dRowAudio]

I'm going to have to think on this a bit more. We need to be very careful about breaking existing functionality. There are many people that would be very angry if we changed the routing algorithms internally and suddenly all their tracks are being sent to different places.

Are you really gonna play with routing logic before fixing blocking bugs? like this fore example: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=542522

If that was something I could replicate I would take a look at it.

The primary reason for dealing with submixes was that there was a bug where tracks inside submixes could be routed to another audio track and the submix track they were in. This meant neither the destination audio track or the submix track would play correctly.

As I tried to fix this, the only was I could do that was change the routing behaviour of the submixe tracks and the tracks they contain.

This opened a whole can of worms about what people would like to be able to do with submixes. I haven't actually changed any of that yet. Like I said, I'll have to think about it. I have to think about a lot of things, it doesn't mean I'm spending all my time on them.

[dRowAudio]

I've read through this thread a lot and I don't think there's anything wrong with the way submixes are currently implemented.
We originally had "Folder Tracks" as astey says above, they are visual way to group tracks and have the added ability to scale all contained track volumes with a VCA plugin. This leaves you free to route the internal tracks wherever you want.

We added "submix tracks" a few years ago as a quick way to add effects to multiple tracks at once and group their routing. Anything inside a submix track gets routed to the submix and therefore any plugins on that track.
This is quick, straightforward and logical.

It sounds like what you're asking for from other DAWs is functionality we already offer in "Folder Tracks". The only piece missing is having a level meter for the Folder Track but that doesn't make any sense if the tracks it contains are routed to other tracks. There's no actual signal flowing through the folder track, it's just a visual aid + VCA plugin.

All the suggestions about changing the submix behaviour move Waveform away from the easy to understand signal flow people love us for. I think the only problem was that there was a UI bug which suggested tracks were being routed differently to what they actually were. Now I've fixed this it should be much more obvious what is happening.

I really need to focus on fixing PDC though as this is the most popular complaint we get and it's a huge amount of work (but will be worth it in the long run).

[astey]

I've read through this thread a lot and I don't think there's anything wrong with the way submixes are currently implemented.
We originally had "Folder Tracks" as astey says above, they are visual way to group tracks and have the added ability to scale all contained track volumes with a VCA plugin. This leaves you free to route the internal tracks wherever you want.

We added "submix tracks" a few years ago as a quick way to add effects to multiple tracks at once and group their routing. Anything inside a submix track gets routed to the submix and therefore any plugins on that track.
This is quick, straightforward and logical.

It sounds like what you're asking for from other DAWs is functionality we already offer in "Folder Tracks". The only piece missing is having a level meter for the Folder Track but that doesn't make any sense if the tracks it contains are routed to other tracks. There's no actual signal flowing through the folder track, it's just a visual aid + VCA plugin.

All the suggestions about changing the submix behaviour move Waveform away from the easy to understand signal flow people love us for. I think the only problem was that there was a UI bug which suggested tracks were being routed differently to what they actually were. Now I've fixed this it should be much more obvious what is happening.

I really need to focus on fixing PDC though as this is the most popular complaint we get and it's a huge amount of work (but will be worth it in the long run).

Yes,
while I was learning, I stumbled across this routing bug and got confused, so I filed a report. Now that I understand the difference between both tools, I know that folders do exactly what my intention was submixes should do.
The misconception is the way Waveform handles submixes vs other DAWs handles submixes.
I still believe there is room to think about submixes, but I got overly exited about the whole topic.

I really need to focus on fixing PDC though as this is the most popular complaint we get and it's a huge amount of work (but will be worth it in the long run).

Thanks you, making PDC bullet proof is amazing!

[Kott]

I'm going to have to think on this a bit more. We need to be very careful about breaking existing functionality. There are many people that would be very angry if we changed the routing algorithms internally and suddenly all their tracks are being sent to different places.

Are you really gonna play with routing logic before fixing blocking bugs? like this fore example: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=542522

If that was something I could replicate I would take a look at it.

The primary reason for dealing with submixes was that there was a bug where tracks inside submixes could be routed to another audio track and the submix track they were in. This meant neither the destination audio track or the submix track would play correctly.

As I tried to fix this, the only was I could do that was change the routing behaviour of the submixe tracks and the tracks they contain.

This opened a whole can of worms about what people would like to be able to do with submixes. I haven't actually changed any of that yet. Like I said, I'll have to think about it. I have to think about a lot of things, it doesn't mean I'm spending all my time on them.

Oh, thank for explanation!
I was frustrated because it looked for me as buying new furniture in house with leaking roof

[fromwithin]

A submix shouldn't be completely self-contained.

Well that was a stupid typo. I intended to write "should".

[UnionS8]

I think the actual state of routing (the new beta 11.0.32) is exactly how people (me) expect the submix should behave. Every day I love the Waveform more and more.

[UnionS8]

I have run into a similar issue (viewtopic.php?f=22&t=547238)
I simply changed all submixes to mix buses. Wonderfull thing is: if you grab plugins from a submix to the new bus, they have all the automation curves still assigned (not copy – drag and drop). This way I was done in a moment and export is OK and the final sound is the same as it was with submixes. You can even send mix bus into another mix bus without any worries.

[UnionS8]

I think the actual state of routing (the new beta 11.0.32) is exactly how people (me) expect the submix should behave. Every day I love the Waveform more and more.

So now I wonder, it's not, but anyway...

[HansP]

Hello Dave, back for a moment.
I have worked with Soundcraft and Studiomaster consoles for a limited time, so I come from a different direction.
To me, the basic and original Tracktion concepts are really dope.
So I wasn't really waiting for the submix concept, as I have no idea what it does for me, when I have a bus tree structure already, and then I can use a folder to hide tracks, or I can manually hide tracks, that I don't want to deal with in detail any more.

So, what I would embrace:

* The track output gets another option "create additional output", then it opens up space for another output track selector. What the engine does with it, probably has to be done with the submixes even in a more complicated way, when one track can exist in more than one submix (is this actually true?). We might limit this to 4 outputs altogether, or perhaps 8. (GUI structure might depend on the space that is required for such feature.) This feature is competing with multiple sends anyway, but sends need a return, the benefit would be volume control. That's the point from the beginning, when we have multiple outputs, they might require different output volumes. We could project a "add sub-output" feature that has volume controls, and the main output stays as it always was. It all would be a track feature of the source track, and for the destination/bus tracks nothing should change. (But every track is the same anyway, so nesting of this feature should come by itself, given the general graph concept. I think that erraneous circular routing should be detected and prevented already.)

* A bus track (=that has become a routing destination) shows an additional button "hide all children". Works only for the main output, else we would have to define also a main parent bus among the multiple outputs.

* A bus track shows another action button "place all children above/below me". So it sorts the track list accordingy. Works only for the main output, see above.

And then, after we have re-routed a number of tracks, we can have them reordered by that button, and then, we can also throw them into a folder with a couple of clicks. The folder then should allow editing of the whole group of tracks inside.

Actually, in some projects I have a bus track right below a number of tracks feeding into it, and these were thrown into a folder for workflow purposes also, so there is both, an audio bus track, and a graphical folder track side by side. The VCA stays unused, because its task gets done in the audio bus track.
I might have chained bus tracks at the end of the list also, for the purpose of fader mixing.

* There might be a new feature, that virtually or graphically duplicates a bus track that sits within the list, to its mirror at the end of the list ([x] mirror to output group).
Talking of pre-WF GUI, but the mix console view naturally can do the same, or have a number option with negative numbers, means "-4" is we have this bus track mirrored 4 positions from the right side edge of the console. The graphic box container might have a thicker colored rectangle border for such a mirror track (the feature name "ghost track" is already taken, but it is a mirror too.)

Could this be fair, logical and simple?